quote:

Originally posted by occrider Minor labor shocks are common in American business history. You didn't see a collapse of American industry as thousands lost their job to automation in the early 20th century. The steel and textile industry have long gone the way of the dodo before the whole outsourcing "scare" ... largely for the better. In such instances the labor market retools and acquires the job skills necessary to provide competitive products to the global economy that less developed nations have the ability to compete with. We saw this with the finance and consulting industry in the 80's/90's. If an industry is uncompetitive for whatever reason, it serves no purpose to artificially sustain it and perpetuate a market inefficiency. It simply depreciates the global economy. Look at the EU and US agriculture subsidies. At any rate, you're creating artificial imbalances to support the few at the expense of the many. Look at steel tariffs for example, by raising tariffs on foreign imports you impact every US consumer of steel products in the country. What happens when these steel consumers are forced to buy more expensive steel? They then have to raise their prices. Then they have to compete with every other foreign competitor that has access to cheaper steel. And the vicious cycle goes on until you get to the final end product that the consumer shuns in favor of cheaper, foreign goods. The shocks perpetuate among a multitude of industries All this to help save a one relatively small inefficient industry, in the grander scheme of the economy as a whole, that will continue to be inefficient and perpetuate the imbalance.

My concern is the general welfare of average workers, particularly those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. I was trying to somehow argue a way to possibly maintain employment at a decent wage for these people in the case that nothing is done to help them adjust as markets change and nothing is done in termsof government intervention. Right now there are few available resources to adjust many unskilled workers and there is a living wage gap. This helps to provide an employer's job market, which allows them to offer less wages and benefits for a position. To me this is a serious flaw in the argument that the free market provides an appropriate level of pay, but if this is not of concern to anyone else, I'll just leave it at a disagreement of ideology.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Right now there are few available resources to adjust many unskilled workers and there is a living wage gap. This helps to provide an employer's job market, which allows them to offer less wages and benefits for a position. To me this is a serious flaw in the argument that the free market provides an appropriate level of pay, but if this is not of concern to anyone else, I'll just leave it at a disagreement of ideology.

How the hell could this not be a concern to anyone else, regardless of ideology? IF the current situation we see today is a major income gap in comparison to historical standards, which from what I’ve read is seemingly the case (i.e. CEO and executive salaries increasing exponentially in comparison to the common worker), how could this not be a bit disturbing to anyone else?

And aside of these posts that were a bit tangential albeit very interesting in regards to tariffs and NAFTA, I still haven't seen a very good argument as to why one believes that $5.15/hr is a worthy, sustainable living wage for anyone, ESPECIALLY in comparison to inflation.

***throws some more peanuts from the peanut gallery***

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

We have had these arguements in my own country about the minimum wage and the biggest objectors are usually employer lobby groups(you wanna hear these guys,they are really good,you would feel like working for free after listening to the hardships they endure )

Anyway to go back to the point.....you pay a guy $5.15 per hour minimum.....and that guy works 40 hours per week,so he ends up with $206 as his paypacket before tax(i dont know if he would be exempt at this wage from taxation)now how does anybody have a decent standard of living from that wage......presumably the guy is renting,and im sure half his wage is gone allready....he must be renting because he couldnt repay a bank loan on a property....

Now lets imagine the guy works 80 hours a week,really breaking his balls,and now the guys paycheck is $406 and surely tax kicks in at this level,so he probably ends up with $300 per week and still has to pay the rent(he will need a nice bed because he will so f*cked from working)and then there are the usual bills to pay.....ow yeah and i forgot the guy has to feed himself.

I agree with Opus when you look at the figures nobody can live on this wage in a sustainable way.....and i havnt read any good arguements as to why $5.15 an hour is acceptable......

quote:

Originally posted by zig We have had these arguements in my own country about the minimum wage and the biggest objectors are usually employer lobby groups(you wanna hear these guys,they are really good,you would feel like working for free after listening to the hardships they endure ) Anyway to go back to the point.....you pay a guy $5.15 per hour minimum.....and that guy works 40 hours per week,so he ends up with $206 as his paypacket before tax(i dont know if he would be exempt at this wage from taxation)now how does anybody have a decent standard of living from that wage......presumably the guy is renting,and im sure half his wage is gone allready....he must be renting because he couldnt repay a bank loan on a property.... Now lets imagine the guy works 80 hours a week,really breaking his balls,and now the guys paycheck is $406 and surely tax kicks in at this level,so he probably ends up with $300 per week and still has to pay the rent(he will need a nice bed because he will so f*cked from working)and then there are the usual bills to pay.....ow yeah and i forgot the guy has to feed himself. I agree with Opus when you look at the figures nobody can live on this wage in a sustainable way.....and i havnt read any good arguements as to why $5.15 an hour is acceptable......

And not only that, when this wage remains constant the following year, the worker is making less, as it does not increase to match inflation.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 My concern is the general welfare of average workers, particularly those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. I was trying to somehow argue a way to possibly maintain employment at a decent wage for these people in the case that nothing is done to help them adjust as markets change and nothing is done in termsof government intervention. Right now there are few available resources to adjust many unskilled workers and there is a living wage gap. This helps to provide an employer's job market, which allows them to offer less wages and benefits for a position. To me this is a serious flaw in the argument that the free market provides an appropriate level of pay, but if this is not of concern to anyone else, I'll just leave it at a disagreement of ideology.

I'm not arguing with respect to minimum wage. Obviously some governemnt intervention is required to maintain minimum standards in places of employment. I don't get into the minimum wage argument because it's too difficult to discern any tangible effects from raising or lowering the minimum wage. If you raise it $1 is that going to result in x amount of people losing their jobs? Will it cripple the growth of businesses? Nobody really knows. But what I'm arguing is that there is certainly no US industry that requires trade protections whether it be in the form of subsidies or tariffs. It simply doesn't make sense to protect and foster inefficient industries at the expense of tax payers, the consumers, and the aggreggate economy. If an industry can't compete, it either changes until it can compete or it simply goes the way of the dodo. The role of the government should be to provide employment insurance and education opportunities to retool the temporary labor surplus.

Some argue that an agricultural subsidy should be maintained in order to ensure a permenant food source to the nation in the event of an emergency, however, the argument becomes poltiical at that point rather than an argument in economics.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm not arguing with respect to minimum wage. Obviously some governemnt intervention is required to maintain minimum standards in places of employment. I don't get into the minimum wage argument because it's too difficult to discern any tangible effects from raising or lowering the minimum wage. If you raise it $1 is that going to result in x amount of people losing their jobs? Will it cripple the growth of businesses? Nobody really knows. But what I'm arguing is that there is certainly no US industry that requires trade protections whether it be in the form of subsidies or tariffs. It simply doesn't make sense to protect and foster inefficient industries at the expense of tax payers, the consumers, and the aggreggate economy. If an industry can't compete, it either changes until it can compete or it simply goes the way of the dodo. The role of the government should be to provide employment insurance and education opportunities to retool the temporary labor surplus. Some argue that an agricultural subsidy should be maintained in order to ensure a permenant food source to the nation in the event of an emergency, however, the argument becomes poltiical at that point rather than an argument in economics.

I'll agree with you that an industry such as automobile manufacturing is inefficient in comparison to production by other industrialized nations that have labor and wage standards in place. A number of materials though are not lost due to inefficient American production, but from the exploitation of labor elsewhere. Since you have stated you believe in some government intervention, it's a little different, but in reality adult education funding has been cut within the new federal budget, when it should increase if we face more workers needing higher training. I'd also add that we are one of the lowest countries in terms of educational standards amongst the major industrial powers we compete against in this fashion. I'm not stating necessarily you, but many of the same people who say that the market sets a fair wage also oppose any government programs that would readjust workers or provide any economic aid to them whatsoever while they are in transition.



(Not directed at Occrider)On minimum wage, if you factor in inflation and put the amount in constant dollars, a $1 increase is quite modest since the current rate was set in 1996. Otherwise the price increases of the economy outperforms the income of the people who make minimum wage and they perpetually fall further behind at the same job. By claiming that a $1 or $2 increase comes at the expense of the number of available jobs, why would it be better to have more jobs at $4/hr continually being worth less with each passing year when that is even further from reaching the poverty line? Shouldn't the businesses that employ these people be keeping up with the rate of inflation? They're doomed to ultimately fail or else continually decrease their costs, including worker's wages, in order to stay in buisness if they don't . If people at the lower end see their wages in constant dollars decrease, I'm not sure why the economic growth is considered beneficial to them at it's current pace if their incomes cannot keep up and they are not receiving proper re-education to gain higher skilled employment.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Last edited by wolverine16 on Mar-22-2005 at 19:30

quote:

Originally posted by zig I agree with Opus when you look at the figures nobody can live on this wage in a sustainable way.....and i havnt read any good arguements as to why $5.15 an hour is acceptable......

Maybe because a very large majority of those who are working for minumum wage are high school kids and college students that don't have a ton of bills? (ok, ok, keggers DO add up when you're in college... LOL)

This was definitely the situation for me and almost all of my friends when we were in HS, and that's where we built up job references and experience so we could move up. I'm a bit worried that a rising minimum wage would exclude some from getting this experience to be able to move up in the working world.

Although I am fundamentally against minimum wage laws AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL (if the States should choose to do so, that's their business per the Bill Of Rights, NOT the Federal government's), I'd be interested in hearing some thought about age restrictions on minimum wage that would allow older workers to earn a higher minimum wage than say, anyone under 18 or 22. Younger people in that age bracker have less worry about living in poverty since they're likely in school and/or living at home rent-free, don't have to worry about feeding themselves (except maybe for fast food, beer, etc).

___________________
DJMaytag @ Facebook
Tracks on Soundcloud
Paul Van Dyk - Today [DJMaytag's Dreamy Dub Mix]

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I'll agree with you that an industry such as automobile manufacturing is inefficient in comparison to production by other industrialized nations that have labor and wage standards in place. A number of materials though are not lost due to inefficient American production, but from the exploitation of labor elsewhere. Since you have stated you believe in some government intervention, it's a little different, but in reality adult education funding has been cut within the new federal budget, when it should increase if we face more workers needing higher training. I'd also add that we are one of the lowest countries in terms of educational standards amongst the major industrial powers we compete against in this fashion. I'm not stating necessarily you, but many of the same people who say that the market sets a fair wage also oppose any government programs that would readjust workers or provide any economic aid to them whatsoever while they are in transition.

And in the event that a country has gross violations of human rights, the US and any other country has the ability to invoke trade sanctions. However, to expect that every country must adhere to similar labor laws as the US is to committ economic suicide (I think Dean had that crazy idea). Furthermore the primary reason why countries can out compete with the US is not because they're exploiting workers, but simply because manual labor is naturally cheaper in other countries. Raising tariffs to compensate for over-priced American workers once again perpetuates economic inefficiency that affects the economy as a whole. Simply put, if you're concerned with the plight of the workers, you would find a more meaningful solution in expanding worker education as opposed to trade protections.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by DJMaytag Maybe because a very large majority of those who are working for minumum wage are high school kids and college students that don't have a ton of bills? (ok, ok, keggers DO add up when you're in college... LOL) This was definitely the situation for me and almost all of my friends when we were in HS, and that's where we built up job references and experience so we could move up. I'm a bit worried that a rising minimum wage would exclude some from getting this experience to be able to move up in the working world. Although I am fundamentally against minimum wage laws AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL (if the States should choose to do so, that's their business per the Bill Of Rights, NOT the Federal government's), I'd be interested in hearing some thought about age restrictions on minimum wage that would allow older workers to earn a higher minimum wage than say, anyone under 18 or 22. Younger people in that age bracker have less worry about living in poverty since they're likely in school and/or living at home rent-free, don't have to worry about feeding themselves (except maybe for fast food, beer, etc).

Sure a lot of students and school kids work for the minimum wage and probably dont have a lot of overheads or bills to pay,but obviously that doesnt include everybody that gets paid the minimum wage.As for your worries about a rising minimum wage excluding people from getting experience at work...well that doesnt really make sense as surely if a minimum is set then it has to be paid regardless,and if employers need workers then thats what they have to pay,and if they pay less then they are breaking the law.
Basically my point is if a minimum is set,well then all employers are in the same boat and therefore it shouldnt exclude anybody from getting a break or gaining work experience.

Your point about age restrictions,age restrictions apply in Ireland as regards the minimum wage....certain rules apply....

Anybody working under the age of 18 must be paid 70% of the minimum wage (7.65 Euro is the minimum wage here=10.25 US Dollars)

Anybody taking up their first employment after the age of 18 can still be paid 70% of the minimum for 2 years.

Or anybody taking some form of structured training (Electricians,Carpenters,Plumbers etc)can also be paid 70% of the minimum wage...these people usually go to college 1 day a week and get on the job training the rest of the time.

But the reality is in Ireland that the labour market is bouyant at the moment,and has been for quite a number of years now...there are more jobs than there are workers to fill them,particularily at the lower end of the market where the minimum wage exists...and because of this virtually all employers have to compete to get workers and hardly anybody pays the minimum wage(but some still do..Hotels and fast food outlets are notorious for bad pay)but most pay way above the minimum to hold onto employees....i know for instance in my local supermarket they pay a minimum of 10 Euro per hour($13.20)for people stacking shelves and doing the checkout.
But these are good times economically and hopefully this will last for many years to come,but a downturn will come eventually as it allways does and thats why a minimum wage is a good thing imo,as it gives some sort of protection to employees.....they may lose their jobs but when they do get one again it will have a minimum rate of pay.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Long, long overdue, and way below inflation and standards of living. So it was a nice surprise to initially read Sen. Rick Homosexual-Marriage-Will-Lead-To-Fucking-Animals Santorum (R-PA) lead the charge in raising the minimum wage $1.10 to $6.25/hour. This will all be added to that lovely bankruptcy bill (which is in another thread): http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...cs/11061008.htm (Knight Ridder free subscription req'd) But those darn GOPers always have catches don't they? Welp, here ya go!: Economic Policy Institute's analysis can be found here: http://www.epinet.org/newsroom/rele...inimum_Wage.pdf Corporate welfare anyone? Class warfare anyone?

Since a family cannot live above the poverty level on minimum wage, I believe we probably need to increase it over the amount it was last increased about five years or more ago.


[[[smoke]]]

Hell we could eliminate all poverty if we raised the wage to $25 an hour. Why not?

Forget for a moment the 50% jump in unemployment overnight...

What other reason is there we shouldn't act on this noble goal?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Hell we could eliminate all poverty if we raised the wage to $25 an hour. Why not? Forget for a moment the 50% jump in unemployment overnight... What other reason is there we shouldn't act on this noble goal?

why stop there? make it $100, then we'd have a utopia where everyone would be making $200k a year!

___________________
DJMaytag @ Facebook
Tracks on Soundcloud
Paul Van Dyk - Today [DJMaytag's Dreamy Dub Mix]