Support NeoGAF

[Loki]

Socialism is not the answer imo, but certainly a more moderate and even-handed capitalism must be implemented at some point. Things weren't always this way in the US, you know; the largest growth of our overall economy came when we were a middle-class society, from the 50's through the 70's. Since then, our society has become increasingly stratified and numerous social ills have resulted. I don't think that many people (many fiscal "conservatives", at least) truly understand the depth of the suffering and misery that has directly resulted from misguided corporate praxis and government complicity towards that end.


A very nice essay on the issue can be seen here.

 

[demon]

Who are these people that want the minimum wage increased? :lol

Celicar
Avoiding Reality,
All day, Every day.

 

[Matlock]

Honestly, and it hurts to say this, Santorum's plan was the better of the two--Santorum would only increase the states too bullheaded to increase minimum wage (hey, Ohio!), while Kennedy's was far too high a number. It'd cause unneccessary ripples in places where minimum is already at a decent level.

$6.50 would be about ideal for minimum, if you were going to increase it, of course.

 

[explodet]

So if I've got this straight, both sides agree it should be raised, but disagree on how much it should be raised and over how long a time. And while they work that out miminum wage remains the same level it has been for how long? Eight years?

 

[Loki]

Honestly, and it hurts to say this, Santorum's plan was the better of the two--Santorum would only increase the states too bullheaded to increase minimum wage (hey, Ohio!), while Kennedy's was far too high a number. It'd cause unneccessary ripples in places where minimum is already at a decent level.

$6.50 would be about ideal for minimum, if you were going to increase it, of course.

All this misses the point. Here is what you should be asking yourself:


Minimum wage, merely adjusted for inflation from 1965 (not cost of living, which would increase it even more), would stand at $11.50 today. Ask yourself why, if costs (both fixed and variable) have decreased and net profits have increased dramatically (to say nothing of tax breaks for businesses and corporate welfare), the minimum wage is currently at < 50% of what it should be. Can you answer this question? What possible justification is there for it when framed in this way? To my mind, the only possible "justification" that can be given is that "the interests of the shareholders" demand ever greater profits, regardless of the level of profits already being realized, and so labor costs are held down. However, please realize that this is a "within the box" perspective that goes a long way towards proving my point about why the speculative, publicly-traded market should be abolished, or at least marginalized and heavily regulated.


All these other "rationales" (about unemployment etc.) are merely obfuscation imo, and totally miss the point. And the point is that the system was created by, and is maintained by, moneyed interests. In an ideal world, government would have been our ally against the nefarious, self-serving schemes of these plutocrats, but they abdicated their responsibility in that regard decades ago. This is not fearmongering-- this is the fact of the matter. As for your "evidence" re: texts, ask yourself why, as Frag noted, such doom-and-gloom scenarios never actually played themselves out in the real world when minimum wages have historically been raised.


The most frustrating part of living in America, for me, is the fact that so many people are brainwashed and cannot see that the system they're championing not only adversely affects them, but also all of society. In fact, much of government is now concerned with subsidizing the populace because corporations decided about 25 years ago that they, unlike government, had no obligations to the society which sustains them. This is a preposterous mentality-- were I as prone to hyperbole as Raoul is, I'd likely call it "evil".

 

[xsarien]

Who are these people that want the minimum wage increased? :lol

Jesus Hoover Christ.

Someday, I'm not sure when, but someday karma's going to catch up to you and deliver a swift kick to the nads.

 

[Matlock]

Loki: if minimum wage were increased to nearly $12, then what about everyone else?

How would the laborer who works for $20 an hour after 30 years feel if some snot nosed kid in a McDonalds made half he did for much less work? The labor unions would start lobbying for higher wages, and it'd ripple through the workforce.

Then, of course, you'll be paying $3 for a bottle of Suave shampoo. But eh, all in the name of keeping up with inflation.

 

[Loki]

Loki: if minimum wage were increased to nearly $12, then what about everyone else?

How would the laborer who works for $20 an hour after 30 years feel if some snot nosed kid in a McDonalds made half he did for much less work? The labor unions would start lobbying for higher wages, and it'd ripple through the workforce.

Then, of course, you'll be paying $3 for a bottle of Suave shampoo. But eh, all in the name of keeping up with inflation.

Again, you're asking the wrong question. Please answer the question I posed. I realize it's difficult, though, because there really is no polite answer when it's framed in such a way. You're asking the question backwards-- in essence, you're asking "well what would happen if we do this now?", rather than asking, "hey, why didn't this (a minimum wage increase) happen 35 (or 25, or 15) years ago if profits warranted it?"


Believe it or not, as the overall wealth of a society increases, <gasp> the wage scale should also increase accordingly at all levels. Not merely at the highest levels (top 2-3%), which is the only place where we've seen significant gains relative to both inflation and cost of living.


Btw, if our entire wage scale was where it should be, people wouldn't mind paying a few dollars extra for goods and services. The only people "losing out" would be the obscenely wealthy, who not coincidentally control our government.

 

[Matlock]

Again, you're asking the wrong question. Please answer the question I posed.

You asked: "What justification is there for not keeping up with inflation?"
I answer: "Nothing ELSE has.

Besides, the states have Minimum Wage laws of their own that can add money to the minimum, yet not every state uses them.

 

[Loki]

You asked: "What justification is there for not keeping up with inflation?"
I answer: "Nothing ELSE has.

I'm not sure of what you're saying here. "Nothing else has"? Well, let's have a look at what's kept pace with, outstripped, or, in the case of costs, decreased relative to inflation over the last 40 years:


- Corporate profits (up relative to both inflation and the cost of doing business)

- Executive compensation (waaaaay up relative to any standard you can posit)

- The cost to the customer of the goods and services that companies and other entities (universities etc.) offer. (waaaaay up relative to inflation)

- Corporate operating costs such as utilities, property taxes, machinery etc. (down relative to inflation due to economies of scale and subcontracting)

- Cost of living (waaaaay up; housing costs, educational costs, health care, food, clothing etc.)

- Labor costs (waaaaay down relative to inflation due to an artificially low wage scale)



Now let's look at what has not kept up with inflation:


- Wages and, hence, income below the upper decile (more like the upper 5%, actually)



Notice anything conspicuous there? Contrary to your assertion, only one thing we're concerned with here has "not kept up with inflation", and that is average wages. Note also that the only things that HAVE kept pace with inflation are all net gains for corporate and institutional entities (with the exception of private property prices on the real estate market), whereas the only thing that has not kept pace with inflation is a net loss for individuals of every economic class save for the top 3% of earners.


Again, I await an honest answer to the question I posed. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I won't let you off the hook about this.

 

[Matlock]

No wages have kept up with inflation. Jesus christ, can I say that one more time and get you to quiet down?

As for the rest, I can't explain any of that. I'm not going to lie to you.

 

[Loki]

No wages have kept up with inflation. Jesus christ, can I say that one more time and get you to quiet down?

As for the rest, I can't explain any of that. I'm not going to lie to you.

You're mistaken-- some wages have more than kept up with inflation (viz. the wages/salaries of the upper 2-5% of society). So I'm not sure why you insist that "no wages have kept up with inflation". Much of the stratification is also due to disparities in "wealth" (i.e., total income) rather than mere "wages" or "salary", though it is undeniably true that salaries at the top end have outpaced inflation and cost of living. They just haven't for, oh, 90-95% of society, which is the entire point.


I commend you for being big enough to admit that you "can't explain" any of the other stuff, however. I would suggest that the main reason you (or anybody else) can't explain it is that to look at the facts honestly compels one to accept certain conclusions, and one of these is that the stagnation of wages-- from minimum wage all the way up to $50/hour employees-- is not the result of any legitimate economic realities in terms of corporate expenses, but rather of greed, consolidation of wealth, and the noxious pressures exerted on individuals and institutions under our speculative economy.


Believe me.


If any other "fiscal conservative" would care to have a crack at that question as posed (post #55), feel free. I've never heard a satisfactory answer to it, personally, and that, imo, is because none exists.

 

[Gregory]

5-6 dollars is more than enough considering you hardly pay any taxes. Plus everything is so damn cheap in america. Norway, Europe`s richest country, doesn`t have a minimum wage but I don`t think it`s possible to make less than 15-20 dollars per hour at any normal job. But then again things are much more expensive and 25-30% of the paycheck is taken in taxes.

You have it much better than most other comparable countries.

 

[Hero]

Who in this thread actually makes minimum wage?

So if McDonald's now has to pay McJoe a few more dollars an hour, where is that going to come from? It's not like McDonald's is going to WANT to lose more money. They're going to even it out somehow, most likely with charging the consumer more.

Minimum wages means you get minimum workers. The guy behind the counter or the register is only to do the bare minimum to keep his job and not get fired, raising the minimum wage will only make him that much more discouraged from actually going out and trying to get a well paying job where he'll actually have to work to bring in any serious amount of money.

 

[Dilbert]

5-6 dollars is more than enough considering you hardly pay any taxes. Plus everything is so damn cheap in america. Norway, Europe`s richest country, doesn`t have a minimum wage but I don`t think it`s possible to make less than 15-20 dollars per hour at any normal job. But then again things are much more expensive and 25-30% of the paycheck is taken in taxes.

You have it much better than most other comparable countries.

"Hardly pay any taxes?" I'd love to see the reasoning behind that.

Also, that was some interesting math. $15/hr after taking out 30% is still $10.50/hr -- almost double our minimum wage -- and you'd get healthcare coverage, which is most certainly something you DON'T have in the U.S.

 

[Gregory]

"Hardly pay any taxes?" I'd love to see the reasoning behind that.

Also, that was some interesting math. $15/hr after taking out 30% is still $10.50/hr -- almost double our minimum wage -- and you'd get healthcare coverage, which is most certainly something you DON'T have in the U.S.

Yeah, but gas, food and general living expenses is propably twice as high, atleast. 1 US gallon of gas costs 5-6 dollars for example.

 

[Gregory]

Who in this thread actually makes minimum wage?

So if McDonald's now has to pay McJoe a few more dollars an hour, where is that going to come from? It's not like McDonald's is going to WANT to lose more money. They're going to even it out somehow, most likely with charging the consumer more.

Minimum wages means you get minimum workers. The guy behind the counter or the register is only to do the bare minimum to keep his job and not get fired, raising the minimum wage will only make him that much more discouraged from actually going out and trying to get a well paying job where he'll actually have to work to bring in any serious amount of money.

Nobody, I`m sure. And I`m also sure they wouldn`t pay a dollar more in taxes so that the minimum wage could increase.
Gotta have those cheap Walmart goods!

 

[Shouta]

You'd think that with a higher minimum wage, employers would be more finicky with workers and be more motivated to keep the better workers happy. What you think isn't what always is the case though.

 

[Mandark]

Matlock:

No, Santorum's plan was a bunch of santorum, for the reasons listed by Nathan Newman. His bill would increase the minimum wage for 1.2 million workers, but remove minimum wage and overtime laws for 6.8 million workers, among other things.

You're also overstating the inflationary effect of a minimum wage hike. An immediate, unphased doubling of the rate would surely have consequences, but there's no reason to think that Kennedy's proposal would have had any worse consequences than the Clinton hike.

Also, the minimum wage has fallen relative not only to GDP growth, but relative to median income. Median income has kept up with inflation over the last 40 years, and mean income has outstripped inflation. When the mean is growing faster than the median, you can guess what's happening, which is basically what Loki's been saying about the upper crust.

Casual observation? This wasn't just a casual observation and connection. I talked to a few mangers around here and they each said when a position opens they get a lot of applicants and that if it were cost effective, they'd have more positions.

Data is not the plural of anecdote.

Gregory: People making minimum wage still have to pay payroll taxes on their income, as well as sales taxes, which generally are regressive in practice.

Hero: Corporate profits are outgrowing wages, especially in the most recent recovery.

And there's a point where using poverty as a leverage against unskilled workers is distasteful. Especially when nobody has figured out an economic model that doesn't involve several million of them.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Who owns their own small business here?

 

[Drinky Crow]

My brother does. He's more liberal than ol' Raoul Duke, here.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Okay I was going to make a point that some small businesses need the minimum wage for their business to grow. But apparently that doesn't apply to your brother :lol

 

[Matlock]

words about santorum

I was speaking more of the number than any of the other things in his plan.

 

[Dracor]

I'll try and answer your Q Loki, though I wouldn't call myself a "fiscal conservative" I'll give it a chance.

I think some economists would argue that labor supply has expanded much more then labor demand over the last 50 years. Women (and a lesser part to increased immigration) have become a big part of the workforce since then and have added much more competition to the supply side. The labor market is a market just like the goods market/money market/etc, and an increase in supply, which exceeds the increase in demand, would lead to a lower wage. If the minimum wage stayed at a proportionally similar rate to the 1950 rate, the current unemployment rate would (theoretically) be much larger today... disregarding other economic factors which effect wage.

So, the reason the rate has not kept up with inflation is that; throughout the last 50 years, there is an increasing consensus among economists that things like minimum wages, rent control... all have an overall negative effect on the economy. So because the consensus has been slowly increasing over the years, rather then instant, the changes in the minimum wage represent this. Also, minimum wage is a touchy subject; to lower or abolish it would probably mean you wouldn’t be in office much longer. So to ignore it and let inflation take care of its adverse effects solves this scenario.

 

[cubanb]

I'll try and answer your Q Loki, though I wouldn't call myself a "fiscal conservative" I'll give it a chance.

I think some economists would argue that labor supply has expanded much more then labor demand over the last 50 years. Women (and a lesser part to increased immigration) have become a big part of the workforce since then and have added much more competition to the supply side. The labor market is a market just like the goods market/money market/etc, and an increase in supply, which exceeds the increase in demand, would lead to a lower wage.

not to mention all the manufactering jobs that went overseas since the 50s