Proof a Living Wage is Possible

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
I knew a guy that was 10 million and 6 years into opening a recycling center. Opening was still at least 2 years and 2 M dollars away. Who would make such an investment with a cap like yours.

No one wins a race to the bottom.

This is a flawed example.

He would still invest 10 million because of the potential to make 20 million annually. Which is a 100% Return on Investment each year. Which in the world of economics is almost impossible.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I understand that you don't because you are a committed statist who thinks you have a right to what everybody else has that you don't.

Why cap the lottery at $20million? You do realize that Powerball is above that after the first draw, right? You won't guarantee more winners. Just because you cap the winnings does not change the mathematic probability that any one ticket will have the required string of matching numbers. The very fact that you seem to think it magically will makes me question the rest of your math here.

It isn't about what people do with it. It's about how the system is set up. The revenue from the tickets compound into a larger and larger jackpot until that one ticket matches and makes someone very happy.

And since, as someone has pointed out, the government already takes a massive cut in taxes, why should they just skin the rest because a bunch of people paid into the pool? What would be the point in playing for the jackpot then?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ketsuko

I am a voter in a Democratic Republic that thinks the majority of mankind is more important then the Elitists Entitlement attitude that appears to be strong on ATS.

Who are you?

An American who was raised to believe that when the COTUS says I have a right to my person and property, it meant it.

PS, the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic one, but if you learned civics anytime within the past 20 years, I can understand why you don't get that.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This will never happen because those 894 people won't let it. They don't care that they have more money than they could ever spend, they just want more of it, it's kinda like a heroin addiction, too much is not enough.

As for deciding "how much is too much", let's just take a look at the economy today. Those 894 people have swiss bank accounts where they hoard their money, they are taking from the economy and not putting back into it, they're slowly taking money away from the middle and lower classes and have been for quite some time now.

Common sense tells you how much is too much.

There is an amount of money that ensures you can live any lifestyle you choose.

Anything above that amount leads to greed, hoarding and an insatiable desire for power.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ketsuko

I am a voter in a Democratic Republic that thinks the majority of mankind is more important then the Elitists Entitlement attitude that appears to be strong on ATS.

Who are you?

An American who was raised to believe that when the COTUS says I have a right to my person and property, it meant it.

PS, the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic one, but if you learned civics anytime within the past 20 years, I can understand why you don't get that.

A Democratic Constitutional Republic.

And the semantics can go on forever, with quotes from our founding fathers using all of these terms to describe this nation.

a reply to: ketsuko

You can spred the wealth between second place. This is not complicated.

I believe in a wealth cap and a flat tax that would eliminate a vast majority of government oversight and elitists loopholes.

a reply to: Drinking

You can't step up your game or get educated into jobs that don't exist.

On the job training requires no education, although time spent in real education could be a benefit. In a society with technology advancing as quickly as possible, all training would have to be on the job training. All regulations retard the discovery of better technology. Finding the new sweet spot of a technology requires trial and error, which cost money that is lost to taxes and freedom of action which is lost to regulation.

Blindly removing money and freedom from the innovators destroyed the future we could have been living in already.

The free market makes jobs that provide what people want in the largest quantities that can be produced and the most affordable prices that the consumers demand.

Nothing else does that.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ketsuko

You can spred the wealth between second place. This is not complicated.

I believe in a wealth cap and a flat tax that would eliminate a vast majority of government oversight and elitists loopholes.

The Flat Tax is fine, but capping stuff is not.

Did you even take economics in school? Do you know what happens when you impose artificial and arbitrary limits?

One of the best examples led to the marriage of health insurance and employment in the US. It was wage controls, including ceilings. Someone had the bright idea that wages ought to be capped, so in order to lure in and keep their best employees, employers started looking for other ways to compensate them above the wage caps. One of these was benefits packages including health insurance, which, prior to this had been solely an employee responsibility assuming the employee even had it. A lot of people paid for most things out of pocket. And *gasp* health care costs were much cheaper.

But thanks to the wage controls and caps, health insurance started to be added as part of employment packages, and after that, employees started to simply expect it as standard, even after the artificial caps were removed.

The unintended consequences are that now everyone must have health insurance in order to interact with the health industry which makes health care grossly expensive and convoluted for everyone - doctor and patient alike.

This is all thanks to a wage cap ... because, you know, no one really NEEDS to make more than whatever that arbitrary cap was at the time.

Even if a living wage is possible...businesses are under no obligation to pay you more than you are willing to accept. I am not saying I agree that a living wage is possible, but even if it is I see no reason for those involved in some types of business to pay unskilled workers more than the work they perform is worth.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I am going to respond to you just once. I am fully aware of your philosophy and know it's impossible to show you the economic flaws.

How do you form a military in your system that can defend itself against 1.5 billion elitists, organised, tax paying Chinese who want to take your land?

Your system of no government would be crushed by an organized nation that payed taxes to a central government that ensured adequate spending on defense and military training.

Without the organization of government your nation of no government would become slaves to an Elitists regime practically overnight.

We need an organized government and taxes. What we don't need is nepotism and corruption.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Even if a living wage is possible...businesses are under no obligation to pay you more than you are willing to accept. I am not saying I agree that a living wage is possible, but even if it is I see no reason for those involved in some types of business to pay unskilled workers more than the work they perform is worth.

What value is a business to society if it's employees need welfare to survive? All your doing is shifting the responsibility of the wealthy to the middle class. Which is the exact system we have today.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Like all left wing/socialist/communist 'ideas', the first implementation is deemed reasonable. I.E. acceptable to the socially aware-as opposed to the socialists, there is a difference.

The obvious one already stated is who decides? This 'reasonable' version says 20 million. WHO THE HECK IS KIDDING WHO?

20 megs would be decried, at an even higher volume than the current in 'wage inequity'. Empowering it will increase the volume and restrictions with 'precedent' now set to continue the incremental moves.

Here's one for you. You are making exactly what you deserve!

Your career choice, your lack of study/self-improvement, your failure to read or foresee market changes. No one else's. Not mine, not the gov't's, not the 1%.

Your bed, you made it, you sleep in it. Just like the rest of us.

If you spent as much time and effort working on changing your lot rather than whining about other's success, you'd likely be successful....or at least closer to it.

Deal with it...

a reply to: Isurrender73

No.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Drinking

You can't step up your game or get educated into jobs that don't exist.

On the job training requires no education, although time spent in real education could be a benefit. In a society with technology advancing as quickly as possible, all training would have to be on the job training. All regulations retard the discovery of better technology. Finding the new sweet spot of a technology requires trial and error, which cost money that is lost to taxes and freedom of action which is lost to regulation.

Blindly removing money and freedom from the innovators destroyed the future we could have been living in already.

The free market makes jobs that provide what people want in the largest quantities that can be produced and the most affordable prices that the consumers demand.

Nothing else does that.

I agree, capitalism is the best model created yet to advance human civilization.

But that doesn't mean that 2/3 of the workers in the wealthiest nation in earth, with one of the highest productivity rates on earth, that already gets less benefits than pretty much any other advanced nation on earth should live in poverty .

For over 3 decades wages for all but the highest earners have either remained flat or fallen, while inflation has risen steadily.

Yesterday I gave an example to help explain this since it seems to be too complicated for many to grasp.

About 15 years ago, I lived in a small town, the local store paid $8 an hour, my rent at a nice townhouse was around $650.

Today that place costs almost twice as much and the store still pays $8 an hour.

Me apply this across the board to all goods and services.

The problem isn't the economy doesn't have as much to pay workers as it used to.

The problem is greed, unbridled greed above all else.

There is plenty of money, just not enough decent folks that have it.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: WiseThinker
If this was implemented,

Then all the people earning above the wage cap (Also, what do you propose happens to current fortunes?) would simply up and leave, and now that entire portion of your GDP calculations would be gone, Same goes with increase in tax, the rich are just going to find better ways to invest it, they are not going to pay more tax.

So when X politician says if we raise the top tax by 5% and we will earn X millions more, then they are lying or dont know economics, the wealthy will just find better ways of spending the 5%, its simple math, it will cost them less than 5% of their income to find out how to avoid the system

Do you understand supply and demand?

If the merchants and bankers leave, new merchants and bankers will take their place. As long as the consumer has a demand someone will produce the goods and services to meet the demand.

You obviously don't understand supply & demand or you wouldn't have started this inane thread. Supply & demand is why some people make a boat load of money and others are barely getting by. Wages are where supply and demand intersect if you were to graph it out.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Metallicus
Even if a living wage is possible...businesses are under no obligation to pay you more than you are willing to accept. I am not saying I agree that a living wage is possible, but even if it is I see no reason for those involved in some types of business to pay unskilled workers more than the work they perform is worth.

What value is a business to society if it's employees need welfare to survive? All your doing is shifting the responsibility of the wealthy to the middle class. Which is the exact system we have today.

Why are those employees working there?

When I was growing up, those types of jobs were manned in my town by high school kids learning the ropes of the jobs market, mothers who were working part-time jobs to bring in a little extra to help supplement their husbands or those who were disabled in some way and thus would have social safety net support regardless of the work they did or did not do, not by people trying to make a full-time living off of them as a career.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Metallicus
Even if a living wage is possible...businesses are under no obligation to pay you more than you are willing to accept. I am not saying I agree that a living wage is possible, but even if it is I see no reason for those involved in some types of business to pay unskilled workers more than the work they perform is worth.

What value is a business to society if it's employees need welfare to survive? All your doing is shifting the responsibility of the wealthy to the middle class. Which is the exact system we have today.

Business owners are not all 'wealthy' and individuals are responsibility for their own situation and career choices. Life becomes much easier when you learn to be proactive and take charge of the issues that confront you in life.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Thank you your support of Elitism

I assume Mexicans get paid what they are worth and should just deal with being impoverished and exploited also?

In parts of the country where pay is better (i.e. urban zones), the minimum salary for Mexicans is 70.1 pesos ($4.35) per day, according to El Daily Post. The government also sets a monthly minimum income for well-being, including essential purchases like food, transportation, and hygiene, that stands at 2,628 pesos ($163.13) in urban areas.

A worker making the minimum salary would need to labor for just over 37 days per month to bring in that monthly minimum — assuming they didn’t have any dependents to care for.
www.businessinsider.com...

The only reason you can make that statement is due to the socialist policies that allowed unionized workers to fight for better pay.

Eventually anyone who doesn't help the 1% gain more wealth and power will sit in poverty just like other 3rd world nations.

"If I'm doing ok screw everyone else." - A quote from every entitled elitist ever.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Even if a living wage is possible...businesses are under no obligation to pay you more than you are willing to accept. I am not saying I agree that a living wage is possible, but even if it is I see no reason for those involved in some types of business to pay unskilled workers more than the work they perform is worth.

How is their worth measured?

By the profits they generate?

If so many are vastly underpaid.

By how much they are willing to work for?

That used to work, until millions of illegals flood the market undercutting workers. If you are hungry, but think you are worth more, will you eat or starve?

Because that is the choice, take crap pay or starve.

I say worker worth should be measured by the profits their labors generate.

Since that is actually what they are worth in real dollars.

Not a bs method rigged by decades of allowing workers in that will undercut American workers by more than half most times.

This method does not work any longer period.

a reply to: Isurrender73

The very concept of the constitution is elitist. Yes.(a Representative Republic is elitist.) Trusting the elite is another thing altogether...

There is no such thing as 'equal' outside of arithmetical considerations.

I deal with Mexican immigrants almost daily and they are doing fine! Moving upwards, all be it slower than the past, based on hard work, saving and getting their kids educated....just like my ancestors did.