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).

2002 Bureau of Labor figures state 53% of minimum wage earners or lower were 25 or younger. Not all 53% of that group are just looking for side money and job experience while their parents are paying for college, as there are a significant number of people 25 or under that do not go to college and have families to support, so in my opinion it's not a very large majority of minimum wage earners that fit that description.

Also the 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 was worth $7.36 in 1997 constant dollars, when the $5.15 rate was just being put into effect. In 2005 dollars the $5.15 rate is about $4.28. Next year it will be approximately worth another 10 cents less baed on CPI conversion.

The age idea was discussed in the 80s of a sub-minimum wage. In some ways it might be workable, but wouldn't it encourage hiring younger workers who might fit the description you discussed over older workers who need employment more?

My state has a living wage, yes to some degree it is subsidized, but I'm fine with the state providing standards higher than the current rate that continually is in decline. Interestingly enough though the original post in this thread notes that "State's Rights" Santorum wanted to set a federal rate that would prevent states from setting their own higher rates.

___________________
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

I have worked minimum wage jobs. Low skill, entry level jobs were valuable stepping stones for me, and for anybody who takes them. They are not intended to be lifelong positions. If you end up washing dishes (my first job) at 45 years old, don't blame the company for paying you $5.50. There are plenty of people willing to do ths job for less. You would be better off looking in the mirror, and asking what decisions you've made in life that led you to this point, rather than casting the blame on others and demanding that the government FORCE employers to pay above-market wages.

This may not fit your definition of "compassion" but it is the moral thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider 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.

I think it's clear from my various posts in this forum that I'm all for increasing access to education, but I suggested protectionist tactics since people like Capitalist don't want to invest their money for training for these workers. In reality we would need a much larger investment in education than what is being provided in order for these workers to be prepared and it doesn't look like this amount willbe increased anytime soon.

I would have to say though, completely ignore tariffs, sweatshops are quite common in the production of imported textiles, along with child labor to some degree, so it is not simply a matter of exchange rates. There is competition to find lower costs of production even amongst third world countries. I'll try to scan some info I read on Haitian and Dominican competition and its effects when I get back to school next week. True it's not possible to apply identical labor standards to those of the U.S., but China has a rather poor record and we seem to ignore it in exchange for their labor and potential access to their markets. They may very soon get an even larger windfall of American business and trade sanctions aren't going to be invoked.

___________________
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 I think it's clear from my various posts in this forum that I'm all for increasing access to education, but I suggested protectionist tactics since people like Capitalist don't want to invest their money for training for these workers. In reality we would need a much larger investment in education than what is being provided in order for these workers to be prepared and it doesn't look like this amount willbe increased anytime soon.

Oh? And in what industry are protectionist tariffs warranted due to inadequate educational resources that have resulted in massive labor surpluses that currently require federal intervention?

quote:

I would have to say though, completely ignore tariffs, sweatshops are quite common in the production of imported textiles, along with child labor to some degree, so it is not simply a matter of exchange rates. There is competition to find lower costs of production even amongst third world countries. I'll try to scan some info I read on Haitian and Dominican competition and its effects when I get back to school next week. True it's not possible to apply identical labor standards to those of the U.S., but China has a rather poor record and we seem to ignore it in exchange for their labor and potential access to their markets. They may very soon get an even larger windfall of American business and trade sanctions aren't going to be invoked.

Unless you can gauruntee a consistent global economic response to such labor shortfalls, instilling trade protectionisms are ultimately ineffective in accomplishing any tangible economic benefits over time. For example, you don't control European trade with China. You don't control South East Asian trade with China. Those very same companies can undercut your very own trade protectionisms against China by acquiring such raw materials from China and undercutting your more expensive and inefficient processes. Furthermore, the textile industry seems to be doing quite fine without trade protectionism through adaptation and the adoption of efficient industry:

quote:

Apparel Apocalypse? The Americas' Textile Industries Won't Die When Quotas Do By Fred Abernathy and David Weil Thursday, November 18, 2004; Page A39 Fears that Chinese apparel and textile exports will swamp the U.S. retail market when international quotas on those products are eliminated at the start of next year have caused a growing chorus of industry leaders, members of Congress and now officials of the Bush administration to call for limits on Chinese imports. Although the end of quotas will alter global competition, this isn't the way to respond. The fate of these industries is not sealed; it depends very much on trade legislation pending in Congress, which could create a new foundation for American manufacturers to compete. The conventional wisdom on the future of the apparel and textile industries after quotas are lifted worldwide is simple: Exports from low-wage countries in general and China in particular will flood the United States, virtually wiping out those sectors. Our research, conducted over the past decade, paints a very different picture. Two seldom-recognized factors link the fate of the U.S. apparel and textile industries over the long term to those of our neighbors and to our trade relations with them. First, a large proportion of American apparel imports already originate in countries that are geographically close, rather than in China and other low-wage Asian nations. While the United States imported a little less than $8 billion of apparel from China last year, it imported more than $16 billion from Mexico, Central America and Caribbean countries. And while quota limits facing China and other countries explain some of this disparity, they do not explain it all. The United States imports so much from nearby countries primarily because their products arrive quickly. The Wal-Mart model that now dominates retailing requires apparel suppliers to replenish products on a weekly basis. As that model took over in the 1990s, so too did the advantage of sourcing certain apparel items closer to the U.S. market so that products could be manufactured and delivered more rapidly. This also explains how some segments of the U.S. apparel industry have survived even with cheaper labor elsewhere in the world. Costs remain a driving factor, but the proximity advantage will grow even greater in a post-quota world as retailers raise the bar ever higher on the responsiveness and flexibility required of their suppliers. Second, although quotas end in less than two months under terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the ornate system of apparel and textile tariffs between countries will remain for a long time. Tariffs continue to add substantial costs to the value of goods imported from different parts of the world, such as China. Most apparel products from Mexico and the Caribbean arrive in the United States tariff-free, as will most imports from Central America if Congress ratifies the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Tariffs range widely, reaching more than 30 percent of the value of some imported products. Given the sensitivity of retailers to even small cost differentials, this will give an advantage to countries covered by regional trade agreements that eliminate tariffs -- as NAFTA does for Mexico and Canada. Both factors affect the fate of domestic producers for a profound reason: Much of the textiles used in garments made in Mexico and the Caribbean -- and potentially Central America -- come from the United States. U.S. textile exports to Mexico in 2003 equaled more than 30 percent of the value of imports from Mexico. In contrast, exports of U.S. textile products to China that year equaled less than 0.8 percent of the value of imported apparel products from China. Apparel imports from Mexico and the Caribbean therefore benefit U.S. textile production and employment. Textile manufacturers that supply regional and domestic apparel producers have survived by investing in technology, allowing them to achieve some of the highest productivity in the world. In addition, many producers have developed significant brand recognition, creating distinctive products such as Polartec. With the coming elimination of quotas, survival will depend on possessing those characteristics and using them to respond to increasingly volatile market demand. Similarly, the apparel industries in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean will only maintain their position -- even with tariff advantages -- by continually improving their responsiveness to U.S. retailers and consumers. The Central American Free Trade Agreement, signed earlier this year and up for debate in Congress, provides a means to take advantage of proximity. Congress should include appropriate labor and environmental safeguards as it debates CAFTA. But it must also make sure that the agreement and related trade policies reduce the barriers to hemispheric trade flows arising not only from tariffs but also from administrative and logistics barriers that will otherwise undermine CAFTA's intended effects. If not, Congress will miss the opportunity to enhance one of the remaining advantages for U.S. manufacturing industries and their workforces. Fred Abernathy and David Weil are principal investigators at the Harvard Center for Textile and Apparel Research. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Nov17.html

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider

For the 3rd or 4th time: I WOULD PREFER RAISING THE LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES IN COMPARISON TO TARIFFS!!! I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU!!! I WOULD FAVOR THIS EVEN IN THE CASE THAT GLOBALIZATION DID NOT EXIST!!! The thing is greater educational resources are NOT being made available and don't look to be coming in the near future. So what should be done in the wake of this when nothing is being done for transition of workers unprepared for skilled work? Suggestions? Geez, I will never again try to argue a possible alternative compromise again after this and will stick to my progressive guns from now on.

My points in the last post were on humans rights issues, I was not discussing tariffs. You are arguing as if poor labor standards have no effect and as if it isn't a part of driving costs down further from where they are at. While exchange rates may be the primary cause of cheap labor, human rights violations are often a secondary cause in China, other Asian countries and Central American countries and certainly a factor in the price of production of many items.


From your previous post:

quote:

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.

This current post suggests that we can't really invoke trade sanctions, because we can then be undercut by other countries who are willing to overlook these violations, unless all other countries also invoke such sanctions. That was what my reply was regarding, I was agreeing with your latter statement.

___________________
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-23-2005 at 08:26

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I have worked minimum wage jobs. Low skill, entry level jobs were valuable stepping stones for me, and for anybody who takes them. They are not intended to be lifelong positions. If you end up washing dishes (my first job) at 45 years old, don't blame the company for paying you $5.50. There are plenty of people willing to do ths job for less. You would be better off looking in the mirror, and asking what decisions you've made in life that led you to this point, rather than casting the blame on others and demanding that the government FORCE employers to pay above-market wages. This may not fit your definition of "compassion" but it is the moral thing to do.

It seems your perception of poverty puts the cause almost entirely on personal responsibilty. I would say that there are other factors that contribute in not all, but the majority of cases.

I am trusting that you are also against any government subsidies and economc incentives for employers as well since they also go against the idea of a free market?

___________________
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 I am trusting that you are also against any government subsidies and economc incentives for employers as well since they also go against the idea of a free market?

That would be correct.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 For the 3rd or 4th time: I WOULD PREFER RAISING THE LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES IN COMPARISON TO TARIFFS!!! I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU!!! I WOULD FAVOR THIS EVEN IN THE CASE THAT GLOBALIZATION DID NOT EXIST!!! The thing is greater educational resources are NOT being made available and don't look to be coming in the near future. So what should be done in the wake of this when nothing is being done for transition of workers unprepared for skilled work? Suggestions?

Yes I understood that you would rather adopt the approach of increasing educational resources as opposed to trade protectionism. But then you adopted the mentality that due to the deficiency of educational resources, trade protectionisms are in some way feasible solutions to the situation:

"I think it's clear from my various posts in this forum that I'm all for increasing access to education, but I suggested protectionist tactics since people like Capitalist don't want to invest their money for training for these workers. In reality we would need a much larger investment in education than what is being provided in order for these workers to be prepared and it doesn't look like this amount will be increased anytime soon."

To which my argument is that trade protectionisms are not a feasible alternative at all. You ask for suggestions as to what should be "done" for something ... well perhaps I can be more specific with suggestions if you point out a failing US industry that requires government intervention due to a failure of free markets. Let's depart from abstract arguments and delve into the specifics.

quote:

Geez, I will never again try to argue a possible alternative compromise again after this and will stick to my progressive guns from now on.

"Alternative compromise" vs. "Progressive guns"? Why would you base your arguments on something you don't believe in or whether it comes from an alternative compromise as opposed to a progressive standard?

quote:

My points in the last post were on humans rights issues, I was not discussing tariffs. You are arguing as if poor labor standards have no effect and as if it isn't a part of driving costs down further from where they are at. While exchange rates may be the primary cause of cheap labor, human rights violations are often a secondary cause in China, other Asian countries and Central American countries and certainly a factor in the price of production of many items. From your previous post: This current post suggests that we can't really invoke trade sanctions, because we can then be undercut by other countries who are willing to overlook these violations, unless all other countries also invoke such sanctions. That was what my reply was regarding, I was agreeing with your latter statement.

Well, the point of my post was that competitive price differences largely do not come from worker exploitation. It may contribute a minor role, however, I still adhere to my prior statments that they have very little effect on aggregate prices as a whole. This is evidenced by the fact that countries with weak labor laws are not proprietary suppliers of goods and services. The ultimate point of my posts have been that trade protectionisms are, for the most part, useless and counterproductive. That's all.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I have worked minimum wage jobs. Low skill, entry level jobs were valuable stepping stones for me, and for anybody who takes them. They are not intended to be lifelong positions. If you end up washing dishes (my first job) at 45 years old, don't blame the company for paying you $5.50. There are plenty of people willing to do ths job for less. You would be better off looking in the mirror, and asking what decisions you've made in life that led you to this point, rather than casting the blame on others and demanding that the government FORCE employers to pay above-market wages. This may not fit your definition of "compassion" but it is the moral thing to do.

Who mentioned blame.........

And as regards plenty of people willing to take up jobs below the minimum wage.....im sure as soon as the guy puts the sign up "Below minimum wage jobs here" people are cueing up.....

And it definatly doesnt fit my defination of compassion.....

And this is the curious thing in what you wrote "but it is the moral thing to do" exactly what is the moral thing to do....begrudge having to pay the minimum wage?

But perhaps i should have rephrased my origional question......
Could you if married with a family live on the minimum wage as it stands?

And if you answer that question honestly i think that should be a good test of your true ideas on compassion and morals.........

quote:

Originally posted by zig But perhaps i should have rephrased my origional question...... Could you if married with a family live on the minimum wage as it stands? And if you answer that question honestly i think that should be a good test of your true ideas on compassion and morals.........

Probably not. I would need to take two minimum wage jobs to support a family, and I would probably be kicking myself for not acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to advance beyond the lowest paid positions in life. It is MY RESPONSIBILITY to earn a living for myself. I have no right to hold my employer at gunpoint and demand he pay me double or triple what others do the job for...nor should the government have the right to do this for me.

Certainly in "cosmic" terms, it would be nice if everyone earned double or triple the minimum wage, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in reality...and in the real world, supply and demand determine fair prices and wages. Using government force to demand above-market wages only reduces the supply of low-end jobs. Certainly, a "living wage" of $10 an hour would have thousands of visible beneficiaries you could point to and feel really good about...but it would also have MILLIONS of invisible victims. These are the people you never see and won't be able to cry for, because their jobs were NEVER CREATED in the first place due to an artificially high labor cost. The reality is, we would see much higher unemployment if government mandated a $10.00/hr minimum wage. I will acknowledge that you have noble intentions in wanting a higher wage for low skilled workers, but intentions mean jack sh!t if the practical results of your policies hurt those you intend to help.

It's time for the left to stop feeling their way through these issues and start thinking about raw economics. It may be a dry and "harsh" science to study, but you really should understand it if you want to help the poor, rather than making "compassionate" gestures that do nothing but soothe your own conscience.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Probably not. I would need to take two minimum wage jobs to support a family, and I would probably be kicking myself for not acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to advance beyond the lowest paid positions in life. It is MY RESPONSIBILITY to earn a living for myself. I have no right to hold my employer at gunpoint and demand he pay me double or triple what others do the job for...nor should the government have the right to do this for me. Certainly in "cosmic" terms, it would be nice if everyone earned double or triple the minimum wage, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in reality...and in the real world, supply and demand determine fair prices and wages. Using government force to demand above-market wages only reduces the supply of low-end jobs. Certainly, a "living wage" of $10 an hour would have thousands of visible beneficiaries you could point to and feel really good about...but it would also have MILLIONS of invisible victims. These are the people you never see and won't be able to cry for, because their jobs were NEVER CREATED in the first place due to an artificially high labor cost. The reality is, we would see much higher unemployment if government mandated a $10.00/hr minimum wage. I will acknowledge that you have noble intentions in wanting a higher wage for low skilled workers, but intentions mean jack sh!t if the practical results of your policies hurt those you intend to help. It's time for the left to stop feeling their way through these issues and start thinking about raw economics. It may be a dry and "harsh" science to study, but you really should understand it if you want to help the poor, rather than making "compassionate" gestures that do nothing but soothe your own conscience.

What good is a million new jobs if ppl cant live on them!?

And as stated here before, countries with MUCH higher minimum wage than the US have as low or lower unemployment as the US.