se the less intelligent public will vote for them.
And that portion of the more intelligent public that actually understands t he issue.
better?
Persuading an industry to invest more in making the lowest paid workers mor e productive, so that they can earn the higher minimum wage, doesn't happen overnight, and neither does the necessary extra investment.
t still had jobs rich , until the economy adjusted and the increase in the cost of living put those that still had jobs back into poverty. A person ma king minimum wage will always be in poverty regardless of how high the mini mum wage is.
That depends on how you define poverty, which is an intensely political que stion.
I agree, raising the minimum wage to $50 an hour would be terrible for the economy. But that in no way indicates a lower minimum wage would also be bad. argumentum ad absurdum
That is very well put. In another discussion someone was trying to say that automation was bad because it performs jobs that could be done by people and so puts people out of work. I tried to explain that it actually makes people more productive and allows us all to have more. But you point of investment is a valid one.
Of course we will never live in a world where everyone has the same level of affluence. I'd just like to see the bottom raised to a point where people can have healthcare and not worry about being able to feed themselves and their family.
Not all his time. He spends quite a lot of his time calling them liars. His grasp of what either word means is a little weak - I suspect the informati on conveyed in both cases is that he disagrees with what they are saying, b ut lacks the capacity to explain why.
Getting minimum incomes and healthcare up to a respectable level is more or less what has already happened in Europe, and one of the side effects of e ducating women and providing enough food and health care that most children survive to become adults is that the birthrate drops to the point where po pulation isn't expanding. In fact it's below the replacement rate in a lot of places, at the moment. Some of this is that women are having their kids later.
Some right-wing idiots are predicting that Europe will be taken over by the more prolific immigrant populations, rather neglecting the historical fact that second generation immigrants tend to behave lot more like the local p opulation than their parents did.
Can you come up with any arguments that say that an increase in the minimum wage is good?
As long as the minimum wage by law is very close to the wage at which you c an hire unskilled labor, the minimum wage law will have little effect. To readily see the effects of the minimum wage law, one needs to raise the mi nimum wage to a level where the effects are obvious.
Can you come up with any reason that the bad effects of a huge minimum wage increase are not present ( to a smaller extent , of course ) with a small minimum wage increase?
As I see it increasing the minimum wage increases inflation.
Then you'd have a society of lazy free loaders that also would expect free housing, Cable, internet, you know, like they're getting now.
Who pays for all of that if no one is working? How does technology move along if no one wants to work to put those devices together, even if there was automation, you still need people. On top of that, there would be no incentive to get ahead.
Bottom line, a society falls apart and we might as well move back to the woods.
People have to work so they can appreciate what they have and contribute more to the advancement of technology that may one day allow us to move on into outer space. The way things are going I think the only space people will be moving into is the space on the floor next to your lovely home that you had to work so hard for and you'll have nothing to say about it.
Not forcing people to work just slowly kills a system and makes their brains turn to mush, like what is happening now. A few around here are a perfect example.
Simply put, hand outs is an epidemic. Free food means no need to work, no work free health care automatically, also means, free housing etc.. do you get it? I guess not. I think the best thing that would happen is if all this was offered at lets say heavily populated areas where no one had to lift a finger from day to day, just sit there like a bump on a log, watching their free media and playing with their free devices that show how the very few are still trying to make something of themselves outside this area. Then one day a swarm of napalm comes flying into this area and solves the problem and when the ash clears, land for those that want to rework it.
On Monday, 13 October 2014 01:31:59 UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote :
e:
ote:
e:
l,
u.
on
His grasp of what either word means is a little weak - I suspect the infor mation conveyed in both cases is that he disagrees with what they are sayin g, but lacks the capacity to explain why.
Jamie gets more bizarre by the day. "Guilt"? "Cavity wall"?
No doubt he thinks he knows what he means, but he fails to express it in a way that's accessible to other people.
Since the recipe has been tried, tested, and found to fail to deliver any population explosion, the precision is imagined. Jamie's grasp of reality isn't any better than his grasp of spelling.
rs more productive, so that they can earn the higher minimum wage, doesn't happen overnight, and neither does the necessary extra investment.
That doesn't describe the Scandinavian countries or Germany, which do seem to be able to deliver adequate social security and health care.
There's a difference between providing enough social security so that peop le can have healthcare and not worry about being able to feed themselves an d their family, and giving every lay-about anything they want.
German and Scandinavian society isn't falling apart - in fact on most measu res they do better than the USA.
Bizarre thinking. People like to work because it gives them a role in socie ty and the feeling that they are not only doing something useful, but as se en by their neighbours as doing something useful. Getting paid for it helps , but it doesn't do much to help them appreciate what they have.
There goes the neighbourhood ... not that working class invasions of middl e and upper class neighbourhoods seem to be a feature of Scandinavian or G erman society, but right-wing nitwits do find odd things to get anxious abo ut.
Since you and krw seem to be two of the more striking examples of mush-brai ned s.e.d. posters, and you both claim to be working, the argument isn't al l that persuasive.
Granting that the German system doesn't try to starve people back into work , and 80 million Germans export about as much as 310 million Americans, it doesn't stand up in the real world either.
formatting link
Adequate social security does reduce the motivation to get any kind of work to avoid starvation, but there's loads of evidence that there's plenty of motivation to work even when you won't starve if you don't work.
Such a charming fantasy. The evidence is that adequate social security does n't discourage people from getting, finding and hanging onto jobs, and ther e aren't any societies around where no one lifts a finger from day to day.
The classic left-wing example - related to me and the rest of our Labour Pa rty ward committee by a Cambridge academic around 1990 - talked about fast food stores in Texas, where the shop owners had been competing with one ano ther to pay the lowest possible wage, making the jobs very undesirable - pe ople only took the work when there was absolutely nothing better available, and dumped it as soon as anything better came up.
Staff turnover was high. Training was minimal and performance was poor.
When minimum wage legislation forced the fast-food shops to pay their staff better, the jobs became more attractive, the staff stayed long enough to l earn how to do the work properly, the customers were happier, and ate fast food more often, and the fast-food shops made their owners more money - eve n though they were paying out more in wages, the extra business more than m ade up for that extra cost.
The academic painted it as a classic example of the free market failing to deliver the optimal solution. If the fast-food shop owners had been rationa l agents, they'd have been paying better serving staff higher wages in orde r to hang onto them, but anyone who'd broken ranks to do that would have go t a hard time from the other shop owners.
can hire unskilled labor, the minimum wage law will have little effect. T o readily see the effects of the minimum wage law, one needs to raise the minimum wage to a level where the effects are obvious.
ge increase are not present ( to a smaller extent , of course ) with a smal l minimum wage increase?
Only if a significant proportion of the work force is only getting the mini mum wage, which is rare.
It probably ought to be seen as making the economy as a whole more capital intensive, increasing the value of capital, and raising interest rates, whi ch is actually deflationary. If you've got to make individual workers more productive, because you have to pay them more, you've got to invest more ca pital in the tools that make them more productive.
I knew someone would turn this into a "nobody works" argument. Please explain to me how exactly a minimum wage will result in no one working??? I'm trying to grasp how that works.... or doesn't work. Pay people a wage to make working worthwhile and they stop working...
Try putting this along side of the argument against welfare where supposedly people stop working because they are paid as much for not working as they are for working. But if we pay them more to work... they stop working too.
So according to you everyone is going to stop working no matter what we do. I guess we are doomed.
I think this very clearly shows that when you read other's posts you read what you want to read. You have no idea what anyone is saying.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.