The $15 Dollar Wage vs The Skilled Labor Market

a reply to: neo96

Does it really matter if the job was for teenagera if engineers and professionals can o ly find that for work before their family falls into debt.

So many people haven't thought things through. You can have ideals and theories all you want but reality always breaks through.

If we don't have enough professional jobs per capita hard working educated people will and are falling through the cracks.

The conservatives won't touch corperate taxes because their buddies survive on anticompetition stuff like high taxes that only large established bussinesses can circumvent.

As a conservative I am far more appalled by the conservative politicians. Or rather the lack there of. They ran Rand off right away and he was the only guy making educated statementsabout the world in that while group I find his suxking up to the religious right appalling but he is a decent statesmen by today's standards

a reply to: luthier

Conservative blah,blah,blah.

Newsflash ANYONE that wants to do business has to incorporate TO DO BUSINESS.

Every business is an evil corporation. That means that brick and motar store ran by joe bob and bill bob.

You should listen to what BIGfurrytexan has said thus far in this thread.

He actually knows what he's talking about.

originally posted by: TinFoilSuit
Did nothing but put forth all the risk. Spent their life savings or went into debt to pursue their dream. Often worked more hours for less money than their employees especially during the first few years ... sometimes longer.

But yeah, you deserve half just for showing up.

a reply to: Sargeras

Yes I clearly said 1/2 for showing up right?

What a stupid assertion!!!

I said I deserve 1/2 of my labors, my production.

If the company makes $100 an hour off my laborers, yes they should spend 1/2 of that sum to employ me.

If I'm doing all the actual work while the owner ATS all day, why should they make more from my labors than me, the guy actually sweating and earning all the money?

How about the accountants? How will they get paid if they produce no income for the company but you and the owner are on a fifty-fifty split? The person sweeping and mopping and emptying the trash? Should you get their share too because they do not produce a positive ROI for the company? Should they have a share?

a reply to: Sargeras

a reply to: neo96

Well having studies economics a bit I disagree .

I also have an s Corp so your just doing lip service. You have no idea what you are talking about other than some blurbs from Mises that resonated with you.

As far as reality and economics go. We have a serious problem in the us. One major issue is the job market for good wages. The left and right have been molesting the market for decades. Nixon being a huge part of the problem ironically he also started a new group of conservatives that were not conservative but rather moral legislators.

If you think conservative politicians aren't responsible for the mess every bit as liberals your just unaware of history.

Outside of Nixon, Bill Clinton is the next worse guy. He made NAFTA and the telecom act. Two things that did severe damage as well.

Then there is GWB. Grew the gov, grew the deficet, started wars.

Ms clinton will prob be even worse than bill.


And no you don't need to incorporate o do business it just takes away personal liability. There are sole proprietorship, Llc, basic partnerships etc. It varies quite a bit state to state. My state you don't need crap to do business just file taxes. Do a w9

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: luthier

Conservative blah,blah,blah.

Newsflash ANYONE that wants to do business has to incorporate TO DO BUSINESS.

Every business is an evil corporation. That means that brick and motar store ran by joe bob and bill bob.

You should listen to what BIGfurrytexan has said thus far in this thread.

He actually knows what he's talking about.

By this I assume you mean "knows how to work people to death to rape their existence for profit"?

We don't need more worker rape, workers have for a generation in America differed more than enough.

It is time to pay labor, before labor reminds you greedy pigs exactly how powerful labor is.

The cornerstone of the entire market is labor, it does everything people are willing to pay to get done.

It produces all of the profits of this entire nation.

There is no CEO or manager that can't be cut out of the process altogether.

Labor makes it all, moves it all, creates all the wealth.

No manager has ever once in all of history created value, only labor creates, all others take from labors work to finance themselves.

This is the basis of market economics.

Labor is a crucial to every step of the entire economy, without labor, banks are pointless, managers are pointless, owners are pointless.

Since labor is obviously the most important aspect of business, why don't they deserve a decent paycheck?

a reply to: luthier

Well having studies economics a bit I disagree .

Study more then.

I also have an s Corp so your just doing lip service. You have no idea what you are talking about other than some blurbs from Mises that resonated with you.

Really ?

S corporations are corporations that elect to pass corporate income, losses, deductions, and credits through to their shareholders for federal tax purposes. Shareholders of S corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates. This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income. S corporations are responsible for tax on certain built-in gains and passive income at the entity level.

www.irs.gov...

Then why are you not 'paying your fair share' ?

If you think conservative politicians aren't responsible for the mess every bit as liberals your just unaware of history.

Between social security,medicare,unemployment insurance,holiday pay, double time,triple time, vacations the REST of employee BENEFITS.

People really don't have a damn thing to snip about.

Mainly because ALL that takes away from the hourly wage. ANY wage increases translates across the board.

Since someone is touting their economic ''knowledge' they should be fully aware of.

Then there is the whole REGULATORY burden that is placed on business.

Then there is the whole MONETARY burden that is placed on business. Like Printing money out of thin air DEVALUING the dollar.

Which means it takes MORE of it to buy the same 'things'.

Any hoo.

And no you don't need to incorporate o do business it just takes away personal liability. There are sole proprietorship, Llc, basic partnerships etc. It varies quite a bit state to state. My state you don't need crap to do business just file taxes. Do a w9

That is about as idiotic as it gets then. Since we live in a society that just LOVES TO SUE people, and business.

Anyone that doesn't is like having unprotected sex.

a reply to: JBDTheBeast

I actually make less than you and I work in a lab at a major research institution with a degree in molecular biology. I don't do bullsht research either. My work directly affects the food supply. So yeahhhhh...

originally posted by: JBDTheBeast
I have not once heard any real discussion of what happens to those who are currently working in the range of 15 per hour.

There's lots of discussion on it, but you may have missed it because the topic creates a lot of noise to drown out the facts.

I myself do general construction and make 15 an hour so basically my labor is worth twice that of the Walmart greeters. This makes sense because my job takes years of experience as well as the need for a firm grasp of algebra and geometry to do properly.

It does not make sense, because you're operating from a baseline that $7.25 is an appropriate wage. Purchasing power on minimum wage has fallen for 40 years now, what this also means is that your job which is tied to the minimum wage has also declined in purchasing power for 40 years now. Adjusting the minimum wage realigns this to an extent, though not by as much as it should. Because of this declining purchasing power, you have less purchasing power today than someone working at McDonalds had in 1967.

Using this math, a doubling of the minimum wage would necessitate doubling my wage up to 30 an hour.

No it wouldn't, because if you double everyones wage, the gaps in purchasing power remain. Increasing the minimum wage reduces wealth inequality, but when you do that everyone gets closer to each other, that means the gap between you and the Walmart greeter shrinks, that is how it's supposed to work.

To me supporting a minimum wage increase says a lot about the intelligence of the person promoting it.

To me, a person who thinks a minimum wage increase means they should get a proportional wage says a lot about that person.

A minimum wage means you take a pay cut, that is how it's supposed to work (actually, you wouldn't take one, but those in the $20 range would).

It just simply won't work, the value of one's work is based solely on supply and demand nothing more.

Not true, the value of ones work is based solely on the whim of the manager that wrote your contract. There is no correlation between the difficulty of a job, personal skills within a field, supply, demand, or wages. Let me give an example in my field, the lowest supply for programmers is in game related fields, yet that's also the lowest paid, the largest employers which have the greatest supply of jobs and a huge demand with the ability to be picky are known to be the best places to work. They also happen to have massive swings in the difficulty of passing the interviews which reduce the whole thing to a cross section of being lucky to study the right questions and getting the right interviewer.

So what do you guys think will happen to the skilled labor market if this law goes through? Will the skilled laborers demand 30 an hour or will they simply leave their productive lines of work for the stress free life of supersizing combos?

I think that it will be fine. Someone in your position will see about a 20% increase in wage, while the cost of goods goes up about 10%, leaving you with 9% more purchasing power, but a gap of only 20% between yourself and the Walmart greeter rather than double.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
instead of studying the system as it is, and determining how best to exploit it to their benefit, they demand the system change for them.

What's wrong with trying to change the system for the better? A widening gap in purchasing power is not a good thing for the economy, it removes way too many people from having an impact, and consolidates actual power in the hands of the few. In 1955 someone on minimum wage could pay for a college education out of pocket, own a home, and eat far better than we do today, all at the same time off of 40 hours/week. The world didn't go to hell back then when those on minimum wage had actual purchasing power, and it wouldn't do so now either.

That's not to say that $15/hour is that change, but it's a step in that direction.

Exploiting the system is easy, but not everyone can do that. You have to have a bottom 10% or 20% of income earners. The responsible thing to do is to ensure that the bottom percentiles can still afford to live life enough that they have the purchasing power to advocate for themselves in the marketplace, which in turn leads to political representation.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: TinFoilSuit
a reply to: JBDTheBeast

Try feeding your family by hunting and fishing or living on "public" lands? Try growing a garden in your front yard? Try building a business without paying the state its "fair share". When you have to ask permission for everything from feeding your family to building your own business, that is not freedom in any sense of the word. When everything you have worked for is subject to the will of an arbitrarily enforced law or the "good graces" of the state, you are a slave to them. Follow the rules and hopefully you will not see the whipping post, though a great many will still get caught up in "the land of the free" with the highest incarceration rates in the world.

Sorry, but from my perspective, that is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination.

Well if business types ###snipped### didn't intentionally screw over everyone they meet for profit or dump toxic waste into rivers, none of those regulations would exist.

or you could take trogolodyte types, who intentionally make up crap as ad hominems to bolster his weak argument.

Im still waiting for you to back some of this up. You can't. Because you are making it up to throw your temper tantrum that you have no real argument to make against me. Its ok....the butt hurt stops eventually.

a reply to: Aazadan

nothing is wrong with trying to improve the system.

sticking a band aid on it that actually hurts other people? what exactly does "improve" mean?

If we are trying to improve our economic system by just jacking up minimum wage, we are going to fail. And make things worse in the process. minimum wage should be adjusted to match inflation. maybe every 5 years, or whatever. But you don't just arbitrarily double it because it becomes fashionable.

originally posted by: jefwaneI also like the idea of increases tied to inflation because it would force business owners to put pressure on the monetary authorities to keep inflation as low as possible instead of the current target of 2% which robs the average person of half their purchasing power over a lifetime of work.

Inflation is determined by CPI, if we tie wages to inflation it creates a political incentive to manipulate CPI even further in order to keep inflation down. This in turn keeps interest rates down, which removes a large segment of society from being able to save and invest effectively. This would be a bad idea. Alternatively, it would encourage runaway inflation in order to create runaway wage increases.

Nothing good can come from further politicizing inflation.

originally posted by: JBDTheBeast
That's bull. People just aren't taught business skills in school. All your taught in school is you can be whatever, do whatever, it's no wonder your puppy massage parlor or whatever went under. If you have a skill that's in demand and you do good work with good customer service then I'm sure your SUCCESS rate would be around 90%.

The #1 reason new businesses fail is that they're under funded. A new business should be able to fully fund itself without bringing in any revenue at all for 5 years (that includes paying yourself), and then have money beyond that incase it needs to make some major and expensive changes. It's not just 80% of businesses which don't have that, it's closer to 95% that don't. That is why so many fail, it has nothing to do with business skills not being taught in school.

Of course, if people properly funded their companies, almost no new businesses would ever form because wealth inequality is such that very few people can afford to put that much money aside to start something up.

a reply to: neo96

Really so an artist is going to be sued for a painting. No.

There are lots of sole proprietorship out there who have never been sued. .

I have an s Corp if you know anything about bussiness (which it doesn't seem you do) because I am the only employee. So you understand he tax and pass through system?

You don't incorporate a small business without taking on a lot of book keeping and legal fees. The whole purpose of s corps are for small businesses.

Can you name any economic school that agrees with your perspective other than the old school Austrian school. A form of idealistic economics?

Nope. Your one of these people who thinks it's all the democrats fault and Republicans are conservatives they are not.

Let's do an issue by issue study and debate if you want to talk who understands economics

Who opened the door to China? Who allowed China to set the tariff values and destroyed he American workforce doing so. A trade tariff should be mutual. However the oligarchs were in bed with Nixon and they stood to make ground breaking profits exploiting workers in a situation that a does not promote democracy and b is something we are supposedly morally against at least for our own.

If you don't understand the preamble, the constitution, or enlightenment philosophy like Locke then yeah there are no social moral obligation

a reply to: Bluntone22

not sure about other unions pay scale,but I worked at GM yrs ago.They got X amount OVER min wage,so if min went up,they stayed ahead of the so called loss.Not really fair,as most of the labor guys were just parts changers or installers,not really skilled labor. For example,how many guys does it take to put on 4 tires? 5..one for each tire,and one to sit and read the paper til one of the others needs a potty break,then he takes over,the other returns and waits.....
I do appreciate the work that unions did in the early days,but now they are just getting greedy.GM had 6 weeks of vacation for its long term employees,and 21 holidays.Depending how the holidays fell into place,they could take off all of november AND december!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If we are trying to improve our economic system by just jacking up minimum wage, we are going to fail. And make things worse in the process. minimum wage should be adjusted to match inflation. maybe every 5 years, or whatever. But you don't just arbitrarily double it because it becomes fashionable.

I think we should let the market dictate wage, and benefits since it use to be the fundamental basis for that word of yesteryear of what it use to mean. Liberalism.

Then fix the money. As in taking money out of the m2 supply increasing the value of the dollar.

But all they want is a bandaid put on a gushing wound bleeding out.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JBDTheBeast
That's bull. People just aren't taught business skills in school. All your taught in school is you can be whatever, do whatever, it's no wonder your puppy massage parlor or whatever went under. If you have a skill that's in demand and you do good work with good customer service then I'm sure your SUCCESS rate would be around 90%.

The #1 reason new businesses fail is that they're under funded. A new business should be able to fully fund itself without bringing in any revenue at all for 5 years (that includes paying yourself), and then have money beyond that incase it needs to make some major and expensive changes. It's not just 80% of businesses which don't have that, it's closer to 95% that don't. That is why so many fail, it has nothing to do with business skills not being taught in school.

Of course, if people properly funded their companies, almost no new businesses would ever form because wealth inequality is such that very few people can afford to put that much money aside to start something up.

Thats why we are seeing the new billionaires using crowd sourcing or starting tech businesses with much less overhead than manufacturing.

Always nice to hear detailed economic sense. Appreciate your posts.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

nothing is wrong with trying to improve the system.

sticking a band aid on it that actually hurts other people? what exactly does "improve" mean?

If we are trying to improve our economic system by just jacking up minimum wage, we are going to fail. And make things worse in the process. minimum wage should be adjusted to match inflation. maybe every 5 years, or whatever. But you don't just arbitrarily double it because it becomes fashionable.

Matching inflation would only work if we were actually calculating inflation, it's basicaly a made up number right now that's set to whatever the bankers feel like that quarter. Even if we were to link it though, what would you suggest we do? Link it to the current purchasing power of minimum wage? The power of minimum wage 20 years ago? 40 years ago?

As far as improving the system goes, I would define that as increasing the purchasing power of those on the bottom over time. Someone near minimum wage today could save 100% of their wage for 30 years and not have enough saved up to buy a house. When 40 years ago, you could buy a house on minimum wage at 30% of your salary, I have a problem with that.

a reply to: Sargeras

The person who would use insults tends to lack the mentality to use anything otherwise. I had thought more highly of you than that. When you are ready to post within T&C, ill be ready to talk with you.