View Full Version : Whaddddddya say? $15/hr. minimum wage passed in Seattle.....
gimmethesimplelife
6-7-14, 5:24pm
This may surprise some of the regulars here (?) but I am completely ambivalent on this one - I see this one both pro and con. I'm afraid that this wage is unrealistically high for unskilled labor in a brutally capitalistic global economy and that requiring a wage of $15/hr. would encourage more automation of repetitive jobs that automation can realistically replace. I also worry that this wage would come with a rise in the costs of everything and end out washing out with no real gains (other than perhaps very short term for those with the self control to bank excess cash). What do you think of this wage, and the chance that such expectations may spread? Rob
ApatheticNoMore
6-7-14, 5:50pm
Since things could hardly get worse for most working people, sure try anything, though a smaller increase might work better. I don't know that low wages is really the reason automation hasn't been done already, so I don't know that it will increase it. But sure companies could try automation if they thought it was worthwhile (quite a waste of energy but).
Clealy there are some countries in the world where the minimum wage is quite high and it works quite well and the inflation adjusted minimum wage used to be much higher in the U.S.. So it can work. But it will work? Uh most of those who claim to have such a crystal ball seem to be charlatans to me :)
I think one person should be able to support him/herself with food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare with a 40-hour a week job. So I guess for me the minimum wage question comes down to how much is the cost of living in your area, Rob? Can you live on $2400 a month, minus taxes (which would probably be at a pretty low tax rate).
I agree with ANM, though that almost doubling minimum wage would probably be a shock to the small businesses, and they'd be forced to cut hours.
iris lilies
6-7-14, 9:06pm
I always think it's perfectly fine and even interesting for other jurisdictions, those far far away from me, to make these social experiments. Like the state of Mass. did with Romney-Care. They are the lab rats and we are the observers who will see their joys, pains and suffering, the effects and outcomes.
The first thing I Googled in this deal was to see if the City of Seattle had exempted itself as these pious Nannies often do; they know what's best for everyone but they themselves are exempt. My city did that in a wage issue some years ago.
But to their credit, the City of Seattle seems to have left itself out of any exemptions. And that is fine because really, what else do the taxpayers have to do with their money but pay city employees?
This is an interesting article on the effects of a $15/hour minimum wage in Sea-Tac, a small Seattle suburb.
http://watchdog.org/148280/seattle-minimum-wage-6/
ETA: article linked in original article
http://www.nwasianweekly.com/2014/05/blog-seatac-tells-us-15-minimum-wage/
Rob, you shock me again! lol...
I think that some think increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour will result in butterflies and rainbows for those workers, but it will probably result in lost hours, lost jobs, maybe closed businesses.
And for another perspective:
http://www.timeforaraise.org/benefits-of-raising-the-minimum-wage/
I'm all for working people making a living wage, and therefore removing the need for taxpayers to subsidize the WalMarts of the world.
gimmethesimplelife
6-7-14, 9:55pm
Rob, you shock me again! lol...
I think that some think increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour will result in butterflies and rainbows for those workers, but it will probably result in lost hours, lost jobs, maybe closed businesses.Prepare to be further shocked then.....I'm thinking you are right - this may very well result in closed businesses, businesses fleeing the city limits of Seattle for the suburbs where wages are lower, cut hours, reduced if any at all benefits, and less jobs overall. It's just much - too high a percentage of a raise to happen suddenly without value adds to justify such a high raise. I'm of the belief that business will respond accordingly. Suprise! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-7-14, 10:00pm
I always think it's perfectly fine and even interesting for other jurisdictions, those far far away from me, to make these social experiments. Like the state of Mass. did with Romney-Care. They are the lab rats and we are the observers who will see their joys, pains and suffering, the effects and outcomes.
The first thing I Googled in this deal was to see if the City of Seattle had exempted itself as these pious Nannies often do; they know what's best for everyone but they themselves are exempt. My city did that in a wage issue some years ago.
But to their credit, the City of Seattle seems to have left itself out of any exemptions. And that is fine because really, what else do the taxpayers have to do with their money but pay city employees?Gotta say about the far off social experiments, IL, since you bring up Massachusetts - Massachusetts was first in the nation to make same sex marriage legal in 2004 - and lived to tell the tale without the sky falling. I've always admired Massachusetts for that. Just as I have always admired Massachusetts for instituting Romney Care - some variant on getting more people covered - before anyone other state. I'm originally from Massachusetts myself - born there - and always find it ironic that Massachusetts has so much of what I personally approve of - I just have family there that repel me so much I'd personally not care to cross the Mississippi River unless absolutely necessary, and of course I'd miss Mexico as I've made clear. But once again, I really admire Mass. for having the courage to do these social experiments.....Rob
A question I've asked of those who support the increase: OK, so you raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. What then happens to the wages of higher level jobs? If an entry level position is $15/hour BEFORE increase - more than the minimum wage (which is $8.25 in IL, more than the $7.25 federal min wage), gets bumped up to $15/hours, what then happens to the next highest position that had been paying $20/hour?
I think the wages for many jobs will be affected by the minimum wage increase, not just the lowest paid ones. I think an increase to $15/hour would hold down increases for higher level positions.
gimmethesimplelife
6-7-14, 10:04pm
And for another perspective:
http://www.timeforaraise.org/benefits-of-raising-the-minimum-wage/
I'm all for working people making a living wage, and therefore removing the need for taxpayers to subsidize the WalMarts of the world.And I agree with the jist of this take, here, too. Very much do I agree with this. The only problem is I don't believe America is now set up to pay living wages to much of it's populace and I don't believe many understand that one at a deep level. Solutions going forward may be for the young to immigrate out permanently and for the rest of us to find a way to make money on the side and find creative ways to beat the system by living cheap, and I mean really really really cheap. Maybe living in such a way needs to be understood by more as a way to fight back? I don't see many other options for most people. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-7-14, 10:10pm
A question I've asked of those who support the increase: OK, so you raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. What then happens to the wages of higher level jobs? If an entry level position is $15/hour BEFORE increase - more than the minimum wage (which is $8.25 in IL, more than the $7.25 federal min wage), gets bumped up to $15/hours, what then happens to the next highest position that had been paying $20/hour?
I think the wages for many jobs will be affected by the minimum wage increase, not just the lowest paid ones. I think an increase to $15/hour would hold down increases for higher level positions.This brings up something I was thinking about just the other day. I pick up banquet shifts when I can for a temp banquet service here in Phoenix that pays $10 an hour. If minimum wage does increase to $10.10 an hour, I don't see myself keeping that $2.10 an hour I make above the minimum right now for a wage of $12.30 an hour. If anyone here is doing the math, Arizona has a minimum wage of $7.90 an hour. I just don't believe the banquet service's clients would be willing to subsidize a higher wage for us temps. So even though I believe most of us very much deserve a raise, I don't know that it will be the wonderful thing I'd hope it would be. Rob
iris lilies
6-7-14, 10:15pm
A question I've asked of those who support the increase: OK, so you raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. What then happens to the wages of higher level jobs? If an entry level position is $15/hour BEFORE increase - more than the minimum wage (which is $8.25 in IL, more than the $7.25 federal min wage), gets bumped up to $15/hours, what then happens to the next highest position that had been paying $20/hour?
I think the wages for many jobs will be affected by the minimum wage increase, not just the lowest paid ones. I think an increase to $15/hour would hold down increases for higher level positions.
Why Tradd, you or me or anyone else shouldn't be concerned what happens to wage of those person above minimum. That the $15.00/hour supervisor of the minimum wage person would find herself making the same money as her underling is not our concern. It doesn't matter about pegging work to pay. What matters is that every person receives the money they need.
Why Tradd, you or me or anyone else shouldn't be concerned what happens to wage of those person above minimum. That the $15.00/hour supervisor of the minimum wage person would find herself making the same money as her underling is not our concern. It doesn't matter about pegging work to pay. What matters is that every person receives the money they need.
I hope to heck you're being sarcastic...Otherwise you and Rob have switched places in this thread!
goldensmom
6-7-14, 10:25pm
A question I've asked of those who support the increase: OK, so you raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. What then happens to the wages of higher level jobs? If an entry level position is $15/hour BEFORE increase - more than the minimum wage (which is $8.25 in IL, more than the $7.25 federal min wage), gets bumped up to $15/hours, what then happens to the next highest position that had been paying $20/hour?
I think the wages for many jobs will be affected by the minimum wage increase, not just the lowest paid ones. I think an increase to $15/hour would hold down increases for higher level positions.
My sympathies lie with the people who've worked 25 or so years at a physically laborious job (i.e. demolition, construction, cleaning) or any job and have advanced to $15.00/ hr. then along comes the newly employed 16 year old bus boy who earns $15.00/hr. from the get go. Is there some legislation that would increase the experienced workers wages accordingly or is it a case of too bad, so sad?
ApatheticNoMore
6-7-14, 10:30pm
I think the hope is it would raise the wages of those above minimum (though not necessarily all the way up the pay scale but at least within the lower range)
ApatheticNoMore
6-7-14, 10:35pm
My sympathies lie with the people who've worked 25 or so years at a physically laborious job (i.e. demolition, construction, cleaning) or any job and have advanced to $15.00/ hr. then along comes the newly employed 16 year old bus boy who earns $15.00/hr. from the get go.
but unless one anticipates wage price inflation or what competing in a bidding war (for what? aren't most real bidding wars like for prime real estate for instance WAY beyond that salary range?), they are no worse off than before.
I understand nothing of these kinds of economics, but I do see an effect on the people with whom I work.
Employers might have a couple of responses. One is that they will be more particular about entry level employees and will not be willing to take the kind of chances I observe regarding applicants with border-line skills, but superior attitudes. They may default to slightly less enthusiastic applicants in favor of a more solid body of skills.
Most of the employers with whom I have contact are interested in providing a decent wage, although that is a difficult thing to do in regards to other employers in the area. That seems, to me, to be a profoundly dumb response, but it is what employers have shared with me, and I am not claiming that they are being honest with me because it does not serve them to be so.
Another aspect of raising the minimum wage is that it will reduce the numbers of new employees, but it might very well increase the hours scheduled for current workers who are already receiving that wage-per-hour. Those employees are already vetted and experienced and it makes sense to make greater use of them as opposed to hiring new people who lack the experience.
It will also, I am sad to say, will decrease the total number of employees when many employers/companies are already struggling with the costs of doing business. There will also be employers who will use this as the excuse to further exploit their employees.
gimmethesimplelife
6-8-14, 12:12am
I personally am in favor of all able body adults who are willing to contribute to society in some constructive way being given a guaranteed minimum stipend to cover basic needs.....but $15/hr? It just seems too high to me and I don't think the business community will cotton well to this. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-8-14, 12:14am
I hope to heck you're being sarcastic...Otherwise you and Rob have switched places in this thread!I'd bet a silver quarter I found in my change recently that she's being sarcastic lol. Rob
We watched some kids start a new business. The biggest challenge was the change to hiring that first employee. It was make or break time. I see this as making a further barrier in the starting of new businesses or far more part time work.
but unless one anticipates wage price inflation or what competing in a bidding war (for what? aren't most real bidding wars like for prime real estate for instance WAY beyond that salary range?), they are no worse off than before.
I agree that the experienced worker would be no worse off. I was thinking that it's just not 'fair' to the older, experienced worker who has put in his/her time then I slap myself for thinking that things should be 'fair'. I've lived long enough to know life is not fair but sometimes I forget.
Why Tradd, you or me or anyone else shouldn't be concerned what happens to wage of those person above minimum. That the $15.00/hour supervisor of the minimum wage person would find herself making the same money as her underling is not our concern. It doesn't matter about pegging work to pay. What matters is that every person receives the money they need.
Interesting perspective I've never considered. If everyone received the money they 'need' then, for example, the state or federal employee under a civil service system where each employee gets the same pay for their job classification would then receive different pay for doing the same job. A single person needs less money than a family of 10, so they get different pay?
My sympathies lie with the people who've worked 25 or so years at a physically laborious job (i.e. demolition, construction, cleaning) or any job and have advanced to $15.00/ hr. then along comes the newly employed 16 year old bus boy who earns $15.00/hr. from the get go. Is there some legislation that would increase the experienced workers wages accordingly or is it a case of too bad, so sad?
I don't understand how comparing one job's wages against any other is a rational argument. If I make $20 an hour, I don't care who makes what. Part of the reason for every trouble we're in is the "me/them" mentality. What does it take from YOU if someone else makes the same thing or close to it? If you're trying make everything level between the value a person brings versus what they make then I can start with all the teachers of the world who would have a totally justified beef against me because I make at least three times what the average teacher makes and what they give society is far, far more important than what I so as a market researcher for Big Pharma.
We already have a vast inequality of wage vs. value jobs bring. I say, if I make $20 and hour, and you come in behind me and make $15, cool--maybe you can now afford to go out with me for a beer after work one night!
iris lilies
6-8-14, 8:09am
I don't understand how comparing one job's wages against any other is a rational argument...
A rational argument for unhappiness? It's completely rational since one's wages are tied to one's skills and value on the employee/employer market, and if one's hard won skills are suddenly compensated at the same rate as a no-skills, one has suddenly been "devalued" in the market. While an abstract thing, it's also rational to think "WTF just happened to me!"
Is it fair? Like goldensmom, I realize that fairness isn't part of life's equation so that's not worth debating for me.
Now, I could agree with you catherine that from a social perspective your argument "why does it matter?" is valid. If my coworkers can now come and have a beer with me whereas before they could not, that's a social win. Whatever people earn shouldn't be a problem for anyone else from a social point of view, yep. I'm all over that and don't see the point in people who worry and fuss about CEO salaries. Isn't that the same thing, just from the opposite place on the scale?
I don't understand how comparing one job's wages against any other is a rational argument. If I make $20 an hour, I don't care who makes what. Part of the reason for every trouble we're in is the "me/them" mentality. What does it take from YOU if someone else makes the same thing or close to it? If you're trying make everything level between the value a person brings versus what they make then I can start with all the teachers of the world who would have a totally justified beef against me because I make at least three times what the average teacher makes and what they give society is far, far more important than what I so as a market researcher for Big Pharma.
We already have a vast inequality of wage vs. value jobs bring. I say, if I make $20 and hour, and you come in behind me and make $15, cool--maybe you can now afford to go out with me for a beer after work one night!
A lot of factors go into one’s opinion on this subject such as age, life experience, work history and experience, education, family, values, world view (everyone has one) and many, many more. We are a diverse people and will have diverse opinions and all opinions are valid to some extent but I think the commonality is that we all want each other to have ‘enough’ and to succeed. Signing off now.
I think the commonality is that we all want each other to have ‘enough’ and to succeed. Signing off now.
Absolutely.. hopefully we'll all be in that place someday.
iris lilies
6-8-14, 11:17am
Interesting perspective I've never considered. If everyone received the money they 'need' then, for example, the state or federal employee under a civil service system where each employee gets the same pay for their job classification would then receive different pay for doing the same job. A single person needs less money than a family of 10, so they get different pay?
Why yes, from each according to his ability...:0! Kidding here.
Sorry, I didn't give a smiley with that sarcastic notion a few posts back. I no more think that each person should be paid according to his needs than you do. :)
Who decides what is a Need and what is a Want? All I can think of when discussions like this come up is a bunch of kids whining and saying how much they need the latest toy or candy.
Does society decide on what is a need or the individual? Aren't we back to the beginning?
iris lilies
6-8-14, 1:05pm
Who decides what is a Need and what is a Want? All I can think of when discussions like this come up is a bunch of kids whining and saying how much they need the latest toy or candy.
Does society decide on what is a need or the individual? Aren't we back to the beginning?
In our current society we have ceded that responsibility to Congress who turns it over to the bureaucrats and their infinite wisdom.
ApatheticNoMore
6-8-14, 1:10pm
Life is not fair sure. But also resenting someone for suddenly making a decent wage assuming it takes nothing away from oneself and at the very bottom end of the income scale no less seems perverse, like ok, having the wrong focus in life. Instead of being properly focused on one's own life and so in this matter what their income can buy, one is focused on how one compares to others. Why? Is one competing for women with fancy cars? :) (ha well one won't buy many with that income anyway - although I do wonder how much it really is about stuff like that). I get that it might be a natural feeling but that doesn't mean it's a wise course of action.
Now, I could agree with you catherine that from a social perspective your argument "why does it matter?" is valid. If my coworkers can now come and have a beer with me whereas before they could not, that's a social win.
it also means that if one had some career bad luck that they would be in a better place if they then had to take a minimum wage job (I'm not getting into a pay versus whether there would be as many jobs argument here, because that's a separate topic and I don't know how it will play out - but just in general why it benefits one for people not to be poverty, which of course is in other ways as well).
Whatever people earn shouldn't be a problem for anyone else from a social point of view, yep. I'm all over that and don't see the point in people who worry and fuss about CEO salaries. Isn't that the same thing, just from the opposite place on the scale?
Well the major difference between extreme wealth concentration is it allows vast POWER differentials including buying the political process itself, so no it's not the same. If it was truly just about having more yachts or something, and poor people are deprived of yachts, it wouldn't be a problem.
I personally am in favor of all able body adults who are willing to contribute to society in some constructive way being given a guaranteed minimum stipend to cover basic needs.....but $15/hr? It just seems too high to me and I don't think the business community will cotton well to this. Rob
Don't forget that even someone making as little as $10/hour would be ineligible from almost all social services - no subsidized housing, or subsidized child care, or food stamps. $10/hour before taxes is maybe $7.50/hour take home pay. So imagine a head of household trying to support 2 or 3 people on $300/week after taxes.
And I've lived long enough to witness the Chamber of Commerce whipping everyone into a frenzy *every* time the minimum wage was raised. They threated TEOTWAWKI, and guess what, prices and wages adapted, and we all survived.
iris lilies
6-8-14, 9:15pm
Don't forget that even someone making as little as $10/hour would be ineligible from almost all social services - no subsidized housing, or subsidized child care, or food stamps. $10/hour before taxes is maybe $7.50/hour take home pay. So imagine a head of household trying to support 2 or 3 people on $300/week after taxes.
How many adults and children should the minimum wage be able to support, do you think?
How many adults and children should the minimum wage be able to support, do you think?
One would be a great start.
I have watched and read this thread over time and wonder what we expect from one person's earnings? Sort of similar to IL's question but with this added - am I the only person who has read about "room and boarding" house dwellers providing income for families? We seem to have lost the ability to share accommodation and support one another. Must all our wages provide enough income for an apartment each rather than a room and shared meals? What about working for the owner by providing yard work in exchange for board and lodging as an example?
The world is changing and we cannot cover every part of the arable land with large housing complexes and developments. Sharing accommodation and resources was and continues to be a way to get by with fewer dollars but still have a quality of life.
iris lilies
6-8-14, 10:27pm
One would be a great start.
awww Jane, I love you.
So I'll take you on: should the one person be able to afford a 1 BR apartment? I mean an apt with a separate 1 Br, not an efficiency or a studio. What about a car? If so, how many miles should the maximum be on the car?
awww Jane, I love you.
So I'll take you on: should the one person be able to afford a 1 BR apartment? I mean an apt with a separate 1 Br, not an efficiency or a studio. What about a car? If so, how many miles should the maximum be on the car?
I think people who work full-time should be able to make a basic living--which is subjective--but should include food and shelter, medical insurance, and some kind of transportation. Not everyone is able to graduate from college and collect advanced degrees and many trades and manufacturing jobs have been mechanized or offshored, along with white- and pink-collar jobs. I think we can support a higher minimum wage--we've absorbed every increase in the past.
.
I think people who work full-time should be able to make a basic living--which is subjective--but should include food and shelter, medical insurance, and some kind of transportation. Not everyone is able to graduate from college and collect advanced degrees and many trades and manufacturing jobs have been mechanized or offshored, along with white- and pink-collar jobs. I think we can support a higher minimum wage--we've absorbed every increase in the past.
.
+1
Don't you think that if there is a large proportion of the population who works full-time but cannot get basic necessities for living, there's something wrong with the system? If a person has to choose like a Chinese menu between eating or medicating or being able to get to work or living in an urban ghetto and that choice is systemic, I believe that to be a flaw in how we govern.
I believe the push for a $15 per hour minimum wage is, at it's core, a lot of social/moral posturing with little real world positive effect. Many, if not most of the low skilled, entry level positions directly impacted by the change do not produce enough revenue to justify the wage, which will result in a shortening of available work hours if not an elimination of positions.
Some people will benefit, others will lose, but the important thing is that politicians and social engineering proponents will feel better about themselves even as they make it more difficult for the truly needy to enter the job market, gather work experience and skills and move up the income ladder.
Overall, I think the market does a much better job of allocating resources than central planning ever could.
but the important thing is that politicians and social engineering proponents will feel better about themselves even as they make it more difficult for the truly needy to enter the job market, gather work experience and skills and move up the income ladder.
Overall, I think the market does a much better job of allocating resources than central planning ever could.
You don't think capitalism has done everything it can to engineer the culture and society for its own motives?
You don't think capitalism has done everything it can to engineer the culture and society for its own motives?
Capitalism isn't an entity, it's an economic principle. If it engineer's anything at all it is probably the one sure fire method of lifting the most people out of poverty than any other economic principle conceived.
Social engineering's track record is abysmal. In the United States, we initiated a 'War on Poverty' over 50 years ago, and got more of it. The free market isn't ideological, and does the most good for the most people, or so it seems to me.
Capitalism isn't an entity, it's an economic principle. If it engineer's anything at all it is probably the one sure fire method of lifting the most people out of poverty than any other economic principle conceived.
Social engineering's track record is abysmal. In the United States, we initiated a 'War on Poverty' over 50 years ago, and got more of it. The free market isn't ideological, and does the most good for the most people, or so it seems to me.
I don't consider this to be a social engineering issue--it's an economic modeling issue--I think the economic model should support the society it serves, and so does Adam Smith:
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.... -- Wealth of Nations
I agree that capitalism certainly provides the opportunity to serve the community and support the worker, but unfettered capitalism, with its only mandate being profit, requires some regulation in order to serve the common good.
It's not exactly what I would call social engineering to simply ensure that citizens can earn a decent living in exchange for giving away half of their life energy. It's just a tweak in the system to ensure liberty and justice for all.
gimmethesimplelife
6-9-14, 12:34pm
Capitalism isn't an entity, it's an economic principle. If it engineer's anything at all it is probably the one sure fire method of lifting the most people out of poverty than any other economic principle conceived.
Social engineering's track record is abysmal. In the United States, we initiated a 'War on Poverty' over 50 years ago, and got more of it. The free market isn't ideological, and does the most good for the most people, or so it seems to me.Something I think that is wonderful, absolutely wonderful, is that so many young people are becoming totally disillusioned with capitalism due to graduating college with huge debts and not being able to find work. For them the free market isn't working and due to their being held back at a young age and not being allowed a place at the table - there is going to be a lot of bitterness and anger and resentment at America and how things work here in general coming from these folks in another few years as they get older and realize their lot is not likely to change. Thank God.
I don't know what will happen but I do have hope that this younger generation will take to the streets and not put up with the "free market" - a concept which does work well for some but not for all and now for fewer and fewer and fewer people. I also believe that more young people will get smart and leave the US for good but for those who stay for whatever reason - they are going to demand change and not the hope and change of Barak Obama but real change quickly that sifts downwards to them. Things are going to get interesting in the future of the US with the standard of living in such sharp decline is all I can say. I guess it could be argued that this is all a result of the free market, and if this is the case, maybe the concept overall is not such a bad thing as its collapse may lead to something better for the masses. We'll see I guess - time will tell. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-9-14, 12:43pm
I believe the push for a $15 per hour minimum wage is, at it's core, a lot of social/moral posturing with little real world positive effect. Many, if not most of the low skilled, entry level positions directly impacted by the change do not produce enough revenue to justify the wage, which will result in a shortening of available work hours if not an elimination of positions.
Some people will benefit, others will lose, but the important thing is that politicians and social engineering proponents will feel better about themselves even as they make it more difficult for the truly needy to enter the job market, gather work experience and skills and move up the income ladder.
Overall, I think the market does a much better job of allocating resources than central planning ever could.I agree with your first paragraph Alan, but you lose me later when you talk of moving up the income ladder. Such is not possible for many in this country as things stand now. I don't know where to place the blame on this but realistically, especially for the young, moving up is going to mean leaving the country, perhaps for Asia and the markets with more opportunity there. Considering how flat organizations have become and how so many jobs have been offshored - the opportunity just is not there any more. And I don't see the common sense and courage required to have a national dialogue with our young people advising them to leave the country, such as the government has done in Portugal, advising their young to flee to Brazil for work and opportunity. I just can't see Americans in general being practical at that level. So the young are going to have to figure this one out on their own - some will, some won't.
But as things stand? Moving up the income ladder is not going to happen for many now. Ironically, I very much agree with how you started your post off, though, so we're not completely off the same page, I just take my conclusions to a different place than you do and I have had different experiences due to reasons of social class - of course I am going to see economic concepts differently. But once again I will say that $15 an hour for unskilled labor - not going to happen in the US and if it does, business will find a way around it. Rob
Canadian coming late to the party, but to clear things up for me:
* This is being phased in over a few years, correct? It's not a sudden jump from $9.10 to $15.00 immediately.
* I can't find a reference for this, but is it not considered good economic policy that minimum wage be set at 50% of the median income for a region? From that standard, $15/hour seems to be pretty much on target.
What effect this will have on the overall economy remains to be seen. I have heard good arguments that it's a benefit, and good arguments that it's probably a bad thing. I am interested to see how it plays out, for sure.
Of course business prefers the status quo - they pay $8/hour and taxpayers then subsidize their employees with food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized child care, etc.
The 6 Walton family heirs have the same net worth as the bottom 28% of all American families combined. That's not just "the magic of the marketplace" - that's politically engineered.
ApatheticNoMore
6-9-14, 3:27pm
Of course business prefers the status quo - they pay $8/hour and taxpayers then subsidize their employees with food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized child care, etc.
That of course is the alternative solution to poverty - supplement incomes below a certain point - negative income tax or what have you - which means direct cash payments (or dozens of other programs that seem to leave a lot of people falling through the cracks because they don't serve the full population). Whether it's better or worse than trying to increase wages to deal with poverty I don't know. But it is the alternative IF you think raising wages will lead to massive job decreases. It mostly seems to get framed one way or other (ie if taxpayers pay it's "subsidization" - well it is bending over backward to accomodate current employer and job conditions but it's one way). I suppose a 3rd solution would be to try to reduce costs of living (in other words at least be an actual 3rd world country), but the U.S. has a lot of things that raise cost of living, all the monoplies and rent extraction and they own the politicians: healthcare, housing, debt industries etc..
gimmethesimplelife
6-9-14, 3:27pm
Of course business prefers the status quo - they pay $8/hour and taxpayers then subsidize their employees with food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized child care, etc.
The 6 Walton family heirs have the same net worth as the bottom 28% of all American families combined. That's not just "the magic of the marketplace" - that's politically engineered.Lainey....My question is this. Why are most Americans OK with 6 Walton family heirs having the same net worth as the bottom 28% of all American families? Why is this acceptable, and is this any kind of society we as a whole want? And if it is, what does that say about us? I don't like the answers these questions lead to for me, personally. And for business, what happens if the taxpayers can't subsidize all lowly paid employees anymore and the US government suddenly can't burrow for any reason, or can only burrow less? It really seems to me that US business doesn't THINK.....beyond financial reports and financial results it really doesn't THINK. How do we fix that one if at all or if ever? Rob
Why are most Americans OK with 6 Walton family heirs having the same net worth as the bottom 28% of all American families? Why is this acceptable, and is this any kind of society we as a whole want?
Why is it not acceptable? As I and several others have pointed out here many times, wealth is not static, it expands and contracts. Some people have more of it than others, which is not a subject of fairness. The Walton Family, through WalMart and other enterprises, employ over 2 million people worldwide, something no one in the bottom 28% of American families can boast. If the entire clan lost their net worth tomorrow, it would have no impact on the net worth of the 28%, so, why is it relevant?
That of course is the alternative solution to poverty - supplement incomes below a certain point - negative income tax or what have you - which means direct cash payments (or dozens of other programs that seem to leave a lot of people falling through the cracks because they don't serve the full population). Whether it's better or worse than trying to increase wages to deal with poverty I don't know. But it is the alternative IF you think raising wages will lead to massive job decreases. It mostly seems to get framed one way or other (ie if taxpayers pay it's "subsidization" - well it is bending over backward to accomodate current employer and job conditions but it's one way). I suppose a 3rd solution would be to try to reduce costs of living (in other words at least be an actual 3rd world country), but the U.S. has a lot of things that raise cost of living, all the monoplies and rent extraction and they own the politicians: healthcare, housing, debt industries etc..
I really don't think "poverty" and "full-time employment" should be in the same sentence.. I'm not saying you're doing that, ANM, but when you talk about subsidies and government assistance, it's one thing to provide a safety net or a social program to the under-employed or unemployed, but I don't think that anyone working full-time should wind up being in the same bucket. In other words, I disagree with the whole concept of "working poor," especially in developed countries.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Pov_crossnatl.jpeg
gimmethesimplelife
6-9-14, 4:52pm
Why is it not acceptable? As I and several others have pointed out here many times, wealth is not static, it expands and contracts. Some people have more of it than others, which is not a subject of fairness. The Walton Family, through WalMart and other enterprises, employ over 2 million people worldwide, something no one in the bottom 28% of American families can boast. If the entire clan lost their net worth tomorrow, it would have no impact on the net worth of the 28%, so, why is it relevant?Mmmmm....why is this not acceptable? OK. For starters, what does this say about the level of opportunity in this country? What does this day about how egalitarian this country is? What does this say about how sanely (notice I didn't say fairly, I said sanely) income distribution is spread around in this country? What does this say about future levels of stability in this country, and how likely it is to suffer social unrest due to the above? What does this say about future investments in this country, how much would you want to invest in hard assets in America realizing all of the above and being vulnerable to such social inequality? Finally, what does it say for the upper crust - how safe are they going to be going forward as resentment builds and people start lashing out more at those with money - how safe exactly will the lives of these people be in America going forward? If I had real money, this last one is something I'd be considering BIG TIME.....ironically enough a very legit reason for those with real money to leave America too I'm afraid. I'm sure I can come up with more reasons, this is just off the top of my head. Rob
Mmmmm....why is this not acceptable? OK. For starters, what does this say about the level of opportunity in this country? What does this day about how egalitarian this country is? What does this say about how sanely (notice I didn't say fairly, I said sanely) income distribution is spread around in this country? What does this say about future levels of stability in this country, and how likely it is to suffer social unrest due to the above? What does this say about future investments in this country, how much would you want to invest in hard assets in America realizing all of the above and being vulnerable to such social inequality? Finally, what does it say for the upper crust - how safe are they going to be going forward as resentment builds and people start lashing out more at those with money - how safe exactly will the lives of these people be in America going forward? If I had real money, this last one is something I'd be considering BIG TIME.....ironically enough a very legit reason for those with real money to leave America too I'm afraid. I'm sure I can come up with more reasons, this is just off the top of my head. Rob
I understand class envy exists, I just don't understand why so many people allow it to influence them.
gimmethesimplelife
6-9-14, 7:35pm
I understand class envy exists, I just don't understand why so many people allow it to influence them.It exists because there is no longer that much of a fair shake in this society. Some people will flee the situation (I personally think this is the wisest choice), some will resign themselves to it, some will try to claw and scrap within it, and some people will lash out against it. All we be influenced by it to some degree. And I don't see it as class envy, I see it as the realization that not many are worth a fair shake in this society. Rob
I just don't understand why you think this is a matter of class envy (which I doubt is much of a factor--if it exists at all) and not one of people seeing an economy way out of balance and a ruling class made up of robber barons. In other words, an oligarchy--or, if you will, a corporatocracy.
It's my opinion that very few people aspire to hoard money and power all to themselves and and hire downtrodden peasants around the world to advance their own wealth. Most of us just want a calm and pleasant life with our friends, families, and interests. It's an odd conceit of some of the ruling class that the rest of us give more than a passing thought to their lives.
gimmethesimplelife
6-9-14, 7:59pm
I just don't understand why you think this is a matter of class envy (which I doubt is much of a factor--if it exists at all) and not one of people seeing an economy way out of balance and a ruling class made up of robber barons. In other words, an oligarchy--or, if you will, a corporatocracy.
It's my opinion that very few people aspire to hoard money and power all to themselves and and hire downtrodden peasants around the world to advance their own wealth. Most of us just want a calm and pleasant life with our friends, families, and interests. It's an odd conceit of some of the ruling class that the rest of us give more than a passing thought to their lives.I agree 100% with everything you have posted here. Personally I wouldn't care to be part of the ruling class had I ever the opportunity - all I'm seeking is a fair shake in society. Rob
I just don't understand why you think this is a matter of class envy (which I doubt is much of a factor--if it exists at all) and not one of people seeing an economy way out of balance and a ruling class made up of robber barons. In other words, an oligarchy--or, if you will, a corporatocracy.....
Oh, class envy definitely exists and is very much a part of many peoples psyche. I actually made a fairly successful career in corporate security, specializing in executive protection, dealing with the by-product of that envy. When I read something like the post below, I'm reminded of that period in my life and why after nearly 30 years I was more than ready to move on.
What does this say about how sanely (notice I didn't say fairly, I said sanely) income distribution is spread around in this country? What does this say about future levels of stability in this country, and how likely it is to suffer social unrest due to the above? What does this say about future investments in this country, how much would you want to invest in hard assets in America realizing all of the above and being vulnerable to such social inequality? Finally, what does it say for the upper crust - how safe are they going to be going forward as resentment builds and people start lashing out more at those with money - how safe exactly will the lives of these people be in America going forward? If I had real money, this last one is something I'd be considering BIG TIME.....ironically enough a very legit reason for those with real money to leave America too I'm afraid.
When I read something like the post below, I'm reminded of that period in my life and why after nearly 30 years I was more than ready to move on.
And I'm reminded, as an Evil 1%-er, who created 8000+ jobs, why I gave up participating in the mainstream economy, moved to a remote island, and learned to build and service belt-fed weaponry...
flowerseverywhere
6-10-14, 10:10am
Actually I know a lot of people who are in the top 5%'of wealth (and a few 1%ers in the US who have spent their lives always thinking about others. Through their churches, local food banks and kitchens, helping veterans and actively serving military, mentoring school kids and being sports boosters, habitat for humanity, establishing scholarships, ... The list goes on and on of their community involvement. Plus the taxes they have paid are extraordinary for the privilege of living and working in this great country. Are their exceptions? Of course, just like their are welfare fraudsters, tax evaders, theifs etc.
Time will tell what happens to the $15 minimum wage. Hopefully it will get people more self sufficient and less reliant on government services. Because the path we are walking down, with increasing government handouts will prove to be unsustainable. Small business owners will have an interesting time of it.
gimmethesimplelife
6-10-14, 10:57am
Actually I know a lot of people who are in the top 5%'of wealth (and a few 1%ers in the US who have spent their lives always thinking about others. Through their churches, local food banks and kitchens, helping veterans and actively serving military, mentoring school kids and being sports boosters, habitat for humanity, establishing scholarships, ... The list goes on and on of their community involvement. Plus the taxes they have paid are extraordinary for the privilege of living and working in this great country. Are their exceptions? Of course, just like their are welfare fraudsters, tax evaders, theifs etc.
Time will tell what happens to the $15 minimum wage. Hopefully it will get people more self sufficient and less reliant on government services. Because the path we are walking down, with increasing government handouts will prove to be unsustainable. Small business owners will have an interesting time of it.Every time I walk into the Phoenix Art Museum, I stop by the names up on the wall of very very very generous donors and I have to remind myself that there are people with money that do spread some of it around - unlike the stereotype. I really have not known many people with that kind of money - and the very few I have run across have truly been miserably cheap people whose money owned them and not the other way around. In a way I'm glad for this as it made me question everything about this society's emphasis on money above all else - a good thing in my book to turn the floodlights on and really pick over and analyze. But it does seem that not every last person with money is this way.
I agree with you too that the level of government handouts we have now is unsustainable. Much of American life in general to me seems unsustainable though - this is but one aspect to me that is unsustainable. But yes, where is the money going to keep coming from for this, and how many trillions of dollars in debt are we now, what is it, 17 plus trillion? I can't wrap my mind around that number, I really can't. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-10-14, 11:28am
Oh, class envy definitely exists and is very much a part of many peoples psyche. I actually made a fairly successful career in corporate security, specializing in executive protection, dealing with the by-product of that envy. When I read something like the post below, I'm reminded of that period in my life and why after nearly 30 years I was more than ready to move on.I find it very interesting that you have had a career in corporate security. I had a conversation with a small business owner recently that knows someone who is high up in the corporate hierarchy of Humana Health Care and knows the CEO. Turns out that the Humana CEO has supposedly received numerous death threats from employees - but how would anyone know they were employees, are they really going to be so stupid as to reveal themselves? - due to his not moving wages up other than what he makes. He now lives with bodyguards in his life and continues to chip away at employee wages and benefits and thinks it's perfectly normal and acceptable to have bodyguards watching his every move.
I think of this and I see sickness and greed on so many levels and I truly don't have much hope for the future of the US.....Part of me hopes for collapse when I hear something like what I have posted above. The hope here of course would be for something saner to take the place of what we have now. Rob
I find it very interesting that you have had a career in corporate security. I had a conversation with a small business owner recently that knows someone who is high up in the corporate hierarchy of Humana Health Care and knows the CEO. Turns out that the Humana CEO has supposedly received numerous death threats from employees - but how would anyone know they were employees, are they really going to be so stupid as to reveal themselves? - due to his not moving wages up other than what he makes. He now lives with bodyguards in his life and continues to chip away at employee wages and benefits and thinks it's perfectly normal and acceptable to have bodyguards watching his every move.
Rob, I can tell you that when you get your facts from someone who knows someone who knows someone, there's very little fact involved. It usually boils down to speculation and gossip. For example, how could you possibly know what the CEO thinks is perfectly normal and acceptable?
It's been my experience that in a corporate environment, CEO's hate the intrusion of protective personnel in their lives but must accept it due to Board resolutions and Kidnap & Ransom insurance requirements, which incidentally also require the protected person to not talk about the risks or countermeasures involved. That leaves others lots of room for idle speculation and gossip.
ApatheticNoMore
6-10-14, 12:01pm
I can tell you that when you get your facts from someone who knows someone who knows someone, there's very little fact involved. It usually boils down to speculation and gossip. For example, how could you possibly know what the CEO thinks is perfectly normal and acceptable?
It seems there's very little fact involved all around. That the motive for attacking CEOs was envy has very little fact involved, unless you happen to know their motives, we have no idea what they actually are, do we? Could be people that glom on to famous people (well hey someone shot John Lennon - and what could anyone really have against him?). Could be disgruntled employees or even customers gone postal yes, who may have been screwed, although I really don't recommend the postal solution. And could if the CEOs were CEOs of say drone makers and British Petroleum and Exxon and so on - well people don't actually hate those types of things because of envy. They hate them because they're evil. Because they are killing people and destroying the world.
I just don't understand why you think this is a matter of class envy (which I doubt is much of a factor--if it exists at all) and not one of people seeing an economy way out of balance and a ruling class made up of robber barons. In other words, an oligarchy--or, if you will, a corporatocracy.
It's my opinion that very few people aspire to hoard money and power all to themselves and and hire downtrodden peasants around the world to advance their own wealth. Most of us just want a calm and pleasant life with our friends, families, and interests. It's an odd conceit of some of the ruling class that the rest of us give more than a passing thought to their lives.
+1
I agree that most people don't give a damn how the very wealthy live their day to day lives. What engenders anger is when the wealthy use their money to influence politicians for laws which solidify their grasp on our economy. It's not class envy, it's lobbyist envy.
Although interestingly, even Wal-Mart and their corporate colleagues are finally realizing that the proposed $10.10 federal minimum wage law might be a good idea:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/wal-mart-other-big-corporations-not-opposing-minimum-wage-hikes/
+1
I agree that most people don't give a damn how the very wealthy live their day to day lives. What engenders anger is when the wealthy use their money to influence politicians for laws which solidify their grasp on our economy. It's not class envy, it's lobbyist envy.
Although interestingly, even Wal-Mart and their corporate colleagues are finally realizing that the proposed $10.10 federal minimum wage law might be a good idea:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/wal-mart-other-big-corporations-not-opposing-minimum-wage-hikes/
Excellent post. The Koch brothers, for example, are spending their money to abridge voting rights, suppress unions, fight minimum wage laws and environmental laws through their front group, ALEC and other means. And the Citizens United ruling means there will only be more of this kind of political manipulation in the future. So they and their ilk directly and malevolently affect the lives of non-wealthy citizens for their own advantage. Outrage is different from envy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.