"The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"

[seedubs1]

How many people do you know that make minimum wage? Its isn't a significant percentage of the population and would have minimal impact on the economy. The sky is falling has been the cry everytime the minimum wage has risen, yet it has never transpired. Guess what? We arent buying what you are selling because its something we have lived through several times in our lives.

Not only that, when the minimum wage was higher when adjusted for inflation, the economy was better.

 

[hooky]

I might Suggest the following reading for some of you arguing for a gov't mandated "living wage"...

https://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

If you can't be bothered to read the entire thing, just read 6 pages starting on Page 115.

 

[jamil]

I might Suggest the following reading for some of you arguing for a gov't mandated "living wage"...

https://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf

They'll just throw Keynes in your face.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

They'll just throw Keynes in your face.

I'd hate to have to wipe a bunch of that off my face, eww.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'd hate to have to wipe a bunch of that off my face, eww.

You can wipe it off but the stench lingers...

 

[hooky]

They'll just throw Keynes in your face.

Undoubtedly, but they already are with their paradox of thrift arguments upthread.

 

[88E30M50]

There are lots of factors at play in our situation and it's hard to pin it on any one thing. To me, the basic problem is we allowed jobs that require skilled labor to disappear offshore and now have folks that would have been working in an office, driving a forklift or running production machines trying to make ends meet working at McDonalds or Menards. Sure, there are lots of folks working minimum wage jobs because of the decisions they made in life, but the basic issue is that many of the minimum wage workers would move up if there were still a job to move up to.

I'm not arguing for a hike in the minimum wage though. The article makes a good point regarding the need to put more money into the lower and middle class segments of society to build more consumers. The problem is that a hike in the minimum wage draws that money from the wrong source. It allows the mega-wealthy to continue raping the country while the burden of higher minimum wages gets largely put on the backs of small businesses. The upper .1% of society continue to reap the rewards of off-shoring production while the small companies that employ minimum wage workers are asked to fund the shortfall in the economy by artificially jacking wages up.

Now that most of the skilled labor has either been laid off or retired in the US, there is a scramble for the remaining jobs with the unlucky ones left working crap jobs that used to be filled by high school kids. This problem will be solved when we find a way to grow skilled labor jobs in the US. What we are seeing is the end result of years of sending manufacturing over seas while still profiting off the momentum our economy built in the 40s-70s. The end game is here and those that generated the largest personal gain are looking for small businesses to pay for the fix through an artificially set minimum wage.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Still no answer as to how price floors on wages will affect the cost of goods.

Also, no good comments on the relationship between wages and wealth.

It's lonely at times, being an economist.

To address the issue of government dependence by those making MW. Who is government assistance targeting? The poor right? Well, who is poor? To bring it full circle, those making the minimum wage, right? Now, I know that it's a bit more complicated than that, considering "poverty" wage levels.

Anyway, if you increase the minimum, will people on MW be making more than the minimum? No. Have you given them more money? Yes. Does that increase in money come with an increase in wealth? That's the big question isn't it. As we all should know, price floors drive up the price of goods.

Yes Monkey, but MW earners only account for 1% of the work force, the impact will be minimal.

Yes, that's true, but how many people making more than the minimum wage will be affected by the minimum wage increase? That's the more pressing issue. Anywhere between 20% - 30% of the workforce will see their wages increase if the proposed $15/hr wage is implemented. That's quite an impact on the bottom line of most goods and services.

So, what was once affordable to a person making twice the minimum wage is now out of reach because that worker's wage has been "decreased" to the minimum. Will this cause more or less people to go on assistance?

Well Monkey, EVERYONE'S wage will increase if the minimum increases?

Oh yes, that could happen, and would that be a good thing? Do we want to increase the cost of labor on 100% of the work force? If we do, haven't we just shifted the scale? The people at the bottom are still on the bottom. The people at the top are still at the top. You just changed your measuring stick. Costs will increase a like amount and what have we really accomplished?

Well Monkey, we have increased the MW before and nothing bad happened.

Really? So things cost less and people make more money? Isn't that the idea? Raising MW will increase buying power right? So, has buying power increased with an increase in MW in the past?

Monkey you don't understand, companies could just make less profit and pay their workers more.

Yes they could, and how would that affect aaaaallllll of the people who are counting on 7% growth to get them into retirement? Is it good or bad to have a graying workforce?
What would happen to investment if returns diminish? If less money is being invested, does growth go up or down?

First day in Econ 101, what does EVERY professor say? There is no such thing as a free lunch. It doesn't matter if you're keynesian or austrian, this is a standard of economic thought. You can't borrow, legislate, or manipulate your way to prosperity.

The only way to increase WEALTH, is to increase productivity. You can increase wages all day every day and it won't make anyone more wealthy. The poor will still be poor, the rich will still be rich, the only thing that changed is the number you assign to each.

 

[seedubs1]

I think you're on the right track.

Skilled jobs are slowly coming back to the US, and I think they'll continue to do so. As other countries that have historically had low pay rates continue to grow, their workers are beginning to demand wages that no longer make good business sense for offshoring from the US.

There are lots of factors at play in our situation and it's hard to pin it on any one thing. To me, the basic problem is we allowed jobs that require skilled labor to disappear offshore and now have folks that would have been working in an office, driving a forklift or running production machines trying to make ends meet working at McDonalds or Menards. Sure, there are lots of folks working minimum wage jobs because of the decisions they made in life, but the basic issue is that many of the minimum wage workers would move up if there were still a job to move up to.

I'm not arguing for a hike in the minimum wage though. The article makes a good point regarding the need to put more money into the lower and middle class segments of society to build more consumers. The problem is that a hike in the minimum wage draws that money from the wrong source. It allows the mega-wealthy to continue raping the country while the burden of higher minimum wages gets largely put on the backs of small businesses. The upper .1% of society continue to reap the rewards of off-shoring production while the small companies that employ minimum wage workers are asked to fund the shortfall in the economy by artificially jacking wages up.

Now that most of the skilled labor has either been laid off or retired in the US, there is a scramble for the remaining jobs with the unlucky ones left working crap jobs that used to be filled by high school kids. This problem will be solved when we find a way to grow skilled labor jobs in the US. What we are seeing is the end result of years of sending manufacturing over seas while still profiting off the momentum our economy built in the 40s-70s. The end game is here and those that generated the largest personal gain are looking for small businesses to pay for the fix through an artificially set minimum wage.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I was listening to 93.1 yesterday on the way home. A recent poll in Indiana asked Employers what their biggest obstacle was to hiring more people. Employers responded that their biggest problem to filling positions is finding qualified workers. The competencies that they're looking for are people who will show up every day on time and work hard the whole day. Apparently those types are few and far between anymore. They're not looking for college grads, or people with gobs of experience, or skills. They just want dependable hard workers.

Indiana has more jobs POSTED than people on unemployment. So, why don't the people on unemployment apply for the jobs that are posted? Good question.

Our economic woes have more to do with laziness and entitlement attitude than anything else. No dickering or tinkering with wages is going to change the fact that a large portion of society thinks they're worth more than they are, or just don't want to get off their ass.

 

[seedubs1]

I think you're not looking at the whole picture.

I've seen a plethora of jobs on the market. A lot of them are now underpaying grossly because they know there's plenty of unemployed people to take the job. Supply and demand. I'm not sure where you are, but the jobs around me are either asking for grossly overqualified people, or they are looking to pay close to minimum wage for college educated level positions.

I was listening to 93.1 yesterday on the way home. A recent poll in Indiana asked Employers what their biggest obstacle was to hiring more people. Employers responded that their biggest problem to filling positions is finding qualified workers. The competencies that they're looking for are people who will show up every day on time and work hard the whole day. Apparently those types are few and far between anymore. They're not looking for college grads, or people with gobs of experience, or skills. They just want dependable hard workers.

Indiana has more jobs POSTED than people on unemployment. So, why don't the people on unemployment apply for the jobs that are posted? Good question.

Our economic woes have more to do with laziness and entitlement attitude than anything else. No dickering or tinkering with wages is going to change the fact that a large portion of society thinks they're worth more than they are, or just don't want to get off their ass.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think you're not looking at the whole picture.

I've seen a plethora of jobs on the market. A lot of them are now underpaying grossly because they know there's plenty of unemployed people to take the job. Supply and demand. I'm not sure where you are, but the jobs around me are either asking for grossly overqualified people, or they are looking to pay close to minimum wage for college educated level positions.

I'm seeing the whole picture, I'm just not making excuses.

So, because someone thinks they should make more than what an employer is offering, it's better to stay on assistance?

I don't think it's at all wise to think that just because you hire into a position at a salary means you'll be at that position and salary indefinitely.

 

[seedubs1]

Maybe if nobody will take the job, the businesses will figure it out, and adjust their expectations accordingly.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't take a job that pays less than unemployment.

I'm seeing the whole picture, I'm just not making excuses.

So, because someone thinks they should make more than what an employer is offering, it's better to stay on assistance?

I don't think it's at all wise to think that just because you hire into a position at a salary means you'll be at that position and salary indefinitely.

 

[ATM]

Maybe if nobody will take the job, the businesses will figure it out, and adjust their expectations accordingly.

I know I sure as hell wouldn't take a job that pays less than unemployment.

Perhaps paying the unemployed is the problem.

 

[seedubs1]

Perhaps I pay into unemployment, and it's a service I expect should I ever get laid off.

Perhaps I'd have a lot more money in my bank if I wasn't taxed to death just to feed a bloated worthless government and forced to pay into unemployment, and I wouldn't have to use unemployment if I were to get laid off.

I mean, seriously...I pay 1/3 of my paycheck to taxes. That means that I work for 4 months each year for NOTHING. If I didn't have to pay so much, I could do SO MUCH with that money. And what's it go to? A bloated TURD of a government.

Perhaps paying the unemployed is the problem.

 

[ATM]

Perhaps I pay into unemployment, and it's a service I expect should I ever get laid off.

Perhaps I'd have a lot more money in my bank if I wasn't taxed to death just to feed a bloated worthless government and forced to pay into unemployment, and I wouldn't have to use unemployment if I were to get laid off.

I mean, seriously...I pay 1/3 of my paycheck to taxes. That means that I work for 4 months each year for NOTHING. If I didn't have to pay so much, I could do SO MUCH with that money. And what's it go to? A bloated TURD of a government.

But it's not theft or slavery when the government does it, right?

 

[seedubs1]

But it's not theft or slavery when the government does it, right?

 

[hooky]

I think you're not looking at the whole picture.

I've seen a plethora of jobs on the market. A lot of them are now underpaying grossly because they know there's plenty of unemployed people to take the job. Supply and demand. I'm not sure where you are, but the jobs around me are either asking for grossly overqualified people, or they are looking to pay close to minimum wage for college educated level positions.

You've actually just described the effects of a price floor, min wage in this case. People with no skills competing with skilled workers at the lower end of the spectrum. Why? Because the price floors have priced them right out of the market based on their value relative to their skills. The underlying assumption that the demand for unskilled workers is inelastic is the downfall of the argument made by people who demand living wages for all workers, regardless of their skill level.

 

[jamil]

Perhaps I pay into unemployment, and it's a service I expect should I ever get laid off.

Perhaps I'd have a lot more money in my bank if I wasn't taxed to death just to feed a bloated worthless government and forced to pay into unemployment, and I wouldn't have to use unemployment if I were to get laid off.

I mean, seriously...I pay 1/3 of my paycheck to taxes. That means that I work for 4 months each year for NOTHING. If I didn't have to pay so much, I could do SO MUCH with that money. And what's it go to? A bloated TURD of a government.

From your posts it seems you're paying for a government more of your liking than a government of my liking. If it were more of my liking, you'd be paying a lot less tax.

 

[hornadylnl]

So nobody wants to pay more taxes to give my lunch lady wife a $5 an hour raise?