Living Wage
Replies
-
What are you talking about? Norway and the Netherlands in particular are socialist and they rank higher than the US. I'm a bit puzzled about Australia, though. Never seen it ranked so high. Come to think of it, never seen the US ranked so high before either, and I check these standard of living type stats regularly.
1 Norway 0.943 81.1 12.6 17.3 47,557 6 0.975
2 Australia 0.929 81.9 12.0 18.0 34,431 16 0.979
3 Netherlands 0.910 80.7 11.6 b 16.8 36,402 9 0.944
4 United States 0.910 78.5 12.4 16.0 43,017 6 0.931
You said much of Europe ranks higher then the US and I linked that document to prove otherwise. In fact, only Norway ranks higher then the US from Europe. Netherlands has the same ranking as the US but it starts with an N so it appears first in the list. There is this little thing called the European debt crisis... You know that thing where European nations thought they could pay for everything for their citizens on credit and got called on it (which may eventually happen here ;p)
Norway has a population of 5 million people. The US has a population of 320 million people. Apples and Oranges...
Like I said, it took me by surprise. I have never seen the US ranked so high. It's usually down in the teens.
What does population have to do with it again? The US is huge with many natural resources and last I heard we're the most productive nation on Earth. We should have it better than Norway, not worse.
And again, back on the real topic:
Please explain why you want your tax dollars to go to food stamps for full time workers so that employers can pay less than a living wage?
Population has everything to do with it. Problems become harder to manage when they become larger. I think we can agree that poverty exists everywhere. Lets assume both countries have 10% poverty. Norway has to take care of 500k people whereas the US would have to take care of 30 million people. In addition to the basic needs both countries have to provide for they also have to deal with administration and corruption. By those number the US will have 60 times the administrative costs and 60 times the cost due to corruption.
Your second question is loaded. You are basing it on your assumption that the money will come out of the greedy corporation's coffers. The reality is the cost will be passed to the consumer in higher prices. So what you are really asking me is do I want current taxes with current prices or do I want current taxes (because the money saved on food stamps will get reappropriated for something else) with higher prices. It's a pretty easy choice.
I can see your point about population, but there are more people to support those not working as well as more people not working, so I'll have to think about that one before I concede completely.
As for my second point: I will repeat. If corporations want to do business in a society they should expect to cause no harm. Which means no, they should not be allowed to pass the costs on to consumers and yes, they can be stopped from doing so.
It is no different from stopping me from running a Ponzi scheme, going 150 miles an hour on the freeway, or polluting my neighborhood by creating some foul substance. Or dealing drugs for that matter. Also there are reasonable laws against monopolies.
Societies can and do create laws to prevent people and groups of people from causing harm and there is no reason they can't tell a company, "If you want to do business here you will pay a living wage and you will not spike your prices to compensate. In addition, it's time to put some serious restrictions on outsourcing and on companies that sell goods made in sweat shops. Which will also show that the US respects human rights (it doesn't of course, but it's time it did).
Do I think any of this is as simple and easy to implement as I portray it? Hell no. But it's worth doing.0 -
Okay I've thought about your claim that more people means more waste due to more corruption. Norway for one is far more socialized than the US, therefore their government has its fingers in far more pies, so to speak. So why aren't they more corrupt and therefore wasting more than the US and therefore suffering a lower standard of living?
Also, if you are worried about corruption you should really be worried about corporate money in politics and also about the amount of foodstamps, public housing, and healthcare required for people who work yet don't make a living wage. These are a recipe for corruption.
Now don't get me wrong, I think our country is corrupt as hell, it's rotten to the core. It may well be part of the reason our standard of living is lower than Norway's. But it's not because our population is bigger. It's because our government is just more corrupt. Although I grant you, as James Madison knew very well, it is much harder for a people to control its government when there is a large, dispersed population. He liked it that way, in fact. The so called founding fathers were terrified of democracy.
I however am not.
Also, if a living wage is impossible because inflation will drive up prices due to companies having to pay a living wage, how does the Netherlands manage to pay a living wage? How does Norway manage to keep its unions so strong that they don't even need a minimum wage?0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.
Then they can't do business here. No more American consumer dollars for them.
Your arguments, although entertaining, are not based in reality. North Korea might be what you are looking for..
Is that a corollary to Godwin's Law?
Gangnam's Law, perhaps?0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.
Then they can't do business here. No more American consumer dollars for them.
Your arguments, although entertaining, are not based in reality. North Korea might be what you are looking for..
Is that a corollary to Godwin's Law?
Gangnam's Law, perhaps?
Pretty sure he's South Korean, but still! :laugh:0 -
Okay I've thought about your claim that more people means more waste due to more corruption. Norway for one is far more socialized than the US, therefore their government has its fingers in far more pies, so to speak. So why aren't they more corrupt and therefore wasting more than the US and therefore suffering a lower standard of living?
Also, if you are worried about corruption you should really be worried about corporate money in politics and also about the amount of foodstamps, public housing, and healthcare required for people who work yet don't make a living wage. These are a recipe for corruption.
Now don't get me wrong, I think our country is corrupt as hell, it's rotten to the core. It may well be part of the reason our standard of living is lower than Norway's. But it's not because our population is bigger. It's because our government is just more corrupt. Although I grant you, as James Madison knew very well, it is much harder for a people to control its government when there is a large, dispersed population. He liked it that way, in fact. The so called founding fathers were terrified of democracy.
I however am not.
Also, if a living wage is impossible because inflation will drive up prices due to companies having to pay a living wage, how does the Netherlands manage to pay a living wage? How does Norway manage to keep its unions so strong that they don't even need a minimum wage?
Ugh.. there are so many reasons why bigger leads to more spending other then corruption. Administration costs are higher, fraud costs are higher... In addition, public assistance comes out of the greater pool of the country's total budget. If you spend your money other things less money goes back to the people. Norway spends a fraction of their budget on the military... Something like 6 billion USD per year. They basically spend about 2% of their annual budget on military spending. Could you imagine how much the US could do for people if they cut the military budget in half?
The US is also a larger country by area. Infrastructure costs for Norway are MUCH lower then the US just based on area of coverage. Again you have larger administrative, fraud, and corruption costs that gets added to the US cost for infrastructure.Also, if a living wage is impossible because inflation will drive up prices due to companies having to pay a living wage, how does the Netherlands manage to pay a living wage?
Here are the prices in Norway. The actual cost of living there is very high. Could these costs be driven by the state artificially boosting wages??
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Norway&displayCurrency=USD0 -
Also....."they can be forced to" ????
No, they would just leave.
Then they can't do business here. No more American consumer dollars for them.
Your arguments, although entertaining, are not based in reality. North Korea might be what you are looking for..
Is that a corollary to Godwin's Law?
Gangnam's Law, perhaps?
Damn you are right haha... I always try to avoid being that guy.
It appears Norway would be what Mara is looking for.. I have been to Norway and it is absolutely gorgeous. The work environment there was amazing and the downtime was very relaxing. Everything did cost more then I was used to but the company paid for it so it's all good! I don't think I would want to live there but I would definitely go back.0 -
Okay I've thought about your claim that more people means more waste due to more corruption. Norway for one is far more socialized than the US, therefore their government has its fingers in far more pies, so to speak. So why aren't they more corrupt and therefore wasting more than the US and therefore suffering a lower standard of living?
Also, if you are worried about corruption you should really be worried about corporate money in politics and also about the amount of foodstamps, public housing, and healthcare required for people who work yet don't make a living wage. These are a recipe for corruption.
Now don't get me wrong, I think our country is corrupt as hell, it's rotten to the core. It may well be part of the reason our standard of living is lower than Norway's. But it's not because our population is bigger. It's because our government is just more corrupt. Although I grant you, as James Madison knew very well, it is much harder for a people to control its government when there is a large, dispersed population. He liked it that way, in fact. The so called founding fathers were terrified of democracy.
I however am not.
Also, if a living wage is impossible because inflation will drive up prices due to companies having to pay a living wage, how does the Netherlands manage to pay a living wage? How does Norway manage to keep its unions so strong that they don't even need a minimum wage?
Ugh.. there are so many reasons why bigger leads to more spending other then corruption. Administration costs are higher, fraud costs are higher... In addition, public assistance comes out of the greater pool of the country's total budget. If you spend your money other things less money goes back to the people. Norway spends a fraction of their budget on the military... Something like 6 billion USD per year. They basically spend about 2% of their annual budget on military spending. Could you imagine how much the US could do for people if they cut the military budget in half?
The US is also a larger country by area. Infrastructure costs for Norway are MUCH lower then the US just based on area of coverage. Again you have larger administrative, fraud, and corruption costs that gets added to the US cost for infrastructure.Also, if a living wage is impossible because inflation will drive up prices due to companies having to pay a living wage, how does the Netherlands manage to pay a living wage?
Here are the prices in Norway. The actual cost of living there is very high. Could these costs be driven by the state artificially boosting wages??
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Norway&displayCurrency=USD
Yes, the cost of living is high. But that doesn't stop them from having a better quality of life than we do.
Administrative costs? You're going to have to back that claim up with some data. Anyway, my hope is that soon we will need less public assistance because workers will get a living wage (hint, it ain't 9 dollars an hour in most places, no matter what the pocket change president claims) and no longer need tax dollars to fill the gap.
Also I did a bit more homework and guess what? There is a second index where the US ranks much lower. It's from the same report, and here is the explanation:
Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI)
Reflecting inequality in each dimension of the HDI addresses an objective first stated in the Human Development Report 1990. The 2010 Report introduced the Inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI), a measure of the level of human development of people in a society that accounts for inequality. Under perfect equality the IHDI is equal to the HDI, but falls below the HDI when inequality rises. In this sense, the IHDI is the actual level of human development (taking into account inequality), while the HDI can be viewed as an index of the potential human development that could be achieved if there is no inequality. The IHDI accounts for inequality in HDI dimensions by “discounting” each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality measured by the Atkinson index. We apply this index to 134 countries.
Norway 0.890 (Steady)
Australia 0.856 (Steady)
Sweden 0.851 (Increase 5)
Netherlands 0.846 (Decrease 1)
Iceland 0.845 (Increase 5)
Ireland 0.843 (Steady)
Germany 0.842 (Steady)
Denmark 0.842 (Increase 4)
Switzerland 0.840 (Steady)
Slovenia 0.837 (Increase 7)
Finland 0.833 (Increase 7)
Canada 0.829 (Decrease 7)
Czech Republic 0.821 (Increase 9)
Austria 0.820 (Increase 1)
Belgium 0.819 (Decrease 1)
France 0.804 (Steady)
Spain 0.799 (Decrease 2)
Luxembourg 0.799 (Increase 3)
United Kingdom 0.791 (Increase 4)
Slovakia 0.787 (Increase 7)
Israel 0.779 (Decrease 8)
Italy 0.779 (Decrease 2)
United States 0.771 (Decrease 19)
We have some serious room for improvement to catch up to 22 other countries.0 -
Just want to add my 2 cents regarding a living wage.
I live in an economically depressed area. We used to have a lot of manufacturing facilities that paid good wages. That elevated the lifestyle of many in my area. People could afford decent houses, newer cars, occassional vacations, cable tv, etc. When the economy went belly up, so did many employers. Now, the starting wages are closer to $8-9/hr than the $13-14/hr that they used to be. And there aren't as many employers. That makes a huge impact on lifestyle. It's been a big adjustment for a lot of people. Currently, 73% of children in our school system qualify for free/reduced lunches. Numerous churches and organizations operate food pantries. Social service organizations are overwhelmed and there has been a significant rise in crime.
I work in law enforcement, and I can tell you that we house about 30% more inmates in the local jail than we did 8-9 years ago. We have huge drug problems. And the town looks like crap, as no one spends money to keep up their property.
We see the same people in and out of jail all the time. Why? Because they can't get a job that pays as much as they make from their criminal activities. And jobs are scare anyway....even more so when you have a record. So, they go back to stealing scrap metal and selling it for cash, dealing drugs, cooking meth, breaking into abandoned houses and ripping out the copper wiring, robbing people of their jewelry and valuables. And they get welfare benefits too. The welfare benefits received by individuals in my area far exceed that of surrounding counties. We pay out a lot of food stamps, housing vouchers, TANF, and general welfare checks (not to mention disability checks....people who have the ability bar hop on a Saturday night somehow don't have the ability to work).
At the same time, our tax base is lower so the budget can't cover the needed increase for more officers. We are expected to do more with less money. It makes for a tricky situation.
Would a higher wage solve some of these problems? Maybe. But it's bigger than that. The school system has to encourage the next generation to excel, despite their hunger and home life disadvantages. The community has to offer resources so ex-criminals can rebuild their life instead of returning to crime. The city has to find a way to involve people and make them proud of their home and property. And we have to get people off drugs.
Higher wages are great, but without the desire for change from the populace. It's simply more complex than raising the minimum wage.0 -
Just want to add my 2 cents regarding a living wage.
I live in an economically depressed area. We used to have a lot of manufacturing facilities that paid good wages. That elevated the lifestyle of many in my area. People could afford decent houses, newer cars, occassional vacations, cable tv, etc. When the economy went belly up, so did many employers. Now, the starting wages are closer to $8-9/hr than the $13-14/hr that they used to be. And there aren't as many employers. That makes a huge impact on lifestyle. It's been a big adjustment for a lot of people. Currently, 73% of children in our school system qualify for free/reduced lunches. Numerous churches and organizations operate food pantries. Social service organizations are overwhelmed and there has been a significant rise in crime.
I work in law enforcement, and I can tell you that we house about 30% more inmates in the local jail than we did 8-9 years ago. We have huge drug problems. And the town looks like crap, as no one spends money to keep up their property.
We see the same people in and out of jail all the time. Why? Because they can't get a job that pays as much as they make from their criminal activities. And jobs are scare anyway....even more so when you have a record. So, they go back to stealing scrap metal and selling it for cash, dealing drugs, cooking meth, breaking into abandoned houses and ripping out the copper wiring, robbing people of their jewelry and valuables. And they get welfare benefits too. The welfare benefits received by individuals in my area far exceed that of surrounding counties. We pay out a lot of food stamps, housing vouchers, TANF, and general welfare checks (not to mention disability checks....people who have the ability bar hop on a Saturday night somehow don't have the ability to work).
At the same time, our tax base is lower so the budget can't cover the needed increase for more officers. We are expected to do more with less money. It makes for a tricky situation.
Would a higher wage solve some of these problems? Maybe. But it's bigger than that. The school system has to encourage the next generation to excel, despite their hunger and home life disadvantages. The community has to offer resources so ex-criminals can rebuild their life instead of returning to crime. The city has to find a way to involve people and make them proud of their home and property. And we have to get people off drugs.
Higher wages are great, but without the desire for change from the populace. It's simply more complex than raising the minimum wage.
Good points. I'm surprised that nowhere in your post did I read, "And the jobs got outsourced." I'm surprised because a lot of good jobs were outsourced here. And that is the elephant in the room when it comes to wages. If we continue allowing manufacturers to outsource the jobs and then sell their products here, they'll keep doing it, at least until none of us can afford them.
We are supposedly the most productive country on Earth, but at the rate the manufacturing jobs are going overseas our entire production will be based on asking each other if we want fries with that.
Also, law enforcement doesn't get paid enough, forcing them to moonlight too many hours, which is unfair and dangerous to everyone.0 -
PROPOSITION: Governments should guarantee their citizens a living wage.
Yes? No? Thoughts?
I find it interesting how this general question has become about the American government, rather than any other. I was already planning on discussing this issue with my Chinese pupils with English as an Additional Language, using the recent formation of a fairly elected union in an iPhone factory in China as a catalyst to discussion. The unionisation is coming about because of the publicity surrounding suicides at the factory, due essentially to low wages, although the percentage of suicides is, in fact, lower than in other Chinese factories. My essay question for them will be something along the lines of 'Consumers should be willing to pay more for goods so that workers have a living wage'. I won't be telling them what to think, and they both study economics, so it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Personally, I do believe the power is with the consumer, wherever the factory may be. When they abolished child labour it was the parents of the children who were up in arms, worried about where the money was going to come from to live. Governments can add to consumer pressure, as voters and lobbyists pressure them, but money talks loudest.
A government does not want starving children on its conscience. This used to mean workhouses in the UK, it meant splitting up families because there were too many children, it meant sending children as slaves to the colonies. No one wants to go back there. However, it should be worse not to work than it is to work, and here in the UK the difference can be minimal. I know people who've turned down jobs because they'd have to take the bus to the next town and sitting at home is just do much easier, while the government supports them using my taxes (we don't have food stamps here either, so that support is mainly cash and cheap housing). It should be worse to be out of work than in work, and one way to ensure that is to make sure that people in work are paid properly, or the government brings their income up in some other way. There should be some form of carrot, because if you beat someone with a stick when they're down, they just sink lower.0 -
hmm.0
-
hmm.
Insightful.0 -
Higher wages are great, but without the desire for change from the populace. It's simply more complex than raising the minimum wage.
A higher minimum wage will only exacerbate the problems you have now, because the people whose labor is worth the least are the ones priced out of the labor market when the minimum wage is increased.0 -
Good points. I'm surprised that nowhere in your post did I read, "And the jobs got outsourced." I'm surprised because a lot of good jobs were outsourced here. And that is the elephant in the room when it comes to wages. If we continue allowing manufacturers to outsource the jobs and then sell their products here, they'll keep doing it, at least until none of us can afford them.
We are supposedly the most productive country on Earth, but at the rate the manufacturing jobs are going overseas our entire production will be based on asking each other if we want fries with that.
Also, law enforcement doesn't get paid enough, forcing them to moonlight too many hours, which is unfair and dangerous to everyone.
Not all manufacturing jobs go overseas. A lot of them come down South, where right-to-work laws make it cheaper for companies to manufacture goods.0 -
Good points. I'm surprised that nowhere in your post did I read, "And the jobs got outsourced." I'm surprised because a lot of good jobs were outsourced here. And that is the elephant in the room when it comes to wages. If we continue allowing manufacturers to outsource the jobs and then sell their products here, they'll keep doing it, at least until none of us can afford them.
We are supposedly the most productive country on Earth, but at the rate the manufacturing jobs are going overseas our entire production will be based on asking each other if we want fries with that.
Also, law enforcement doesn't get paid enough, forcing them to moonlight too many hours, which is unfair and dangerous to everyone.
Not all manufacturing jobs go overseas. A lot of them come down South, where right-to-work laws make it cheaper for companies to manufacture goods.
I live in the south. Most of the jobs have already gone overseas, and especially ever since Clinton opened up trade with China there haven't been enough decent jobs to go around even though we have no unions, no workers rights, and a lot of workers are temp workers with little or no benefits.
It sucks here, too.0 -
It's easier and a lot less work if I were to live off of government benefits. My husband's ex has 4 children and works at a hotel at the front desk with a salaried position making around $22k. They receive $500 a month in food stamps ($6000/year), housing assistance of $400 a month ($4800 a year), child care assistance of $$350 a month ($4200/year), EIC on their tax return of $8000/year and child support of $145 a month ($1740/year). Total all of these numbers up and she "makes" $46,740 a year. (She also lives in a bigger house than we do and drives a nicer car.) That's more than some people that actually have to work for a living. That $46k also doesn't include the money that her husband receives for working jobs that pay in cash if he works (but that's a rant for another day).
I don't think raising the minimum wage is really going to help. You have to have people that actually want to work. We have to instill in our young people that they are not entitled to any benefits. Start cutting back on the government benefits. Quit allowing the people that keep having children to receive more benefits. Start drug testing people and do random drugs tests, as well, for those that are on public assistance.0 -
Societies can and do create laws to prevent people and groups of people from causing harm and there is no reason they can't tell a company, "If you want to do business here you will pay a living wage and you will not spike your prices to compensate.
Societies HAVE done this. And what is the result? Societies where most citizens work for the government because private businesses no longer have any incentive to continue existing. THAT is slavery. Friedrich Hayek warned us about this. The Road to Serfdom. Read it.
I think you missed the memo about America having a free market economy. It is not a corporation's job to ensure that its employees live comfortable lifestyles, and it certainly not the government's. That's freedom ... to make as much money as you can by working as hard as you can and making smart decisions with your time and money. Our economy would come to a screeching halt if the incentive to work hard were removed by the government and replaced with some system where elected officials decide what is "fair."
If you don't think the company you work for pays you enough, demand more money, and have the balls to quit if they don't agree to it. If enough employees decide they don't make enough money and are willing to quit their jobs over it, then the company will either raise its wages or go out of business. As long as there is a competent person willing to do the job for less than you, don't blame the company.0 -
How about getting a job (or jobs) that pay the bill instead of letting the fubar governement pay for everything?? I have 3 jobs (temporary until I pay the house off), but I don't want anything from the government. I'm so tired of people "the non-contributors" in this fubar country feeling entitled to 'free stuff'. They are the reason our country has gone to ****.0
-
Societies can and do create laws to prevent people and groups of people from causing harm and there is no reason they can't tell a company, "If you want to do business here you will pay a living wage and you will not spike your prices to compensate.
Societies HAVE done this. And what is the result? Societies where most citizens work for the government because private businesses no longer have any incentive to continue existing. THAT is slavery. Friedrich Hayek warned us about this. The Road to Serfdom. Read it.
I think you missed the memo about America having a free market economy. It is not a corporation's job to ensure that its employees live comfortable lifestyles, and it certainly not the government's. That's freedom ... to make as much money as you can by working as hard as you can and making smart decisions with your time and money. Our economy would come to a screeching halt if the incentive to work hard were removed by the government and replaced with some system where elected officials decide what is "fair."
If you don't think the company you work for pays you enough, demand more money, and have the balls to quit if they don't agree to it. If enough employees decide they don't make enough money and are willing to quit their jobs over it, then the company will either raise its wages or go out of business. As long as there is a competent person willing to do the job for less than you, don't blame the company.
If you want to keep living in a society where not only do most people not get to keep the fruit of their own labor (that is what capitalism is all about, after all, profiting from the work someone else does) but where workers don't even get paid a wage that covers their basic needs, fine by me, but I don't.
You object to taxes and restrictions that take away from business owners and investors in order to create better societies and better lives for workers. Well I object as a worker to losing even one more dime of my labor for a corporation's profit. No more!
One more thing: When I do finally get a business up and running and profiting, I'm not going to be a whiny self-entitled brat that cheats my workers and refuses to pay taxes in whatever society makes my business profitable.
As the Old Testament puts it: Do not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain.0 -
If you want to keep living in a society where not only do most people not get to keep the fruit of their own labor (that is what capitalism is all about, after all, profiting from the work someone else does) but where workers don't even get paid a wage that covers their basic needs, fine by me, but I don't.
You object to taxes and restrictions that take away from business owners and investors in order to create better societies and better lives for workers. Well I object as a worker to losing even one more dime of my labor for a corporation's profit. No more!
The bolded part above just makes me shake my head. Firms are supposed to make a profit in a capitalist system. Those profits are the rewards for the risks business owners take to start/operate the business. If there was no incentive for profit, there would be very few firms, and thus much fewer jobs.
Also, workers in a capitalist system are left better off, because the alternative to working is not working, which doesn't exactly pay the bills. Unfortunately, the workers who have the greatest need for jobs these days - entry-level and lower-skilled workers - are the exact ones priced out of the system due to restrictive minimum wage and prevailing wage laws.0 -
If you want to keep living in a society where not only do most people not get to keep the fruit of their own labor (that is what capitalism is all about, after all, profiting from the work someone else does) but where workers don't even get paid a wage that covers their basic needs, fine by me, but I don't.
You object to taxes and restrictions that take away from business owners and investors in order to create better societies and better lives for workers. Well I object as a worker to losing even one more dime of my labor for a corporation's profit. No more!
The bolded part above just makes me shake my head. Firms are supposed to make a profit in a capitalist system. Those profits are the rewards for the risks business owners take to start/operate the business. If there was no incentive for profit, there would be very few firms, and thus much fewer jobs.
Also, workers in a capitalist system are left better off, because the alternative to working is not working, which doesn't exactly pay the bills. Unfortunately, the workers who have the greatest need for jobs these days - entry-level and lower-skilled workers - are the exact ones priced out of the system due to restrictive minimum wage and prevailing wage laws.
Don't get me wrong, I'm for limited capitalism. But I am not for free market capitalism, it is as extreme as communism, and communism doesn't work either.
Companies should never be permitted to harm the societies they do business in by burdening tax payers and they do burden tax payers when they refuse to pay a living wage, outsource jobs, and buy products from sweat shops.
What I don't get is why people who are never upset about losing the majority of the value of their labor to investors and business owners are furious about paying taxes.0 -
Companies should never be permitted to harm the societies they do business in by burdening tax payers and they do burden tax payers when they refuse to pay a living wage, outsource jobs, and buy products from sweat shops.
Corporations will pay as little as they can to maximize profits. As long as there are people willing to work for nothing that is what they will be paid. With regards to outsourcing jobs and buying products from sweat shops.. You can blame the consumer that wants to and is willing to pay less for those items then more expensive items made in this country. In fact, given the opportunity most people will chose the less expensive item made in a different country. Are you suggesting a consumer's freedom of choice (or lack of freedom) should be limited to American made products only? I don't think the European countries you are so fond of would limit their citizens to only purchase items made in their home countries.
If the government mandated a "living wage" (whatever that is) which is higher then the current minimum wage the only effect would be the poverty line would go up. Everyone would have more money but everything would cost more so the net effect would be zero.0 -
Companies should never be permitted to harm the societies they do business in by burdening tax payers and they do burden tax payers when they refuse to pay a living wage, outsource jobs, and buy products from sweat shops.
Corporations will pay as little as they can to maximize profits. As long as there are people willing to work for nothing that is what they will be paid. With regards to outsourcing jobs and buying products from sweat shops.. You can blame the consumer that wants to and is willing to pay less for those items then more expensive items made in this country. In fact, given the opportunity most people will chose the less expensive item made in a different country. Are you suggesting a consumer's freedom of choice (or lack of freedom) should be limited to American made products only? I don't think the European countries you are so fond of would limit their citizens to only purchase items made in their home countries.
If the government mandated a "living wage" (whatever that is) which is higher then the current minimum wage the only effect would be the poverty line would go up. Everyone would have more money but everything would cost more so the net effect would be zero.
You're right, companies will get away with anything they can to make profits. But societies don't have to allow it. You are wrong that outsourcing means cheaper goods. Last time I checked a pair of Nikes made in Indonesia cost well over $100 because people want that brand name.
Other countries manage to pay a living wage and control inflation much better than we do. We should emulate their policies. But we already had this discussion. I say limit what businesses can do if they want to do business in America. Period. You don't like the idea or think it will work.0 -
Companies should never be permitted to harm the societies they do business in by burdening tax payers and they do burden tax payers when they refuse to pay a living wage, outsource jobs, and buy products from sweat shops.
Corporations will pay as little as they can to maximize profits. As long as there are people willing to work for nothing that is what they will be paid. With regards to outsourcing jobs and buying products from sweat shops.. You can blame the consumer that wants to and is willing to pay less for those items then more expensive items made in this country. In fact, given the opportunity most people will chose the less expensive item made in a different country. Are you suggesting a consumer's freedom of choice (or lack of freedom) should be limited to American made products only? I don't think the European countries you are so fond of would limit their citizens to only purchase items made in their home countries.
If the government mandated a "living wage" (whatever that is) which is higher then the current minimum wage the only effect would be the poverty line would go up. Everyone would have more money but everything would cost more so the net effect would be zero.
You're right, companies will get away with anything they can to make profits. But societies don't have to allow it. You are wrong that outsourcing means cheaper goods. Last time I checked a pair of Nikes made in Indonesia cost well over $100 because people want that brand name.
Other countries manage to pay a living wage and control inflation much better than we do. We should emulate their policies. But we already had this discussion. I say limit what businesses can do if they want to do business in America. Period. You don't like the idea or think it will work.
ya we just disagree
I am ok with that. 0 -
Companies should never be permitted to harm the societies they do business in by burdening tax payers and they do burden tax payers when they refuse to pay a living wage, outsource jobs, and buy products from sweat shops.
Corporations will pay as little as they can to maximize profits. As long as there are people willing to work for nothing that is what they will be paid. With regards to outsourcing jobs and buying products from sweat shops.. You can blame the consumer that wants to and is willing to pay less for those items then more expensive items made in this country. In fact, given the opportunity most people will chose the less expensive item made in a different country. Are you suggesting a consumer's freedom of choice (or lack of freedom) should be limited to American made products only? I don't think the European countries you are so fond of would limit their citizens to only purchase items made in their home countries.
If the government mandated a "living wage" (whatever that is) which is higher then the current minimum wage the only effect would be the poverty line would go up. Everyone would have more money but everything would cost more so the net effect would be zero.
You're right, companies will get away with anything they can to make profits. But societies don't have to allow it. You are wrong that outsourcing means cheaper goods. Last time I checked a pair of Nikes made in Indonesia cost well over $100 because people want that brand name.
Other countries manage to pay a living wage and control inflation much better than we do. We should emulate their policies. But we already had this discussion. I say limit what businesses can do if they want to do business in America. Period. You don't like the idea or think it will work.
ya we just disagree I am ok with that.
Me too, I've had fun with this, you actually made me go do some research and read up on some numbers! That doesn't happen very often. :drinker:0 -
If you want to keep living in a society where not only do most people not get to keep the fruit of their own labor (that is what capitalism is all about, after all, profiting from the work someone else does) but where workers don't even get paid a wage that covers their basic needs, fine by me, but I don't.
You object to taxes and restrictions that take away from business owners and investors in order to create better societies and better lives for workers. Well I object as a worker to losing even one more dime of my labor for a corporation's profit. No more!
The bolded part above just makes me shake my head. Firms are supposed to make a profit in a capitalist system. Those profits are the rewards for the risks business owners take to start/operate the business. If there was no incentive for profit, there would be very few firms, and thus much fewer jobs.
Also, workers in a capitalist system are left better off, because the alternative to working is not working, which doesn't exactly pay the bills. Unfortunately, the workers who have the greatest need for jobs these days - entry-level and lower-skilled workers - are the exact ones priced out of the system due to restrictive minimum wage and prevailing wage laws.
I agree with parts of your statements about the risk/reward aspect of capitalism, but I think it is overly simplistic to look at our current economy this way and I think the issue of valuing "capital" vs "labor" is a dynamic and ongoing one. And I also think that the concept of "risk" has changed substantially in recent years.
It is somewhat of a "chicken/egg" argument, in that one can assert that without someone to provide the capital, start the business and take the risk, there would be no jobs to have. Conversely, one can also argue that, without labor, the new, shiny business cannot function, therefore labor is an integral part of the business, and thus deserves to share in the profits of the business in some way.
(I also think, as I often like to say, that we must define our terms--or at least be upfront about perspectives. I am approaching more from the perspective of a larger business. For a smaller, or start-up business, I think the conditions are different).
Again, I agree that the concept of "greater risk = greater reward" is a cornerstone of a capitalist system. I have been on both sides -- as a wage earner and in management or commission sales. When I was in sales, we would sometimes have to endure some negative comments from the salaried folks because we made significantly more than they did. But I would point out that we also started every day at $0.00 and had to create ALL of our salary, whereas they were paid the same whether there was any business or not. While never a business owner, I have worked years in management positions where I had responsibilities for areas of the business that existed 24/7 whether I was there or not.
That being said, however, I am also am routinely disgusted by that part of American culture that tends to deify corporate executives and look with disgust on American laborers--even though most of us are laborers ourselves.
I don't think it is inherently undemocratic, unAmerican, or anticapitalist to support the right of workers to organize themselves and negotiate the value of their labor. It is a cost, just like any other business cost.
I understand that your statement about the importance of the profit incentive was directed at another statement. IMO, I don't see the two -- profit vs wages--as mutually exclusive. That's part of the argument as well: how should "profits" be divided? I think most of us are aware that the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker salary in a company has escalated dramatically in the past 40-50 years. In the mid-1960s, the average CEO earned about 24 times the pay of the average worker, now that ratio is described as anywhere from 300 to 380 times the pay of the average worker.
Does that mean that CEOs are now taking 18x the risk they did 50 years ago? Not hardly. So that would indicate that there are other forces at work here than just standard "capitalist risk".
Some of the forces are historic and global--the average wage of American workers has been declining for over 30 years--the ability to outsource jobs to countries paying lower wages and increased use of technology are probably two of the bigger reasons. So I am not suggesting that there is some vast conspiracy at work here.
However I do think that the rapid increase in wealth disparity and the massive transfer of wealth from the middle and working classes to the top 1% that has occurred in the last 10-15 years has seriously undermined the capitalist "risk/reward" concept you cited in your remarks. Now, CEOs and company executives routinely are given massive rewards whether they succeed or not. Executives that drive their companies into bankruptcy, cost their workers their jobs, and loot their pension and retirement funds walk away with seven, eight, and nine-figure severance packages.
In addition, companies now routinely use their financial power to influence government and the "capitalist" system, to game the system so that they cannot lose. Because of these changes, I think it is outdated to express the old bromides about the "noble" capitalist risk-takers while denigrating the workers who play a huge role in determining the success of those capitalist ventures.
I don't necessarily support the legislation of a living wage--mainly because I'm not sure it is the correct approach--but I do get the impression that many of those who oppose it have a view of the affected workers that is not dissimilar to that of a ****ensonian character when asked for another helping of gruel by an orphan. I guess that's the part I don't understand. I don't understand why people are so strongly in favor of the "race to the bottom" that is such a driving force in our economy. I don't understand why people think it is such a good thing that the only jobs available in the US should be WalMart-level positions and advocating anything else is an affront to our corporate masters.
I don't understand why you would see the only choices as "a" job--regardless of the quality--and "no job". I guess it also depends on how one views the "average worker" or the average "minimum wage" worker--as someone working hard to achieve success or as someone looking for a handout that they don't deserve.
As I said, my opinion on the actual law is kind of "meh". There is good empirical evidence that it can have some benefit, and there is good empirical evidence that suggests that it might have negative effects. Overall, given the complexity of the economy, I suspect it doesn't have much effect one way or the other.
I thought this was a reasoned analysis of the issue:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/02/is-raising-the-minimum-wage-a-good-idea-becker.html0 -
Bravo. That was a great post.0
-
Bravo. That was a great post.
I second that. But as for greater risk=greater reward, if our society lived by that, cab drivers and gas station cashiers would make far more money than your usual office worker. I know two gas station owners who were murdered and one cashier shot in the throat and one robbed at gunpoint and one whose boss was murdered on a night he was supposed to work.
So yeah. Why are they making crap money? Because our society doesn't value risk (at least not personal risk) it values education and skills and talents as well as certain personality traits. And that is fine, those things are needed and should be rewarded so people will strive.
However your average worker should not be mistreated because they lack any or all of those elements.
Because
1. It's morally wrong and essentially slavery
and
2. it encourages criminal and other antisocial behavior. I know before I'll work a dangerous cashier job again I'll work in the sex industry. Both are unpleasant, both are dangerous, guess which one pays more? Plus last cash register job I worked made me crazy, who knows, maybe being a hooker wouldn't be as awful? At least I'd be my own boss, no one taking my profit from me. Hopefully I never have to find out though.0 -
How can you have an expectation for the US government (clarifying since that's where a lot of the discussion has rested) to make sweeping changes to businesses operating in the US when a company like Walmart is so successful? Consumer dollars will always speak louder than legistlation.0
-
Bump - trying to get all of my topics to 500....0
