Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum
» $15 Per Hour
  1. Results 61 to 90 of 168
  2. First
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. Last
post 1651542553 11-26-2021, 02:53 PM
-
#61
  1. Hammersia
  2. I fluster Busta
  1. Hammersia
  2. I fluster Busta
  3. Join Date: Oct 2012
  4. Posts: 5,981
  5. Rep Power: 6379
Fell asleep reading OP question crew
Lifetime Natty

Veteran Warrior of the Iron Game
post 1651543053 11-26-2021, 03:07 PM
-
#62
  1. dogorman7
  2. Banned
  1. dogorman7
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Posts: 25,849
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Anachron
If you're making minimum wage after the first week as an entry level welder ( and I mean completely green ), you're in the wrong field and should just find another job.
Idk , that’s about how much people make entry level for welding in California unless you weld for the ironworkers union or some ****. The celling for welding is about 20/$hr out here and minimum wage in San Diego is 14/$hr.

The pay has stagnated for trades that bad.

I knew a guy at the non union shop I worked at before I got accepted into the IBEW and he capped at 33/$hr and Hed been there 20+ years. He knew more than most foreman there but when he asked for a raise the super intendant laughed at him and sent him escort pics.

“There’s your raise” lol

You can always ask for a raise , doesn’t mean a company will give it to you unless forced lol. That guy I mentioned is a excellent electrician with over 30 years of experience lol.

It’s not about skill or need , it’s about paying the lowest amount possible to your employees that you can get away with before 90% of the shop walks.
post 1651543083 11-26-2021, 03:07 PM
-
#63
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  2. Join Date: Dec 2011
  3. Location: United States
  4. Posts: 34,673
  5. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By guest89
Biggest issue with the constant whining over minimum wage is its something that should only technically affect people from 16-25 years old.What kind of person works dead end jobs for their entire life then whines the government needs to give them a raise?


Had this epiphany when I was 18 working with some guys in their 40s. (Manual labor job). By the time I was 20 I was getting paid more then dudes that had been in that industry for 20+ years. Mainly because of work ethic + innovative ideas that upped productivity. Finally got tired of being surrounded by losers and put myself through college.


It was kind of weird being put supervising dudes over 2x my age that had more experience in the industry then I'd been alive.

Average minimum wage-cel needs to figure out how to scale a career and their skillset.
But here is the thing- the minimum sets the floor and the floor hasn't been adjusted to keep up with inflation.

I wish I had an updated chart for this, but a heck of a lot more than just high school and college students are earning less than $15 an hour.



^^^
Roughly one third of individual workers earning less than the equivalent of $15 an hour full time. Sure, there must be students and retirees and part-time workers in that cohort, but just lol at the idea that raising the wage to $15 would only mean increasing pay for the greenest least productive workers.
Originally Posted By Hammersia
Fell asleep reading OP question crew
Sweet. Black Friday nap time.

INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1651543213 11-26-2021, 03:11 PM
-
#64
  1. WellHungOver
  1. WellHungOver
  2. Join Date: Nov 2005
  3. Location: Washington, United States
  4. Posts: 15,339
  5. Rep Power: 125879
We’re $14.49/hr here and I don’t think a single person making minimum would make it. 2 people working minimum wage full time could.
post 1651543643 11-26-2021, 03:18 PM
-
#65
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  2. Join Date: Dec 2011
  3. Location: United States
  4. Posts: 34,673
  5. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By WellHungOver
We’re $14.49/hr here and I don’t think a single person making minimum would make it. 2 people working minimum wage full time could.
That was kind of the point of the OP.

I'm in what has generally been considered a lower cost of living area and you need 2 full time incomes totaling $57,600 a year to qualify for a decent 2 bedroom apartment renting for $1600 a month.

$15 an hour/full time = $30,000

2 full time employed people earning $15 an hour = $60,000

Required income to rent a $1600 apartment [gross 3X monthly rent] = $57,600
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1651543653 11-26-2021, 03:18 PM
-
#66
  1. SamIAm1892
  2. Future Mars Astronaut
  1. SamIAm1892
  2. Future Mars Astronaut
  3. Join Date: Jul 2020
  4. Posts: 13,419
  5. Rep Power: 48445
People making minimum wage and driving expensive leased cars like they made it in life. Maybe I should rethink my life's decisions.
post 1651544153 11-26-2021, 03:30 PM
-
#67
  1. azumi121
  2. By Kingdom Come
  1. azumi121
  2. By Kingdom Come
  3. Join Date: Apr 2007
  4. Posts: 12,811
  5. Rep Power: 35424
Automation and stagnant wages are just going to destroy the country even more, increase the crime rate and push taxes even higher

Something’s gotta happen UBI? minimum wage hike? Feed the poor to the middle class and then feed the middle class to the animals the rich eat?
**Misc Decade Crew**

*God cucked Joseph
*Would let Eva Green cuck me crew
*Scrub skateboard crew
*McKenzie Davis step on me please crew
*5’9” and only date women with tall men in their families to give my kids a chance crew
*halfrican crew
*token buff manlet crew
*Nebraska crew
post 1651544473 11-26-2021, 03:41 PM
-
#68
  1. veggie530
  2. Not Aware
  1. veggie530
  2. Not Aware
  3. Join Date: Jan 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 12,078
  6. Rep Power: 155340
Originally Posted By HMFIC_BROWSIN
There should be no such thing as "minimum wage"

If someone wants to apprentice for free, or $5/hr, why should we tell them no?

Stop treating the population like they're children ffs.
This is nonsense.

Putting all the power in the hands of employers and none in the hands of workers is not sensible.

I'm open to examples from around the globe where this works other than where blood diamonds are mined.
Originally Posted By guest89
Biggest issue with the constant whining over minimum wage is its something that should only technically affect people from 16-25 years old. What kind of person works dead end jobs for their entire life then whines the government needs to give them a raise?


Had this epiphany when I was 18 working with some guys in their 40s. (Manual labor job). By the time I was 20 I was getting paid more then dudes that had been in that industry for 20+ years. Mainly because of work ethic + innovative ideas that upped productivity. Finally got tired of being surrounded by losers and put myself through college.


It was kind of weird being put supervising dudes over 2x my age that had more experience in the industry then I'd been alive.

Average minimum wage-cel needs to figure out how to scale a career and their skillset.



You can't really compare yall minimum wage. Canada's either. If you make 100K per year in Australia or Canada you're probably not as financially secure as an American in the mid-west making 50K per year.


In America as long as you stay out of major/coastal cities you can do quite well as a single brah on 60-65k per year. Good enough to buy a 1500+ square foot 3 bed 2 bath house (newer construction) on your single salary in like 90% of America.
what you're espousing makes no sense. the U.S. has an upside down age pyramid. if you assert that nobody should be working for minimum wage, then everyone would be richer when they're older and everyone young would be poorer. you don't buy homes, etc. when you're old.

you can want the world to be a certain way or you can accept it as is and try to find solutions for that. more people spending more money is better, not worse for society.
August 2023:
BW: 194
B: 315 x 3, 225 x 14 (PR: 335)
S: 315 x 2, 225 x 18 (PR's)
DL: 405 x 1 (PR); Trap Bar DL: 405 x 1
OHP: 185 x 3 (PR), 135 x 16
Chins: 22(PR) Pushups: 83 (PR: 101)
1 Mile: 6:45 (PR: 5:52)
post 1651545443 11-26-2021, 04:07 PM
-
#69
  1. tunafishha
  2. Registered CCP
  1. tunafishha
  2. Registered CCP
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Posts: 29,114
  5. Rep Power: 27114
Originally Posted By azumi121
Automation and stagnant wages are just going to destroy the country even more, increase the crime rate and push taxes even higher

Something’s gotta happen UBI? minimum wage hike? Feed the poor to the middle class and then feed the middle class to the animals the rich eat?
Robots can't make the decision to hit a metal plate with one tire or both tires when driving. Hell, it would probably speed up and bust your rims up real fookn good.

Robots ain't replacing chiiiiit.
*Catholic Crew*
*Community College Master Race*
*5'5 Masterrace*
*Starbucks Crew*
*Buy high, sell low*
post 1651546323 11-26-2021, 04:24 PM
-
#70
  1. tunafishha
  2. Registered CCP
  1. tunafishha
  2. Registered CCP
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Posts: 29,114
  5. Rep Power: 27114
Originally Posted By Anachron
Just LOL at this statement.
just lol at using safety razors.

When will nongilletecels learn about basic economic$?
*Catholic Crew*
*Community College Master Race*
*5'5 Masterrace*
*Starbucks Crew*
*Buy high, sell low*
post 1651546363 11-26-2021, 04:26 PM
-
#71
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By katya422
This is a lot to unpack.



Well when the minimum wage was established under the Fair Labor Standards Act it was meant to protect workers from predatory employers and establish a "floor for wages and a ceiling for hours worked".



A little about what the market found to be acceptable:



To put that $4 a week into perspective:



Executive Pay: $5,000 a week [assuming a 5 day week]

The Most Vulnerable Workers: $4 a week with 2/3rds working over 40 hours

If I were to take a stab at what went wrong I would say that the proposed system of labor boards reviewing industries must have been ditched since we haven't seen an increase in a decade.
lol @ a lot to unpack. That was just copying/pasting policies without any relevant facts.

There are two things to separate here;

The first is that you argued for child labor laws, but that wasn't even a part of the debate. No one here is arguing against child labor laws. We'll call that one a straw man.

Second is a bunch of statements on wages that have no impact on the economic process.

You didn't seem to have read what I posted, so let me make a final attempt, this time, I'll make it directly against your claims. If you were to ask someone if they would prefer to work for low wages or have no job at all, what would they answer?

According to economist Thomas Sowell, On average, blacks have lower skill rates than whites. After the Fair Labor act, when minimum wages went up, blacks were priced out of the market. From the mid 1800s up until the Fair Trade Act, blacks and whites has almost the same exact job participation rate. After the fair trade act, job participation among blacks fell dramatically, especially young blacks. They lost their jobs and were unable to find any because their skills didn't qualify them for the new wages. They were replaced by more educated and skilled workers, which ended up being mostly white, and the total number of jobs also went down. This also means, they could no longer gain skills and this had a compounding affect on future generations too.

Wage laws decrease options as well, for both employers and the worker. Because they both have less options, this means less competition for both labor positions and for companies competing against each other. This is the consequence of price fixing.

This same thing happened with every single minimum wage increase in our history too. Each time it hurt blacks more than any other race, so we know this was not an isolated incident or the result of anything else. So when people say "capitalism is racist", you can reply "No liberal/progressive policies are".
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1651546663 11-26-2021, 04:32 PM
-
#72
  1. r32gojirra
  2. Registered NEET
  1. r32gojirra
  2. Registered NEET
  3. Join Date: Feb 2013
  4. Location: East Coast, Australia
  5. Posts: 39,554
  6. Subscribers: 6
  7. Rep Power: 597933
Originally Posted By Anachron
But why $15?

Why not $30?

Maybe $100?

The answer is not always more regulation from the government.



Enter koalacel using kangaroodollars.

Just LOL at koalacels.
True the answer lies with the unions

This generation is literally too soft to understand what a picket line is though

Also in Australia you need to account for the fact that your hourly wage is additional to high quality “free” (taxpayer funded) healthcare and a range of other first-world benefits

So hilariously the actual minimum wage is much higher than the employee funded hourly dollar amount when comparing to americucks
post 1651547213 11-26-2021, 04:42 PM
-
#73
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By r32gojirra
True the answer lies with the unions

This generation is literally too soft to understand what a picket line is though

Also in Australia you need to account for the fact that your hourly wage is additional to high quality “free” (taxpayer funded) healthcare and a range of other first-world benefits

So hilariously the actual minimum wage is much higher than the employee funded hourly dollar amount when comparing to americucks
No. Unions are not the answer either. Unions are monopolies that use coercion to price fix as well. They use dirty tactics that hurt businesses as a result of those tactics. In fact, for many years unions wouldn't allow blacks in because they werent skilled enough and therefore not worthy of the wages they were demanding. As per my argument above, Unions are just another mechanism that decreases competition and hurts the market for both the labor and the business. It's a third party with its own self interests that should not be involved in fiduciary agreements. A business and worker agree on a wage, and if the worker doesn't like that wage, they have lots of other options. Price fixing DECREASES THOSE OPTIONS. This kills competition for both the businesses and the workers while the union profits. Unions don't have to compete. They just profit unopposed.

Most people are not aware of this, but labor unions today actually DECREASE pay of the most competent workers and INCREASES the pay of the least competent. They make merit based promotion and process obsolete.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1651548173 11-26-2021, 05:02 PM
-
#74
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  2. Join Date: Dec 2011
  3. Location: United States
  4. Posts: 34,673
  5. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By Kraken
lol @ a lot to unpack. That was just copying/pasting policies without any relevant facts.

There are two things to separate here;

The first is that you argued for child labor laws, but that wasn't even a part of the debate. No one here is arguing against child labor laws. We'll call that one a straw man.

Second is a bunch of statements on wages that have no impact on the economic process.

You didn't seem to have read what I posted, so let me make a final attempt, this time, I'll make it directly against your claims. If you were to ask someone if they would prefer to work for low wages or have no job at all, what would they answer?

On average, blacks have lower skill rates than whites. After the Fair Labor act, when minimum wages went up, blacks were priced out of the market. From the mid 1800s up until the Fair Trade Act, blacks and whites has almost the same exact job participation rate. After the fair trade act, job participation among blacks fell dramatically, especially young blacks. They lost their jobs and were unable to find any because their skills didn't qualify them for the new wages. They were replaced by more educated and skilled workers, which ended up being mostly white, and the total number of jobs also went down. This also means, they could no longer gain skills and this had a compounding affect on future generations too.

Wage laws decrease options as well, for both employers and the worker. Because they both have less options, this means less competition for both labor positions and for companies competing against each other. This is the consequence of price fixing.

This same thing happened with every single minimum wage increase in our history too. Each time it hurt blacks more than any other race. So when people say "capitalism is racist", you can reply "No liberal/progressive policies are".
Well to be fair I spent time replying to your first point and then wandered off to something else and didn't get into the next section.

As I understood your first point:

- government shouldn't intervene in the free market because the market is superior

What is the market superior at? It seems to me the only thing the market is superior at is maximizing short term profits without regard to the overall health and well being of a community.

I wasn't aiming at child labor so much as the labor group with the least power- probably minorities and illegal immigrants now.

So if we wanted to update from pre-FLSA taking examples from the article and using an inflation calculator:
Illegal Immigrants = $78.46 a week, often working more than 40 hours

Factory Seamstress = $78.46 to $117.70 per week

New York State Minimum Wage = $196.16 per week

Washington State Minimum Wage = $284.44 for a 48 hour work week
Then under the FLSA the minimum was set at .25 an hour, or $10 for a 40 hour week, so the lowest paid workers vs. the executives:
Federal Minimum Wage = $196.16 per 40 hour week

Executives making "$1,000 a day" = 5 day work week

^^^
CEO $10K a Day Mad Jelly!!!



So, yes the unrestricted market with no minimum wage was very good at creating massive profits for owners while grinding everyone else into the dirt.

Children earning the equivalent of less than $80 per week often working over 40 hours and executive raking in near $5M a year.

You can find arguments for both sides re:increasing minimum wages + minorities.

https://www.google.com/search?q=are+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

I would argue that social benefits structured in such a way as to penalize marriage have hurt minorities [and the poor in general] a lot more than some potential reduction in job opportunities due to a higher wage floor.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1651548793 11-26-2021, 05:15 PM
-
#75
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By katya422
Well to be fair I spent time replying to your first point and then wandered off to something else and didn't get into the next section.

As I understood your first point:

- government shouldn't intervene in the free market because the market is superior

What is the market superior at? It seems to me the only thing the market is superior at is maximizing short term profitswithout regard to the overall health and well being of a community.

I wasn't aiming at child labor so much as the labor group with the least power- probably minorities and illegal immigrants now.

So if we wanted to update from pre-FLSA taking examples from the article and using an inflation calculator:



Then under the FLSA the minimum was set at .25 an hour, or $10 for a 40 hour week, so the lowest paid workers vs. the executives:



^^^
CEO $10K a Day Mad Jelly!!!



So, yes the unrestricted market with no minimum wage was very good at creating massive profits for owners while grinding everyone else into the dirt.

Children earning the equivalent of less than $80 per week often working over 40 hours and executive raking in near $5M a year.

You can find arguments for both sides re:increasing minimum wages + minorities.

https://www.google.com/search?q=are+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

I would argue that social benefits structured in such a way as to penalize marriage have hurt minorities [and the poor in general] a lot more than some potential reduction in job opportunities due to a higher wage floor.
Actually, it’s quite the contrary. I just proved that the outcomes of these policies are worse than when you let the market dictate itself. This is what you aren’t getting. If you really cared about the health and well-being of the community, you wouldn’t be supporting policies that take jobs away from people, create additional suffering because they’re jobless, and create greater disparity between blacks and whites.

As for CEOs, then become a CEO. It’s one position within atheists company, not hundreds or thousands like the labor positions. The value of that one position is great because of the knowledge, experience, and the education required for it. None of the labor has any of those things, therefore their individual value is not as great. The job of the CEO is to make the company lots of money, and when he is successful, he gets paid a lot of money. If he’s not, they can him.

None of your arguments take any economic processes into account, nor the bad outcomes of those solutions you are supporting. Do you want people to lose their jobs? Do you want there to be greater suffering? Do you want there to be greater disparity between blacks and whites? What are you, racist? Are you heartless?

Your arguments or just emotional and ideological complaints Without any regard to how the market works
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1651549243 11-26-2021, 05:26 PM
-
#76
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  2. Join Date: Dec 2011
  3. Location: United States
  4. Posts: 34,673
  5. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By r32gojirra
True the answer lies with the unions

This generation is literally too soft to understand what a picket line is though

Also in Australia you need to account for the fact that your hourly wage is additional to high quality “free” (taxpayer funded) healthcare and a range of other first-world benefits

So hilariously the actual minimum wage is much higher than the employee funded hourly dollar amount when comparing to americucks
It does seem that overall Oz has more equable economic conditions.

If your unions are strong it seems like they should work together to knock out the ridiculous COVID restrictions.
Originally Posted By Kraken
No. Unions are not the answer either.Unions are monopolies that use coercion to price fix as well.They use dirty tactics that hurt businesses as a result of those tactics. In fact, for many years unions wouldn't allow blacks in because they werent skilled enough and therefore not worthy of the wages they were demanding. As per my argument above, Unions are just another mechanism that decreases competition and hurts the market for both the labor and the business. It's a third party with its own self interests that should not be involved in fiduciary agreements. A business and worker agree on a wage, and if the worker doesn't like that wage, they have lots of other options. Price fixing DECREASES THOSE OPTIONS. This kills competition for both the unions and the workers.

Most people are not aware of this, but labor unions today actually DECREASE pay of the most competent workers and INCREASES the pay of the least competent. They make merit based promotion and process obsolete.
What do corporations, governments, and unions all have in common?

People.

Has there been an incorruptible power structure made up of humans in the history of mankind?

What appears to be occurring is the mash up of corporate and government power. Previously we saw something like it when government and church power were intermingled.

And we hated it. Or at least some of us.

In fact I believe that the seeds of the United States were people who wanted freedom from the duopoly of state and church power.

Promoting the idea that "Unions Are Bad" is essentially telling labor that they should just lie down and take it because it would be unfair if labor fought back against corporations and government using the same weapons that corporations and government use.



And yet there are a few institutional firms that have majority ownership of major competitors in multiple market segments.

4 Largest Shareholders For Coca Cola



Largest Shareholders For PepsiCo



The United States Federal Government was designed to be a balance of powers. It seems to be deeply corrupted at this time, but that doesn't mean that the framers of the Constitution did it wrong.

I don't believe that humans are capable of creating and maintaining a pure power structure; not even one attempted on the framework of a free market.

There are long term objectives that a free market based on the pursuit of short term profits will exclude and ignore.

We need a little socialism in our capitalism and a balance of power between labor, capital, and government.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1651549503 11-26-2021, 05:31 PM
-
#77
  1. samsbolton
  2. Registered User
  1. samsbolton
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2006
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Age: 52
  6. Posts: 25,801
  7. Rep Power: 63497
Originally Posted By katya422
But it doesn't seem to be helping much right now, yeah? All the prices just keep going up anyway.

Here is a fun thought-

Taxpayer money spent on social safety net programs has been artificially holding down wages by subsidizing low wage employment. The ugliest examples are of mega corporations that pay their workers peanuts.



https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...price-hike-125

As a taxpayer you are subsidizing multi-million dollar corporations and paying to keep your own wages stagnant.

I have been saying this for years on the misc, sadly the majority are too simple minded to realise how much of the money they resent paying in tax essentially goes straight to Bezos and the likes
2023 bertie awards 2024 nominations

https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=184693083
post 1651549643 11-26-2021, 05:33 PM
-
#78
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  1. Travis99
  2. Philosophy Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Posts: 12,076
  5. Rep Power: 81603
Just broke 100k for the year.
There is no they…
post 1651549753 11-26-2021, 05:35 PM
-
#79
  1. dyee4613
  2. Registered User
  1. dyee4613
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2015
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 4,522
  6. Rep Power: 12706
I think there is ample data to suggest that corporations have too much power in these negotiations. However, I don't think 15 min wage makes much sense for the following reasons:

1 - This is supposed to be the lowest possible acceptable wage. In California, this isn't as big of a deal but what about areas like North Dakota which has a $7.25? In the short-term, this is a massive shock to the economy and the people hurt most will be small companies that don't have the economies of scale.

2 - The fundamental problem isn't resolved. The issue is low-skilled labor doesn't have enough power in wage negotiations. This inequity will still manifest itself in different ways without a structural change.

3 - This will expedite the push to move low-skilled operations overseas and automation.
post 1651550143 11-26-2021, 05:41 PM
-
#80
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  2. Join Date: Dec 2011
  3. Location: United States
  4. Posts: 34,673
  5. Rep Power: 372543
By the by I like Sowell and agree with him usually.
Originally Posted By Kraken
Actually, it’s quite the contrary. I just proved that the outcomes of these policies are worse than when you let the market dictate itself. This is what you aren’t getting. If you really cared about the health and well-being of the community, you wouldn’t be supporting policies that take jobs away from people, create additional suffering because they’re jobless, and create greater disparity between blacks and whites.

As for CEOs, then become a CEO. It’s one position within atheists company, not hundreds or thousands like the labor positions. The value of that one position is great because of the knowledge, experience, and the education required for it. None of the labor has any of those things, therefore their individual value is not as great. The job of the CEO is to make the company lots of money, and when he is successful, he gets paid a lot of money. If he’s not, they can him.

None of your arguments take any economic processes into account, nor the bad outcomes of those solutions you are supporting. Do you want people to lose their jobs? Do you want there to be greater suffering? Do you want there to be greater disparity between blacks and whites? What are you, racist? Are you heartless?

Your arguments or just emotional and ideological complaints Without any regard to how the market works
I don't really care about the CEO, though the quote was "executives". It isn't about enforcing lower pay and profits at the top, but about the spread and the concentration of wealth in a very small number of people.

Historically when wealth disparity becomes too extreme bad things happen- the people on top treat the people on the bottom like cattle OR the people on the bottom get fed up and start killing the people on the top.

The current wage stagnation is bad for all labor.

So, I'm sorry, but just lol at "raising the minimum wage is bad for black people". I have no hate for people based on the color of their skin, but blacks are by definition a "minority".

Roughly 90% of us are labor, with around 33% not earning a high enough income to rent or own a private residence.

Who in their right mind would think that impoverishing [making poorer] 90% of the citizenry with artificially suppressed wages is less important than potential employment and income effects for 13% of that 90%?

And wouldn't even that 13% benefit from a more resilient and vibrant economy with a larger number of workers able to purchase more than just their bare bones needs?
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1651550303 11-26-2021, 05:45 PM
-
#81
  1. dyee4613
  2. Registered User
  1. dyee4613
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2015
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 4,522
  6. Rep Power: 12706
Can someone explain the union argument to me? The reason employers can win in negotiations is that technology is allowing us to outsource/automate more and more labor. I would think unions would just expedite this problem as they will continue to advocate for better working conditions which will increase the cost of domestic labor and increase the potential benefit from outsourcing/investing in new technology.

I don't think this is a problem with capitalism. The point of capitalism is capital flows to those who are best suited to weld it. The poor in Africa are waaaaay poorer than the poor in America. It makes sense that it would try to improve conditions there at the expense of less competitive people in America.
post 1651550383 11-26-2021, 05:47 PM
-
#82
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By katya422
By the by I like Sowell and agree with him usually.



I don't really care about the CEO, though the quote was "executives". It isn't about enforcing lower pay and profits at the top, but about the spread and the concentration of wealth in a very small number of people.

Historically when wealth disparity becomes too extreme bad things happen- the people on top treat the people on the bottom like cattle OR the people on the bottom get fed up and start killing the people on the top.

The current wage stagnation is bad for all labor.

So, I'm sorry, but just lol at "raising the minimum wage is bad for black people". I have no hate for people based on the color of their skin, but blacks are by definition a "minority".

Roughly 90% of us are labor, with around 33% not earning a high enough income to rent or own a private residence.

Who in their right mind would think that impoverishing [making poorer] 90% of the citizenry with artificially suppressed wages is less important than potential employment and income effects for 13% of that 90%?

And wouldn't even that 13% benefit from a more resilient and vibrant economy with a larger number of workers able to purchase more than just their bare bones needs?
Go back and read all of my replies in this thread, then put them together. There are too many factors to consider, the one being that a vast majority of min wage earners are the youth. These individuals have barely started their life, but yet, they are the vast majority of people demanding raises. By median age, a vast majority of people are making well above the minimum wage. Another is that you're missing the part that I said we lose tremendous amounts of jobs with min wage increases. So your argument of more people buying is a fallacy. It would be LESS people with money. It's not suppressing wages, btw. Employers don't come up with their wages arbitrarily, nor do they want to lose their workers to a competitor who will pay more. That's the competition in the market.

Again, you have to learn more about the processes and all of it's components. Don't compartmentalize each part or you won't be able to piece is together to form a truthful conclusion.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1651550463 11-26-2021, 05:49 PM
-
#83
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  2. Join Date: Dec 2011
  3. Location: United States
  4. Posts: 34,673
  5. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By dyee4613
I think there is ample data to suggest that corporations have too much power in these negotiations. However, I don't think 15 min wage makes much sense for the following reasons:

1 - This is supposed to be the lowest possible acceptable wage. In California, this isn't as big of a deal but what about areas like North Dakota which has a $7.25? In the short-term, this is a massive shock to the economy and the people hurt most will be small companies that don't have the economies of scale.
If our congress had the will to do it then the increase could be scaled in somewhat gradually and some type of tax help could be provided for businesses that can least afford the increase to give them even more time to ramp up to a new higher minimum.
Originally Posted By dyee4613
2 - The fundamental problem isn't resolved. The issue is low-skilled labor doesn't have enough power in wage negotiations. This inequity will still manifest itself in different ways without a structural change.
I personally don't see an answer to this, but a higher base wage that tracks with inflation seems better than nothing for now.
Originally Posted By dyee4613
3 - This will expedite the push to move low-skilled operations overseas and automation.
The move towards automation is unavoidable for tasks and industries where automation is easily done and "pencils out".

We won't avoid it by holding down our wages. A human can't compete with a machine that doesn't need any benefits, require FICA payments, or family leave. A machine may need repair sometimes and may "get old", but a machine can be put on a depreciation schedule.

At some point it looks like UBI, or mass population reduction, or maybe both.

ETA: I read about the fairly new introduction of agriculture robots in India.

https://www.hortibiz.com/newsitem/ne...n-farm-sector/

If a field laborer in India doesn't have a secure job because he can be beaten for cost by a robot then what chance does anyone have in a Western country if their employment comes up against the same type of competition.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1651550713 11-26-2021, 05:55 PM
-
#84
  1. tunafishha
  2. Registered CCP
  1. tunafishha
  2. Registered CCP
  3. Join Date: Nov 2014
  4. Posts: 29,114
  5. Rep Power: 27114
Originally Posted By dyee4613
Can someone explain the union argument to me? The reason employers can win in negotiations is that technology is allowing us to outsource/automate more and more labor. I would think unions would just expedite this problem as they will continue to advocate for better working conditions which will increase the cost of domestic labor and increase the potential benefit from outsourcing/investing in new technology.

I don't think this is a problem with capitalism. The point of capitalism is capital flows to those who are best suited to weld it. The poor in Africa are waaaaay poorer than the poor in America. It makes sense that it would try to improve conditions there at the expense of less competitive people in America.
The reason why employers win with unions in relations to outsourcing is because the dollar is stronger in those countries than it is in the US. You can purchase more goods in those countries since there isn't that much goods in the first place. That and because labor is more abundant abroad.

Here's how why the dollar is worth more in other countries:

1.poverty country 1 produces goods
2.land stealing US 2 produces more goods
3When you go to poverty country 1 with the US dollar, you can buy more goods because the US produces more goods tha

WAIT WUT? ^^^^^ If you exchange curency for the same value, you get the same fkn value! Scratch everything I said above.

BUUUUUUUUUT. You can't outsource everything. Can you outsource fast food, ****git? Like I said before, fastfood save millions of hours everyday. With it's collapse, people will have less time working, and with less work, less taxes. And with less taxes, the less strong your chit tier military is. And the less strong your military is, the easier it is for me to take over. And once I take over, imma make you my personal bitc
*Catholic Crew*
*Community College Master Race*
*5'5 Masterrace*
*Starbucks Crew*
*Buy high, sell low*
post 1651551233 11-26-2021, 06:04 PM
-
#85
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Y'all need to keep in mind that inflation is mostly political and completely separate from market processes. The cost of materials ad everything that the employer has to buy goes up too. If they stop buying, you're out of a job. Not every company has the additional funds to pay. The profit margins go down a lot too, meaning less ability to pay employees more. Sometimes a company even takes a loss, but the workers don't realize it. Even if you cut the CEOs pay from him and distributed it among the workers, it would only equal a few cents an hour in these big companies and less than a dollar in most other companies. Small businesses don't have CEOs, sooo...

Inflation screws both the employers and the laborers. That's an issue that needs to be taken up against the central government.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1651551503 11-26-2021, 06:10 PM
-
#86
  1. dyee4613
  2. Registered User
  1. dyee4613
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2015
  4. Age: 35
  5. Posts: 4,522
  6. Rep Power: 12706
Originally Posted By katya422
If our congress had the will to do it then the increase could be scaled in somewhat gradually and some type of tax help could be provided for businesses that can least afford the increase to give them even more time to ramp up to a new higher minimum.
Why would a top-down approach make more sense than a bottom-up approach? You set the min wage as an absolute floor. In each state, they decide what min wage makes sense for their economy. I don't think you can make a compelling argument why North Dakota needs a $15 min wage. The standard of living figures you are posting makes no sense in a place where the medium wage is $35,500 while the very worst employee in North Dakota would make $31,200. This allows us to test concepts like 15 min wage vs ignoring the 15 min wage and seeing what works best.
I personally don't see an answer to this, but a higher base wage that tracks with inflation seems better than nothing for now.
There are more effective ways to do this. This method would likely increase inflation and cause this cycle to repeat. There is nothing in this solution that would force companies to eat this cost.
The move towards automation is unavoidable for tasks and industries where automation is easily done and "pencils out".

We won't avoid it by holding down our wages. A human can't compete with a machine that doesn't need any benefits, require FICA payments, or family leave. A machine may need repair sometimes and may "get old", but a machine can be put on a depreciation schedule.
It is a cost-benefit analysis. It takes an extraordinary amount of work to invest, automate, and master the technology. The cheaper labor is less appealing of an investment it is. The more you add barriers such as paid family leave and FICA payments, the less competitive you are against third-world workers. As I said, if the goal is to keep domestic labor and raise standards of living I think there are solutions that make a lot more sense.
At some point it looks like UBI, or mass population reduction, or maybe both.
I very strong disagree with this.


This whole conversation, in my opinion, is missing the point. The issue is providing people with the tools necessary to become skilled labor. America currently has a labor shortage that will become much worse over time. America should not be trying to compete with the third world in a race to the bottom. America has a HUGE capital advantage that is being heavily underutilized and the goal, in my opinion, should be ensuring American workers can meet that need.
post 1651552793 11-26-2021, 06:33 PM
-
#87
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By dyee4613
America has a HUGE capital advantage that is being heavily underutilized and the goal, in my opinion, should be ensuring American workers can meet that need.
And this is the major solution to the problems we face, without negatively effecting the market. As an economy progresses, we need to keep up with the increased demand for skills and education. Our education has been dumbed down, especially in areas dominantly black, and as a result, more and more people are falling behind the market demands. The “backwards” approach is increasing wages for unqualified individuals, the forward approach is getting individuals prepared with the skills and education for the higher wages.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
post 1651552813 11-26-2021, 06:34 PM
-
#88
  1. mp83
  2. i need a tan
  1. mp83
  2. i need a tan
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: Wisconsin, United States
  5. Posts: 12,073
  6. Rep Power: 97658
It's not but GQPers have the worldview of baby boomers and don't realize that it's not 1980 any more and prices have gone up, so wages should, too
{Misc Fisherman Crew}
{Misc Investing Crew}
post 1651553033 11-26-2021, 06:38 PM
-
#89
  1. r32gojirra
  2. Registered NEET
  1. r32gojirra
  2. Registered NEET
  3. Join Date: Feb 2013
  4. Location: East Coast, Australia
  5. Posts: 39,554
  6. Subscribers: 6
  7. Rep Power: 597933
Originally Posted By katya422
It does seem that overall Oz has more equable economic conditions.

If your unions are strong it seems like they should work together toknock out the ridiculous COVID restrictions.

LMAO what restrictions
post 1651553043 11-26-2021, 06:38 PM
-
#90
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  1. Kraken
  2. Texas Crew
  3. Join Date: Jul 2003
  4. Age: 47
  5. Posts: 26,780
  6. Rep Power: 198322
Originally Posted By mp83
It's not but GQPers have the worldview of baby boomers and don't realize that it's not 1980 any more and prices have gone up, so wages should, too
Wages have gone up. Look at median income of the 1980s versus median income now. They have clearly gone up. The problem is, the skills and education of the market demands is reflective of those wages. Also, as mentioned earlier, the vast majority of the people demanding higher wages are below median age. The median point is the most important and relevant data set, but it’s ignored by progressives because it doesn’t support their agenda.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts