Forums | MacLife

I thought it was around $5.45?

Pretty sure it's not possible to live off of.  Of course, that makes sense as to why the illegal immigrants all work so much and shove a dozen people in a 1 bedroom dwelling.

I don't really see it as much of an issue because if you have any sort of skill or whatnot you'll be able to find a better paying job.  Construction pays really well.  Even mall jobs in my area start out at a minimum of around $6.50-8.00.

Exactly.  I really don't think it's necessary.  They wanted to hike minimum wage up to something like $7.00 here in Madison.  This would do *NOTHING* because all that would happen is you'd see an increase in ALL wages here, and the cost of living would SKYROCKET.  Pointless.

Neat guys. Can you show me any evidence of your claims? One thats often talked about, but I've never seen backed up. Does raising minimum wage actually lead to unemployment?

Gr@sshopper wrote:

Neat guys. Can you show me any evidence of your claims? One thats often talked about, but I've never seen backed up. Does raising minimum wage actually lead to unemployment?

Unemployment is really lack of opportunity, which is closely related to investment.

I think what HR is on about is tending towards some form of non-existant zero government solution. But capitalism requires centralisation and laws to have any hope of working. I think the zero government people really envision some sort of glorified barter system. How they expect to maintain a currency in a world market I don't know. And if they see the need for currency, then banks and rules must follow. If rules follow, then there must be some valuation of the currency and what it will buy. One of the things it will buy is labour. But unregulated labour means too much worker mobility as wages shift too rapidly by region. Regionalisation leads to wide fluctuations in standard of living, ghettoisation and worker entrappment.  I think this is actually a goal; to ensure economic conditions that creates an underclass of low paid workers. The lie is that it is claimed that extreme unfettered markets, labour or otherwise creates broader wealth rather than concentrated wealth.

But our consumer society demands that the greatest number of people participate in consumerism for its own sake. A real underclass strikes at consumerism. And consumerism in our world is much more important than production. Minimum wage keeps the consumerism going across the economic strata as broadly as possible.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2005-11-19 1:21 pm)

What I don't understand is how "trickle-down" somehow only works one way - by giving the rich more money. I'd think that if the poor had more money they'd be more likely to spend it...

macnuke wrote:

Gr@sshopper wrote:

Neat guys. Can you show me any evidence of your claims? One thats often talked about, but I've never seen backed up. Does raising minimum wage actually lead to unemployment?

sure it does
it's why the third world provides so much for the US.
they will do it for less.
and those that won't do it for less... are unemployed

EDIT..
actually, that was a joke.
outsourcing doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the US job picture.

Outsourcing really doesn't affect the US job picture?  That's new to me... any links? I'm really actually curious.

I for one would definitely like for there to be less outsourcing of tech jobs.

Tallgeese wrote:

What I don't understand is how "trickle-down" somehow only works one way - by giving the rich more money. I'd think that if the poor had more money they'd be more likely to spend it...

You give a poor person 1 million dollars what will they do with it?

You give a rich person 1 million dollars what will they do with it?

Which one is more likely to invest in the stock market or put it back into the US economy.  Which one is likely to use it in a way that will keep people here employed or benefit us in some way?

I'm curious to hear the opinions.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

My spidey sense is tingling ... I believe someone's contemplating a Gold Standard rant!

Ribby started it!

Hank Rearden wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

What I don't understand is how "trickle-down" somehow only works one way - by giving the rich more money. I'd think that if the poor had more money they'd be more likely to spend it...

In the end, what someone else up there said applies as well.  Give the unskilled more money, and it degrades the wages of the skilled.

Imagine it in the analgous case of university degrees.  Make a degree difficult to some extent, and it is worth more.  A Ph.D. is worth more than a B.A.

But, start making a B.A. really easy, and it get's easier to get into a M.A. program.  Devalue that, and it's easier to get into a Ph.D. program.  Etc.

Heck, hand out B.A.'s on the street to whomever wants them.  What would that do to your degree?  You'd have to go out and get a Masters, because it would now equal a Bachelors.

Now, start handing out $20/hour to a ditch digger.  What does that do to your wage?  Well, your $20/hour (for being a financial consultant, for instance) is now worth ditch digger wages.  You, rightly, demand more.  Now you get $40/hour.  The store down the way notices that you and the ditch digger both have more money to spend.  Prices go up in conjunction with wages.  Eventualy, the new $40 = the old $20.  The dollar is now worth less.  You are doing the same job, you are getting twice the number of dollars, but each dollar is only worth half of what it was previously worth.

Oh, trust me I understand that perfectly. I've heard a lot of poorly thought out "Why do you officers make so much more money than enlisted when they do all the manual labor?" questions.

What I really was thinking about was the Reagan-era (and still much beloved by those types) trickle-down theory that if you give rich people more (generally tax cuts) then the money will "trickle down" to benefit the poor. On one hand, the rich are more likely to invest. On the other hand, the poor are more likely to use a higher income to consume. Which is key to driving the economy and benefitting all?

I'm not talking about giving a fry cook $25 an hour. However, a couple more bucks an hour for someone working a couple jobs to help their kids and what happens? They no longer have to decide between a new set of winter clothes and three meals a day. They can have both. Push this across the entire low-wage sector and you have a lot of people buying two things where at one time they'd have to save up to buy one.

Minimum wage changes from State to State. Not only that, but in some cities where workers are in high demand, minimum wages are not talked about. In Nevada, Burger King and the rest can't hold employees at minimum wages, simply because they can make much more anywhere in town. Minimum wage in Alaska is nearly $8.00 per hour, since the cost of living is higher than most. A restaurant worker, for example, would earn minimum wage. However, at the end of the day, customer tips increase such wage to quite a high number. In some places, the Papa & Mama grocery store may not be able to pay more than minimum wage to a student or two. To pay more than minimum wage in such a place could translate to the loss of the job to one of the two students, or maybe both. What one can do if working on minimum wage would be to work more than one job, or over-time. If work is not available in town, then one must move to another place.

*Cant see The New Guy hanging around*
*Says something for socialism*

Assuming that a minimum wage causes these problems, what device or effect would there be, if any, to prevent someone's pay from becoming "A nickel and a kick in the kidneys." when the minimum wage is abolished?

If you like economic growth built on consumerism, go for the highest minimum wage you can.

If you want maximum productivity, particularly geared to export markets, chip away at wages as much as you can.  This is great if you aspire to third world living standards for a big chunk of your population; the workers.