The case for the federal "living wage"

Is there one?
What say you ATS?
This is a real "can of worms"; I just ran out of characters in a reply trying to defend my "opposition" to the concept. I think the most well read resident poli-sci hobbyists could probably have a field day. debating the merits and obligations inherent in the so called "social contract".
A subject admittedly far outside my "reading".

If I as "society" am obligated to support your existence with a federally mandated/subsidized "living wage" under the"social contract"; do I get a say on what level of population I am willing to support?
Or am I a slave of the social contract unable to voluntarily end my indenture.Perhaps my "social indebetness" could be capped at a lifetime figure of taxation and I could buy my freedom?

Personally I believe the very idea flys in the face of "personal responsibility" ;hence freedom from govt slavery through excessive taxation.

I'm sure I won't agree on principle with alot (most?) of the more "liberal" replies. That's perfectly alright; but("unbelieveably") I am willing to consider your argument with an open mind.

Who pays; where does the money come from: Is it"real" money if it is not created through production of a product or valuable service? How much is enough(i.e Whats a "living wage" in a land of supposedly free markets?
Could such a mandate ever be implemented under our current capitalist sysytem?

.Discuss amongst yourselves
"Oy I'm getting all verklempt.."

We already have a social contract. It's the US Constitution.
People who want some globalist collective nanny state should go form their commune somewhere else. Somewhere that doesn't already have a superior basis of government. Problem is people (like them and their elite banking types on the other side of the coin) have worked to impede it for over a century now.

reply to post by 46ACE


We have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend now. How are we going to subsidize even more peoples lives? You cant even cover our deficit as it is today, even if you tax millionaires at 100% of yearly income. So what are we going to do just let the government tax us all at 100% and give us back whatever they think is fair?

reply to post by radosta
I would tend to verymuch agree;I am a staunch anti-communist holdout from the coldwar era.

However its been pointed out to me many times here; the "social contract"(of which I refer) is an "intangible (implied) agreement of responsibilities to fellow human beings". just sayin' . like I said its outside my experience and technically oriented education. I'm all for helping my fellowman but it's a natural;compassionate human thing to do not federally mandated/funded.

reply to post by 46ACE


I say we split the US into two parts, have all the socialists on the one side and the capitalists on the other each doing their own thing see which side falls apart first lol. I'll be on the capitalist side.

Originally posted by Convicted
reply to post by 46ACE

 

We have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend now. How are we going to subsidize even more peoples lives? You cant even cover our deficit as it is today, even if you tax millionaires at 100% of yearly income. So what are we going to do just let the government tax us all at 100% and give us back whatever they think is fair?

hate to say it but the only way out of this mess is to have 1/2 or more of the world's population perish from a deadly disease or other calamity.... the Georgia Guide Stones are not kidding when they say "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by manfather


Depends on which half dies. Say that all of the younger working generation dies, then whose going to pay for SS and Medicare for the older generation? To me, this isnt a problem about population, its a problem of financial mismanagement and lies from the government. You know when they say SS has a 2.5 trillion dollar trust, there isnt actually money their, just an IOU from the federal government because they already spent the money?

reply to post by Convicted

I take that as a "no."
(No funding exists for it)So the "obligation" (if it exists at all) becomes a moot point.
After all if a business can't afford to pay a so called "living wage" to the slowest "ditch diggers" from its income. the value or production must not exist to support them. Any subsidy comes from thin air or the grace of the
"benevolent violence of big brother "against other "more productive citizens".?????

reply to post by 46ACE


Yeah you are onto something here. This may have worked in the 50's when their wasnt a global economy. But now that there is there is no way to keep upping peoples wages and still compete against the rest of the world. For instance, your ditch diggers can only charge so much to dig a ditch because a ditch is only worth so much to someone. If you have companies paying excessive wages to their customers for digging a ditch, and for everything else, then that raises their cost structure. This is actually part of the problem facing the USA right now. Compared to china, who can have a ditch dug for a 10th or less of what it costs to dig a ditch here, and every other thing for that matter. So in the global market they can under sell our products to the rest of the world, so we loose business to them. This is why the western world is screwed, we have massive debt so we cant deflate our currency, only inflate it. Also, our people are in debt, so we cant reduce their wages because they cant make ends meet. So we are basically trapped in this cycle. The only thing we can control is the cost of government and the amount of regulation a business faces from the government. That is why our only choice is to reduce the cost of government and eliminate regulations wherever wise.

Originally posted by 46ACE
reply to post by Convicted

 

I take that as a "no."
(No funding exists for it)So the "obligation" (if it exists at all) becomes a moot point.
After all if a business can't afford to pay a so called "living wage" to the slowest "ditch diggers" from its income. the value or production must not exist to support them. Any subsidy comes from thin air or the grace of the
"benevolent violence of big brother "against other "more productive citizens".?????

Germany's model does seem to be the most successful: www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de...

Originally posted by manfather

Originally posted by Convicted
reply to post by 46ACE

 

We have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend now. How are we going to subsidize even more peoples lives? You cant even cover our deficit as it is today, even if you tax millionaires at 100% of yearly income. So what are we going to do just let the government tax us all at 100% and give us back whatever they think is fair?

hate to say it but the only way out of this mess is to have 1/2 or more of the world's population perish from a deadly disease or other calamity.... the Georgia Guide Stones are not kidding when they say "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

en.wikipedia.org...

"Manfather" : I see the same imbalance; We were screaming along( gnp wise ) the path was well trodden and clear: 4.0 high school, no criminal record good SAT'S ( 6years of college /debts and all) and onward to $125K/year: the bmw ;trophy wife and ski boat...

Then the bottom fell out.
They played by the rules and It ain't fair.but
We are overpopulated; overqualified; over educated;and overstaffed .
The rabbit population took a hit by disease: soon the coyote population MUST "ADJUST" downward to a sustainable level.

Son:You've got 5years and $70K invested in a phd in greek mythology???
Sorry 'bout that..
Ever skinned a muskrat? rebuilt a smallblock chevy?or properly heat treated a coal forged knife blade?
produced alcohol from a home built distillery?.
You probably won't be eating on that phd...

Of course there should be social safety net, but "umbrella" programs like social security and medicare take money from financially secure people and redistribute to other financially secure people. How ludicrous is this? In the meantime, money is spent processing, etc. It is lunacy. I'm aware some people rely on these things and that's not who I'm talking about in this instance. Erase all the programs and have one, solely based on need.

As to the majority of people in the system, just let them keep their own damn money.

It is not compassion to make someone dependent. It is the opposite. Call it tough love. If my parents enabled me to remain depdendent on them, I'd be one resentful sumnabeech at this point. Luckily, they reared me to take responsibility for myself and my own actions. Sometimes things get tough. It's OK to ask for help (even from the government) so long as you work your tail off to get to a better place.

People will tell that it doesn't happen anymore and it is the fault of the rich. I tell you there are plenty of stories of this happening in America today.

Fantasies of high end living wages will end you up in Greece's shoes.

Plenty house to clean in the US, mind you, just not with that malarkey.

Originally posted by manfather

Originally posted by 46ACE
reply to post by Convicted

 

I take that as a "no."
(No funding exists for it)So the "obligation" (if it exists at all) becomes a moot point.
After all if a business can't afford to pay a so called "living wage" to the slowest "ditch diggers" from its income. the value or production must not exist to support them. Any subsidy comes from thin air or the grace of the
"benevolent violence of big brother "against other "more productive citizens".?????

Germany's model does seem to be the most successful: www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de...

"Germany" hmmm.Interesting read.
didn't Duetchebank soak us taxpayers through the AIG bailout?
And aren't they very near to being dragged over the "falls" by drowning Greece and the rest of the European collapse?

I submit: It sounds nice( your link): But The jury is still out on whether the German socialist system survives longer than (we do) or is destroyed under the collective weight of pan European socialism.(?)
as to "your case fororagainst a mandated ( federally subsidized) "living wage"?

related to why we have no living wage in America: Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care Systemreply to post by 46ACE


also, if you do a ratio of the gallon of gasoline price to minimum wage,
minimum wage should currently be over $20 per hour to equal the purchasing power of 1950s and 1960s dollars.

Originally posted by manfather
related to why we have no living wage in America: Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care Systemreply to post by 46ACE

 

also, if you do a ratio of the gallon of gasoline price to minimum wage,
minimum wage should currently be over $20 per hour to equal the purchasing power of 1950s and 1960s dollars.

wow do you realize what would happen to the economy if you tripled minimum wage? That number 1 at your favorite burger joint would be like $17 vs $5 or $6. Every time they increase the min wage, the purchasing power of those living on it drops, and every time, they told it will happen but the supporters never listen.

Originally posted by manfather
related to why we have no living wage in America: Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care Systemreply to post by 46ACE

 

also, if you do a ratio of the gallon of gasoline price to minimum wage,
minimum wage should currently be over $20 per hour to equal the purchasing power of 1950s and 1960s dollars.

All of our purchasing power has dwindled as the fiat dollar has been inflated(dueto govt borrowing and spending) .
You lost me: Your link says our medical system outcomes suck comparatively to the rest of the world.
and how does that apply to a federally subsidized minimum ('living") wage.?

and it's my COLLECTIVE responsibility to stabilize "your" minimum wage purchasing power ? Perhaps we should go back to the gold standard ( of those 50'sand 60's)and restabilize the dollar!whichmeansnomore "willy nilly "Govt. deficit spending! sign me up!

You did not address "where" this subsidy to pump up the minimum wage to a "living wage" comes from?
and what is a living wage pegged to?? should we also peg social security to the same metric?

reply to post by SM2


I blame peak oil or if that is just another tptb hoax, then blame the overpriced gasoline and lack of viable alternative fuel technology.
The price of gas affects literally everything we buy and sell.

Originally posted by manfather
reply to post by SM2

 

I blame peak oil or if that is just another tptb hoax, then blame the overpriced gasoline and lack of viable alternative fuel technology.
The price of gas affects literally everything we buy and sell.

Personally I am sold on the underlying logic of "peak oil". Plus it explains the "grand chess board moves" we've all witnessed in the middle east and central Asia.

Originally posted by Convicted
reply to post by manfather

 

Depends on which half dies. Say that all of the younger working generation dies, then whose going to pay for SS and Medicare for the older generation? To me, this isnt a problem about population, its a problem of financial mismanagement and lies from the government. You know when they say SS has a 2.5 trillion dollar trust, there isnt actually money their, just an IOU from the federal government because they already spent the money?

Obamacare will take care of that problem. It will be the seniors who die off first when they deny people their hip replacements and cancer treatment, and coach terminals to off themselves as a courtesy to their families.

We have to stop devaluing the dollar. Then we wouldn't have such a dramatic problem with the wage price spiral.