It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Ripcontrol's America: The Problems with Minimum wage and Unions

page: 1
1
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:03 AM
Mods on top of T and C I ask this to keep it super civil

There will be no trolling
No insults implied or direct
( unless format of I hate this because of X)
(Personal story exemption... they did this and this to me directly... so of course I feel they are X)
No personal attacks directed at the poster and not at the subject matter

I will file complaints and ask the mods to ban you from the forum... It doesnt mean they will go for it but I will do my best to see to it

this is a highly volatile thought and I do not want it to dissolve into flame wars... and yes mods hit me as well if I violate my own request...

With these in mind for politeness and good manners I begin...

Why is this a social issue ...

The effects of in my view the artificial manipulation wages and unions are an added tax that is compound on the American consumer... The social ramification is felt across the world as markets are failing.
(I note a side issue of banks here but will come to it later)

I believe that the minimum wage and via association the unions are a detriment to this economy and the freeman as a whole

Heres how
It sounds great to be able to make 15 dollars an hour... hell it is good money ...BUT, what does your minimum wage increase do....

The simple truth is that a forced increase in one part of this equations unbalances the natural symmetry your mind sees in this economic dance.... What they leave out is...

BUYING POWER!!!!!!! the other side... This is what you want...

Better put...

You want to buy all the things you need
You want to buy the things you want

But the Amount of the minimum wage is not equal to the value of the dollar used.....

An evil paradoxical concept... min wage in not equal or congruent to value of $$... yet this is the sizzle we are sold... I do NOT care about minimum wage...PERIOD... it is a sound bite... What I care about is what is the buying power of my dollar Lets look into why When you force the cost to go up in one part of a business your raise the other cost... Business owners are not going to swallow the cost... They are going to pass it right on to the consumer... Wait there is more... National scale The effect is cumulative ... from the original sources of supplies ... min wage cost increase Warehouse and shipping - min wage cost increase to processing -- min wage cost increase Wh & s- mw$$$++++ Vendors... mw $$++++ WH & S - MW$$$$++++ Retail- MW$$$\$ ++++

Do you not see the scale on a national or country level... OK now how does this effect BUYING POWER!!!

I do not know where the formula is nor do I care to look it up and find it right now.... But the idea of it is this... each stage increases cost of the item...

Well a change in the payment of minimum wage will change the value of buying power... and hence the false advertising charge....

You see they dont tell you that you get hit with an economic concept here... Its called diminishing returns.... Each increase diminishes the value of buying power... which makes your minimum wage increase.... Worthless....

Buying Power is in an inverse relationship to the Value of the minimum wage...
Unions are in the equations as mere extra min wage numbers only a higher subset.....

An inverse relationship is 2/1 relationship to 1/2... an inverse function.... thus when the value of minimum wage goes up (union to) the value of your buying power.... goes down
Now the reverse here is equally true... When your buying power goes up, the value of your wages goes up... like a pay raise.....

My next post will be over my idea over how to increase buying power....

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:05 AM

You see being members of ATS you have a unique experience and pleasure.... My genius is available for free....

LMEAO

See part of the load of goods we got sold came from FDR....

The removing of the US dollar from the gold standard.... It was part of the plan to control the people via the market controls....
The equation got a double whammy... first he remove the us from the gold standard... turning the US economy into a fiat based...

Layman's terms... The money has nothing backing it except the word it is good... A faith based system......

Then he instituted minimum wage laws in 38, i believe for the nation........

What that does is remove value then adds cumulative cost....

One of the two mistakes can be fixed readily.....

The best way to say this...

If rig the election for President 2012, my second day in office I would tell the mover and shakers to get out there check books before the market opens... you and the American people are about to get richer...

I would announce that the US is undoing via Presidential power what was done by FDR.... Order the oil reserves the US is storing , all the gold we have, Silver, Plutonium, uranium, Diamonds and all other precious metals tied to all the US dollars in circulation...

Aiming to have at least a thirty five cents on the dollar value for all the money the us has in circulation....

Next the banks are required to have 50% of all money on their books available...
Yes with branch banking, all they have to have is the value of the customers that claim that location as home bank....

Also the banks have to have 50% of all the money they create on hand... Via what ever means they create it....
This includes foreign banks with branches on our shores... and applies to all their customers not mattering if the customer does business in the us or not... Your a foreign entity so if you cant go by our rules you can not touch our currency...

The same applies to US banks over seas... they have to treat all customers as if us citizens in this matter... 50% of all created money...

This should nearly double if not triple the value of the Dollar world wide.....and our buy power.....

This is the part I think most will have trouble with...

I will in my next post go over some definitions

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:16 AM
Good luck with this S&F. I have been trying to point this stuff out, but some people will not believe you. They are incapable of even considering the truth here. It is easy to prove. Just look at house prices at various points in history. Do that with any commodity and the trend is easy to see. Our money is worth less than it was.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:17 AM

edit on 16-12-2011 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:20 AM
Diminishing Returns

In economics, diminishing returns (also called diminishing marginal returns) is the decrease in the marginal (per-unit) output of a production process as the amount of a single factor of production is increased, while the amounts of all other factors of production stay constant.

The law of diminishing returns (also law of diminishing marginal returns or law of increasing relative cost) states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant, will at some point yield lower per-unit returns.[1] The law of diminishing returns does not imply that adding more of a factor will decrease the total production, a condition known as negative returns, though in fact this is common.

next

Inverse Function

In mathematics, an inverse function is a function that undoes another function: If an input x into the function ƒ produces an output y, then putting y into the inverse function g produces the output x, and vice versa. i.e., ƒ(x)=y, and g(y)=x. More directly, g(ƒ(x))=x, meaning g(x) composed with ƒ(x) leaves x unchanged.

A function ƒ that has an inverse is called invertible; the inverse function is then uniquely determined by ƒ and is denoted by ƒ−1 (read f inverse, not to be confused with exponentiation).

A relation can be determined to have an inverse if it is a one-to-one function.

&

Inverse Relation

In mathematics, the inverse relation of a binary relation is the relation that occurs when you switch the order of the elements in the relation. For example, the inverse of the relation 'child of' is the relation 'parent of'. In formal terms, if X and Y are sets and L \subseteq X \times Y is a relation from X to Y then L − 1 is the relation defined so that y\,L^[-1]\,x if and only if x\,L\,y (Halmos 1975, p. 40). In another way, L^[-1] = $(y, x) \in Y \times X \mid (x, y) \in L$.

The notation comes by analogy with that for an inverse function. Though many functions do not have an inverse; every relation does.

The inverse relation is also called the converse relation or transpose relation (in view of its similarity with the transpose of a matrix: these are the most familiar examples of dagger categories), and may be written as LC, LT, L~ or \breve[L].

Note that, despite the notation, the converse relation is not an inverse in the sense of composition of relations: L \circ L^[-1] \neq \mathrm[id] in general.

I think my def was simpler... on inverse....

Purchasing power is the number of goods/services that can be purchased with a unit of currency. For example, if you had taken one dollar to a store in the 1950s, you would have been able to buy a greater number of items than you would today, indicating that you would have had a greater purchasing power in the 1950s. Currency can be either a commodity money, like gold or silver, or fiat currency, or free-floating market-valued currency like US dollars. As Adam Smith noted, having money gives one the ability to "command" others' labor, so purchasing power to some extent is power over other people, to the extent that they are willing to trade their labor or goods for money or currency.

If one's monetary income stays the same, but the price level increases, the purchasing power of that income falls. Inflation does not always imply falling purchasing power of one's money income since it may rise faster than the price level. A higher real income means a higher purchasing power since real income refers to the income adjusted for inflation.

I will include a little more here from this definition

Fiat currency

Fiat money is money that derives its value from government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning "let it be done", as such money is established by government decree. Where fiat money is used as currency, the term fiat currency is used.

definitions to continue

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:24 AM

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
If I'm working and contributing to the success of a company, I deserve fair compensation for that contribution.

If the CEO gets to make 10 million a year, I don't think it's unreasonable that the people on the floor expect to be paid enough so that they don't have to live out of their cars or in a cardboard box.
Do you understand that in a truly free market that would not happen? Your skills hold value. The more skills and/or the stronger your skills, the more value they hold. In a free market, the owner would know that you could take those skills somewhere else where you get paid more or even start a business to compete with his. Let's use mechanics, electricians, plumbers, etc... as an example. If you don't pay them equal to their value, someone else will. If no one else does, they can go start their own business fairly easily and take your profit away from you. To a degree, most workers can do this. However, it does not work for the low skilled like burger flippers. Those jobs should only be filled by teens and students anyway.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:31 AM

Price index

A price index (plural: “price indices” or “price indexes”) is a normalized average (typically a weighted average) of prices for a given class of goods or services in a given region, during a given interval of time. It is a statistic designed to help to compare how these prices, taken as a whole, differ between time periods or geographical locations.

Price indices have several potential uses. For particularly broad indices, the index can be said to measure the economy's price level or a cost of living. More narrow price indices can help producers with business plans and pricing. Sometimes, they can be useful in helping to guide investment.

Some notable price indices include:

* Consumer price index
* Producer price index
* GDP deflator

we can go deeper but it is here... the average to compare....

Cost of living

Cost of living is the cost of maintaining a certain standard of living. Changes in the cost of living over time are often operationalized in a cost of living index. Cost of living calculations are also used to compare the cost of maintaining a certain standard of living in different geographic areas. Geographic differences in cost of living can be measured in terms of purchasing power parity rates.

I want to know if you see it as well... the manipulation and waste of the min wage... I believe that Buying Power is the secret and it is what can boost this economy and get people back to work...

If we are going to manipulate lets play where everybody wins.....

This idea has to be handled very carefully because like the minimum wage part you will get hit with Diminishing returns as feed back....

That is why the numbers on requirements need to be mathematically calculated... the amounts banks have minimum can never go below X and the amount the treasury has on hand in real items never goes below X...

Lets play to win so America wins.....

I GTG but think what happens when america implements such a plan...... How can the rest of the world compete ... they will be forced to adopt the model or die trying not to....

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:35 PM

All I have to do is look at history to know that's not what ends up happening. What ends up happening is that people are forced to work 12-16 hour days for a pittance in horrible conditions. What ends up happening is that you have a two-tiered system with the very rich and the very poor, with an extremely small middle class.

Unfettered, unmitigated capitalism results, very quickly, in a system that resembles economic feudalism.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:41 PM
Fine by me if you want to do away with the minimum wage...as long as there is a cap on wealth, and mandatory retirement when you reach the cap.

No one has a right to unlimited wealth: their "right" to take as much from the economy as they can and want ends when it deprives others of their right to a decent life.

Most economic issues would disappear if there was a cap on wealth.
edit on 16-12-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:41 PM

rose coloured spectacles are worn a lot on ats recently. Let me explain. the people on these minimum wages, as every union member, are the american comsumer. They have NO choice but to pay the price which the people with the money want to ask for their products. Now let me pose just one question to illustrate this point. Why, when oil is naturally produced and the mechanical cost of pumping and refining is the same today as it was in 1910, is the cost of petrol so high? Do not ever say well the cost of exploration and development has to be took into concideration. That is the overall lie spun by the people to vallidify their inflationary prices. I have said this before. How much did it cost to put a man on the moon? 1 billion, 1 trillion. What if everyone gave the materials and services for nothing. Then how much would it have it cost. o dollars. If you haven't got it by now the whole shebang is dictated by the money people from the top down.It never, ever has been in the power of the lower paid to set ANY price or costing, from manufacture to transport to retail. If you believe your statement that the minimum wage or any union activity has any bearing on any of these processes you are sadly deluded. Mans greed is what causes these inflationary increases and it's not the greed of the lower paid, for what they can force off the people who truely control prices, is but miniscule compared to what they are creaming off the top, middle and bottom. ONLY their choice to alter the pricing structure or even the economy of a country.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck

All I have to do is look at history to know that's not what ends up happening. What ends up happening is that people are forced to work 12-16 hour days for a pittance in horrible conditions. What ends up happening is that you have a two-tiered system with the very rich and the very poor, with an extremely small middle class.

Unfettered, unmitigated capitalism results, very quickly, in a system that resembles economic feudalism.

Really? What point in history was that done with a FREE MARKET? Even under our current central planning economy, with all of the difficulties involved in working for yourself, I went to work for myself making more money working less hours. I can cover all my needs working 15 hours/week. Anybody with real skills can do the same thing. It would be even easier in a free market.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:51 PM

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
If I'm working and contributing to the success of a company, I deserve fair compensation for that contribution.

If the CEO gets to make 10 million a year, I don't think it's unreasonable that the people on the floor expect to be paid enough so that they don't have to live out of their cars or in a cardboard box.
Do you understand that in a truly free market that would not happen? Your skills hold value. The more skills and/or the stronger your skills, the more value they hold. In a free market, the owner would know that you could take those skills somewhere else where you get paid more or even start a business to compete with his. Let's use mechanics, electricians, plumbers, etc... as an example. If you don't pay them equal to their value, someone else will. If no one else does, they can go start their own business fairly easily and take your profit away from you. To a degree, most workers can do this. However, it does not work for the low skilled like burger flippers. Those jobs should only be filled by teens and students anyway.

Sure, this is exactly what happened in the early 1900s! It worked out so well, they had to make new laws to control the monopolies that popped up. And now you want to remove those restrictions......makes perfect sense.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:06 PM

How did the monopolies arise? How did the land barons become such? It had nothing to do with free markets.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:10 PM
The sad truth is that all of the economic formulas that economists run helpped get us into this depression..... first, my thought on the min wage;..this is necessary in every market because without a bottom employers will supress wages tot he point where it does not pay to work.

secondly, unions are a necessary evil when corporations and businesses control government ... that is why they rose and the rise in wages; shorter working hours and other workplace restrictions.

Did you know that Alan Greenspan pushed to keep wages low to thwart inflation?

I watched as our economy went from the manufacturing economy to a service and then to a borrow and spend economy. However, the economy can not survive as a consumer economy so now we are becoming the healthcare economy coupled with a weak service economy.........

I see the end coming for the fiat currency called the "dollar" within a year.....

the bubble economy is soon too burst......

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:23 PM

I would announce that the US is undoing via Presidential power what was done by FDR.... Order the oil reserves the US is storing , all the gold we have, Silver, Plutonium, uranium, Diamonds and all other precious metals tied to all the US dollars in circulation...

so, devaluing the almost worthless dollar by another 65% is a good idea?

I don't believe the US owns much gold anymore .... and even if we did the amount of funny money digits created would not be near 35% ... but probably close to .01 if we are lucky

I was born in 1960 and now a dollar has deflated to about 14 cents ......

most of what I see you talking about is inflation ..."hey big man let me hold a dollar"
edit on 16-12-2011 by fnpmitchreturns because: add content

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

How did the monopolies arise? How did the land barons become such? It had nothing to do with free markets.

What are you talking about? Have you studied history of American business at all? The Robber Barons became rich by exploiting workers and just generally being dicks. So the people organized, and contacted their representatives, and laws were made to stop this.

The corporations saw how powerful this was, then started buying the politicians, and used them to make laws to protect their strangle hold on America, as opposed to breaking it.

So legislation WAS used to help the monopolies, but not until after the laws were initially written to help the common man.

Here let me tell you a story: 2 weeks ago, I got fired from my factory job, because I got hurt at work and filed an injury report. My boss told me to get out there and keep working, and I did for a week, hurting myself more. When I went ot the company doctor and he put work restrictions on my right hand, instead of helping me find a productive position I could do with one hand, they fired me. Although this isnt illegal, I will now at least be getting paid some workers compensation money due to their actions. Without this "evil law", my company would have been able to throw me out on the street with no job, because I hurt myself making money for them, and I would have no recourse.

This is the America you want? Because that is what no restrictions lead to. My former employer is making money hand over fist, even with all this "heavy handed legislation", and they would still rather fire me than allow me a couple weeks to heal. This is what you are going to get if you remove all legislation regarding employers...a nice "business friendly" environment where no one makes money except the factory owners....like China. Basically, you are arguing to turn America into China.

Why dont you just do us all a favor and move to China?
edit on 16-12-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
The sad truth is that all of the economic formulas that economists run helpped get us into this depression..... first, my thought on the min wage;..this is necessary in every market because without a bottom employers will supress wages tot he point where it does not pay to work.
Nobody will work for free. When an employer does not pay enough, his employees(those of any worth) can go work elsewhere for more money.

secondly, unions are a necessary evil when corporations and businesses control government ... that is why they rose and the rise in wages; shorter working hours and other workplace restrictions.
Thus the unions, the corporatists and the government all share the blame for destroying free market capitalism.

I watched as our economy went from the manufacturing economy to a service and then to a borrow and spend economy. However, the economy can not survive as a consumer economy so now we are becoming the healthcare economy coupled with a weak service economy.........

I see the end coming for the fiat currency called the "dollar" within a year.....

the bubble economy is soon too burst......
All this works to prove the OP's point.

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

How did the monopolies arise? How did the land barons become such? It had nothing to do with free markets.

What are you talking about? Have you studied history of American business at all? The Robber Barons became rich by exploiting workers and just generally being dicks. So the people organized, and contacted their representatives, and laws were made to stop this.

The corporations saw how powerful this was, then started buying the politicians, and used them to make laws to protect their strangle hold on America, as opposed to breaking it.

So legislation WAS used to help the monopolies, but not until after the laws were initially written to help the common man.

You are asking me if I studied history when history wants to give you a serious wake up call. Take a moment to probe that history you claim to know. How did the robber barons finance their railroads? How did they get the land. Hint, it was the very opposite of free market economics at work.
edit on 16-12-2011 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by DarthMuerteThus the unions, the corporatists and the government all share the blame for destroying free market capitalism.

So then why are you in favor of giving ALL the power to the corporatists? Unfettered ability to do whatever they want is not "free market", it is anarchy.

Think of it this way...why arent we allowed to live our lives in a "free market" way? No stop signs, no weapons or assault laws, no laws of any kind. Do you think a modern society could function like this? So why do you think it will work when you add money and greed to the mix?

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 01:33 PM

Now respond to the rest of that post, if you dare. Probably not, just pretend it never happened like people like you always do.

top topics

1