Donward Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 It's a manufactured crisis intended to buy votes. You make it so that people of late middle~high school age are of a class that is not easily hired, creating a demand for low cost labor. This is filled by the small number of people who'd normally be able to find work in slightly above minimal wage/entry level manufacturing, and by a tacitly approved amount of illegal immigration. You couple this with an increase on the cost of basics, I/e rent., utilities and transportation, and you end up with a controllable, easily manipulated 'force' to drive up the base wage and further reduce the value of the dollar. All in all if it works out you end up with a body of voters who eat up the swill sold by the politicians without having to think about -why- these people are seeming to "support" them. Not just illegal. But legal as well. You have big corporations who will abuse work visa and student visa programs with the excuse that they can't find enough workers to fill their job openings (because they refuse to pay a proper salary or refuse to hire a slightly overqualified individual). Or they want docile foreign workers who are happy to get less. The seafood companies up in a Alaska blatantly abuse the student visa program for cannery workers on the slime line. And to get around the minimum wage law, they charge their workers room and board. SergeantMatt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Not just illegal. But legal as well. You have big corporations who will abuse work visa and student visa programs with the excuse that they can't find enough workers to fill their job openings (because they refuse to pay a proper salary or refuse to hire a slightly overqualified individual). Or they want docile foreign workers who are happy to get less. The seafood companies up in a Alaska blatantly abuse the student visa program for cannery workers on the slime line. And to get around the minimum wage law, they charge their workers room and board. I was not going to even include the havoc wrought by H1B's and other nonsense. The sheer disgust I feel for the tacit approval of legalized slavery that occurs with illegal immigrants is more than easily spread to the H1B visas and other idiocy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashbotUS Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 H1B is just a way to avoid paying people what their skill set would demand in a real free labor market. Which we don't have. At all. Donward 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Well. At least I know that American labor unions are still looking out for the working man. ... ... You know, I'm too jaundiced to even laugh cynically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Well, maybe I should condense my thoughts a bit; - Raising the Minimum Wage follows along the lines of "short term benefit, long term troubles". The inevitable inflation, small business going bust, large layoffs, and push for automation leave workers in a worse position than they were in before. - Because of inflation, purchasing power amongst citizens is universally decreased. This would primarily effect those who don't receive any, or major pay increases along with everyone else. - Workers have at least as much influence in a free market than the de-facto controlled one we live in now. Why should the government set *a* Minimum Wage, but the market *can't*? In a perfect world, MW jobs are not long-term, of course the world isn't, and will never be, "perfect". This doesn't excuse an action that actually encourages one to stay in an economic position. Individually and as a whole, it is a good thing to strive academically and economically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 H1B is just a way to avoid paying people what their skill set would demand in a real free labor market. Which we don't have. At all. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) A raise to 15$ min wage would suck for us, that's what we start someone we have to train. We are having a horrible time finding anyone who wants to be a full time Pool tech, starting untrained pay, 15 an hour, after training we give you a raise depending on how well you do but 19 isn't unheard off. We'll pay much more if you know what your doing. We just can't find anyone reliable, and it's not just us, none of the pool service companies in the area can get anyone either. This is why I've worked 10 plus hour days all summer and haven't done anything fun or interesting like install a heater... Of the last 5 guys we have hired, two have quit and filed false workmans comp injury claims against us, one moved and one had to be fired for being lazy, the last and youngest, took a part counter job at a dealership. Edited September 9, 2015 by Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Donward 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Well, maybe I should condense my thoughts a bit; - Raising the Minimum Wage follows along the lines of "short term benefit, long term troubles". The inevitable inflation, small business going bust, large layoffs, and push for automation leave workers in a worse position than they were in before. - Because of inflation, purchasing power amongst citizens is universally decreased. This would primarily effect those who don't receive any, or major pay increases along with everyone else. - Workers have at least as much influence in a free market than the de-facto controlled one we live in now. Why should the government set *a* Minimum Wage, but the market *can't*? In a perfect world, MW jobs are not long-term, of course the world isn't, and will never be, "perfect". This doesn't excuse an action that actually encourages one to stay in an economic position. Individually and as a whole, it is a good thing to strive academically and economically. The government, at least in theory, wants its people to prosper. The free market doesn't give a shit, as long as the workers that quit or die can be replaced. If you follow this logic, why have any regulations at all? If the workers aren't satisfied with the lack of safety mechanisms at work, they should just quit! Why should the government and not the free market determine what is safe and what is not? Also yeah, minimum wage jobs shouldn't be long term. But they are. Unless you can somehow legislate full time jobs with a living wage, that's what's going to be available. The government can wring its hands and say "well the world isn't perfect so there's nothing we can do" or they can act to benefit their citizens. Like, you know, they're supposed to. xthetenth and SergeantMatt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 A raise to 15$ min wage would suck for us, that's what we start someone we have to train. We are having a horrible time finding anyone who wants to be a full time Pool tech, starting untrained pay, 15 an hour, after training we give you a raise depending on how well you do but 19 isn't unheard off. We'll pay much more if you know what your doing. We just can't find anyone reliable, and it's not just us, none of the pool service companies in the area can get anyone either. This is why I've worked 10 plus hour days all summer and haven't done anything fun or interesting like install a heater... Of the last 5 guys we have hired, two have quit and filed false workmans comp injury claims against us, one moves and one had to be fired for being lazy. I'm sure most of you heard my tales of trying to hire an apprentice. Now I'm dealing with a 20 something who just does not want to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 But who can actually claim that? The government is comprised of a few old rich guys, while the "free market" is made up of everyone. Regional markets are also independent of each other, there is no collection of power here. In a perfect world, we don't need regulations...but regulations do not need to come from a group of old rich guys. The problem with your ideology is that you suggest we make MW jobs long-term by default. They aren't meant to be that, hence the need of advancement. Even if you don't have a college degree one can advance in position, whether it be coming from a MW job or not. Yes, government benefits the civilians. And, as mandatory; if we raise the minimum wage to $15, why stop there? Let's make it $150 while we are at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I'm sure most of you heard my tales of trying to hire an apprentice. Now I'm dealing with a 20 something who just does not want to work. Maybe if you'd stop pulling guns on everyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 It's a giant fucking sham, but yeah, "our" government is basically whispering sweet nothings while it sodomizes "us" with a rat-tail rasp. It's all traceable to larger corporations who basically depend on a cheap source of immigrant (legal or otherwise) labor to let them keep their costs low, while others are scuttling U.S. business as a whole by importing crap and/or shipping jobs and resources overseas in pursuit of that quarterly uptick. It's all centered and supported by them buying politicians, and those politicians being more interested in their waggling their cocks for the money they get from said businesses, than in actually helping the constituents who "voted" (HA!) for them. Adding that a lot of these politicians are stockholders or owners of these businesses brings up a huge conflict of interest case, except they are senators/congressmen who can basically laugh it off til it becomes so obvious that a cover-up is impossible. Even then it's not career ending (The Clintons and Tyson Chicken are a good example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Maybe if you'd stop pulling guns on everyone... Maybe I should do it more often, I mean it worked for a lot of governments... Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I would like to think that people don't want to buy things from shit companies. If we assume this then companies have the incentive to treat their workers fairly as if they don't they can reveal the companies faults and thus become less desirable. I don't go to Chick-Fil-A unless I am dragged there. I don't really want to buy from a company that has the same ideology as Mike Huckabee. Being Christian in a Christian majority country isn't a bad business strategy though and CFA doesn't really suffer from me going to Waffle House all the time. However if CFA supported slavery or something then I would suspect that their profits would suffer. Free Markets aren't soulless just like government isn't always soulful. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks and Mike E 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 The problem with this debate is that the US has neither a government that is substantially influenced by the interests of its people, nor a market that is substantially responsive to the classic market forces that are supposed to equalize and stabilize these sorts of things automatically.You cannot rely on a government to act in the interests of its people if its only interests are in fattening itself, and you cannot rely on the market to find out how many shoes are needed in each size if the government gives perverse incentives to shoemakers. Meplat and Tied 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 The problem with this debate is that the US has neither a government that is substantially influenced by the interests of its people, nor a market that is substantially responsive to the classic market forces that are supposed to equalize and stabilize these sorts of things automatically. You cannot rely on a government to act in the interests of its people if its only interests are in fattening itself, and you cannot rely on the market to find out how many shoes are needed in each size if the government gives perverse incentives to shoemakers. Tried explaining the evils (EEVIL!) of ethanol adulterated fuels to someone today, and their eyes glazed over when I began explaining corn subsidies. Sturgeon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 But who can actually claim that? The government is comprised of a few old rich guys, while the "free market" is made up of everyone. Regional markets are also independent of each other, there is no collection of power here. In a perfect world, we don't need regulations...but regulations do not need to come from a group of old rich guys. The problem with your ideology is that you suggest we make MW jobs long-term by default. They aren't meant to be that, hence the need of advancement. Even if you don't have a college degree one can advance in position, whether it be coming from a MW job or not. Yes, government benefits the civilians. And, as mandatory; if we raise the minimum wage to $15, why stop there? Let's make it $150 while we are at it. Nobody has to make minimum wage long-term. This is the reality we're living in, right now. I know that they're not meant to be this way, but that's just how it turned out. Why raise it to $150? That's not the argument. The argument is that it has to be a living wage. If you live in some kind of super-rich area with hilariously high rent prices *coughSanFrancough* then yeah, you probably can't live in fifteen bucks either and it will have to be higher. The government is supposed to represent the will of the people and fight for their prosperity. Yours doesn't, that's your problem. I'm saying what should be done, not what, realistically, will be done. xthetenth, SergeantMatt and Belesarius 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 The government is supposed to represent the will of the people and fight for their prosperity. Yours doesn't, that's your problem. I'm saying what should be done, not what, realistically, will be done. I sure as hell hope the government is not supposed to represent the will of the people, that's about the last thing you want the government to represent. "The People" are terrible and they want horrible things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Nobody has to make minimum wage long-term. This is the reality we're living in, right now. I know that they're not meant to be this way, but that's just how it turned out. Why raise it to $150? That's not the argument. The argument is that it has to be a living wage. If you live in some kind of super-rich area with hilariously high rent prices *coughSanFrancough* then yeah, you probably can't live in fifteen bucks either and it will have to be higher. The government is supposed to represent the will of the people and fight for their prosperity. Yours doesn't, that's your problem. I'm saying what should be done, not what, realistically, will be done. Then don't move to San Fran or New York or Seattle and expect to find an awesome artist loft or apartment in the trendiest neighborhood when you are in debt to your college for six figures because you had to get an ethnic studies major and you're "forced" to work as a coffee barista because no one wants to buy the script to your one-woman lesbian puppet show. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 I sure as hell hope the government is not supposed to represent the will of the people, that's about the last thing you want the government to represent. "The People" are terrible and they want horrible things. Hey, that's allegedly the principles of your government were formed on, it's not my fault that they picked shitty principles. Then don't move to San Fran or New York or Seattle and expect to find an awesome artist loft or apartment in the trendiest neighborhood when you are in debt to your college for six figures because you had to get an ethnic studies major and you're "forced" to work as a coffee barista because no one wants to buy the script to your one-woman lesbian puppet show. What, do you want everyone to work STEM jobs? Not everyone can. Are they supposed to starve in the streets now? Or is it more humane to just execute them at the end of high school? Edit: ooh, I know, abortions for non-STEMmies like in Gattaca. xthetenth 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Hey, that's allegedly the principles of your government were formed on, it's not my fault that they picked shitty principles. If you listen to enough news-clowns, shitbag politicians ,or loudmouthed knuckleheads, you'd get that idea. The root was that of a constitutional republic, where the violation of said constitution by members of the public or government would be met with the most severe of punishment. Instead we've had a string of self-serving swine and their handlers who've worked to undermine the authority of that document to further their own existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 What, do you want everyone to work STEM jobs? Not everyone can. Are they supposed to starve in the streets now? Or is it more humane to just execute them at the end of high school? Edit: ooh, I know, abortions for non-STEMmies like in Gattaca. What are you talking about? The issue is folks who insist on moving to areas with some of the highest cost of living in the country with a crapload of college debt and a useless degree, little job skills with the hopes of becoming a stand up comedian or hip-hop artist or playwright and expecting to be subsidized while they work at a service related job. You're creating a false economy. Now do I think most hard working employees should be paid more? Sure. And there also should be some empathy for folks that are a couple of chair legs short of a stool. When my dad was working the night shift at Larry's Grocery Store in White Center once upon a time in the 1970s and early 1980s, there was a character named "Parking Lot Pat" whose gig was to sweep up parking lots at night. I'm not sure what exactly the payment arrangement was but Pat would work all night, tidy up the parking lot, maybe chip in with offloading watermelons that the illegals drove up from California and end up with enough money to pay the rent in the shack where he lived and a case of beer to fuel his alcohol problem. Times have obviously changed but if you raise a Minimum Wage too high, it makes it harder for altruistic business owners to give a guy a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike E Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Nobody has to make minimum wage long-term. This is the reality we're living in, right now. I know that they're not meant to be this way, but that's just how it turned out. Why raise it to $150? That's not the argument. The argument is that it has to be a living wage. If you live in some kind of super-rich area with hilariously high rent prices *coughSanFrancough* then yeah, you probably can't live in fifteen bucks either and it will have to be higher. The government is supposed to represent the will of the people and fight for their prosperity. Yours doesn't, that's your problem. I'm saying what should be done, not what, realistically, will be done. Basically you're suggesting we compromise successful people because the unsuccessful are... not successful financially. Yes, the world, economy, ane job market are not perfect, but that's not a reason to believe they can't improve. Reward success, not the lack of it. But it shouldn't have to be a policing living wage, in fact, it...should not. The goal here is to help people get started in life, not drag them with a string. And by not raising the minimum wage for *all*, those in more important positions, that can actually become careers, can be benefitted. It's arguably not humane, but economics shouldn't be. Emotions don't make for smarter or rational decisions in government. Why not raise the minimum wage to $150? It'll have no additional effect. Government is supposed to do a lot of things, which they manage to do unsuccessfully almost every time. Raising minimum wage hurts many, and unfaily never benefits few. Never mind that inflation hurts investments as well. So "that guy" making $20 just had his worth plummet. I fail to see how raising the minimum wage can have a successful outcome, simply put; it can not and would not. Businesses would layoff so they can continue to even pay their employees, the price of labor skyrockets and automation becomes more wide-spread, inflation causes the universal Purchasing Power of the population to plummet, large corporations will need to borrow more in an attempt to keep their investments afloat. It's no different than Greenspan economics, basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Basically you're suggesting we compromise successful people because the unsuccessful are... not successful financially. Yes, the world, economy, ane job market are not perfect, but that's not a reason to believe they can't improve. Reward success, not the lack of it. But it shouldn't have to be a policing living wage, in fact, it...should not. The goal here is to help people get started in life, not drag them with a string. And by not raising the minimum wage for *all*, those in more important positions, that can actually become careers, can be benefitted. It's arguably not humane, but economics shouldn't be. Emotions don't make for smarter or rational decisions in government. Why not raise the minimum wage to $150? It'll have no additional effect. Government is supposed to do a lot of things, which they manage to do unsuccessfully almost every time. Raising minimum wage hurts many, and unfaily never benefits few. Never mind that inflation hurts investments as well. So "that guy" making $20 just had his worth plummet. I fail to see how raising the minimum wage can have a successful outcome, simply put; it can not and would not. Businesses would layoff so they can continue to even pay their employees, the price of labor skyrockets and automation becomes more wide-spread, inflation causes the universal Purchasing Power of the population to plummet, large corporations will need to borrow more in an attempt to keep their investments afloat. It's no different than Greenspan economics, basically. I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you talk about "successful" and "unsuccessful" people. There are plenty of people in this country who earn a lot of money (successful) who are essentially leaches, and plenty of people doing boring yet essential tasks without earning much money (unsuccessful.) Hell, US Army enlisted men don't make much money, obviously they are failures. Better that we admire all those wonderful, successful bankers who earned lots of money creating the housing bubble! Using earning power to define "success" is a really limited and frankly dangerous way to determine an individuals contribution to a society. Everyone should have a living wage. First off, because it's fair. If people do an honest days work, they should be rewarded for it. I don't care if they are a highly trained doctor of a garbage man. Both jobs need to be done and therefore should be valued (I'm not arguing that they should get the same compensation, i am just saying the garbage man should get a fair wage.) Also, the more fairly income is distributed, the more stable a society will be. And, if everyone has a bit of disposable income, the economy will be better because there will be more spending. Think of it as "trickle up" economics. As to how this should be achieved and what the minimum wage should be set at, this is probably best determined based on local conditions. I am not an economist. I am very distrustful of them. As far as I can tell, economics is a psuedo-science used to make rich people feel good about themselves. I rank them only a little better than clergy. Belesarius, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks, xthetenth and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted September 9, 2015 Report Share Posted September 9, 2015 Right, you convinced me, let's have McDonalds continue to rake in massive profits while its employees apply for food stamps. It's their fault they're not successful, after all. SergeantMatt and xthetenth 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.