"Minimum Wage Jobs aren't careers"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Gorfias:

So what is my solution? Radical inflation. Put the jobs creators back to work.

Supposedly some individual citicorp guy got $2.5 billion of bailout money. With high inflation, he needs to put that money to work, buying things, investing in my company, purchasing my services or lose the money to inflation. With very low inflation he can put that money in the Cayman Island banks and more or less stay even without lifting a finger.

Inflation has its own pernicious effects. As a nation, investing in us might become riskier. I've also read that our debt problems would be exacerbated considerably. Right now the USA is still solvent because the interest on our debts is low. Appears our debts are on an adjusted rather than fixed basis.

If things are changing that fast, money value has to change as well. We need hyper inflation and for people to start avoiding using credit for anything but fixed prices.

So the Argentina solution then?

With inflation the first people that have access to the inflated money would benefit the most with the poor being the last on the list.

The US government tried to use inflation to escape the Great Depression in 1933, Japan also made a similar attempt in the 1920s both failed.

Also foreigners (along with their central banks) hold US T-Bills thinking that it's a stable investment, if the sovereign government choose to inflate further they will stop buying and the interest on the US national debt will rise.

Gorfias:
So what is my solution? Radical inflation. Put the jobs creators back to work.

Supposedly some individual citicorp guy got $2.5 billion of bailout money. With high inflation, he needs to put that money to work, buying things, investing in my company, purchasing my services or lose the money to inflation. With very low inflation he can put that money in the Cayman Island banks and more or less stay even without lifting a finger.

Inflation has its own pernicious effects. As a nation, investing in us might become riskier. I've also read that our debt problems would be exacerbated considerably. Right now the USA is still solvent because the interest on our debts is low. Appears our debts are on an adjusted rather than fixed basis.

... So your solution to the rising wealth disparity and hoarding of wealth by the rich, is to make everyone even poorer than they already are across the board? That is the absolute worst idea I have ever heard. Let's not simply raise taxes on the rich so that a higher percentage of that wealth isn't just sitting around but going back into the economy via the government, let's just make it so that everyone is even worse off than they already are, make it even harder for them to get by than it already is, and hope that makes the failed trickle down economic theory a little less awful than it is.

Super Not Cosmo:

Yes, $15 per hour IS obscene to flip burgers or shill fries in a drive-thru. Almost anyone can learn to do the entry level fast food positions.

It's not because anyone can learn it it is obscene. You still need people doing it, and that in itself makes the job valuable to an extent.

Those positions are as close to a revolving door as to make no difference. Except in extreme circumstances like the oil fields in North Dakota or other places with crazy low unemployment there are usually two people waiting to take any positions that open up at your local McDonalds or Burger King. You can pluck damn near anyone with a pulse into that position and odds are they will do it just as good as the person they are replacing within a matter of days, if not hours.

And what if people don't want to do it? Obviously the issue here is that people have to do it because it's that or starving. But given the choice they'd probably not do it for that salary. The salary is only "obscene" because of the labor surplus which destroys the bargaining power of the lower working class.

Contrast that with a CEO. There is a lot of competition for those jobs. The jobs are few and far between and require a very specific and hard to find set of skills not to mention a good amount of dedication. A particularly good or bad CEO can either make a company billions of dollars or send it spiraling into bankruptcy. A particularly good or bad burger flipper may or may not remember that you ordered your Big Mac with no pickles. A CEO who has a proven track record of success can cause stock prices to rise by simply being hired. A burger flipper with a proven track record might get to pick what station in the kitchen he works at on a given night and get control of the radio. The levels of responsibility and influence a CEO has compared to a bottom rung employee are very much in line with how much they are paid.

You know, when there are CEO's which don't even understand what their company actually sells i'd say the skills required to become one are not that high. Or maybe people they think they hired skilled CEO's but actually didn't. The issue with CEO's and other top tier jobs is that their value is highly inflated, it's a bubble. Because the position is so important, or at least people think it is (a good CEO is nothing without a good staff and the damage a bad ceo can cause can be heavily limited with a good staff) companies keep on inflating their salaries in an attempt to get the best (or what they believe is the best). But this results in the salaries being out of touch with reality. The CEO's they're paying a crapload are nowhere near worth as much. And the crisis has shown exactly that. And let's not forget the toxic golden parachutes which basically say "don't worry even if you suck monkeyballs you'll still be able to get away with a nice ridiculous compensation package". See? CEO's are even paid for being crap. That's how ridiculous it all became.

And based on the responsibility paradigm shouldn't the President of the US be the most well paid job on earth? After all he's the one with the most responsibility in the world. He's leading the strongest nation. No company can claim it can it can make the earth glow radiation. The US president can. Would you accept the president raising his salary 10x? Because based on what you said it would be totally normal.

NemotheElvenPanda:

Where in that post did I mention government?

You posted in a forum about the minimum wage set by government.
Where I think you and I agree is that, what had been considered entry level jobs paying a government set minimum wage are having to fill in as regular employment for people who are not entry level. Now, what to do about it?

You write, we need to start paying a living wage. How to get there? Answering that question will typically require the government to do something, but what?

aelreth:

Gorfias:

Supposedly some individual citicorp guy got $2.5 billion of bailout money. With high inflation, he needs to put that money to work, buying things, investing in my company, purchasing my services or lose the money to inflation. With very low inflation he can put that money in the Cayman Island banks and more or less stay even without lifting a finger.

With inflation the first people that have access to the inflated money would benefit the most with the poor being the last on the list.

That Citicorp guy I mentioned did fine. And again, with low infation, he need not be a job creator. He can just put it in the Camens.

The US government tried to use inflation to escape the Great Depression in 1933, Japan also made a similar attempt in the 1920s both failed.

Great film! That's exactly what I'm saying!!! You want steel, better buy it NOW if inflation will make it more expensive later. Otherwise, just put your money in the Camens. To this day, you can find research papers that write, whatever Roosevelt's other faults (and he had them), his change to our monetary policiy was vital to improving the USA.

Also foreigners (along with their central banks) hold US T-Bills thinking that it's a stable investment, if the sovereign government choose to inflate further they will stop buying and the interest on the US national debt will rise.

That is one of my two biggest concerns. That we won't attract that foreign investment. The other being that our current debts have adjustable interest rates we may not be able to keep up with. As for retirees, hopefully COLA would take care of them.

Zeconte:

... So your solution to the rising wealth disparity and hoarding of wealth by the rich, is to make everyone even poorer than they already are across the board? That is the absolute worst idea I have ever heard. Let's not simply raise taxes on the rich so that a higher percentage of that wealth isn't just sitting around but going back into the economy via the government, let's just make it so that everyone is even worse off than they already are, make it even harder for them to get by than it already is, and hope that makes the failed trickle down economic theory a little less awful than it is.

People like that guy from Citicorp that got $2.5 Billion need not care about high taxes. He gets his money from the government and ensure he has loopholes to keep from paying as much as his secretary. And, during these low inflation times, he sinks the money into the Caymens rather than, as aelreth's video shows, investing now while he is able to do so.

How would you explain our sluggish job growth and the apparant on strike status of our job creators?

Gorfias:
People like that guy from Citicorp that got $2.5 Billion need not care about high taxes. He gets his money from the government and ensure he has loopholes to keep from paying as much as his secretary. And, during these low inflation times, he sinks the money into the Caymens rather than, as aelreth's video shows, investing now while he is able to do so.

How would you explain our sluggish job growth and the apparant on strike status of our job creators?

Hence why you close said loopholes. This isn't really that difficult of a concept. Either way, screwing over the poor and middle class just to get the rich to spend a little more would be a disastrous idea that would make things far worse in the name of a slight improvement.

Gorfias:

Great film! That's exactly what I'm saying!!! You want steel, better buy it NOW if inflation will make it more expensive later. Otherwise, just put your money in the Camens. To this day, you can find research papers that write, whatever Roosevelt's other faults (and he had them), his change to our monetary policiy was vital to improving the USA.

Creating 75% inflation overnight did not improve the economy at all. Prices readjusted and wiped out the labor market. It also robbed 75% of the value of every single dollar that was held worldwide. If those theories were correct FDR would have ended the 1929 recession by summer of 1933. Yet a little over a decade earlier Harding's approach to embracing the austerity and deflation in the depression of 1920 led to an economic boom.

Gorfias:

That is one of my two biggest concerns. That we won't attract that foreign investment. The other being that our current debts have adjustable interest rates we may not be able to keep up with. As for retirees, hopefully COLA would take care of them.

The only investment that foreigners will make is taking their appreciated foreign money and buying up all US dollar denominated assets that aren't bolted down for pennies on the dollar. Then either having us work for them or shipping it home.

Gorfias:
How would you explain our sluggish job growth and the apparant on strike status of our job creators?

Just a point of contention: They are not "job creators." That title is a misnomer. They are the wealthy. They are in a position that CAN create jobs, but it is something they avoid doing if at all possible.

That is because jobs are an expense. You concentrate wealth by making certain you eliminate or minimize expenses. When a wealthy person is looking into a venture that has the potential to make them more wealth, they will seek out every angle/methodology they can use BEFORE they will ever create a job. Jobs are created solely as an investment strategy: You only create one when it will garner you more than it costs.

One of the striking reasons the economy is so sluggish is because the upper tiers have managed to concentrate enough wealth into their hands, that they do not see the need to create jobs in order to obtain more.

Zeconte:
Hence why you close said loopholes.

Infinitely easier said than done. The political classes adore loop holes. They are an ultimate power that can be used to gain favor or punish those they want to effect. I'm not holding my breath to see it happen.

aelreth:

Creating 75% inflation overnight did not improve the economy at all. Prices readjusted and wiped out the labor market.... If those theories were correct FDR would have ended the 1929 recession by summer of 1933.

I do expect prices to adjust over time leaving people, rich, poor and middleclass with about the same buying power per hour of labor as before. But FDR took 3 steps forward, 3 steps back in a lot of ways that kept the economy from taking off by 1933. His activism is often compared and contrasted with the lasefair governance of Silent Cal. That activism is considered the actual cause of his miserable economic performance. Today, in the USA, sure looks like Obama is doing about the same. Lots of activism, lots of wealth transfers to corporations, banks and the super wealthy and a lousy job market, but lots and lots of government spending.

davidmc1158:

Just a point of contention: They are not "job creators." That title is a misnomer. They are the wealthy. They are in a position that CAN create jobs, but it is something they avoid doing if at all possible.

I do use the phrase with some sarcasm. They are the ones in a position to create jobs and they do, but at this time, at a very, very slugish pace. I think inflation would put a fire under their butt.

Here's a potential idea for a one time stimulous: *shudders*. Loudly announce that in 2 years time, taxes will be radically increased. That would tell the job creators.. er... wealthy... make some money right now before the hammer comes down.

I think it would work one time. Then you'd have to come up with something else.

On topic, the answer to a non-living wage is not arbitrarily raising the minimum wage but radically increasing labor demand. Yet there seems to be little interest in increasing labor demand. How to do that when taxes and inflation rates are so low? Good question. I'll go with inflation.

Minimum wage jobs are not careers, careers are minimum wage jobs.
Or well, at least in my country anyway. after our minimum wage job was "raised", the industrial federation statistics state that over half of the country earns minimum wage. I am considered a "senior specialist" and im around 1.5 minimum wages.

As far as fast food places goes, i heard that to become the local manager you need to work there for 10 years minimum or something, so there is some career options, but nothing really prosperous.

FieryTrainwreck:

In some countries, it is considered rude to ask a person what he or she does for a living. Here in America, this is usually the first thing people talk about in any social setting. "Nice to meet you, Gary. And what do you do for a living?" Most people here have this burning compulsion to categorize everyone by their professions. When you've been on both sides of the "economic divide" and seen the reactions to this supposedly benign question, you know exactly what people are doing: sizing up your relative importance in order to attribute appropriate value to this and any further interactions. If you're a pizza guy? Fuck off. If you're upper management? Time to dial in, "network", and see how you can possibly turn this conversation into future gains for you and yours.

It's all supremely dehumanizing and insulting, but that's the country I live in.

Personally i find it rude not to ask how much the person earns. That answer, if given faithfully, tells a lot about person in such a way of whether he refuses to go to a restaurant because he dont want to or because he cant afford it, and similar subtle stuff that can make relationship better.
Or maybe i just like to know too much about people. I dont hate anyone for being a janitor or anything like that, but i wouldnt ask him to go to some expensive place with me because i know it would hit his budget a lot or he would have to find excuses (lie). Sadly, some people prefer to lie than to not be invited....

Batou667:
but look at the terms of his job: night shift, minimum wage, and no premium for working antisocial hours.

Wait? When did time became antisocial? What is "antisocial hours". Hours that dont want to socialize with you?

Ritualist:

Smoking is not a luxury. It is a coping mechanism. A lot of people need the nicotine to take a moment to unwind. Some people use caffeine. Caffeine has zero effect on me save for that it helps me remember algebra. So how do you propose I find a way to unwind and reset my stress levels in less than fifteen minutes?

A living wage means you can live healthily. In America a living wage means you have to share a one bedroom apartment with someone you're not sleeping with and probably live off of ramen, which is high in sodium and will kill you faster than smoking will.

Heroin is not a luxury, its a coping mechanism. A lot of people could use heroin to relax quickly. Since i personally are willfully ignoring all other posibilities, i claim that heroin now must be government issued as part of wellfare!

Then again, you claim that a living age should make you live heathily, which is automatic no to smoking.

aelreth:

Actually the depression that followed the recession in 1929 was the result of government trying to help people that were suffering. Both Hoover and FDR did things that made things much worse.

Between protectionism, wage controls, interference with the money supply, scapegoating of businessmen, expansion of public works, and increased taxation Hoover is a great example of a central planner.

FDR just went bigger.

And yet it was Keynesiam politics that saved the day.

farson135:

Right, because France built everything it has in the past 400 years. That includes its economic and social institutions.

France has bridges and roads that are older than my country. Your infrastructure was built up over the past 2,000 years. The price of that infrastructure has been spread out over that entire time period. It is amazing that the US has as much as it does.

Let's not pretend like America reinvented the wheel. You took the same roman economic and social institution and implemented them in your country. The result is obviuosly different due to severely different political, resource and cultural changes that happened over 400 years. France has older bridges. you have resources france cant even dream off.

<...>"Life sucks, deal with it", might as well be my family motto.

YOu know that actually explains a lot about the way you post.

Lil devils x:

Being in Texas myself, I really have to ask what electric company exists here that allows for a $75 a month electric bill without dying from a heat stroke in August? This must have been way back in the day? LOL
ONLY TXU exists here in Dallas, so you have no other choice and the best electric bill I ever had was around $160, although they averaged around $250-300 most of the time due to how hot it is in a one bedroom apartment in Dallas. Average price in Dallas in august is $361.91, If someone had kids and had to have more bedrooms to air condition, I have no idea how they would be able to pay that. What about medical and dental care? How do they pay for that?

Your (possibly falsely) assume hes airconditioning his house. You know, people live in hot places and dont die all the time. you dont need air cinditioning if your runing on minimum wage.

xDarc:

I'm not speaking for Cosmo, but some people are just gonna be losers you know. If you're in your 40s and you're still working for minimum wage, you messed up. For younger people, it is simply a matter of staying in the workforce, paying your dues, and better jobs will open up as the workforce ages.

Its nice to know im messed up for doing the work i like to do and daring to demand such things as affordable food and roof over my head. Better lock me up now before i infect you with this crazyness.

xDarc:

In the US, only around 6% of total hourly workers are actually at or below the minimum wage. It's not like half the country works for minimum wage; more like they just don't work. Studies have shown that recession occurs when minimum wage approaches 45%-50% of the median average hourly rate. Right now in the US, the average hourly rate is around $20/hr ($24 according to BLS) That means if minimum wage goes much higher than $10 an hour, expect to see jobs slashed.

Even if you gave each of the 72,000,000 hourly workers in the US an extra $7 an hour, and they spent every dime of it, that's a trillion dollars. A lot right? It's 6% of the US 16.6 trillion dollar economy. How are we supposed to double the minimum wage and give everyone a sizable raise when it's not going to pay for itself?

That's right, take it from someone else, take it from the corporations, that's the answer for everything. As long as the banking cartels are running things- you can raise the minimum wage to a $15 dollars an hour, they're just going to replace people with machines built in some 3rd world country. Even fewer people will be employed.

And forget about the small business owner, because it will reach a point where workers can't be productive enough to keep the bills paid, when they're paid more than their output is worth. The monopoly will be further consolidated into the hands of the mega corporations. People think it's tough out there now, just wait.

xDarc:

In the US, only around 6% of total hourly workers are actually at or below the minimum wage. It's not like half the country works for minimum wage; more like they just don't work. Studies have shown that recession occurs when minimum wage approaches 45%-50% of the median average hourly rate. Right now in the US, the average hourly rate is around $20/hr ($24 according to BLS) That means if minimum wage goes much higher than $10 an hour, expect to see jobs slashed.

Well then i guess my country is in constant recession for the last couple hundred years!

xDarc:

Even if you gave each of the 72,000,000 hourly workers in the US an extra $7 an hour, and they spent every dime of it, that's a trillion dollars. A lot right? It's 6% of the US 16.6 trillion dollar economy. How are we supposed to double the minimum wage and give everyone a sizable raise when it's not going to pay for itself?

And whats the money turnaround ratio? Are we counting a one-off invetsment of a trillion dollars or a constant feedback loop?
Your oversimplification reeks of lack of economic knowledge. Which would be fine, had you not tried to make a point with it. Giving extra 7 dollars to a group of people with lovest saving rate and highest expenditure of high turnaround products (like food) will lead to multiplying effects on economy. Obviously injection like this would take couple years for industries to adjust, and the actual effect after inflation would not be doubling the purchase power, but it would boost the economy greatly. Things like these however are best done incrementally and not all at once, that way industry has time to adjust while allowing for purchasing power to slowly grow or at least stabilize (as it is falling due to inflation).

xDarc:

That's right, take it from someone else, take it from the corporations, that's the answer for everything. As long as the banking cartels are running things- you can raise the minimum wage to a $15 dollars an hour, they're just going to replace people with machines built in some 3rd world country. Even fewer people will be employed.

And forget about the small business owner, because it will reach a point where workers can't be productive enough to keep the bills paid, when they're paid more than their output is worth. The monopoly will be further consolidated into the hands of the mega corporations. People think it's tough out there now, just wait.

I was going to dismiss this point altogether for how silly it is, however you do have the point with "3rd world countries". As long as we can outsource everything we will have problem. thing is - we cant. we cant outsource the thing that earns the highest value added in our economy. and that mystical resource is intelligence. You can replace a janotir with a cleanerbot. you can replace a factory worker with a assembly line. you cannot replace an analytical brain. And this is why "Education" helps - its not about "Getting more money" its about "becoming intellectually valuable". Though sadly most people treat education as "i got a degree therefore hire me" instead of "i learned how to analyze stuff therefore hire me".

A elephant in a room though - wrokers are more prductive than you think. Most of the time workers actually manufacture 3 or 4 times worth their actual pay, plenty of which will go to cover a lot of other company expenses such as fancy office for the CEO. We have a company here where my father works, and they get paid closer to average of the countries wages than minimum. The german buyers came to see how is the manufacturing going, looked at things and then started asking how the hell do we create so much value per person. The reason was - skilled workers. The company had no work during the crysis period as it is a suplement to construction. did it fire people? no. my father went to work every day, played cars with colegues whole day and got paid minimum wage. the company wanted to keep good emplyees. and now when the work is here again - most productive in the country (of these products). good workers are worth a lot more than you think.

Gorfias:

Vausch:

I feel this is going train of thought at this point but I just wanted to bring up the discussion since it hasn't been brought up yet as far as I've seen.

I'm troubled by "bartenders with bachelors" issues in our society.

Bartenders with bachelors exist in order to pay for those bachelors to begin with. You work for 8 hours, then go and study for 6 more, and once you are home, you still got work for studies left to do because universities imagine that you should not work when studying, yet demand money that we should just magically have.

Gorfias:

You state there are 6.8 million people with a 2nd job. If government could make their lives easier, can we agree most would no longer work that 2nd job? We lose the wealth created by those people working that 2nd job.

Not at all. 6.8 million people work only 1 work. That means 6.8 million free work spaces have opened up, to be taken up by people who are currently unemployed. As these people are now emplyed, they no longer need government expenditure in form of wellfare. Thus, benefits all around.

Yes, there are ambitious people out there. I think too many people out there are like me though. We get out of bed and face the day because we have to do so. I tell myself if I ever hit the lottery, I'll still work. But I worry, in reality, I'd do a lot more relaxing.

Define "relaxing". from what i learn from people who retire early, most people would instead of having to work a job they hate in order to buy food they would do the job they like, thus still creating value, except enjoying themselves.
Most people think they would "relax" if they could. in reality relaxing gets quite boring real fast for great many of people. (though me personally i got plans what i would do for at least 3 years ahead :D)

Maslows hierarcy works for everyone. You dont have to socialize on this forum, but you do, because you want to, becuase you need to fulfil this socializing need. noone is paying you for it, your not being producting or making society prosper. yet you post. because you want to.

Remus:

My car gets ~25MPG on a good day. Round trip each day I would use 4.8 gallons of gasoline, figure 5 once I hit the city.
Lets review: $3.29x5 gallons, x 5 days a week, that's $164.50 out of $246.50 every 2 weeks. This leaves $82 every two weeks to survive on, or $41 a week, $5.85 a day. Explain to me again how this is a living wage in anyplace outside of Barter Town.

There are couple things wrong with your theory. First of all what are you driving? a cargo truck? LEts use normal european counting as im more familiar with that. 1 galon =3.8 liters. 1 mile 1.6 kilometers. that would mean 10.5 Kilometers per liter. Or the way cars manufacturers usualyl count these things 9.5 (very nicely rounded for some reason) liters per 100km. my 23 years old 4-door sedan does 6-7 liters per 100 km out of town. My fathers 5 years old 4door sedan does 3-4 liters per 100km. Lets imagine the average car uses 5 for rounding purposes. that puts us at 20KM/liter, or in your americanized numbers - 47,5 Miles-Per-Galon. So almost double what yours do. So yeah, look into that, because yours are definatelly eating way too much gas. Besides, gas isnt even expensive in america, here a gallon would cost you 8.7 dollars (converted from local currency).

Secondly, why must you use your car? car is a luxury item. You can use public transport. You know, there are things called buses and trains. they usually offer huge discounts if your buying a monthly pass and stuff like that.

Gorfias:
In a super flexible capitalist society, say you have 2 qualified people for every 1 job out there. You cut the pay in 1/2 and hire both people, giving twice the service for the same price (think 2 nurses rather than 1 per patient, or 2 teachers for every 30 students rather than 1).
1) We don't have that super flexible capitalist society;
2) Even if we did, I do worry it takes time for this adjustment to happen. Maybe too much time. I watched a show about robots and IT. It described how about 5 companies worth a combined $1 trillion hire only about 100,000 people WORLD WIDE. Things may be changing too fast for us to adapt.

Except that you actually dont, because these 2 nurses per 1 patient will be sleep deprived starving, nurses, sick themself because they got cold during the night (Cant afford heating), that will both together provide less serices than one, well paid, nurse will.

Strazdas:

Heroin is not a luxury, its a coping mechanism. A lot of people could use heroin to relax quickly. Since i personally are willfully ignoring all other posibilities, i claim that heroin now must be government issued as part of wellfare!

Then again, you claim that a living age should make you live heathily, which is automatic no to smoking.

Sin of false equivalency. Nicotine, while an addictive substance, is far less harmful to you than heroine. And going a day without nicotine has far less harmful effects than going a day without heroine after you've been hooked. Heroine is also illegal, and does not exist in a state that is safe to take in. There are many ways to get your nicotine fix without smoking.

Please try again.

Gorfias:
His activism is often compared and contrasted with the lasefair governance of Silent Cal. That activism is considered the actual cause of his miserable economic performance.

The second sentence in that statement has two errors.

Firstly, it has a factual error, as Roosevelt's economic performance was clearly not miserable. In between 1933 and 1940 the US economy grew by over 50%, an increase of over 5% per year.

Secondly it is misleading. It is true that Roosevelt's "activism is considered the actual cause of his miserable economic performance" - but only by a minority subset of economists. The majority of professional economic opinion believes it was overall positive.

Strazdas:

Ritualist:

[quote="Remus" post="528.831875.20341533"]
My car gets ~25MPG on a good day. Round trip each day I would use 4.8 gallons of gasoline, figure 5 once I hit the city.
Lets review: $3.29x5 gallons, x 5 days a week, that's $164.50 out of $246.50 every 2 weeks. This leaves $82 every two weeks to survive on, or $41 a week, $5.85 a day. Explain to me again how this is a living wage in anyplace outside of Barter Town.

There are couple things wrong with your theory. First of all what are you driving? a cargo truck? LEts use normal european counting as im more familiar with that. 1 galon =3.8 liters. 1 mile 1.6 kilometers. that would mean 10.5 Kilometers per liter. Or the way cars manufacturers usualyl count these things 9.5 (very nicely rounded for some reason) liters per 100km. my 23 years old 4-door sedan does 6-7 liters per 100 km out of town. My fathers 5 years old 4door sedan does 3-4 liters per 100km. Lets imagine the average car uses 5 for rounding purposes. that puts us at 20KM/liter, or in your americanized numbers - 47,5 Miles-Per-Galon. So almost double what yours do. So yeah, look into that, because yours are definatelly eating way too much gas. Besides, gas isnt even expensive in america, here a gallon would cost you 8.7 dollars (converted from local currency).

Secondly, why must you use your car? car is a luxury item. You can use public transport. You know, there are things called buses and trains. they usually offer huge discounts if your buying a monthly pass and stuff like that.

You've never been to the U.S. have you? Unlike Europe, there are places that buses do not travel. The U.S. is not one giant city-state with bus and cab routes to everywhere. Review the population density map again. I'll gladly put one up for Europe. I'm only entertaining your logic due to how ridiculous it is. A car is NOT a luxury when the nearest job is 60 miles, or 96 kilometers away. Living on the street is also not an option when employers only accept applicants who are clean cut, shaved, and look decent. I'll fully admit, the oil companies do have an iron grip on what cars are readily available in the U.S., which is why we get such shitty mileage. But I do not possess the $50,000 it would cost to buy electric, nor will I ever or should have to. What I have is the best car I could buy after a shit insurance claim. I could have a lot worse. Your logic is flawed, your perspective is flawed, your entire line of reasoning is flawed. Come across the pond sometime, hell come to my house, then try to catch a bus to work. You will be waiting a looooong time.

Remus:
I'll just throw this out there - Population Density Map of the United States
image
Do you see that pink and white area in the center? That's where I live, in those places where the nearest available job may be anywhere from 30 to 70 miles away. Do you want to know what the chances are of me moving to someplace more packed, without income? Exactly zero. Now, my last job offer was for $7.25 an hour, for 4 hours a day. The drive? 60 miles. The cheapest gas between home and this location is $3.29 a gallon. Lets run some numbers:
$7.25 an hour, 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, comes out to $290 on a 2 week check. 290x26 = $7540, so I fall into the lowest tax bracket, 10% Fed, 5% state. Instead of $290, I would be earning $246.50 every 2 weeks.

My car gets ~25MPG on a good day. Round trip each day I would use 4.8 gallons of gasoline, figure 5 once I hit the city.
Lets review: $3.29x5 gallons, x 5 days a week, that's $164.50 out of $246.50 every 2 weeks. This leaves $82 every two weeks to survive on, or $41 a week, $5.85 a day. Explain to me again how this is a living wage in anyplace outside of Barter Town.

You just need to bootstrap harder.
Sell some stock options, that's what Mitt Romney did to get through college, self made man if there ever was one.

(to avoid confusions, this post is sarcastic)

nyysjan:

Remus:
I'll just throw this out there - Population Density Map of the United States
image
Do you see that pink and white area in the center? That's where I live, in those places where the nearest available job may be anywhere from 30 to 70 miles away. Do you want to know what the chances are of me moving to someplace more packed, without income? Exactly zero. Now, my last job offer was for $7.25 an hour, for 4 hours a day. The drive? 60 miles. The cheapest gas between home and this location is $3.29 a gallon. Lets run some numbers:
$7.25 an hour, 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, comes out to $290 on a 2 week check. 290x26 = $7540, so I fall into the lowest tax bracket, 10% Fed, 5% state. Instead of $290, I would be earning $246.50 every 2 weeks.

My car gets ~25MPG on a good day. Round trip each day I would use 4.8 gallons of gasoline, figure 5 once I hit the city.
Lets review: $3.29x5 gallons, x 5 days a week, that's $164.50 out of $246.50 every 2 weeks. This leaves $82 every two weeks to survive on, or $41 a week, $5.85 a day. Explain to me again how this is a living wage in anyplace outside of Barter Town.

You just need to bootstrap harder.
Sell some stock options, that's what Mitt Romney did to get through college, self made man if there ever was one.

(to avoid confusions, this post is sarcastic)

I thought he just borrowed money from his parents. That's what everybody does right?

nyysjan:

You just need to bootstrap harder.
Sell some stock options, that's what Mitt Romney did to get through college, self made man if there ever was one.

(to avoid confusions, this post is sarcastic)

Bootstraps are not available to anybody under the poverty line. We're stuck with shoelaces. Class warfare if I've ever seen it. XP

Strazdas:

Wait? When did time became antisocial? What is "antisocial hours". Hours that dont want to socialize with you?

I'm not sure if there's an accepted definition, but some employers offer a bonus for working early mornings or late nights, i.e. for working hours that would make it difficult to be there for your children or have a regular sleep-work-recreation pattern. It's an incentive to work shitty hours, basically. I used to work retail in a place that also paid a 15p/hr "out of town" bonus, presumably as a way of offsetting people's fuel or transport costs, but I expect that's mostly done on a voluntary basis by the employer.

Agema:

Roosevelt's economic performance was clearly not miserable. In between 1933 and 1940 the US economy grew by over 50%, an increase of over 5% per year.

I think most people think of his term as one of misery with a horrific double dip recession that occurred around 1937, the middle of what you laud. Even so, if you are right, was his switch off the gold standard and inflation a big part of the recovery? I'm thinking so for reasons stated in the film shared by aelreth. Today, our job creators, with low inflation, don't need to get off their butts. Maybe if there was inflation, they would need to do so.

Secondly it is misleading. It is true that Roosevelt's "activism is considered the actual cause of his miserable economic performance" - but only by a minority subset of economists. The majority of professional economic opinion believes it was overall positive.

That a disagreement, not a mislead: I really do think the minority is on to something here (assuming they are a minority).

I saw a film about those desperate times called, "King of the Hill." By the end, one person and family has been saved by a big government job. It is almost a miracle. Things will be great for them. Another person is not so lucky. He (Spaulding Grey), faced with crushing poverty and no chance for a way our, kills himself. Why does the Government get to choose winners and losers? Would Coolidge's silent approach brought about roaring times again? Maybe. And they might have been more just. It is hard to know.

Strazdas:

Bartenders with bachelors exist in order to pay for those bachelors to begin with. You work for 8 hours, then go and study for 6 more, and once you are home, you still got work for studies left to do because universities imagine that you should not work when studying, yet demand money that we should just magically have.

The film I saw was about people that already had degrees, sometimes multiples, but were radically under-employed. I really do think that's a problem out there.

My own wife worked her way though school. The idea was, when she was through with school and getting an education, her situation would improve. It did for her. The bartenders with bachelors? Not so much. Why is that happening now?

But if the kids working at McDonalds actually got paid what their labor is worth, then the board of directors wouldn't be able to buy their yachts!

Seriously, though, I do believe that the biggest problem with corporate America is the wage disparity. The corporate ladder's pay scale grows exponentially, but the skill required to do the job does not.

Participating in the "Undercover Boss" TV show should be a job requirement for every member of every corporate board of directors in America, so they can learn what real work looks like.

Strazdas:

Remus:

My car gets ~25MPG on a good day. Round trip each day I would use 4.8 gallons of gasoline, figure 5 once I hit the city.
Lets review: $3.29x5 gallons, x 5 days a week, that's $164.50 out of $246.50 every 2 weeks. This leaves $82 every two weeks to survive on, or $41 a week, $5.85 a day. Explain to me again how this is a living wage in anyplace outside of Barter Town.

There are couple things wrong with your theory. First of all what are you driving? a cargo truck? LEts use normal european counting as im more familiar with that. 1 galon =3.8 liters. 1 mile 1.6 kilometers. that would mean 10.5 Kilometers per liter. Or the way cars manufacturers usualyl count these things 9.5 (very nicely rounded for some reason) liters per 100km. my 23 years old 4-door sedan does 6-7 liters per 100 km out of town. My fathers 5 years old 4door sedan does 3-4 liters per 100km. Lets imagine the average car uses 5 for rounding purposes. that puts us at 20KM/liter, or in your americanized numbers - 47,5 Miles-Per-Galon. So almost double what yours do. So yeah, look into that, because yours are definatelly eating way too much gas. Besides, gas isnt even expensive in america, here a gallon would cost you 8.7 dollars (converted from local currency).

Secondly, why must you use your car? car is a luxury item. You can use public transport. You know, there are things called buses and trains. they usually offer huge discounts if your buying a monthly pass and stuff like that.

You're not familiar with US infrastructure, are you? Public transport in many states is almost non-existent unless it's for schools. Where I am, there aren't any bus lines that come out to any areas that would allow me to go to work. I have no choice but to drive. And trains? HA. Proposals for that get laughed out of near every meeting as a socialist waste of money because 1 high speed rail project in California isn't going as well as hoped. I wish I was kidding.

Further, 25MPG (Miles per gallon) is pretty common for most cars in the US. Mine usually managed 30mpg if everything was all highway. If you convert that for KM/Litre then you're looking at about 10.63KM/litre.

Strazdas:

Wait? When did time became antisocial? What is "antisocial hours". Hours that dont want to socialize with you?

It means hours outside of those most people operate during. If you've got a kid it's not great to have to be working from 4-midnight every night because a) you'll never see them and b) if you don't have friends/family to watch them it'll cost a fortune in childcare.

It's a period when most people can't work because of other commitments (e.g. family) and is considered unsociable because it makes having an 'ordinary' life next to impossible - you can't take care of your family because you're working when they get up/get home from school[1]/work so you miss out on having a family life. Add in a lack of a social life because all your friends work regular hours and you've got unsociable hours.

[1] most people get home 2-3 hours after school finishes but if you're getting home after 9/10 chances are your kids are already asleep

Strazdas:

aelreth:

Actually the depression that followed the recession in 1929 was the result of government trying to help people that were suffering. Both Hoover and FDR did things that made things much worse.

Between protectionism, wage controls, interference with the money supply, scapegoating of businessmen, expansion of public works, and increased taxation Hoover is a great example of a central planner.

FDR just went bigger.

And yet it was Keynesiam politics that saved the day.

It just held the people in bondage to an increased debt. The central planning done by the hoover and FDR administrations prolonged the depression. When the additional spending brought about by the war was finally cut the economy did not crash like the Keynesian economists believed, it grew faster.

Gorfias:
[

I think most people think of his term as one of misery with a horrific double dip recession that occurred around 1937, the middle of what you laud. Even so, if you are right, was his switch off the gold standard and inflation a big part of the recovery? I'm thinking so for reasons stated in the film shared by aelreth. Today, our job creators, with low inflation, don't need to get off their butts. Maybe if there was inflation, they would need to do so.

Secondly it is misleading. It is true that Roosevelt's "activism is considered the actual cause of his miserable economic performance" - but only by a minority subset of economists. The majority of professional economic opinion believes it was overall positive.

That a disagreement, not a mislead: I really do think the minority is on to something here (assuming they are a minority).

I saw a film about those desperate times called, "King of the Hill." By the end, one person and family has been saved by a big government job. It is almost a miracle. Things will be great for them. Another person is not so lucky. He (Spaulding Grey), faced with crushing poverty and no chance for a way our, kills himself. Why does the Government get to choose winners and losers? Would Coolidge's silent approach brought about roaring times again? Maybe. And they might have been more just. It is hard to know.

Regarding the inflation.

Those cost of living prices indicated in that the video indicated that were the result of government backed cartels, like the federal farm board. These also controlled the price of livestock as well. Had wages and food prices been allowed to hit the floor, the economy could have recovered on it's own. Compounding the previous problem, Hoover h called in all the business leaders after the crash and asked them to increase wages and hold prices where they were. This as you might have guessed caused chaos in nearly ever sector.

FDR continued the policies of price controls and expanded it into different sectors creating cartels by cooperating with the established big businesses. This made the corporations on the inside of those cartels extremely powerful.

If your intent is to use that inflation to create interest in idle resources it will be counter productive. Those resources aren't being utilized because it isn't efficient or profitable to put those resources into motion. Businessmen are waiting for the price of labor or the resource in question to drop.

Gorfias:
I do hate the minimum wage for true reasons stated. It kills jobs. Law of economics. If the minimum wage was $8 an hour, and some kid is worth only $2, I won't hire him. At $2 an hour for 12 hours after school, that $20ish for pocket money that keeps him busy working for it rather than devolving into delinquency. Economist Thomas Sowell writes of the correlation between inflation and demand making the minimum wage effectively irrelevant and disappearing unemployment among young black males. This works in reverse as well. A second problem is the "good job". If you can leave school at 16 and get a job that has all these benefits you could want, I think that will have a dampening effect on motivation. I personally got certification when I realized I needed more credentials. People made money off my efforts and in turn, I am more employable at higher wages. If I was all set? I wouldn't have bothered and as a society, we'd be worse off.

You seem to think that people are worth based on value they create. If that is the case, then one would have to be quite retarded to only be worth 2 dollars a hour, well that, or your job position is retarded. on real world, people are paid far bellow their actual value added. minimum wage lines exist to limit this expoitation at least to a certain level.
Economist Thomas Sowell is WRONG because it thinks a correlation equals causation. It does not.
ANd no, that would not dampen motivation, that would, in fact, increase people motivation to do the things they like. This works (see: Sweden).
Considering your views on job market, i do wonder would society be really worse off without having you as an employer. But were goingp ersonal here and we shouldnt.

So what is my solution? Radical inflation. Put the jobs creators back to work.

Supposedly some individual citicorp guy got $2.5 billion of bailout money. With high inflation, he needs to put that money to work, buying things, investing in my company, purchasing my services or lose the money to inflation. With very low inflation he can put that money in the Cayman Island banks and more or less stay even without lifting a finger.

Inflation has its own pernicious effects. As a nation, investing in us might become riskier. I've also read that our debt problems would be exacerbated considerably. Right now the USA is still solvent because the interest on our debts is low. Appears our debts are on an adjusted rather than fixed basis.

Radical inflation would allow no saving to exist. example of this was seein in post ww2 germany. you would have to pay people for thier work more than once a day. because bread would cost double in the evening. you would be unable to save for investments in such things as a building for your factory. you would have to instantly pay for all services (such as water) and you would have to be paid instantly. you would also have to spend everything you have on things becuase if you dont you jsut threw away money.
this is unworkable and would revert to gold-based economy very quickly. or as was a case of post WW2 eastenr europe - economy of cigarettes that were more stable than actual currency.

No, what we need instead is to lower the gap for income so we would not give anyone 2.5 billion of bailout.

Take your example: you don't just cut a nurse's salary in half. Over time, there are twice as many nurses as there used to be with contant demand. In that case, nurses, adjusted for inflation, make 1/2 what those did a century earlier. But their services are now twice as easy to obtain. Because their services are easier to obtain, the cost of other things these nurses buy comes down as well as their suppliers expenses, including nursing services, fall as well.

Nurses are a form of nursery service supply supply. If the nurses get paid half the salray and are unable to, say, not starve, then the quality of services drop extremely to the point where a single double paid nurse will give you more value than two underpaid ones. the service quality is not directly corelated to work hours.

P.S. capcha gave me a bunch of presidents and "head of cabbage" and asked me which one does not belong. I chose obama, because the rest were cabbage heads anyway. capcha did not agree.

generals3:

Super Not Cosmo:

Yes, $15 per hour IS obscene to flip burgers or shill fries in a drive-thru. Almost anyone can learn to do the entry level fast food positions.

-Chuckles- Even after the very heavy taxation of Sweden, my friend, who's only job is to 'carry heavy stuff for construction-workers' (that's his job description), something which requires NO training and is available right at the entry level, still makes 20 USD an hour.
20 USD, after Swedish taxes, which are around 30%. And yes, while food and other products are more expensive here, they aren't THAT more expensive (his rent, which is my old apartment by the way, is 400 USD a month, for a relatively central apartment in a major city).

Ritualist:

Strazdas:

Heroin is not a luxury, its a coping mechanism. A lot of people could use heroin to relax quickly. Since i personally are willfully ignoring all other posibilities, i claim that heroin now must be government issued as part of wellfare!

Then again, you claim that a living age should make you live heathily, which is automatic no to smoking.

Sin of false equivalency. Nicotine, while an addictive substance, is far less harmful to you than heroine. And going a day without nicotine has far less harmful effects than going a day without heroine after you've been hooked. Heroine is also illegal, and does not exist in a state that is safe to take in. There are many ways to get your nicotine fix without smoking.

Please try again.

Obiviuosly. But you made it sound like nicotine was the only way for a person to relax and was a necessity, when in reality it is a harmful drug that could be replaced by 5 minute breaks to same relaxation efficiency.
There is no "safe" way to get nicotine, because nicotine itself is harmful.

This discussion however is not a nicotine agianst heroin, but a nicotine not being a necessity to relax.

Remus:

You've never been to the U.S. have you? Unlike Europe, there are places that buses do not travel. The U.S. is not one giant city-state with bus and cab routes to everywhere. Review the population density map again. I'll gladly put one up for Europe. I'm only entertaining your logic due to how ridiculous it is. A car is NOT a luxury when the nearest job is 60 miles, or 96 kilometers away. Living on the street is also not an option when employers only accept applicants who are clean cut, shaved, and look decent. I'll fully admit, the oil companies do have an iron grip on what cars are readily available in the U.S., which is why we get such shitty mileage. But I do not possess the $50,000 it would cost to buy electric, nor will I ever or should have to. What I have is the best car I could buy after a shit insurance claim. I could have a lot worse. Your logic is flawed, your perspective is flawed, your entire line of reasoning is flawed. Come across the pond sometime, hell come to my house, then try to catch a bus to work. You will be waiting a looooong time.

Granted while i do not know all american bus network, but if you live that far from any job and there is no public transport possible have you though that maybe you shouldnt be living in a middle of freaking nowhere? If i were to go live in a forest and then complain thay i have to walk to city every day it would be my own damn fault i moved there. Especially since with the prices you state it would be cheaper to rent a place locally anyway. To add to that it is kinda a fault of the state to not provide public transport, but you americans were never good at any kind of governant when it comes to public services so i guess small steps.

Electric cars cost 50.000 dollars where you live?its more like 15.000 here. but then the way you make it sound is there are huge corporations forcing you to drive cars akin to the "mad max" movie level cars. Surely if you have to travel to work every day, alone, you could ahve, you know, bought a SMALL car to begin with?

Yes, i guess my reasoning of expecting public transport to exist and of people with little income choosing to use transport that is cheaper is flawed. im sorry for begin savvy.

Karma168:
It means hours outside of those most people operate during. If you've got a kid it's not great to have to be working from 4-midnight every night because a) you'll never see them and b) if you don't have friends/family to watch them it'll cost a fortune in childcare.

It's a period when most people can't work because of other commitments (e.g. family) and is considered unsociable because it makes having an 'ordinary' life next to impossible - you can't take care of your family because you're working when they get up/get home from school[1]/work so you miss out on having a family life. Add in a lack of a social life because all your friends work regular hours and you've got unsociable hours.

Fair enough. i never heard the nightshift being called antisocial hours though.

aelreth:

It just held the people in bondage to an increased debt. The central planning done by the hoover and FDR administrations prolonged the depression. When the additional spending brought about by the war was finally cut the economy did not crash like the Keynesian economists believed, it grew faster.

Because smithsonian economics had no debt. right.
Yeah, i guess its just a coincidence then that the keynsenian spending is directly linked to end of great depresion. but no, it actually prolonged it and everything the history has to say is lies.

[1] most people get home 2-3 hours after school finishes but if you're getting home after 9/10 chances are your kids are already asleep

Gorfias:

I think most people think of his term as one of misery with a horrific double dip recession that occurred around 1937, the middle of what you laud.

Funnily enough, that recession was the result of Roosevelt withdrawing government programmes - which almost no-one disputes. Also worth noting, Roosevelt actually balanced the budget for the most part - US national debt (%GDP) barely changed between 1933 and 1940.

Even so, if you are right, was his switch off the gold standard and inflation a big part of the recovery? I'm thinking so for reasons stated in the film shared by aelreth.

The gold standard was and still is a crock of shit, and coming off it was a great help. But Roosevelt did a lot more.

Today, our job creators, with low inflation, don't need to get off their butts. Maybe if there was inflation, they would need to do so.

I'm not sure how this relates comparatively to Roosevelt - inflation rates in his tenure (before WW2) were comparable to today.

That a disagreement, not a mislead: I really do think the minority is on to something here (assuming they are a minority)

They are. Someone did a poll asking economists whether the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. About 20% of respondents said yes, 25% had mixed views, and over 50% rejected the notion.

I saw a film about those desperate times called, "King of the Hill." By the end, one person and family has been saved by a big government job. It is almost a miracle. Things will be great for them. Another person is not so lucky. He (Spaulding Grey), faced with crushing poverty and no chance for a way our, kills himself. Why does the Government get to choose winners and losers? Would Coolidge's silent approach brought about roaring times again? Maybe. And they might have been more just. It is hard to know.

So with no big government miracle job, two people face crushing poverty and commit suicide. Why is this an improvement?

Why is it "unjust" for government to employ one person because he's the best man for the job and so condemn a failed applicant to poverty, yet "just" when a private sector employer does the same? There is no sense to this. Why should the private sector get to choose winners either?

It is not "just" that massive recessions inevitably put out of work and impoverish people who had basically no role in creating them. It is not just that the vast majority of the human cost or recession - suffering, poverty, etc. - is loaded onto a relatively small number of people, who just happened to be unlucky.

aelreth:

If your intent is to use that inflation to create interest in idle resources it will be counter productive. Those resources aren't being utilized because it isn't efficient or profitable to put those resources into motion. Businessmen are waiting for the price of labor or the resource in question to drop.

Increasing the minimum wage would slow that from happening too, and I think, cause more unemployment. It would be increasingly unprofitable to hire someone.

In your opinion, would anything Government can do to increase employment and wealth creating jobs work? (Wealth creation is important. The Government could draft 100% of us into the military. There would be 0 unemployment but nothing to eat) Like promising a radical tax increase in 2 years (use your capitol before it is taxed away, do things now before it is more expensive to do so later?)

I guess I feel pretty desperate and wanting the government to do something. Today's job market sucks.

Strazdas:
one would have to be quite retarded to only be worth 2 dollars a hour

Believe it or not, there are sectors of our population in dire need of a sort of social rehabilitation. To some, simply showing up to a job on time is difficult. In one episode of the show, "The Wire" which I hear is very realistic, a teacher is simply trying to teach 2 young ladies how to have a civil mild disagreement. They role play. 1 Girl is a customer with a complaint. The other, an employee that needs to deal with the customer civilly. The situation devolves, in the classroom, into a fist fight (or near). It is going to take a lot of patience and hard work to get some people to really be of value.

But wow, this has digressed.

The topic is, Minimum Wage Jobs Aren't Careers. Question: should they be? With enough Government support, they could be. With government provided Food stamps, housing, clothing allowances, health care coverage and even a stipend, they can be. I think I started my responses to this by stating a concern that we would be demotivating those with minimum wage jobs. The kid that gloried at Obama during a town hall for health care coverage concerns me. He has a minimum wage job (say, at Walmart). The kid likely has the skills to become, say, a welder. But if all his needs are being met handing out shopping carts, will he make that effort?

As I am a lazy man, much of what I have done in life, I've done not for Maslow's hierarchy reasons, but because I had a figurative gun to my head. I've had to.

I would say we do and don't demonize it.

We do, because to be STUCK in that position is said to be a failure.

We don't, because many people would agree that 'work is work', and that a job flipping burgers is a good starting off point.

I believe in non-interventionism government, but that doesn't mean laissez-faire. What it means is, instead of having the government directly create a job, have it persuade the rich to want to create more jobs. I think the inflation idea is really dumb. Tax vouchers and breaks, benefits, a reworking of the tax codes to prevent investment brokers from not paying any taxes. Something to say "Ok, you're making money, now stop hoarding it".

From the sock under the matress theory of economics:

And, as Hubert Turvy, the city's (so far) sole economic expert has proven with the assistance of the Thing in the Cellar, the more money goes under the mattress (Flask twenty-Eight), the less money there is available to fund new investment, research and development, business expansion, etc (Reservoir Eleven), and the consequences are foreclosures on existing loans (Flask Nine), collapsing businesses (the vernier scale on the left of Flask Seventeen), job losses (Flask Seven), a catastrophic loss of demand, all those little Socks Under The Mattress come out all at once, and flood the economy with long-withheld cash at a time when there are less and less goods produced for that money to buy, thus fuelling inflation... and, in a word, Recession.

Money has to move. Every time money stops moving, the economy starts to die. If the economy is like the body, then capital is the blood, and what happens to your body when your blood just stops moving?

So I think what has to happen is the government has got to find a way to get the people with capital to start investing back into the economy and business, not just the extremely rich, but also the middle class.

Strazdas:

Granted while i do not know all american bus network, but if you live that far from any job and there is no public transport possible have you though that maybe you shouldnt be living in a middle of freaking nowhere? If i were to go live in a forest and then complain thay i have to walk to city every day it would be my own damn fault i moved there.

Again you assume too much. You assume I chose to live here when in fact I was born here. What part of "not having enough money to move" do you not understand? That whole "living on the street" comment that you seem to have glossed over was not conjecture. It's where I'd be if I were not being supported by family. Many people in the "gamer" demographic - the 25 to 39 adult - find themselves in the exact same predicament, unable to find work because no company here is willing to pay a living wage. We're practically 3rd world in our inability to support our own population. As a result, many young adults end up moving back with their parents, parents who have or had good jobs because they were raised in a time when profit margins did not have to expand every year, when inflation could not be measured daily, when a living wage and reasonable pay was the rule and not the exception. When companies don't pay their employees enough to survive on, we do not get subsidized pay from the government. We get nothing. What programs there are available to the poor become more difficult to qualify for every year. This may not be your reality having never been to the U.S. but it is mine. You have quality of life that I don't. Congratulations. Now hop off that pedestal and come back down to Earth with the rest of us.

Gorfias:

Strazdas:
one would have to be quite retarded to only be worth 2 dollars a hour

Believe it or not, there are sectors of our population in dire need of a sort of social rehabilitation. To some, simply showing up to a job on time is difficult. In one episode of the show, "The Wire" which I hear is very realistic, a teacher is simply trying to teach 2 young ladies how to have a civil mild disagreement. They role play. 1 Girl is a customer with a complaint. The other, an employee that needs to deal with the customer civilly. The situation devolves, in the classroom, into a fist fight (or near). It is going to take a lot of patience and hard work to get some people to really be of value.

But wow, this has digressed.

The topic is, Minimum Wage Jobs Aren't Careers. Question: should they be? With enough Government support, they could be. With government provided Food stamps, housing, clothing allowances, health care coverage and even a stipend, they can be. I think I started my responses to this by stating a concern that we would be demotivating those with minimum wage jobs. The kid that gloried at Obama during a town hall for health care coverage concerns me. He has a minimum wage job (say, at Walmart). The kid likely has the skills to become, say, a welder. But if all his needs are being met handing out shopping carts, will he make that effort?

As I am a lazy man, much of what I have done in life, I've done not for Maslow's hierarchy reasons, but because I had a figurative gun to my head. I've had to.

And hence these people in the show (of which i saw only 3 seasons, and did not saw the scene, but it could be in 4th or 5th season so i wont dispute) will not get a job. Its not really about how much value they can create though, more like being unable to function in a society due to bad upbringing, for which mostly parents are at fault in such sitautions. You know, the kind of parents that tell their kids that when they get bullied they should punch back instead of reporting the crime. but thats not really the topic there.

The topics main question, which has been pushed aside by now really, is not really much rational to begin with. As wage does not define jobs ability to be career or not. ability to advance within company does.
The actual question we are discussing here however is different and it goes closer to: should government keep minimum wage high enough for people to be able to live on it.

You are a lazy man. but are you? you said everything you did was because you had to. So i guess you had to register to this forum. you had to argue economics. you had to, say, have friends. you wouldnt have survived without them, right? Or is it that you did it because you WANTED to. because wanting is very strong. People put too much emphasis on lazy poeple in a form of not realizing thier worth. There are plenty people who see, for example, game developers as lazy people who do nothing worthy for living. But we both know thats false. a persons worth is not as easily tangible as "can he fix the pluming". And do these people enjoy their work - most claim to. people wont just sit on thier asses whole day. they do get bored of it. most think they wouldnt, because they never had time to try. those that try however end up finding a hobby, one which often actually brings value.

Remus:

Strazdas:

Granted while i do not know all american bus network, but if you live that far from any job and there is no public transport possible have you though that maybe you shouldnt be living in a middle of freaking nowhere? If i were to go live in a forest and then complain thay i have to walk to city every day it would be my own damn fault i moved there.

Again you assume too much. You assume I chose to live here when in fact I was born here. What part of "not having enough money to move" do you not understand? That whole "living on the street" comment that you seem to have glossed over was not conjecture. It's where I'd be if I were not being supported by family. Many people in the "gamer" demographic - the 25 to 39 adult - find themselves in the exact same predicament, unable to find work because no company here is willing to pay a living wage. We're practically 3rd world in our inability to support our own population. As a result, many young adults end up moving back with their parents, parents who have or had good jobs because they were raised in a time when profit margins did not have to expand every year, when inflation could not be measured daily, when a living wage and reasonable pay was the rule and not the exception. When companies don't pay their employees enough to survive on, we do not get subsidized pay from the government. We get nothing. What programs there are available to the poor become more difficult to qualify for every year. This may not be your reality having never been to the U.S. but it is mine. You have quality of life that I don't. Congratulations. Now hop off that pedestal and come back down to Earth with the rest of us.

You were born here. This has no relevance to you living here though. You live here because you chose to live here. If you didnt - you would move. Now forgive me for assuming again, but i assume noone is holding you chained up to the house.
From the figures you gave for the money you spend on gas - it would be cheaper to move than you spend on gas in a month. you dont have to bring your whole house with you, you know.
And sorry, but inflation nowadays isnt much higher than it was when your parents grew up. Now i dont know the eaxactl years so obviuosly i can only guess, but there were plenty of periods where in fact it is slower now. The thing about companies you said is correct and i do not dispute that.

Strazdas:

aelreth:

It just held the people in bondage to an increased debt. The central planning done by the hoover and FDR administrations prolonged the depression. When the additional spending brought about by the war was finally cut the economy did not crash like the Keynesian economists believed, it grew faster.

Because smithsonian economics had no debt. right.
Yeah, i guess its just a coincidence then that the keynsenian spending is directly linked to end of great depresion. but no, it actually prolonged it and everything the history has to say is lies.

Then why did the Harding/Coolidge method correct the stock market crash of 1920 that was more severe than the one in
1929?

Both Hoover and FDR turned to stimulus and government borrowing.

Minimum wage used to be livable, but now it's not enough.
So...

Raise it? I don't know, I'm just a simple guy with simple solutions.

Maybe some well educated spoiled brat can explain the reasoning with keeping people's wages under living conditions.
Is it somehow good for the economy?
I suspect it's good for the economy, specifically the economy of people's wallets. The wallets of people who never have worked minimum wage in their life, is what I'm getting at.

Bentusi16:
So I think what has to happen is the government has got to find a way to get the people with capital to start investing back into the economy and business, not just the extremely rich, but also the middle class.

You hit the nail on the head! Myself and my wife, our friends, my parents, all sorts of middle class people I know are simply not spending all that much. My wife and I both are driving cars we've had paid off for multiple years now. We could go out and get new cars but we don't know what direction the economic winds will be blowing next week/month/year. Many of our friends who are also middle class are equally loathe to go out and make any big purchases unless it is absolutely necessary.

This is a common trend from the middle class on up. The middle class aren't buying homes and cars like they once were while the job creators aren't investing in new businesses or expanding current businesses. People simply are unwilling to make any big investments in this economy. It's a safer bet to simply put it into savings and sit on it.

The money simply isn't moving but at a snail's pace. Where a few years ago we'd go out shop on the weekends and buy a new TV or buy a new computer or even go get a different car on a regular basis now we get our checks, pay our bills, and the bulk of the rest goes directly into savings. I think the biggest purchases I've made in the past six months or possibly even year were my new phone and my wife bought a 7" tablet which combined don't even come to 500 dollars.

Gorfias:

aelreth:

If your intent is to use that inflation to create interest in idle resources it will be counter productive. Those resources aren't being utilized because it isn't efficient or profitable to put those resources into motion. Businessmen are waiting for the price of labor or the resource in question to drop.

Increasing the minimum wage would slow that from happening too, and I think, cause more unemployment. It would be increasingly unprofitable to hire someone.

In your opinion, would anything Government can do to increase employment and wealth creating jobs work? (Wealth creation is important. The Government could draft 100% of us into the military. There would be 0 unemployment but nothing to eat) Like promising a radical tax increase in 2 years (use your capitol before it is taxed away, do things now before it is more expensive to do so later?)

I guess I feel pretty desperate and wanting the government to do something. Today's job market sucks.

You've no doubt heard of the shale oil boom going on in North Dakota where they are simply drilling on private land. They are taking high school diploma achieving workers and giving them very good wages compared to the rest of the country. CDL holders are pulling in six figures and McDonalds is hiring for 15 an hour along with a 300 dollar deposit for accepting a position.

Of course no one wants to leave their comfortable life near a city and not in the tundra like conditions of ND. Many states are considering allowing shale drilling including NY & CA. This would work in those areas provided they aren't saddled with additional requirements to get at those resources. If the price is too high to extract the resources the activity simply won't happen and no one would be hired.

The Federal government could be much more aggressive in leasing land to oil companies in federal lands. In my opinion they are acting reluctantly and conveniently forgetting that we are in a bad economic situation. Linking the salary of every member of the department's salary to getting money from the leases rather than taxes would be a good incentive. The feds could also sell all that land out in the western states and the mineral-extraction rights.

Right now the senate is pushing a bill trying to create another protected class of employees again. It's easier for the employer to never hire a member of the "protected class" and instead hire someone from the "unprotected class" (the white hetero sexual male) because you can fire the latter much easier than anyone else. That demographic is unlikely pursue any legal acts of retribution.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked