It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missouri Returning to Reason - Rolling back minimum wage

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Jiggly
we need to go back to 1950 wage

like 75cents an hour


1955 minimum wage had the purchasing power of about $26/hour today.


THAT is an excellent point - People were paid barrels of money in Germany between the wars, but they also had stamps marked 5 Billion Mark - A Billion didn't get you much...

How well paid you are is highly relative.




posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Uberdoubter
My point was NOT making people believe that their junk is valuable, neither that it makes you rich buying lockers.

The simple point I was trying to make, is that the reason WHY there is this endless amount of lockers going under the hammer, is that people first lose their homes and then they can't afford to pay for the storage of their stuff either.

Guess they're all just lazy, stupid and not hard-working enough?


There's not an endless number. It happens every now and then but it's not really something that's common.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Yes things do happen to people. You adapt and get over it.

It's so simple. Why didn't someone tell me this years ago?

Seriously, the point is you shouldn't have to work more and your advice is to work more.

Per capita GDP is higher than ever and you are telling people they need to work more than their grandparents did and actually settle for less. It just doesn't add up.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Good news! Looks like the jokers over in Missouri finally wised up and realized that giving lower class folks more money only hurts all our situations.


This is fantastic news!

Hopefully they will push it all the way down to $1 an hour and 10 minute lunch breaks, so we can compete with other slave labor countries.

People need to serve their top fat-ass arrogant greedy masters, that are absolutely entitled to $18 million a year wages plus benefits.



What we actually need to for people to understand economics and a fiat currency based system.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I'm going to go out on a limb here.

I make $15 an hour.

I own a home, that I am paying the bank for every month.
I have healthcare that I pay for via my employer (3x the cost of what it was before 2014, but that's another story)
I pay my bills, have cable tv, internet, a cell phone, a motorcycle, a car, and a van.
I buy groceries, I travel a bit and have fun.

I also have over 20 years experience in my chosen field (which is a VERY crowded job market right now)

I do all this on just my income. No wife (not anymore, anyway!) no children, no roommates, nothing but my paycheck.

I've made more at other jobs, but I have also made less too. But I make it.

I have never once in my life thought that raising the minimum wage would benefit me at all. I've had minimum wage jobs before, and they did one thing, and one thing only for me. They taught me how to improve myself and either move up, or move on. They were stepping stones and nothing more.

I get it, some of you think (rather simplified thinking though) that raising the minimum wage will improve people's lives. Giving them more buying power. However, the market will adjust to that and prices will go up. The always do. My $15 an hour would become like $9 an hour today. If they raised the minimum up to $15, would I then get the difference added to my pay? I mean, if they take it from $7.50 up to $15, doubling it, do I then get $7.50 more an hour thus making $22.50?

No. I wouldn't.

It would instantly erase 30 years of hard work and experience by me and moved me into the new poverty bracket that was just created for minimum wage workers.

Sure, you're "leveling the playing field" but you've just leveled it to the lowest level, instead of bringing everyone up.

More jobs and a healthy job market is the only answer.
edit on 8-7-2017 by poncho1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
America is the wealthiest nation ever, yet we do not take care of our people. That is not defensible. That anyone would suggest the minimum wage of $7.70 is too high is beyond me. As a teenager, I earned $3 an hour for doing part time restaurant work. Running though an inflation calculator, that same amount would be $16.46 an hour. That illustrates just how far we have moved backwards on income relative to the cost of living. Anyone who would defend less, it seems to me, must want America to move the wealth to the top (as it is going now) while moving everyone else to third world status. Welcome to the banana republic.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

What if there are not enough jobs?

Sure some local booms make 1,000 jobs available here and there but we are talking millions of people who are unemployed.

Another thing is that with all the advances in tech one person could do the work of many. If we say that it doubles efficiency then a person working 20 hours a week produces as much as someone putting in 40 hours a few decades ago. Why would they need to put in 40+ hours in order to achieve the same standard of living?

Where is all the extra wool going?



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: poncho1982

What if there are not enough jobs?

Sure some local booms make 1,000 jobs available here and there but we are talking millions of people who are unemployed.

Another thing is that with all the advances in tech one person could do the work of many. If we say that it doubles efficiency then a person working 20 hours a week produces as much as someone putting in 40 hours a few decades ago. Why would they need to put in 40+ hours in order to achieve the same standard of living?

Where is all the extra wool going?


Well, that's why I said more jobs is the answer.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982
Well, that's why I said more jobs is the answer.

And if there are none, then what?

Now there is automation displacing even more workers.

What about production being higher and salaries being stuck?

It isn't as simple as you make it out to be.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: angeldoll

See, here we go with the hyperbolic crap again. :rolleyes:

Never said anyone wasn't human, never called for poor farms, never judged anyone, either. You can feel free to grab the line and run as far out into the ridiculous stratosphere as you want, though.
I said THEY AREN'T MY RESPONSIBILITY WHEN THEY'RE NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES. I don't believe it makes any sense whatsoever to have government institutional welfare. Charity isn't charitable when it is forced... If private charities and philanthropists want to throw fistfuls of their own money at people, let them do it! None of my business. By the same token, I work to keep a roof over my family's head, food in their guts, clothes on their backs, and then use whatever is left over to provide a good life for them... as do millions of other Americans. Why should we be forced to shoulder responsibility for adult strangers who aren't shouldering their own?


The problem with your argument, and others arguments, is that you were able to "come from nothing" 20+ years ago when it was a hell of a lot easier to do. Not one person has a chance to fight this war on poverty without liveable wage. "Back in the day" it was easy to get a hardworking job and actually be able to work your way up the chain and become an important entity within the company. These days not so much. You people expect everyone to be like you. Expect everyone to have the same success rate you all did 20-30 years ago. You're all stuck in the past. Inflation has run rampant. Wages are down. Most jobs are part time, minimum wage. Part time in most of these places are 4 hour shifts. How well could you do making under $300 a week?

As for the government handouts that youre so against; do you have any mental disabilities? Physical disabilities? Any children with disabilities? Could you afford a $4000 wheelchair for a disabled child, a $2000 stroller for a disabled child? $600+ a month for formula and diapers for a disabled child? How about trips to a multitude of different doctors, the very expensive medication, all of orthopedic braces, the stupidly expensive hospital bed, and everything else? Maybe you could..but there's some of us who can't. If you dont like the system that helps out poorer families with such things, then keep your judgemental ass entitled opinions to yourself.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982
I'm going to go out on a limb here.

I make $15 an hour.

I also have over 20 years experience in my chosen field (which is a VERY crowded job market right now)


This is an example of wage stagnation, $15/hour is not what you should be getting after 20 years experience. As I've pointed out many times, $26/hour has the purchasing power today that minimum wage did back in the 50's and 60's. You're getting completely screwed over on your labor costs, but you feel ok about it because you can point to people who are worse off than you.



I get it, some of you think (rather simplified thinking though) that raising the minimum wage will improve people's lives. Giving them more buying power. However, the market will adjust to that and prices will go up. The always do. My $15 an hour would become like $9 an hour today. If they raised the minimum up to $15, would I then get the difference added to my pay? I mean, if they take it from $7.50 up to $15, doubling it, do I then get $7.50 more an hour thus making $22.50?


Let me try to explain the economics of it a little more for you then. First of all you're correct, you wouldn't see as large a wage increase but you would likely see some. The interesting part of wage increases though, is that the cost of wages doesn't make up 100% of the cost of the product. Products are a combination of labor+raw materials, and the price of raw materials remains static through a wage increase (mostly, the labor to get the materials does rise slightly). What this means, is that increasing the price of labor by 100% doesn't increase the cost of goods by 100%. Therefore you can increase wages at a disproportional rate to spending. If we use Australia as an example ($15/hour minimum, similar economy), the cost of goods is only about 10% higher.

As a result, what you'll find in a minimum wage increase scenario is something like this:
7.50 -> 15.00 -> 100%
10.00 -> 17.00 -> 70%
15.00 -> 20.00 -> 33%
20.00 -> 23.00 -> 15%

Since the cost of goods only goes up 10% in such a scenario, these wages all have more purchasing power. Most studies have shown that up to about 50% above the new minimum wage, purchasing power increases, at a 50% wage that would mean people making up to about $20/hour today would see a boost. People making over that would see a decrease, but that's what minimum wage is supposed to do. It's a tool to shrink income inequality.



More jobs and a healthy job market is the only answer.


This isn't a solution though. High paying jobs are not coming back, the goal for decades now has been to lower the barrier to entry on jobs. Every day career changing gets easier, and getting into a field gets easier. This means that over time, the value of all jobs is going to approach zero. New jobs simply cannot keep pace, they'll be in things like retail and being a barista. As productivity increases, the need for skilled labor decreases.

Even if this weren't true, more skilled labor=more supply=lower wages.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Jiggly
we need to go back to 1950 wage

like 75cents an hour


1955 minimum wage had the purchasing power of about $26/hour today.


75 cents had the purchasing power of 26 dollars????

So to let you know you are wrong in a single example, a mcdonalds cheeseburger cost 25 cents. You could buy 3 for 75 cents. One hour of work. These days, you can buy 3 cheeseburgers for 3 dollars. Minimum wage is 7.25. That means that on todays minimum wage you actually have more purchasing power. I can go on, and I probably will have to because I have found over the years that a left winger will say anything to keep their nonsense afloat.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: poncho1982
Well, that's why I said more jobs is the answer.

And if there are none, then what?

Now there is automation displacing even more workers.

What about production being higher and salaries being stuck?

It isn't as simple as you make it out to be.


I never said it was simple. It can be simply stated that we need more jobs, but that's in no way a simple matter.

It's not as simple as just arbitrarily raising the minimum wage either. It has done NOTHING to ease poverty in the past, nor will it now or in the future. Costs just simply go up, and nothing changes.

More jobs = more competition from employers to entice employees to work there.

My current field is a prime example. Too many people, not enough jobs. Therefore employers can pay less and get the best of the bunch of prospective workers.

Ten years ago I was making almost $10 more an hour in the same field. This is not a dwindling or dying field either, it's just as relevant today as it was then, and will be for the foreseeable future. That's why so many people got into this field. Employers quickly realized they didn't have to keep paying the higher wage, when you got someone who is willing to take the job for less money. I know, I was a hiring manager at one point. It became a game of lets pick the highest qualified candidate, with the lowest salary expectations.

I'm no fan of individual taxation, but as far as corporations, they need to pay a penalty for automation. I saw an idea floated around recently, may have even by been Bill Gates, saying that companies should pay a tax for every job replaced by a robot. Maybe that would discourage more automation. I believe it would. The only reason they automate is to increase profits. So there's plenty of room to discourage that, if that incentive is taken away.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: poncho1982
I'm going to go out on a limb here.

I make $15 an hour.

I also have over 20 years experience in my chosen field (which is a VERY crowded job market right now)


This is an example of wage stagnation, $15/hour is not what you should be getting after 20 years experience. As I've pointed out many times, $26/hour has the purchasing power today that minimum wage did back in the 50's and 60's. You're getting completely screwed over on your labor costs, but you feel ok about it because you can point to people who are worse off than you.



I get it, some of you think (rather simplified thinking though) that raising the minimum wage will improve people's lives. Giving them more buying power. However, the market will adjust to that and prices will go up. The always do. My $15 an hour would become like $9 an hour today. If they raised the minimum up to $15, would I then get the difference added to my pay? I mean, if they take it from $7.50 up to $15, doubling it, do I then get $7.50 more an hour thus making $22.50?


Let me try to explain the economics of it a little more for you then. First of all you're correct, you wouldn't see as large a wage increase but you would likely see some. The interesting part of wage increases though, is that the cost of wages doesn't make up 100% of the cost of the product. Products are a combination of labor+raw materials, and the price of raw materials remains static through a wage increase (mostly, the labor to get the materials does rise slightly). What this means, is that increasing the price of labor by 100% doesn't increase the cost of goods by 100%. Therefore you can increase wages at a disproportional rate to spending. If we use Australia as an example ($15/hour minimum, similar economy), the cost of goods is only about 10% higher.

As a result, what you'll find in a minimum wage increase scenario is something like this:
7.50 -> 15.00 -> 100%
10.00 -> 17.00 -> 70%
15.00 -> 20.00 -> 33%
20.00 -> 23.00 -> 15%

Since the cost of goods only goes up 10% in such a scenario, these wages all have more purchasing power. Most studies have shown that up to about 50% above the new minimum wage, purchasing power increases, at a 50% wage that would mean people making up to about $20/hour today would see a boost. People making over that would see a decrease, but that's what minimum wage is supposed to do. It's a tool to shrink income inequality.



More jobs and a healthy job market is the only answer.


This isn't a solution though. High paying jobs are not coming back, the goal for decades now has been to lower the barrier to entry on jobs. Every day career changing gets easier, and getting into a field gets easier. This means that over time, the value of all jobs is going to approach zero. New jobs simply cannot keep pace, they'll be in things like retail and being a barista. As productivity increases, the need for skilled labor decreases.

Even if this weren't true, more skilled labor=more supply=lower wages.


I never said I was OK with it.

I said I was making it. As in paying bills.

I even said wages were low due to a crowded market.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

You cherry picked one of the cheapest things around. Why not a home or a car. I'm seeing 1950 $8,500 for a new house and $1,500 for a new car.

2017 $350,000 for a new house and $25,000 for a new car.

Min wage hours needed to buy:
1950
Home = 11,333.3 hours
Car = 2,000 hours

2017
Home = 45,161.3 hours
Car = 3,225.8 hours

$26 doesn't sound far off looking at these slightly more important purchases.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

The simple answer is, you are being fleeced.

The more you produce the more they take. Everyone saying that people need to work more keep glossing over the fact that the GDP is up and wages have not kept up.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
75 cents had the purchasing power of 26 dollars????

So to let you know you are wrong in a single example, a mcdonalds cheeseburger cost 25 cents. You could buy 3 for 75 cents. One hour of work. These days, you can buy 3 cheeseburgers for 3 dollars. Minimum wage is 7.25. That means that on todays minimum wage you actually have more purchasing power. I can go on, and I probably will have to because I have found over the years that a left winger will say anything to keep their nonsense afloat.


Some goods have gone up, others down. For all the complaints about the high price of food, that's one that has gotten cheaper over time. Gas/Oil has remained fairly even too. What hasn't remained even are larger purchases such as cars, insurance for those cars, houses (this is a big one), travel, entertainment, education, and health care. Taken as a whole, yes... purchasing power has declined that much.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
This topic is undoubtedly placed to troll.

Hey! Its a privileged to just work in the US. Wages are secondary. Better still, no wages at all.

Workers can buy stuff from the company store with the company tokens they get for their labor. Wasn't that what many companies did in the depression of the 1930's.

Nice ideology for that corporate manager looking at that sweet year end bonus for saving money for his company.
edit on 8-7-2017 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: poncho1982

The simple answer is, you are being fleeced.

The more you produce the more they take. Everyone saying that people need to work more keep glossing over the fact that the GDP is up and wages have not kept up.


Where did say that I, or anyone else needs to "work more"?

I said we need more jobs. That in no way means work more. Because I would still be working a 40 hour week, just somewhere else, at a higher rate.

Well, I GUESS you could consider it for those who are not working, however you have to already BE working, to "work more", otherwise you just need work.

Being fleeced? LOL, you obviously do not understand the job market, and all it's intricacies. The only fleecing I am getting is from Obamacare raising my healthcare to astronomical prices.

That, and cell phone bills.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

I didn't say that you said people need to work more. I said people saying that are not taking into account the fact that people are generating more while taking home less.

Also, the workforce is being fleeced. You may or may not be but that is getting personal.
edit on 8-7-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join