Higher minimum wage = Hot Air by Politicians

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
In my humble opinion...

If you really and truly want to make the life of others more prosperous and fulfilling...

There is only one possible road...

Freedom.

Here comes my soapbox moment..




Many have this idea that the Gov mandating wages is the answer when time and again it has been proven to be only a temporary "pleasure" until the costs rise and wipe out the gains...fact.

The Gov...while mandating this...is also holding strict laws on free enterprise and entrepreneurship. They are holding both ends of the rope that they are using to hang people with. Raising the minimum wage does not create prosperity, it continues wage slavery.

I say...get the Gov out of the way...let people do what they can do to take care of themselves. If a person wants to get a cheap trailer and a cheap grill and sell cheap hot dogs along the side of the road...he should be able to do that. he should not have to pay for licensing and regulations just to get started. Sure, have a health inspection randomly to make sure the guy isn't poisoning people...but do not punish before he even gets started.

If someone wants to be a door to door masseuse...they should be able to without ridiculous rules and regulations.

All these regulations and codes do is stifle competition in the market place. If you are already up the ladder, what a better way to keep your "position" than to lobby for regulations that limit and/or remove competition...

The only true answer is complete economic and financial freedom for all. I am not talking about no oversight...there are some things that have to be monitored for safety...but...many things are regulated for the sake of regulation alone. There used to be a term..."Buyer beware"...if you choose to purchase poorly, that is your lack of research...it should not be up to the Gov to protect you from your own stupidity.

I believe things like prostitution and certain herbal substances should be legal. They can be taxed and it boils down to two people making a contract between them. There should be no place for the Gov in this arrangement.

I digress though. I believe in freedom and personal responsibility. I know many-many people believe the answer to our woes is in more and more Gov't control and for me and those that feel as I do...that is the exact opposite of what needs to happen to return to prosperity...

/end soapbox

I will admit, this is one of the better posts I have ever read here on ATS... and your soap box emote made me chuckle.

I could not agree more. In one of my Economy classes, my prof said that the USA used to be run by normal Americans and laws, such as tax laws, used to be around 60-80 pages. Now, everyone in Congress and other political parties are all lawyers and it is now well over 600+ pages. This fits into what you are saying. Less government control and more control to the people. Why must everything be so regulated, not only regulated, but regulated to such an extreme we must regulate EVERY detail.

Do you think that all those frivolous lawsuits, from people who want to be rich without having to work for it, comes into play here? Were the regulations not only setup to stop those and protect the corporations, but to also protect the average people and it backfired?

It is no coincidence that machine shops are doing extremely well. They are making parts for robots/machines to take the place of people due to over regulation and healthcare costs. Raising the minimum wage sounds good. Reality gets in the way of it BEING good for the common man. It is pretty easy to see how that would have a negative effect on the employment numbers and product costs. The pain will start at the bottom and work it's way up. It will however never reach the top. Much like sanctions on Iran don't hurt the people in power, they hurt the poor citizen.

Originally posted by jimmiec
It is no coincidence that machine shops are doing extremely well. They are making parts for robots/machines to take the place of people due to over regulation and healthcare costs. Raising the minimum wage sounds good. Reality gets in the way of it BEING good for the common man. It is pretty easy to see how that would have a negative effect on the employment numbers and product costs. The pain will start at the bottom and work it's way up. It will however never reach the top. Much like sanctions on Iran don't hurt the people in power, they hurt the poor citizen.

It's amazing you bring this up as I was just thinking about this. If minimum wage keeps increasing as well as technology, at what point does it become more economically feasible to buy and install robots to replace the working class?

EDIT: OMG, I love your avatar BTW. it still makes me laugh.

minimum wage = a starting point

you work to get beyond that , in business the 2 biggest cost are manpower & materials , of course taxes & insurance are fixed so , you constantly change both man & materials, if the wage is raised well you will reduce your manpower to compensate for the money that is coming out of your bottomline,customer can only absorb so much.

reply to post by Catalyst317


The lawsuits do not help that is for sure. On the one hand, as a free enterprise...if you screw up and hurt someone, you should be held accountable...but you are right, many lawsuits have been off the charts into ridiculous.

The saddest tragedy for all of us is something I'm about to say that will p!ss off some bleeding hearts...

We have created rules and regulated society to protect and pamper the dumbest and most stupid of our population. Another poster above commented somewhat snarky about "Darwinism"...well guess what? It might not be such a bad idea if we removed "stupid" from the gene pool. I use this example often and it all sounds funny...

In many public restrooms, there are continuous roll feed cloth towels. Thanks to laws passed years ago, they all have to have a sticker that says "Do not hang from towel by neck"...really? I say...take the sticker off and if someone is stupid enough to "hang from towel by neck".

You can educate the ignorant...but as a great comedian said..."You can't fix stupid".

People are not born "equal" like so many want to trumpet. Some are born with traits to be stronger, faster, smarter, more resistant to sickness and disease...or...wait for it...wealthier...if you can find fair in there...you are dreaming.

reply to post by Catalyst317


Yea, I know machinists. They are working overtime. It is mostly parts for manufacturers that are building machines to take the place of humans. On the bright side, when you call that toll free number for service, you won't be getting someone in India soon.

The Avatar is fascinating. I found it a few years ago and never get tired of watching it. I have no idea if it is photo shopped. Probably not!!

reply to post by Catalyst317


I am not for or against minimum wage increase because don't think it will make any difference because of our foreign economics policies, which are the problem.

I have seen this argument pop up quite often where the business owners claim, any increased costs will be passed on to the consumer.

Likewise, where are the all the arguments by these business owners when they employed cheap overseas labor.
That cost was passed onto the consumer as well to the point where they cannot afford the products anymore, so you have business's failing from those retarded moves.

see what the minimum wage is (if there is any) in 3rd world countries, and then see how those people live. ever wonder why that data is never brought up in public financial discussions?
apple is the prime example....it charges a premium price, and pays it's overseas workers crap...it has the ability to pay those people much more, based on the enormous profit margins they make...but they don't....all that extra profit goes into the shareholders pocket...good for shareholders, obviously...but, it shows you that profits don't benefit the workers that produce them...this is why you have to FORCE companies to pay more by having a minimum wage...don't listen to what the business sector says, watch what it actually does.

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by Catalyst317

 

I am not for or against minimum wage increase because don't think it will make any difference because of our foreign economics policies, which are the problem.

I have seen this argument pop up quite often where the business owners claim, any increased costs will be passed on to the consumer.

Likewise, where are the all the arguments by these business owners when they employed cheap overseas labor.
That cost was passed onto the consumer as well to the point where they cannot afford the products anymore, so you have business's failing from those retarded moves.

You bring up a great point. If we increase minimum wage to the point that, what we consider "cheap labor", is no longer cheap and the cost of manufacturing items overseas, paying the import taxes, and other taxes still makes it cheaper to send our production to China, what will our corporations do?

Lets face it, it's a dog eat dog world and what ever the wealthy have to do to keep themselves wealthy they will do. The USA is to focused on things like American Idol and Justin Beaver to care about anything else.

I think most legitimate economists will tell you that a mandated increase in minimum wage is a net loss for the economy and jobs in general. There are detailed explanations out there to show how it works on paper, but there's historical evidence (read fact) that shows net losses in jobs resulting from and due explicitly to every increase in minimum wages the US has ever had.

There are two schools of thought for helping out the impoverished by jobs-related means. One is to raise minimum wage and the other is to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit. EITC increases have historically shown benefits to the economy and preservation of jobs. Minimum wage increases have always failed and resulted in losses.

The thing people don't think about, and federal government doesn't want you to know, is that the more effective method of helping low-wage working people takes away from tax revenues for the government, and to most federal legislators and executives, that's all that matters, therefore they go for the one that they think will get them more money.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65

We have created rules and regulated society to protect and pamper the dumbest and most stupid of our population. Another poster above commented somewhat snarky about "Darwinism"...well guess what? It might not be such a bad idea if we removed "stupid" from the gene pool. I use this example often and it all sounds funny...

Do you hold the same philosophy when it comes to the use of our military that caters and pampers to the interests and protection of the Multi National Corporations and Banks throughout the world?

We should reduce the military only to the defense of the nation, and let corporations and finance have to tuff it out in the worlds free market alone. Darwinism at work indeed.

Originally posted by jimmyx
see what the minimum wage is (if there is any) in 3rd world countries, and then see how those people live. ever wonder why that data is never brought up in public financial discussions?
apple is the prime example....it charges a premium price, and pays it's overseas workers crap...it has the ability to pay those people much more, based on the enormous profit margins they make...but they don't....all that extra profit goes into the shareholders pocket...good for shareholders, obviously...but, it shows you that profits don't benefit the workers that produce them...this is why you have to FORCE companies to pay more by having a minimum wage...don't listen to what the business sector says, watch what it actually does.

This fits into what I have been saying for years. It's not the Federal Reserve (although they are part of the blame) it's the stock market. Companies, their own and others, make more money on the stock market than their own goods. In order to make more revenue, a company must show an increase in profits from quarter to quarter. To do this a company has two options: lower the cost of production OR increase prices. Only then will more people buy stocks and thus increase the revenue and capital of said company. If a company sees any stagnation or decrease, their stock drops and, ultimately, their company suffers from lower revenue.

It's a vicious cycle made to keep people rich and keep others poor. Yes, it is a horrid cycle, but most only care about themselves and their own to stand up and stop it. Even if people united to stand up, would it even make a difference at this point? I believe this is the thinking of the working class and as such, nothing will ever be resolved. I know, personally, I would not risk my job and my ability to pay my bills to stand up and say "enough is enough". I do understand that this is what is wrong with the system and I only portraiture the failure of the USA. However, I must always look out for me and mine.

Yes, I am part of the problem, but when it comes down to it, will you pay my bills and put my children through college if/when I am imprisoned/killed?

Originally posted by lynxpilot
I think most legitimate economists will tell you that a mandated increase in minimum wage is a net loss for the economy and jobs in general. There are detailed explanations out there to show how it works on paper, but there's historical evidence (read fact) that shows net losses in jobs resulting from and due explicitly to every increase in minimum wages the US has ever had.

There are two schools of thought for helping out the impoverished by jobs-related means. One is to raise minimum wage and the other is to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit. EITC increases have historically shown benefits to the economy and preservation of jobs. Minimum wage increases have always failed and resulted in losses.

The thing people don't think about, and federal government doesn't want you to know, is that the more effective method of helping low-wage working people takes away from tax revenues for the government, and to most federal legislators and executives, that's all that matters, therefore they go for the one that they think will get them more money.

Star for you sir. This is one of the most articulate arguments I have read on ATS ever. Well played sir (or madam... but we all know, there are no girls on the internet )

reply to post by jimmiec


BTW...that is a very cool avatar...makes me laugh everytime I see it...

I think all of us at some point in our innocent youth had dreams of the future....visions of sci-fi made real where robots did all the work and we got to pursue the loftier things of mind and spirit. Art, music, philosophy and/or even religion and matters of the spirit. When I was young...I remember watching "Star trek" and thinking how cool it would be to live in that world...in that time.

As an adult, I have came to learn that building those robots that do all the work costs a lot of money. The people that put that money up to have these things made and manufactured are not doing it for the "good of mankind"...there is no benevolence here. They are doing it for profit. They are more dependable, don't demand healthy working conditions and you only have to pay for maintenance. Eventually, I can foresee a time when all but research and development could theoretically be performed by a robot. From house cleaning to building construction...could all be done by advanced, programmable robotics.

What will that mean? I am afraid it will be the final death nail of a multi class society. There will be two...the manufacturers and leaders (already becoming one in the same)...and then everyone else. We already have some states with laws preventing people from collecting rainwater or city ordinances mandating what you can grow in your own yard...making it harder and harder to be self sufficient...it is only a matter of time until we are herded together to be fed, sheltered and if need be...eliminated. Very few will be actually "needed" for the elites to have their lifestyles...someone to maintain the machines and be nanny to their spawn...

reply to post by jacobe001


Completely agree. Our Military industrial complex has become a revenue devouring monstrosity. I am all for a safe and secure border...let every other sovereign nation defend their own borders at their cost...not mine.

Originally posted by jacobe001

Originally posted by Jeremiah65

We have created rules and regulated society to protect and pamper the dumbest and most stupid of our population. Another poster above commented somewhat snarky about "Darwinism"...well guess what? It might not be such a bad idea if we removed "stupid" from the gene pool. I use this example often and it all sounds funny...

Do you hold the same philosophy when it comes to the use of our military that caters and pampers to the interests and protection of the Multi National Corporations and Banks throughout the world?

We should reduce the military only to the defense of the nation, and let corporations and finance have to tuff it out in the worlds free market alone. Darwinism at work indeed.

What a great argument. I have always said that the USA should stay out of other countries and let them do as they will... why do we have to be the world police? What gives us the right anyway?

Let other countries do as they will. Only intercede if affects our freedoms or our people.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by iwilliam

 

That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I am saying is that if you want to start a family but don't have a lot of money then you need to be prepared to accept the responsibility that you are going to struggle and will have to work harder to provide.

Don't demand the government put you at a level of other people who can afford it simply because its a decision you made.

Instead of demanding that you receive more pay for a minimum wage job why don't you go out and increase your skillset so you can move into a higher paying job?

"Well I can't do that because I have a family to raise", see the faulty logic here.

Your premise is reasonable. I'm not trying to claim otherwise.

However, it is still tied to the idea that one must have enough money to start a family the right way, and that will never happen with our current rigged system, for many in the "lower class."

As for your second to last line-- how about instead of allowing companies to rob the middle class by paying them a wage too low to live on, we force them to pay a fair, living wage, and then allow market forces (and hopefully boycotts) to deal with companies that want to be greedy enough to keep upping their prices to retain their already "too-great" profits? Exactly how many billions do think the waltons need (directly at the expense of the millions of workers who help generate those profits)?

We need a living wage to help boost the economy. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that restrictions should be put in place barring companies (of a certain size, I'd stipulate) from raising their prices by much, for a certain period following the wage increase.

It is not quite as simple as greed. Retirement accounts are invested in the stock market. If stocks dip, so does your retirement account. Profits effect us all. I agree that human nature is to get all you can and there is corruption and greed involved. I just think that a bit of an overhaul of the current system would be better in the long run than vilifying profit in general.

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by iwilliam

 

That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I am saying is that if you want to start a family but don't have a lot of money then you need to be prepared to accept the responsibility that you are going to struggle and will have to work harder to provide.

Don't demand the government put you at a level of other people who can afford it simply because its a decision you made.

Instead of demanding that you receive more pay for a minimum wage job why don't you go out and increase your skillset so you can move into a higher paying job?

"Well I can't do that because I have a family to raise", see the faulty logic here.

Your premise is reasonable. I'm not trying to claim otherwise.

However, it is still tied to the idea that one must have enough money to start a family the right way, and that will never happen with our current rigged system, for many in the "lower class."

As for your second to last line-- how about instead of allowing companies to rob the middle class by paying them a wage too low to live on, we force them to pay a fair, living wage, and then allow market forces (and hopefully boycotts) to deal with companies that want to be greedy enough to keep upping their prices to retain their already "too-great" profits? Exactly how many billions do think the waltons need (directly at the expense of the millions of workers who help generate those profits)?

We need a living wage to help boost the economy. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that restrictions should be put in place barring companies (of a certain size, I'd stipulate) from raising their prices by much, for a certain period following the wage increase.

LMAO your opening statement reminded me of this!:




However, you make a valid point, as to what I was trying to make with the OP. We will only make our country better when we have a handle on our rising inflation.

reply to post by iwilliam


I have thought about this issue many times and I see validity on both sides, sexual education should be available to the population in general as well as family planing information and at least affordable contraceptives (state should only offer free contraceptives if there is a state or social demographical problem). Its a issue of civility...

I would also favor the requirement of a "license for reproduction", A validation of capability for parents that would offer a better protection to the offspring and force giving reproduction a moment of reflection. Any sanction would be in the benefit of the offspring not the state and unlicensed reproduction would automatically activate a social security and minor protection process.