Minimum Wage

[barbos]

This is certainly a common sentiment which gets repeated constantly. But I think it's more complicated than that. First I think, ultra-rich are necessary getting richer and richer mostly because it's the way economy structure is changing. Most money ultra-rich have are in the form of stock which since 70-80s became inflated without much connection to reality. Also there is a reality connected source of "growth" because with automation economy becomes more and more capital dependent and less dependent on labor. Take for example Intel, single factory costs them in the excess of 4-5 billion dollars and they project 20 billions eventually. Chips are getting cheaper but equipment to make them gets more expensive.
So amount of money tied to means of production which is what belongs to ultra-rich grow much faster than value of labor and this is unavoidable result of progress in technology. Capital naturally grows and accumulates whereas labor (per human) is constant.

That's pretty much what I was alluding to in my brief remark. I didn't mean to suggest that it isn't more complicated, just that there is a gross imbalance of power and that workers are not generally in a good position to negotiate income, benefits or conditions. Which may get worse with automation.

Meanwhile, the rich get richer.

My point is that people imply that it's a bad thing and rich folk are somehow responsible, when in reality it is just natural consequence of economic laws.

 

[DBT]

That's pretty much what I was alluding to in my brief remark. I didn't mean to suggest that it isn't more complicated, just that there is a gross imbalance of power and that workers are not generally in a good position to negotiate income, benefits or conditions. Which may get worse with automation.

Meanwhile, the rich get richer.

My point is that people imply that it's a bad thing and rich folk are somehow responsible, when in reality it is just natural consequence of economic laws.

That's debatable. Economic laws are inseparable from the people, those being in that position, who formulate and implement laws and regulations.

 

[barbos]

My point is that people imply that it's a bad thing and rich folk are somehow responsible, when in reality it is just natural consequence of economic laws.

That's debatable. Economic laws are inseparable from the people, those being in that position, who formulate and implement laws and regulations.

Yes, it's debatable and I would argue that most ultra-rich people are at least guilty in perpetuating unsustainable model which they inherited.
But people who starts with "rich get richer" are usually not for debates, they adopted simplistic view that rich are the ones to blame, while replacing their iPhones every year and driving 3 tonnes trucks.

 

[DBT]

That's debatable. Economic laws are inseparable from the people, those being in that position, who formulate and implement laws and regulations.

Yes, it's debatable and I would argue that most ultra-rich people are at least guilty in perpetuating unsustainable model which they inherited.
But people who starts with "rich get richer" are usually not for debates, they adopted simplistic view that rich are the ones to blame, while replacing their iPhones every year and driving 3 tonnes trucks.

Regardless of the motives for pointing it our, either the rich are getting richer or they are not. The evidence appears to supports the former, that the rich, due to a variety of reasons, are indeed getting richer while the working class are stagnating. That is the problem.

This has nothing to do with laying blame or whining, just the fact that the gap is becoming a gulf and does not appear to be sustainable in the long term, perhaps not even in the medium term, ie, the next fifty, sixty or seventy years.

 

[barbos]

Yes, it's debatable and I would argue that most ultra-rich people are at least guilty in perpetuating unsustainable model which they inherited.
But people who starts with "rich get richer" are usually not for debates, they adopted simplistic view that rich are the ones to blame, while replacing their iPhones every year and driving 3 tonnes trucks.

Regardless of the motives for pointing it our, either the rich are getting richer or they are not. The evidence appears to supports the former, that the rich, due to a variety of reasons, are indeed getting richer while the working class are stagnating. That is the problem.

This has nothing to do with laying blame or whining, just the fact that the gap is becoming a gulf and does not appear to be sustainable in the long term, perhaps not even in the medium term, ie, the next fifty, sixty or seventy years.

Forgetting for a moment about economic laws, do you really want working class getting richer? Working class would just buy bigger truck and fly farther for vacation if it gets richer. I think we should stop comparing amount of money and start comparing quality of life. And in terms of that working class have never been closer to ultra-rich than right now. Bill Gates is what? $80bil? Do you think his life that much different from ordinary well to do working class guy? Yes, there are freaks like Trump who crap into golden toilet, but for the most part ultra-rich live the same way as ordinary folks, they just pay more for everything.
Now back to the economic laws, this "rich gets richer" notion is as remarkable as "water is wet", yet it is suggested as something extraordinary in its significance. It's just a simple fact of the capitalism, it's in a word itself - "CAPITALism"
Now I agree that ultra-rich should not have that much influence over politics, but lets be honest here, ultimately US is a democracy and working class majority needs to look at themselves first.
In any case, I support 100% death tax for anything over something let say $500mil, whether or not it's possible to implement is another question.

 

[Toni]

That's pretty much what I was alluding to in my brief remark. I didn't mean to suggest that it isn't more complicated, just that there is a gross imbalance of power and that workers are not generally in a good position to negotiate income, benefits or conditions. Which may get worse with automation.

Meanwhile, the rich get richer.

My point is that people imply that it's a bad thing and rich folk are somehow responsible, when in reality it is just natural consequence of economic laws.

The fuck you say. Rich people make rules which help them get and stay rich.

You should take a look at economic data in the US over the last century, and also tax rates over the same period.

VEry cursory but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

and then there's this:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/site.../content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf

and this:

https://taxfoundation.org/us-federa...2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/

 

[barbos]

My point is that people imply that it's a bad thing and rich folk are somehow responsible, when in reality it is just natural consequence of economic laws.

The fuck you say. Rich people make rules which help them get and stay rich.

You should take a look at economic data in the US over the last century, and also tax rates over the same period.

VEry cursory but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

and then there's this:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/site.../content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf

and this:

https://taxfoundation.org/us-federa...2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/

Yes, and water is wet. You completely missed my point.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then your objection is invalid.

You're saying it's low enough not to matter.

Which has historically been the case every time the minimum wage has gone up. That it would be cease to be the case in the future is a rather extraordinary claim on your part. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Historically the data is silent.

Data cannot be silent, by definition. It CAN, however, fail to say what you want it to say, which is precisely the case here.

If 10% of the minimum wage workers were laid off there wouldn't be a hope in hell of detecting it in the noise. 20% would be marginal to detect and only possible if the layoffs happened very quickly. You would have to lay off 30% in a month in order to be noticeable.

Which is exactly my point. 10% over the course of a year isn't actually that bad of an effect; it's 202,000 workers from a labor force of over 100 million, and those who do not immediately find work would be unemployed for an average of 26 to 29 weeks. That would suck for a few of them, but it would hardly destroy the economy, nor would it plunge those workers into inescapable poverty for the rest of their lives (it's no coincidence that the average service time of a welfare recipient is also about 7 months). Same with the higher increases: it would only be detectable if it happened very quickly and in large amounts. But THAT almost never happens either; the few times it ever does, it's caused by something OTHER than a sudden increase in the minimum wage (e.g. some sort of unexpected financial crisis like the Savings and Loan panic or the Subprime Mortgage Bubble).

All the data lets us conclude is that typical minimum wage increases do not have effects of this size...

... and therefore your objection is invalid.

You are assuming that they'll find jobs just as fast with the higher minimum wage as with the lower one.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm just assuming that their period of unemployment will not be permanent, that they will find jobs eventually, and the new jobs they find will be higher than the jobs they would have had otherwise.

If you believe they will be permanently unemployed -- meaning still failing to find work even at minimum wage after 30 years -- you are going to have to provide some pretty compelling evidence for that claim.

But seeing how you have already conceded that the effects of normal min-wage increase is actually too small to measure, this is pretty much a moot point. The harm caused by the min-wage increase IS offset by the income gains for everyone else. If it wasn't so, there would be a measurable effect on the economy in terms of prices, GDP and consumer spending. The data does not reflect this either; quite the opposite, prices and consumer spending increase due to other factors and the minimum wage is almost always increased as a reaction to those very same changes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Regardless of the motives for pointing it our, either the rich are getting richer or they are not. The evidence appears to supports the former, that the rich, due to a variety of reasons, are indeed getting richer while the working class are stagnating. That is the problem.

This has nothing to do with laying blame or whining, just the fact that the gap is becoming a gulf and does not appear to be sustainable in the long term, perhaps not even in the medium term, ie, the next fifty, sixty or seventy years.

Forgetting for a moment about economic laws, do you really want working class getting richer? Working class would just buy bigger truck and fly farther for vacation if it gets richer.

While this is true, a certain number of them would also invest a lot more time and resources in their childrens' health and education, which in turn would pay dividends in their quality of life later on. Reducing the burden of medical expenses -- already soaring out of control -- would be a benefit as well. And of course, a wealthier working class would be beneficent to small business owners and local merchants who can exploit a larger and healthier customer base; a richer working class therefore means a richer middle class AND increased economic mobility for the most ambitious members of the working class, not to mention their much-better-educated children.

Now I agree that ultra-rich should not have that much influence over politics, but lets be honest here, ultimately US is a democracy

I am no longer convinced that is the case.

 

[Toni]

The fuck you say. Rich people make rules which help them get and stay rich.

You should take a look at economic data in the US over the last century, and also tax rates over the same period.

VEry cursory but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

and then there's this:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/site.../content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf

and this:

https://taxfoundation.org/us-federa...2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/

Yes, and water is wet. You completely missed my point.

You missed mine entirely.

 

[barbos]

Forgetting for a moment about economic laws, do you really want working class getting richer? Working class would just buy bigger truck and fly farther for vacation if it gets richer.

While this is true, a certain number of them would also invest a lot more time and resources in their childrens' health and education,

What would that look like exactly? Working class usually have medical insurance already. And education? sending kids to a law school so they can became a part of the problem in the future?

which in turn would pay dividends in their quality of life later on. Reducing the burden of medical expenses -- already soaring out of control -- would be a benefit as well.

This is different from paying working class more.

And of course, a wealthier working class would be beneficent to small business owners and local merchants who can exploit a larger and healthier customer base; a richer working class therefore means a richer middle class AND increased economic mobility for the most ambitious members of the working class, not to mention their much-better-educated children.

Are you running for POTUS? Cause this is meaningless enough for that.

Now I agree that ultra-rich should not have that much influence over politics, but lets be honest here, ultimately US is a democracy

I am no longer convinced that is the case.

Well, I said ultimately, in practice of course people voted for Trump, but they did. And second choice was not great either.
But ultimately it's a democracy, Trump election proves it beyond any doubt, it's just people are idiots.

 

[DBT]

Regardless of the motives for pointing it our, either the rich are getting richer or they are not. The evidence appears to supports the former, that the rich, due to a variety of reasons, are indeed getting richer while the working class are stagnating. That is the problem.

This has nothing to do with laying blame or whining, just the fact that the gap is becoming a gulf and does not appear to be sustainable in the long term, perhaps not even in the medium term, ie, the next fifty, sixty or seventy years.

Forgetting for a moment about economic laws, do you really want working class getting richer?

It has nothing to do with what I may or may not want, workers themselves say they are struggling, workers wages have in fact decreased in proportion to the incomes at the high end, CEO's, higher management, etc, including the failure to keep up with inflation, housing costs and so on, and this situation is supported by evidence.

Now, I'm sure that many if not most workers would not expect to get very rich by working, but they do expect to do better than they are currently, including putting a cap on Management Salary packages.

Simple measures to make the system more reasonable and sustainable. Corporate greed needs to be checked. They certainly don't regulate themselves, not without pressure put onto them.

 

[barbos]

Forgetting for a moment about economic laws, do you really want working class getting richer?

It has nothing to do with what I may or may not want, workers themselves say they are struggling, workers wages have in fact decreased in proportion to the incomes at the high end, CEO's, higher management, etc, including the failure to keep up with inflation, housing costs and so on, and this situation is supported by evidence.

What workers say is not objective truth. Of course they say they are struggling. CEOs are also say they are struggling.

Now, I'm sure that many if not most workers would not expect to get very rich by working, but they do expect to do better than they are currently, including putting a cap on Management Salary packages.

This is real psychology of all this. Middle class look at the money management gets and does not like it. It has nothing to do with this imaginary struggling.

Simple measures to make the system more reasonable and sustainable. Corporate greed needs to be checked. They certainly don't regulate themselves, not without pressure put onto them.

I completely agree, at it would make ordinary folk feel better, but it's unlikely to make their salaries measurably higher.

 

[DBT]

It has nothing to do with what I may or may not want, workers themselves say they are struggling, workers wages have in fact decreased in proportion to the incomes at the high end, CEO's, higher management, etc, including the failure to keep up with inflation, housing costs and so on, and this situation is supported by evidence.

What workers say is not objective truth. Of course they say they are struggling. CEOs are also say they are struggling.

Not getting a pay rise for several years while prices go up is an objective truth. Meanwhile reading about CEO salary packages with bonuses is an objective truth.

This is real psychology of all this. Middle class look at the money management gets and does not like it. It has nothing to do with this imaginary struggling.

Imaginary struggling is your claim. For people struggling to pay the mortgage while raising a family on an average working class single income it is not imaginary, the math paints its own picture.

I completely agree, at it would make ordinary folk feel better, but it's unlikely to make their salaries measurably higher.

Unlikely for several reasons, but still needs to be addressed and at least attempted and not just give up with a glib shrug of the shoulders.

 

[barbos]

What workers say is not objective truth. Of course they say they are struggling. CEOs are also say they are struggling.

Not getting a pay rise for several years while prices go up is an objective truth.

But it is not, What they say is that growth of the salaries lags inflation. And I doubt that these calculations are totally honest.
Most of the time, inflation is mainly due to few isolated bubbles like education and housing.
In reality in a long run you can't have both income stagnation and inflation, prices can't grow forever if nobody can afford it.

Meanwhile reading about CEO salary packages with bonuses is an objective truth.

It is a separate problem, my opinion is that this is a result of deficit spending. All that borrowing government does ends up in pockets of CEOs.
Make a balanced budget and then profits and CEO salaries will go down.

This is real psychology of all this. Middle class look at the money management gets and does not like it. It has nothing to do with this imaginary struggling.

Imaginary struggling is your claim. For people struggling to pay the mortgage

I think we established long time ago that this is peoples own damn fault of buying overpriced houses they can't really afford. Housing bubble and all that crap. It's governments fault as well.

while raising a family on an average working class single income it is not imaginary, the math paints its own picture.

I completely agree, at it would make ordinary folk feel better, but it's unlikely to make their salaries measurably higher.

Unlikely for several reasons, but still needs to be addressed and at least attempted and not just give up with a glib shrug of the shoulders.

Completely balanced budget and problem will go away.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

While this is true, a certain number of them would also invest a lot more time and resources in their childrens' health and education,

What would that look like exactly? Working class usually have medical insurance already.

Working class or middle class? I don't think this statement is actually true.

And education? sending kids to a law school so they can became a part of the problem in the future?

I was thinking "college or trade school" but that, again, is because I thought we were talking about the working class, which is not necessarily the same thing as the middle class.

And of course, a wealthier working class would be beneficent to small business owners and local merchants who can exploit a larger and healthier customer base; a richer working class therefore means a richer middle class AND increased economic mobility for the most ambitious members of the working class, not to mention their much-better-educated children.

Are you running for POTUS? Cause this is meaningless enough for that.

Are you asking me to explain to you why blue collar workers having more money means more customers/sales for small business owners?

Well, I said ultimately, in practice of course people voted for Trump...

The electoral college voted for Trump. He still lost the popular vote by several million ballots, but managed to get elected anyway.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Looking at Europe we clearly see this is false--the more worker protections the higher the unemployment rate.

Nope, factually incorrect there too. There is no consistent relation of worker protections to unemployment, but a consistent positive relation to both wage share of national income and productivity.

 

[barbos]

What would that look like exactly? Working class usually have medical insurance already.

Working class or middle class? I don't think this statement is actually true.

I meant middle class.

And education? sending kids to a law school so they can became a part of the problem in the future?

I was thinking "college or trade school" but that, again, is because I thought we were talking about the working class, which is not necessarily the same thing as the middle class.

Is DeVry that expensive?

And of course, a wealthier working class would be beneficent to small business owners and local merchants who can exploit a larger and healthier customer base; a richer working class therefore means a richer middle class AND increased economic mobility for the most ambitious members of the working class, not to mention their much-better-educated children.

Are you running for POTUS? Cause this is meaningless enough for that.

Are you asking me to explain to you why blue collar workers having more money means more customers/sales for small business owners?

No, I was asking if you were running for POTUS.

Well, I said ultimately, in practice of course people voted for Trump...

The electoral college voted for Trump. He still lost the popular vote by several million ballots, but managed to get elected anyway.

These are technical details.

 

[DBT]

Not getting a pay rise for several years while prices go up is an objective truth.

But it is not, What they say is that growth of the salaries lags inflation. And I doubt that these calculations are totally honest.
Most of the time, inflation is mainly due to few isolated bubbles like education and housing.
In reality in a long run you can't have both income stagnation and inflation, prices can't grow forever if nobody can afford it.

If pay increases lag behind inflation, this is the same as not getting a pay rise in practical terms. Your income, your actual purchasing power is falling, which is what I meant;

''This week came the news that once again a record low has been set for wages growth. The wages price index in the past year rose by just 1.9% – a full percentage point below the level of growth that occurred when Australia was in the midst of the global financial crisis. It means that real wages have not grown at all for more than three years.''

It is a separate problem, my opinion is that this is a result of deficit spending. All that borrowing government does ends up in pockets of CEOs.
Make a balanced budget and then profits and CEO salaries will go down.

Not separate at all. Some just happen to be taking a bigger slice of the Pie because they are in the position to do so. This ratio between the incomes of Management and workers was not so high in past decades.

 

[barbos]

But it is not, What they say is that growth of the salaries lags inflation. And I doubt that these calculations are totally honest.
Most of the time, inflation is mainly due to few isolated bubbles like education and housing.
In reality in a long run you can't have both income stagnation and inflation, prices can't grow forever if nobody can afford it.

If pay increases lag behind inflation, this is the same as not getting a pay rise in practical terms. Your income, your actual purchasing power is falling, which is what I meant;

''This week came the news that once again a record low has been set for wages growth. The wages price index in the past year rose by just 1.9% – a full percentage point below the level of growth that occurred when Australia was in the midst of the global financial crisis. It means that real wages have not grown at all for more than three years.''

Australian economy is a bad illustration because it's too small and too dependent on export of raw materials to China and prices on these materials. You have had a lot of unjustified by reality growth during boom in China and the rest of the world, now pendulum swings back

It is a separate problem, my opinion is that this is a result of deficit spending. All that borrowing government does ends up in pockets of CEOs.
Make a balanced budget and then profits and CEO salaries will go down.

Not separate at all. Some just happen to be taking a bigger slice of the Pie because they are in the position to do so. This ratio between the incomes of Management and workers was not so high in past decades.

Yes, it's separate. There is no reason for developed economies such as US/EU/etc to grow and when government tries to force the growth by deficit spending it end up in all these debt going into pockets of assholes in WallStreet.