It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What is the real minimum wage?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:11 PM


Because they want to keep them.

Yeah, because as we all know the burger flipper market is cut-throat and you have to guard your flippers with security camera's and the like.... What i really want to know is why they capitalist can't just stop complaining and do the work themselves? I mean where did the idea originate that we all wanted to live in cities and were desperately unhappy farming our own pieces of land? Perhaps a cursory glance can reveal to you that we were dragged kicking and screaming away from the land which mostly got stolen from us thus forcing us to sell our bodies ( labor) to highest bidder?

Businesses should not be forced to reward degenerate worthless employee's.

No it should not but since it patently refuses to pay decent living wages and invest in the creation of dull witted consumers ( which they still need to make employable, heheh) the joke is on us, the workers, but not without some irony when we 'stupids' pick up our pitchforks and draw a collective minimum wage line in the sand. It would be awesome if we had bargaining power without having to resort to creating/reinforcing a central authority ( which can be coopted and used against our collective interest) strong enough to have our wills enforced but here we are and there they are still getting richer faster and faster.

It'd be no different than the government forcing you to tip the waitress who never brought you a single refill and dropped your food all over your lap without even giving you a towel to clean up with.

And maybe if she were not dependent on tips( to actually make money) she would not have to work exhausting 10 or 12 hour days where mistakes might happen?

In closing i don't consider the minimum wage in the US to be worth much as if you study it carefully you will find that the various presidents have done their utmost to keep the federal minimum wage as low as absolutely possible.Basically it was a war time compromise to get people to work and they have been doing their utmost to undo it since. This not what the corporately owned American government wants but it well understands that doing away with it entirely creates massive added strain on the social welfare system and that you can only build so many jails and so many hospitals before you can build less aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons with which to make far greater profits overseas.


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by octotom
I think that many people, when discussing minimum wage, forget that if the minimum wage goes up, that the cost of goods will go up too. This is because a company is still going to make at least the same amount of money when the wage raises.

Well only if the corporations/ businesses in the same market do things exactly alike. In a truly competitive market place a minimum wage will obviously have a affect on prices but that does not mean everything MUST become more expensive. Either way how is that a problem when people now have more money to spend on goods. Why must prices rise exactly as fast as wage increases when there are many more costs involved in producing goods than wages?

An example. Recenttly, here in Germany a new minimum wage went into effect. The cost of food at McDonald's was jacked up. [I actually thought it was kinda funny because my sister-in-law freaked out--she lives on the stuff I think.]

Well that seems logical as a MacDonald's is not a complex operation with a relatively large proportion of it's costs associated with it's minimum wage labor force. Maybe it's time she stopped eating expensive ( even the cheapest stuff is far more expensive than what you can prepare yourself) take aways and start feeling some solidarity with the MacDonald's workers that now have a better chance of affording cars and houses who's prices did not go up due to minimum wages going up?

So in effect, raising the minimum wage doesn't change anything--because the cost of goods will keep going up--

Well raising minimum wage doesn't have to change anything if businesses forms cartels and raises prices in the exact proportion. It's illogical to argue that minimum wages have a destructive/no effect when we can see that the citizens of countries which has such live far longer and better than those in countries which does not. It's always strange how practically the entire world is capitalist but people never think of India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Africa's starving masses of being subject to the exact forms of capitalism you propose we should revert to! Apparently the kids never learnt what their parents lived with and fought against and now spend their time on the Internet condemning the very regulations that allowed their parents the wealth to afford personal computers....

unless you're going to set a cap on how much a business can make, which isn't the right thing to do. At least in my opinion.

Well we don't have to do anything like that to set wages sufficiently high so that the least skilled ( or even highly skilled; plenty of people with doctorates in physics flipping burgers in Moscow) will not have to choose between feeding themselves and feeding their two or three children.

Again i feel compelled to ask who they intend to sell their products to if they refuse to pay people? Who eats the most burgers if not the people who work two dead end jobs 12 hours a day leaving them with no time or energy to prepare food? The persistent attack on minimum wages and labor unions shows that the form of capitalism we are being subjected to isn't about creating consumers to enable ever larger profits from a ever more wealthy population but to perpetually concentrate wealth into fewer and fewer hands to the point where no one will have work because no one has any money to but anything with.

Luckily they don't have all the power and we slowly creating a system where consumers gain more and more capitol and can thus encourage further business opportunities in the market.


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by David9176

Well, David, I must say I'm surprised. So you think the gov't telling you how much you have to pay a worker is moral?

Sorry, bud, I disagree. They are in effect telling you how many employees you can afford to hire. Talk about inflation - where do you think the small business owner will get the money to pay the higher wage?

From his own altruistic pocket?

Nope. You'll be paying more for that pizza than it's worth.

If i was making minimum wage...I'd be hopping at the chance to get fired.

Why would you do that? Getting fired makes you ineligible for unemployment.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by jsobecky]

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:15 AM
Great post would it be higher though, since the dollar has lost has lost 96% percent of its purchasing power since 1913.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by David9176

Well, David, I must say I'm surprised. So you think the gov't telling you how much you have to pay a worker is moral?

Sorry, bud, I disagree. They are in effect telling you how many employees you can afford to hire. Talk about inflation - where do you think the small business owner will get the money to pay the higher wage?

From his own altruistic pocket?

Nope. You'll be paying more for that pizza than it's worth.

If i was making minimum wage...I'd be hopping at the chance to get fired.

Why would you do that? Getting fired makes you ineligible for unemployment.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by jsobecky]

What do you mean how many employees you can afford to hire? Do you mean if minimum wage goes up they'll hire less people? How would they run their business with less people? Don't they already have the minimum amount of employees that they need? Are you telling me someone out there is just hiring extra employees all willy nilly? I think that's a very foolish business practice. If you only need 10 to run your business then why hire 11? Just for fun?

Anyway, it just seems higher. Due to inflation every time minimum wage goes up, in terms of real value it's actually worth less. Remember that. It just looks like it's more. It's actually less. The famous trick the gov has pulled on both the business owners and the employees.

But I don't think the government should force companies to pay minimum wage. The reason is because I know business owners can't sell their products to people that make a dollar an hour.

So, I want to laugh my butt off when all the business owners start crying about low sales. Boo hoo, nobody's buying anything. Boo hoo. Just like the car dealers are doing now. Guess what? People that make minimum or even just low wages in general, don't qualify for new car loans do they? Hope you're not in the car business.

How about home loans? Starting to see a pattern? I am. You can't just assume that everybody but you is going to pay more than minimum wage. If the gov stops getting involved wages will either plummet or flat line. Inflation will continue to increase. That means one day your products cost too much for anyone to buy. Boo hoo. Boo hoo.

Look, anyone that runs a business should be furious when someone else pays minimum. Why? Because the more bosses that pay minimum wage, the more customers out in the market place that make minimum wage.

Now, think about it. When you're trying to sell your product do you want to try to sell it to someone that makes minimum, or someone that makes more than minimum? Do the math. It's easy to figure out.

After all, in my area 40 hours a week at minimum won't even cover all the rent. How much business do you think businesses will get from a person that can't even pay all his rent? I'll go out on a limb and say it's not going to be high.

Now, if you can't afford to pay minimum you just have a crappy friggin business. I don't know what you're doin wrong, but I never had to pay my employees minimum. Even when I managed fast food.

So, no I hope the government does get out. They shouldn't force you to pay your employees anything. Then I'll sit back and laugh when you have no one to sell your product too lol!

[edit on 13-5-2009 by tinfoilman]

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by jsobecky

Sorry Josbecky but morality has nothing to do with it unless you consider it moral to allow someone to pay as little as they can get away with.

While government does enforce societies morals and norms government in and of itself is amoral and I wish people would get that through their heads... in fact government couldn't function like it does if it did function as a moral entity.

Its a nice fantasy but it ain't gonna happen.

In that context enforcing a minimum wage is purely a matter of creating a more level playing field and like the civil rights laws or earlier the creation of the social security net it has everything to do with keeping social unrest at bay.

Remember Bismark under William the 2nd came up with the social security net... he stole the idea from the socialists. Why?

To steal their strongest argument and to put a damper on social unrest.

If you want to bring morals into the argument let me ask this... was it moral to work people 16 hours a day 6 days a week for pennies on the dollar?

That is how business did things in the early part of the 20th century and the fight for a decent wage and hours was causing riots, strikes and violence.

So according to the conservative argument the government was wrong to create standards of labor, hours, wages, work conditions etc.

If that idea had prevailed we might have experienced revolution when the depression hit.

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:23 PM
Hi, again,

Originally posted by Fremd
the only false logic in this thread is the idea that paying a worthless employee a worthwhile wage is somehow a noble cause.

I have not seen anyone say that it is noble but either way it's beside the point when the employer could simply not hire someone if they can do without them. Good luck making a profit without 'us' 'worthless' employees. I my average boss raised my salary without me having to ask for it ( or suggest that i have found greener pastures) i might have more sympathy but the fact of the matter is they wont keep you around AT ALL if they are not making a profit by your presence; the moaning and screaming is mostly because they wish to make a greater profit by getting you to do more than you are.

Would you pay Ford motor company $32,000 for a 1987 ford taurus with a big dent in the side?

Well, why not? Ford needs the money!

If that was the extent of my options ( nothing cheaper and a need a car) then i would be in exactly the same boat as most workers and most employers who would both like a more profitable deal than what they are forced to mostly settle for.

Originally posted by Fremd
that's because anyone can dig a ditch or flip some burgers

As i said before that is pretty accurate but since most people refuse to do such jobs you either have to attract them by means of a minimum wage or, as used to be the primary method, coerce/ starve them into situations where they have no options.

but it usually takes someone special to properly run a major corporation and make executive decisions that result in billions of dollars in profit. (i realize there have been some major idiots in this position, but those are few and far between.....more often than not)

Or, alternative, it simply takes amoral , inhuman choices about how to best exploit labor and circumvent the regulations 'we the people' have erected after centuries of struggles and countless numbers of dead. Admittedly i agree that they are probably not stupid but neither am i and if i had such a lack of conscious i could see quite a number of paths to vast riches.

It also says something for those who make more money - they work harder and have more dedication.

This is not a substantive argument ( but part of common capitalist mythology) as the vast majority of the worlds poor work harder and longer hours than the average western worker in his air conditioned service orientated office job. That is unless you are at the point where you actually consider sitting behind a desk or standing behind a counter, 'work'?

As for dedication are you proposing that those who are starving to death are not dedicated enough to life to work hard enough to survive? Where do you think these illogical notions originate or are we once again talking about the few hundred million 'western' workers who have managed to erect sufficient social structures to prevent themselves from being exploited to death by our corporate capitalist system? If so why the fascination and defense of a system that we can prove is not working for the vast majority of the people living in it?

It's a relatively well know fact that American citizens work the longest hours in the industrialized world ( excluding China and others where most still live in comparative poverty) and yet the rewards just isn't there:

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

But in the last dozen years many of the trend lines measuring
American prosperity have flattened out, and some have even
turned downward. For example, average real wages remain today
substantially beloru their levels of the early 1970s. Despite
the rise in the number of two-income households, median after inflation
family income has also dropped. Evidence of lower
incomes and living standards is particularly pronounced among
younger workers, indicating that the generation whose economic
prospects once looked so promising is actually experiencing more
restricted opportunity for good jobs, advancement and income
growth than did their parents’ generation.
At first, many experts advised Americans that these trends were
only temporary. They were said to be products of extraordinary
“jolts” to our economic system, like the oil shortage, or of
demographic aberrations, like the baby boom, which would disappear
with time.
Others argued that declining incomes were caused by excessive
growth of government. In 1980 a new Administration promised
that its program of radical cuts in the civilian government activities
would unleash productive private investment and spark a long
term economic boom. Almost six years later, investment was stag
nant, the unemployment rate remained at levels that once would
have signaled a recession, and the central premise of so-called
“supply-side” economics had failed the test of the real world.

Since 1967, the median household income in the United States has risen modestly, fluctuating several times. Even though personal income has risen substantially and 42% of all household now have two income earners, the median household income has increased only slightly. According to the US Census Bureau, this paradoxial set of trends is due to the changing structure of American households. For example, while the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased fron 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the proportion of such households among the general population has decreased. Thus, while married couple households with children are the most economically prosperous type of household in the United, their share of the population has been dwindeling in the United States. In 1969, more than 40% of all households consisted of a married couple with children. By 1996 only a rough quater of US households consisted of married couples with children. As a result of these changing household demographics, median household income rose only slighly despite an ever increasing female labor force and a considerable increase in the percentage of college graduates.[26]

"From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars... The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy."- John McNeil, US Census Bureau

Overall, the median household income rose from $33,338 in 1967 to an all-time high of $44,922 in 1999, and has since decreased slightly to $43,318. Decreases in household income are visible during each recession, while increases are visible during economic upturns. These fluctuations were felt across the income strata as the incomes of both, the 95th and 20th percentile were affected by flactuations in the economy. Yet, it is important to note that income in the period between 1967 and 1999 grew faster among wealthier households than it did among poorer households. For example the household income for the 80th precentile, the lower threshold for the top quintile, rose from $55,265 in 1967 to $86,867 in 2003, a 57.2% increase. The median household income rose by 30% while the income for the 20th percentile (the lower threshold for the second lowest quitile) rose by only 28% from $14,002 to $17,984. One should note that ht majority of households in the top quintile had two income earners, versus zero for the lowest quintile and that the widening gap between the top and lowest quintile may largely be the reflection of changing household demographics including the addition of women to the workforce.

There's much more but frankly i have done too much source spamming in my 'career' here.


posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:24 PM

But i also think that in every aspect of every day life, someone gets exploited somewhere and somehow.

Well what would did/ do you expect in a capitalist system? I mean why are we surprised when the profit motive seeks to undermine social moral norms( to say nothing of laws) in the single minded pursuit of market share and profit?

But punishing everyone to try and make up for it isn't going to fix anything.

It's just going to make things worse.

How does a minimum wage punish 'everyone'? How is business hurt when their consumers have more money when they can logically just raise prices( as they do any ways) to compensate? Do you not grasp that at least in theory having a higher minimum wage is there to create slightly more choice in terms of basic necessities and not to enable people to buy luxury goods? How can minimum wages be 'destructive' when they do not even keep pace with normal inflation pressure? Why is the money supply increasing any ways but not finding it's way to the pocket of the consumer? How are we supposed to pay&consume if they refuse to pay us?

Originally posted by Fremd
no, i do agree, and if you re-read my statement, i acknowledge that even CEO's can be worthless.

Should i see this as a defense of CEO's based on your presumption that they are mostly 'stupid' ( " ZOMG we lost all your money") instead of corrupt, ammoral thieves?

But that does not mean you pay a burger flipper - by law - more money.

The difference being that a burger flipper is very probably a decent citizen who, logically, does not understand the amoral/immoral ways to abuse the capitalist system to yield the maximum profit whatever the consequences to others may be?

If they are good, a business will pay them more.

Why? Why would you pay someone more when the education they received for 12 years didn't enable them to become anything more than a burger flipper in our oh so wonderful capitalist economies? Wouldn't it be easier to simply conspire with other fast food companies to ensure that you will all undermine union formation and thus keep wages as low as possibly? Why steal a good burger flipper when you can conspire and pay even the best of them almost nothing?

If they don't get paid more, what happens?

THEY LEAVE and the business can't find anyone to work, and the business goes under.

In a perfect system yes, they leave because they can get a better paying job elsewhere but what we are stuck with is hardly what the capitalist writers proposed. Fact is in a good market system where people are allowed access to the capitol and property required to do business they wouldn't have to sell their souls for minimum wage jobs but since the system wants to force people into a situation where they will create profit for a few you just can't give them a good chance to gain independent access to massive profits.

No business in the world has ever gone under because they paid their workers too much when but plenty have gone under because people with the same skills could be forced to do the same job for less in countries with even lower wages, fewer unions and more desperate people.

Min. Wage is a bad idea....when you try and make it a law.

So the way to save the system is to take money out of consumer( workers ) hands and give it to the employers so they can afford more expensive cars, houses and or yachts?

It hasn't worked and it logically cant.


posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
To answer your question "what is the livable minimum wage" I would say on the East Coast it's $8.50/hr and on the west coast $11/hr. As a minimum wage, to get a basic apartment and feed your self, and perhaps a kid or two.

$11/hr...$1,760/month (assuming 40 hr week)...apt for an adult and two kids--could drop that to $ down to $660 (that's no cable and internet) $400? drops it down to $260 left. Some of that would have been taken out for Social Security, and there's no clothing, misc, day care, transportation expenses accounted for. Looks like a lot of red ink.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Not the American Dream

The American Dream, where the next generation will be better off than their parents, has stopped. A financial crisis has shook us awake. The reality is that, as hard as my children work, they will not be able to afford the life they had as children.
With the steady transfer of wealth upward, the next generation cannot afford to act as consumers to keep the economy growing. If they try, it would be the same round of go-into-debt-to-maintain-the-same-lifestyle, which got us into this mess in the first place.

America stopped dreaming. Dreaming for something new. Something big. Some fellow Americans cannot bring themselves to dream big, instead popping whatever balloons try to float upward. Nope, can't do that!...Nope, can't do that either!...Nope, that won't work. ... Nope, that's too scary!...No...No...No...

I lived through great times of American Dreaming. How proud I was of those seven astronauts. An American flag on the moon. I was proud to travel to other countries where they talked to me of our movies and musicians. I looked forward to energy resourcefulness 30 years ago. Where houses would be creatively built differently. Straw bale houses, free formed houses. To save energy. And then different ways of producing energy, wind, solar, geothermal. Energy efficiency and less dependency on oil.

At some point Americans quit Dreaming Big. We heard other voices that told us, NO! You can't do that!
Instead of leading us into a better future, with big ideas, a future about to start in the next millenium, leaders kept us at bay with platitudes about compassion, morality, taxes, smaller gov't.

We were told to prepare for doom from the Y2K bug, fearful of the future instead of joyous anticipation. Then 9-11 happened, and America became even more afraid, lashing out like an uncontrollable mad dog. As fears grew, our ideas became smaller.

We are told that we can't keep up with the world, because our school system is failing. No! We can't keep up with the world, because our ideas are shrinking, drowning in chants of "No, we can't!".

A nation founded on ideas, principles, and dreams has stopped Dreaming Big. We no longer can go West, maybe upward, but our next dream cannot be one of place. Our next Big Dream must be one of renewing the resources we have, the infrastructure we have, making wise decisions about energy usage. Going inside of ourselves spiritually, going outside of ourselves to help our fellow man. Continuing to seek the ideals of One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Dream Big or slumber in darkness.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by desert]

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
You have to think about this way..

No, i probably don't.

When I first started college I managed security at a high-end condo facility.. I got paid $8.40/hr for third shift.
Now, this was considered a pretty good wage back then.. most people I knew strived for the $8+/hr jobs.. they where not as easy to come by, especially for no education.
Most of my friends made less then me, working at restaurants, or at stores, typically making around $5.50-$6.00/hr.

(Minimum wage was $5.15)

Yes but that was only four years ago... Do you realise that inflation more than accounts for the minimum wage rising to 6 dollars; they are getting exactly the same or even less purchasing power of a few years ago?

So they move minimum wage up.. to $6.00+ something (it changes every year now, up a few cents in Ohio). I remember we got a .05 cent raise because they felt that because people working at Taco Bell where now making nearly as much as we where, we needed a raise. Sadly, the actual real value of the raises people making over minimum wage did not reflect that which minimum wage workers got.

Which then logically means that the people who were getting paid more than minimum wages were getting paid less and less in terms of actual purchasing parity as the years rolled on. How is this a argument against minimum wage when it exposes the fact that if not for minimum wage even more people would be worse off?

So now that minimum wage is nearing $7.00/hr, the average job that had a $8/hr wage might make $9 .. because the cost of keeping a business has soared so drastically,

So has the money supply and the ability to gain credit at ever lower interest rates. In fact these days they will pay you ( inflation rate is higher than interest rate) to take a loan from them; at least they did before the current financial chaos. I would like to hear why you think the cost of business has 'soared' beside for the fact that everything has become more apparently 'expensive' ( well not really but perhaps more later) due to the inflation resulting from a larger money supply.How, for instance, does Japanese trade barriers on American cars feature in all of this in your world view? Why do they raise a 100% tax if Japanese cars are so cheaply made?

Why do you want to kick the bottom out of other people's boats because you ( who trust the system to pay you what your worth) can't raise your sails to catch the salary you believe yourself due?

and the cost to maintain employees has as well. The wage increase as percentage to wage increases of the "minimum" wages is not equal -- if the lowest earners get a $3/hr wage, and it's not reflected across the board,

Well since the higher paying workers are so 'neccesary' why don't they have the 'power' to fight for and earn what they should be worth? If everyone is earning more how come the lowest paid workers still can't afford to make a living? How can American workers be nearly the most productive ( according to the measurement tools employed) without being able to achieve European living standards? Do you know why that is or shall i try to explain why i think it is so?

then economics dictates that the price of goods (inflation) will reflect the largest earners wage increase.

I do not see how it does. The notion that higher wages will cause 'inflation' ( more money in circulation) is a well propagandized idea but not in my reading very accurate. As i understand what really causes inflation in prices is the supply of money exceeding the volume of goods in circulation; everyone has more so they can pay more. Since it's clear that purchasing power is going down despite the vast volumes of 'money' ( even if it isn't always of the M2 variety; but it gets harder as they do not publish the M3 volume anymore) it seems clear that this money is not buying goods/services or being used to pay salaries but still serving to create the inflationary pressure on prices. Since the financial collapse prices ( especial on luxury items, property and other oversold commodities) have taken a beating but given the destruction in the job market it's but a partial reflection of the massive reduced purchasing power of consumers.

Essentially... by increasing the minimum wage, you decreased the Real Wage value of "above minimum wage" earners, and effectively through inflation gave millions of people salary reductions.

But they are not increasing the minimum wage as much as they are adjusting it to keep at least partial track of inflation. Inflation is why minimum wages goes up and you are in fact , as you have been propagandized to do, confusing cause and effect. How is wage of higher earners reduced when it's at least partially presumed that they have more education/skills and thus a bit more capable of protecting their wages? Why are they not receiving wage increases to account for ever present inflationary pressure? In fact inflation is actually misrepresented as something that needs be socially destructive when it really is not as long as the economy produces actual useful goods and services. By that definition one can perhaps better understand why there is so much inflationary pressure in the US and Europe as the production jobs flows eastward; the economy produces less and less goods and creates more and more money with which to purchase it from foreign markets leaving little left to the consumers that needs some of that money to buy it with.


posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:28 AM

Where is the incentive to work? .. I can go work at Taco Bell and get high in the back room while serving up some nacho's and get paid maybe $2 less an hour then someone working their ass off. And once taxes are considered, the difference really isn't even that $2 dollars.

Yes, the system is really broken and if we took away minimum wages ALL wages will drop and the higher one's perhaps more so. Maybe if you felt less jealous of the 'slacker' who gets paid nearly as much as you do and got a great many slackers together you can form a union and get paid even more money for getting them a slightly higher minimum wage? Why try to take away fellow American workers access to living wages instead of fighting the same people they are to raise yours?

Keep the government OUT of business.

That would be fantastic but since corporations are in our business the government ( and what little we can still get them to do for us) is pretty much the recourse we have. If you want to see unfair you should read some history and discover what the pure tyranny of business can accomplish in the absence of strong central governments. Some people do seem to like the fantasy of the 'wild west' approach to equality but frankly that's not what massive majority wants and that's why we better use our access to central governments to keep business in check; it has proved again and again that the profit motive is incompatible with human considerations on such abstract levels of management.


Well we did not want to and we certainly don't believe that we are all 'equal' but we overwhelmingly agree that we have common enemies in the modern market place hence our persistent efforts to use our sometimes democratic and sometimes responsive governments to defend our economic interest. It's not a perfect solution but other societies ( Japan, many European etc) have certainly shown that this model can yield great results provided that people interact and keep themselves well informed.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
There should be no minimum wage. The Gov has no right to dictate how much people should be making---

Ideally there shouldn't have to be but we do not live in a ideal economy as then most would be employed and most would have sufficient access to capitol and wages to turn themselves into consumers. The notion that driving down wages ( based on the deceptively accurate seeming notion that people are not 'productive' enough) can save the economy is patently false as without people with sufficient money to buy what is being produced there is no point to production. This obviously presumes a national economy and admittedly a globalized economy makes things worse as now the near starving workers in China are forced to compete with the starving workers in Indonesia to see who can produce most at the lowest cost. Seeing that a large fraction of production cost is still the salary people get paid less and less ( because far more goods are being produced than there are consumers with money to but it) thus destroying the consumer base and thus the search for consumers in other countries.

Fantastically the exact same thing is happening in the country that is the 'market' for all these goods as the jobs there are moved overseas to exploit cheaper labor there. Obviously such a system isn't self perpetuating ( it consumes it's supposed consumers) and yet many refuses to believe that this global crash was coming or that they are not a logical result of capitol concentration in every fewer hands.

As i said in a system that isn't self destructive i would fight against minimum wages as in such a economy the consumer/worker would be protected; not milked into oblivion.

especially over a the entire economy encompassing millions of jobs that are completely unrelated.

Yes. Isn't it ironic how they say that the system is so fantastic and self regulating and then admit that their lying ( under pressure from the hundreds of millions who's wages did not allow them to make a living) by instituting minimum wages? If only they would publicly acknowledge what the necessity of minimum wages in fact entails we could get busy fixing the system so we wont need artificial ( that doesn't really provide a decent living anyways) 'fudge factors/regulations' to keep the whole system from going off the proverbial rails.


[edit on 14-5-2009 by StellarX]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in