The Real News Network

The simple fact is that anyone demonstrating a decent amount of proficiency will soon be valuable enough to the employer to pay above the minimum wage. If your skills and efficiency have not improved to the point where an employer finds you more desirable than the next random applicant, that is not the minimum wage's fault.

College is a luxury, and largely unnecessary. Barring a handful of high level professions, most real-life skills do not require extensive formal education. If it's not something that you can read up on by yourself, there should be something called on-the-job training. The true problem is that business and industry has found out that they can shirk on training by having applicants go into debt for outside training.
 
Last edited:
Russell Street said:
The simple fact is that anyone demonstrating a decent amount of proficiency will soon be valuable enough to the employer to pay above the minimum wage. If your skills and efficiency have not improved to the point where an employer finds you more desirable than the next random applicant, that is not the minimum wage's fault.

College is a luxury, and largely unnecessary. Barring a handful of high level professions, most real-life skills do not require extensive formal education. If it's not something that you can read up on by yourself, there should be something called on-the-job training. The true problem is that business and industry has found out that they can shirk on training by having applicants go into debt for outside training.
Click to expand...
But this flies out the window when you're talking about the lowest rung of employment such as janitorial work or fast food work. Those people are all just smart enough to push the required buttons or do the required tasks, and just dumb enough not to complain. There is really no hope for them and the sad fact is, most new jobs are of this type.
 
Rambo said:
But this flies out the window when you're talking about the lowest rung of employment such as janitorial work or fast food work.
Click to expand...
I have no firsthand experience because they never hired me, but my understanding is that turnaround is high and anyone that sticks with it and isn't a total dullard finds themselves getting bumped up to supervisor positions in a few months.
The bottom rung employee will always get bottom rung wages and changing the number does not change the position. It is like adjusting the scale to lose weight. Nothing really changes.
Of course the prices of everything will go up with the nominal price increase and those with the lowest incomes, who definitively spend the highest proportion of incomes on necessities, will suffer.
And thus, raising the minimum wage hurts the poor even before some get fired or replaced by robots because they now cost too much. I'm all for people getting paid more, but it should be set by market conditions and never by the government.
 
Russell Street said:
I have no firsthand experience because they never hired me, but my understanding is that turnaround is high and anyone that sticks with it and isn't a total dullard finds themselves getting bumped up to supervisor positions in a few months.
The bottom rung employee will always get bottom rung wages and changing the number does not change the position. It is like adjusting the scale to lose weight. Nothing really changes.
Of course the prices of everything will go up with the nominal price increase and those with the lowest incomes, who definitively spend the highest proportion of incomes on necessities, will suffer.
And thus, raising the minimum wage hurts the poor even before some get fired or replaced by robots because they now cost too much. I'm all for people getting paid more, but it should be set by market conditions and never by the government.
Click to expand...
You're running two separate arguments and contradicting yourself at the same time, which is fairly impressive. First, entry level pay and workplace mobility are two completely separate issues. No one's saying that all employees on the bottom rung should have access to the higher echelons of management. Some people are just dumb and work dumb jobs. That's how it will always be. Now, as you admit, the prices of things increase, but wages have remained stagnant for decades now. Since the 70's I believe. So shouldn't we be giving these poor people more money so they don't have to suffer? Is it your contention that just because you work a low wage job your lot in life is to suffer and be unable to afford even the barest standard of living?
 
Rambo said:
So shouldn't we be giving these poor people more money so they don't have to suffer?
Click to expand...
You are free to donate whatever you like, as is any charity. The government should not interfere with business. I'm also skeptical of the 'suffering' in America. Working hard? Not having luxuries? This is not suffering.

I'd prefer unionization to foster higher wages than the government. I am aware that the minimum wage of the 60's or so translates to about $16/hr today, but that was a better economy. The way to promote business is not to incur additional costs on existing businesses, which of course get passed on to the customer.
The American populace is pretty adamant about liking cheap stuff. The ethical 'vote-with-your-dollar' lifestyle would be to shop at places that pay sustainable wages. I try, but I believe that I'm in a small minority.
 
Russell Street said:
You are free to donate whatever you like, as is any charity. The government should not interfere with business. I'm also skeptical of the 'suffering' in America. Working hard? Not having luxuries? This is not suffering.

I'd prefer unionization to foster higher wages than the government. I am aware that the minimum wage of the 60's or so translates to about $16/hr today, but that was a better economy. The way to promote business is not to incur additional costs on existing businesses, which of course get passed on to the customer.
The American populace is pretty adamant about liking cheap stuff. The ethical 'vote-with-your-dollar' lifestyle would be to shop at places that pay sustainable wages. I try, but I believe that I'm in a small minority.
Click to expand...
The government should absolutely interfere with business because, as has been shown time and time again, business will do whatever is best for it without giving a single shit about its workers. Working a full time job and still needing food stamps doesn't qualify? How about having to work two full time jobs just to be able to afford basic living?

Unionization is great, but you can look at Tennessee and the Volkswagon plant to see just how frail that fabric is. And as for the American populace loving their cheap crap, I'd bet even money that has more to do with them not being able to afford anything more expensive, rather than a shear love of its cheapness.
 
Inequality is only tangentially related to stagnancy. If the wages shares are divided up, and the portion going to one group isn't changing, yet profits are increasing, that means the money has to be flowing somewhere else.

As for the Economist link, that's the GLOBAL poverty rate, including all poors in places like China, India, and Mexico. Even with population growth, that's bound to rise as those economies explode. As for our poverty rate, at $11,500, you would only need to make $5.50 an hour to meet that. That goes to show you how out of whack our ideas of poverty are. Who the fuck could live on that?
 
Eliminate cars/expenses, phones, not undoable.

I know many students who live on less than that a year (not counting tuition expenses)
 
El Argentino said:
Eliminate cars/expenses, phones, not undoable.

I know many students who live on less than that a year (not counting tuition expenses)
Click to expand...
Of course its possible, but is this the type of society that we want to live in? Where you have to get government food stamps even though you work a full time job? Where you can't even afford to go out to eat or go to the movies? There's a reason the economy sucks...
 
El Argentino said:
You can blame a lot of those prices on democratic administrations, thank you very much.
Click to expand...
A) What do you mean?
B) No one group is exempt from blame, so that isn't exactly a discussion point.
C) Why should we thank you for pointing out something so obvious?
 
It's a democratic tactic - keep people leaching off gov't to form up your constituency. You get them dependent, and you're in office for life.

Case in point: FDR.
 
El Argentino said:
It's a democratic tactic - keep people leaching off gov't to form up your constituency. You get them dependent, and you're in office for life.

Case in point: FDR.
Click to expand...
I know you're smarter than this. I mean, I also know that law schools will accept just about anyone, but I've spoken to you before so I'm fairly confident my assessment is 87% correct.
 
FDR was the beginning of the end.

And I'm entirely serious - crack-addict tactic. It starts with a little taste, then you become dependent. Dems are trying for it w/ the US-latino population right now, even despite their naturally conservative social identity (think Italians during the Ellis Island years - catholic, family-based, hardworking).

Dispositively, there you had Italians wanting to integrate, and now you have Latinos wanting to remain a separate entity and funnel everything back south of the border. If the dems can get this new minority hooked on gov't handouts now, they'll have generations of voters keeping them in power.
 
Rambo said:
Unionization is great, but you can look at Tennessee and the Volkswagon plant to see just how frail that fabric is. And as for the American populace loving their cheap crap, I'd bet even money that has more to do with them not being able to afford anything more expensive, rather than a shear love of its cheapness.
Click to expand...
The UAW rejection is a sign that they are already being paid fairly. Look at the cars in the Wal-Mart parking lot and you'll see that the shoppers are largely not indigent by any means.
Rambo said:
Of course its possible, but is this the type of society that we want to live in? Where you have to get government food stamps even though you work a full time job?
Click to expand...
I agree here. Teddy Roosevelt spoke about this in 1912.
“We stand for a living wage…enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living – a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit a reasonable saving for our old age.”
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I have a suspicion similar to El Argentino's that a certain political segment has no interest in tapering the governmental benefits once business provides the living wage. It will be more free cell phones and childcare and EITC nonsense coming from our taxes, but now we'll all be paying more at the counter for minimum wage earners that are still relatively poor anyway.
 
This reminds me of the old Onion headline about Wal-Mart corporate headquarters being outsourced to China. But this is a truth of a service economy in the digital age - anything that can be sent overseas or done with less manpower for cheaper, will.
 
a_269_20140313170016.jpg
 
Charlie Rose tonight: Turkey has annual GDP growth of 4% currently. Germany is at .08%.

If it weren't sitting in the "Basket Case" area of the world, would probably consider moving there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom