Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-02-13 10:11 PM - Post#164697
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/opinion/tr umpka-owen...
This article is the #1 reason why you should get an education or develop a skill or trade. The government shouldn't be dictating a value for the employee, rather the employee should be creating value for themselves. And of course the article is written by a Union executive.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 230
Reg: 01-23-11
|
12-03-13 09:24 AM - Post#164701
In response to Allensince1993
CBS Sunday morning had an interesting story on the minimum wage topic this weekend.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/battle-for-a-l iving-...
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-03-13 11:16 AM - Post#164704
In response to Cheatham Parent
Interesting news piece. Robert Reich, former secretary of labor under Clinton and now at UC-Berkley, says it's mainly due to the lower percentage of union members; that it's taking away their leverage to get higher wages. As Stossel would say, "Give me a break!" You want leverage to negotiate? Go to school and get an education. Make yourself valuable to the employer. This is right back to the Democrat way of giving a man fish rather than teaching them to fish. Educate, educate, educate.
Robert has a graph showing a flattening of wages since 1970 but he doesn't mention the the decline of the family unit, the stepping away from the archaic stereotype of women not working, and the increase of illegal immigration. There are many factors contributing to the flattening of wages.
The lesson is to get an education, learn a skill, or master a trade.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
SB
enthusiast
Posts: 1553
Reg: 09-07-03
|
12-03-13 11:26 AM - Post#164705
In response to Allensince1993
But the point made by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is that elevated wages benefit most everyone in the economy because it boosts the middle class who spend a large share of their income. It is a trickle UP theory. Education and enhanced skills will usually boost one's opportunities and earnings so that motivating force remains even with an elevated minimum wage.
|
MCDUFF
enthusiast
Posts: 316
Reg: 08-21-03
|
12-03-13 02:54 PM - Post#164729
In response to SB
Isn't this take it away from me because I have it and give it to you because you deserve it for doing nothing?
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 230
Reg: 01-23-11
|
12-03-13 03:22 PM - Post#164732
In response to MCDUFF
Are you saying we should abolish the minimum wage completely?
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-03-13 04:09 PM - Post#164736
In response to Cheatham Parent
For a true Libertarian, yes you should abolish the minimum wage. I lean in that direction but recognize that checks-and-balances need to take place so I'm okay with a minimum wage. The government is good for a lot of things (don't tell my Republican friends I said that). However I disagree with SB's assessment of Reich's comments. SB, you've used another clip with him before so you might take a liking to his ideas or the left. Regardless, I'd like to take an economic approach and not a political one as Reich does all of the time.
He's a great educated man who can use graphs and charts to fit any of his theories. I refer you to my initial analysis of his graph he used to support his own agenda. Those are solid reasons why we've had what he calls 'a flattening wage.' Trickle up and trickle down does not work. Reagan was wrong and Reich is wrong. Disparity of income in a capitalistic society is always going to happen and it must happen. The more skilled and valued jobs will pay more. People get upset when an NFL QB signs a 20 million per year contract and complain teachers or police officers should get more. Our free market society has dictated what different professions pay. Leave it to a union and you'll get Detroit, a bankrupt city thanks to unsustainable pensions the unions negotiated (or else we strike!).
You can't suggest that paying them more for the lowest work available to the public will benefit all of society. Let me use an exaggerated example to illustrate a point. There's not point in scaling up with minor examples. Let's just use an extreme so it's easier to illustrate. If I were to give all minimum wager earners a 500% increase inflation would be the true market force that would keep disparity among the masses. They'd make more but the guys at the top would have to make that much more as well. Otherwise we'd all look for that low-skill job. If I give each McDonald's worker $50,000 a year to work there all other wages will go up (inflation because of more dollars in the market and to keep the separation gap for higher skilled jobs). If the McDonald's manager was making 40% more than the low-skilled position overtime that gap would get back to 40%. Overtime you are only lowering the value of the dollar because of the inflation. Raising the minimum wage is like monetary policy of printing more money and channeling it through the market.
Let me ask you this. When has the minimum wage EVER been able to support someone? Same argument then and same argument NOW. You can raise the amount but it's only artificial because inflation will correct it and you'll still have a wage gap.
The greater truth and understanding of Reich's chart is to highlight the importance of getting an education, develop a skill, or learn a trade. His party loves to feed the masses the fish so they become dependent. The other party would rather teach them how to fish so they can support themselves better. That my friend is how you benefit all of the population.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-03-13 04:31 PM - Post#164738
In response to Allensince1993
Another UC-Berkley professor: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/t he-min...
The earned-income tax credit is something to discuss but seldom talked about. Her article also highlights the small variance that 'trickle-up' would provide.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2395
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-04-13 09:32 AM - Post#164751
In response to Allensince1993
The other side of that coin: Paul Krugman's alternative point of view.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3936
Reg: 03-29-06
|
12-04-13 10:27 AM - Post#164753
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
The 1% of the 1% owns and operates the government. They are the government.
If they feel it serves them in some manner, the indentured servants will get a bump in minimum wage, if they don't, they won't.
All the rest is noise. 100% pure noise.
The American Two Party Political system is the biggest scam in history. There isn't even a close second.
This latest manufactured distraction is like feeding one cup of chicken scratch to 10000 starving chickens or magnanimously feeding them 2 cups.
The extra cup is the definition of irrelevant. Even if the false hope of that extra cup is fulfilled, it changes absolutely nothing.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-04-13 01:39 PM - Post#164757
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
The 'other side'? I'm all for subsidizing through the E.I.T.C but not for raising the limit constantly. I'd rather fight that battle and keep the course, only changing it once or twice over decade, tops. This is a free market with regulations and I accept it.
But none of this changes the mindset of those on the 'left' wanting to feed fish rather than teach people to fish. We need to empower people by educating them.
I grew up as a minority (there is a mindset in the hood), on the free lunch program, and both parents were freshman dropouts. I got Pell grants, student loans, and worked my way through college. If I can do it then anyone can. We need to get more aggressive with getting people into college or trade programs.
I won't argue whether or not minimum wage will help the economy. This has to be bigger than the economy. We need to help and empower the individual. Just my opinion...
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Cheatham Parent
enthusiast
Posts: 230
Reg: 01-23-11
|
12-04-13 02:46 PM - Post#164763
In response to Allensince1993
So now as a libertarian, you must feel guilty for taking entitlements as a child. You must realize now that it wasn't the governments responsibility to help feed you. You must also feel like it wasn't the government's responsibility to have provided you grants for your education along with low cost subsidized loans.  for the sarcasm.
My point is while government cannot be 100% of the solution, they are certainly not 100% of the problem either. Without some government assistance, your life might have turned out quite different.
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-04-13 06:48 PM - Post#164769
In response to Cheatham Parent
So now as a libertarian, you must feel guilty for taking entitlements as a child. You must realize now that it wasn't the governments responsibility to help feed you. You must also feel like it wasn't the government's responsibility to have provided you grants for your education along with low cost subsidized loans. for the sarcasm.
My point is while government cannot be 100% of the solution, they are certainly not 100% of the problem either. Without some government assistance, your life might have turned out quite different.
Thanks for the post. I'm fine with the sarcasm but those on the left might actually that way. I'm not right, left, or a libertarian. I lean that way but I do respect the need for government to be involved. I think you've missed much of what I've been stating. I favor some subsidizing as everyone needs a 'start' especially those with a disadvantage. I also favor some kind of 'floor' for the minimum wage but not one that creates a generation dependent on it; losing incentive to strive for more on their own. Dependency on welfare has created a huge mess. You can register once per year and you have no accountability. That's 'giving fish' and not teaching them to fish. A Pell grant gives someone an opportunity to get an education. It gives them a start. I assure you my taxes paid based on the increased education was a wise investment from the government. What about the free lunch program in some school districts? For kids....all day long, every day, and I have no issue with it. How can we target mom or dad? Educate and create incentives. Don't reward stagnation and don't reward someone for having child after child after child or teach a generation to depend on the government.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2395
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-04-13 07:32 PM - Post#164770
In response to Allensince1993
I don't disagree with much of your sentiment. But...
One aspect your not addressing - *at all* - is the fact that not everyone has the means, or ability, or even desire for higher education and the jobs and/or income that that education might provide. There's not enough Pell grants, loans, etc. to go around. Somebody has to do those low-skill retail jobs. And for the *MILLIONS* of hard working adults - NOT takers, NOT dependent - who work their arses off but barely scrape by, their is little hope for a brighter future and less hope for their children to escape this same situation. Retirement? Forget about it. Surely, you are in touch with the insane and ever-increasing cost of higher education. It is a serious and very real obstacle.
Our economic model creates winners and losers. If you're a winner - it's convenient to say "get off your butt and create a life for your self." If you're not, it's time to go flip burgers and figure out how you're going to make it through the month. That's daily reality for so many.
I too worked my way through school, learned a trade, worked that trade for twenty years, and now own my own business. However, I see, as clear as the blue sky, that suggesting *everyone* quit their whining, go to school, and rise above is just not possible. After all, in a system that by it's very nature creates winners and losers - somebody has to wind up with the short end of the stick.
I support a graduated-over-time rise in minimum wage.
|
SB
enthusiast
Posts: 1553
Reg: 09-07-03
|
12-04-13 08:08 PM - Post#164771
In response to MCDUFF
Isn't this take it away from me because I have it and give it to you because you deserve it for doing nothing?
The rationale by Reich is that it is not a zero sum game. More for the poor worker doesn't mean less for those who are better off. The enhanced pay for the poor would energize the economy resulting in opportunity for more for everyone - including the businessman or businesswoman who has to pay their workers more.
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 453
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
12-05-13 12:14 AM - Post#164775
In response to SB
According to wikipedia, the national minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60/hour (its purchasing power high point). Using the Bureau of Labor & Statistics' CPI inflation calculator, that 1968 wage of $1.60/hour would need to be $10.74/hour today to have the same purchasing power. That's a far cry from the current $7.25/hour!
|
MCDUFF
enthusiast
Posts: 316
Reg: 08-21-03
|
12-05-13 11:28 AM - Post#164783
In response to SB
Where is the money for the"poor" coming from? Is it coming from you? Or since someone else has it take it away from the productive the productive has less? If anything moves from one pocket to another the first pocket is empty. It may offend some that I manage to create income but I am offended by the "He has it, take it away from him". People have reached out and grasped opportunity for all time however they no longer wants to reach out and grasp - they want a gift. I don't want a vote so I am not willing to give away a fish. Earn your way and I will give you a job!
|
Allensince1993
enthusiast
Posts: 521
Reg: 06-06-12
|
12-05-13 11:36 AM - Post#164785
In response to rtinallentx
According to wikipedia, the national minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60/hour (its purchasing power high point). Using the Bureau of Labor & Statistics' CPI inflation calculator, that 1968 wage of $1.60/hour would need to be $10.74/hour today to have the same purchasing power. That's a far cry from the current $7.25/hour!
In 1968 the price for a gallon of milk was $1.21. Why hasn't that gone up very much? Subsidies...
Raise the E.I.T.C. and you have the same effect. Your scenario just as Reich and other economists have done have only considered GDP and factors tied into the inflation measures, none of which consider items that are subsidized or tax codes that have since been passed to give that same 1968 dollar a decent valuation (for the poor and farmers, etc.) in 2013. You can give someone more buying power by increasing the tax credit.
There are no strong arguments on either side of the minimum wage. It only affects 2.5% of our population and there have been no studies to prove that a trickle-up effect takes place nor one that proves it would hurt on the macro-level.
The minimum wage is needed to keep companies like Walmart coming into a town and creating a monopoly and then lowering wages after the other companies have left. On the flipside it has been proven that strong union power can bankrupt cities. A lot of people enjoyed making $60 per hour in Detroit. What did that lead to? Outsourcing, plants built out of the country, and an entire city down the drain.
There has to be a balance and right now we have one. The left wants to keep raising the minimum wage and the right wants no minimum wage. So we fight the raises and we allow the nominal increases along the way. The country has been middle-right for a lot of years now.
It was pointed out (I agree), we have losers and we have winners in a 'true' capitalistic society'. We have a lot of needed regulations to give many good opportunities so we are a capitalistic society with an asterisks. You can't punish the winners and you can't punish the losers but you have checks in place to keep one from going into an extreme. The rich pay a rising scale of taxes the more they make and the poor get more subsides.
Sorry to bring it up but Romney was right. We have safety nets in place; welfare, Medicaid, social security if you stick to FDR's original idea, and other help. The problem is some people mistake the safety net for a hammock.
James DeLaGarza
Realtor/Broker since 1992 |
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 2395
Reg: 09-03-07
|
12-06-13 12:56 AM - Post#164797
In response to Allensince1993
There has to be a balance and right now we have one.
What exactly do you mean by balance?
Eye opener...
Watch the video - the actual numbers are staggering
|
MCDUFF
enthusiast
Posts: 316
Reg: 08-21-03
|
12-06-13 07:49 AM - Post#164801
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
This whole thread sounds a bit sanctimonious. It appears to some that others have too much. It does matter how they got - it is too much so they must give it away. So, how much is enough? What level of mediocrity do they sink too in order to accommode equality. But maybe they should continue to outperform so they can give even more away.
Albert E. N. Gray of the Prudential defined the successful man as one who did what the unwilling and unable refused to do. We have a lot of unwilling.
How about a mediocrity holiday and all produce at Grays Common Denominator of Success. level.
|
