The Reality of Minimum Wages.

[diddle]

For some reason many people tend to think that no matter what the job is, as long as you do it at least 40 hours a week, you should be able to support yourself. Unfortunately that is not how capitalism works.

[Kon Artis]

I can provide the information your looking for, but I dare not do so because it wont come from preapproved source, and im not in the mood to spend the next few hours defending the source

I agree, it is best to usually argue such points with official sources and at a more sensible hour then 2 am(At least where I am)
Which can be seen by the jumble of words I meshed together to make a paragraph

[Nostop it]

You are looking at things "ass-backwards" pardon my terminology here.

The system will be gamed regardless of how its played.

Regulations exist to minimize the damage potential on the bulk of the population. Regulations exist in recognition of the fact that we are human and will continue to do as we have done throughout centuries of commerce.

That sounds nice in theory and again we're dealing with reality but a lot of regulations are in place to simply keep out competition. And it's these regulations that simply, whether intentional or not, kill small business and the little guy.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

That sounds nice in theory and again we're dealing with reality but a lot of regulations are in place to simply keep out competition. And it's these regulations that simply, whether intentional or not, kill small business and the little guy.

I think you're confusing regulation that prevents businesses from doing bad stuff and regulations that somehow impede.

[Chrysia]

For some reason many people tend to think that no matter what the job is, as long as you do it at least 40 hours a week, you should be able to support yourself. Unfortunately that is not how capitalism works.

Which is why we aren't a purely capitalistic society. Because we had workers that bled and died for worker protections at the turn of the last century.

[Vivek]

That sounds nice in theory and again we're dealing with reality

No I am talking about reality here, where as I stated people will try to get away with everything they can. The "system will be gamed" if we are to employ your terminology here. Regulations work to minimize the hazardous end result.

but a lot of regulations are in place to simply keep out competition. And it's these regulations that simply, whether intentional or not, kill small business and the little guy.

I never stated that regulations are immune to error, critique and misuse. I simply stated their intended use, purpose and potential. Ofcourse everything can be exploited and misused and it is possible to have bad regulation. Your target here then should be bad regulation rather than all regulation. Society doesn't stop using guns simply because they can be and are misused right?

[fengosa]

In America, you get to choose between a socially progressive and scientifically modern party that knows nothing of economics, and a socially backwards religion-centric party that knows slightly more about economics.

I'm really not convinced that the Republicans are fiscally responsible. If they were they'd be trying to find ways to lower healthcare costs and would be for a single payer system that doesn't eat up double the amount of GDP that it should. It's almost as if the thought of attacking profits is sacred even if it would mean a net gain for the thousands of companies that provide health insurance to their employees.

[Garnier Fructis]

That sounds nice in theory and again we're dealing with reality but a lot of regulations are in place to simply keep out competition. And it's these regulations that simply, whether intentional or not, kill small business and the little guy.

Give me some explicit examples of regulations that are in place simply to keep out competition. The reason I ask is that most people I ask either cannot give me details about the regulation boogeyman, or they tell me "environmental regulations", which is a vague subset of the regulation boogeyman. I'm not going to deny that there are bad regulations, such a notion is obviously bullshit. But if you're going to rail against something, you should be able to give a legitimate example of your grievance.

As a side note, I was listening to KPBS (or NPR? One of those) and the interviewer had a republican congressman on the show. She asked him if he could give one example of an unconstitutional act committed by Obama, and he proceeded to fall completely flat on his face because he couldn't name a single one; his only response was that they had a list compiled. Why compile a list if you're not gonna read it?

[Cthulhu 2020]

That sounds nice in theory and again we're dealing with reality but a lot of regulations are in place to simply keep out competition. And it's these regulations that simply, whether intentional or not, kill small business and the little guy.

There are thousands of examples in history where the little guy was strong armed out of the market by existing business. Not just being outcompeted, but when the little guy was WINNING, the big guy always resorted to underhanded tactics. Most recent example was talking about private fire fighting companies. Competing companies would literally block their competition from making it to fires and let people suffer just so they could beat their competition.

This isn't some kind of thing that's exclusive to government regulation. The "free market" isn't as free or as benevolently pure as people want to believe.

[diddle]

I'm really not convinced that the Republicans are fiscally responsible. If they were they'd be trying to find ways to lower healthcare costs and would be for a single payer system that doesn't eat up double the amount of GDP that it should. It's almost as if the thought of attacking profits is sacred even if it would mean a net gain for the thousands of companies that provide health insurance to their employees.

hence the "slightly", they still have a horribly botched business > consumer mentality that makes no sense in a consumer based economy.

Which is why we aren't a purely capitalistic society. Because we had workers that bled and died for worker protections at the turn of the last century.

So you are saying that no matter what your job is, if you do it 40 hours a week that you should be able to support yourself? Don't get me wrong, I would love if this was true but it is completely unfeasible.

[Vivek]

For some reason many people tend to think that no matter what the job is, as long as you do it at least 40 hours a week, you should be able to support yourself. Unfortunately that is not how capitalism works.

That might not be how it works exactly where you live, but that is how capitalism SHOULD work in civilized society. And the purpose of min wage is exactly just that, the minimal you need to be able to SUPPORT yourself.

Your definitions are in the wrong spot, as is your head apparently judging by what you just stated about capitalism. Capitalism is not God, it is a system like any other. Systems are employed to serve society, not the other way around.

[Kon Artis]

I was speaking specifically to your point about people not starting families in the first part. The problem is, the people you're saying were "stupid" had largely already started their families when the recession hit and forced them back into the labor pool.

You're looking at those numbers wrong. If 55% of the people in low-wage jobs are 16-24, we can average that to 18, sure, but that still leaves 45% of low-wage workers sitting between 25 and 75ish. That will drag that average up. Considerably, especially since, classically, many post-retirement seniors end up taking low-wage jobs, simply for something to do.

Then I admit fault with my first statement since I didn't quite get the whole context

However as for the numbers, we could argue about such matters till we are blue in the face. It would probably be more useful if the bureau of labor and statistics released easily digestible numbers then just percentages. But from my understanding of mathematics I do not feel the 45% of 40+ years could influence an average to increase 10 years(Especially considering that the majority of those from the 25+ age group are still show a bias to those in the 25-30 age group. Of course, my original offer still stays. If you can find such a number I'll gladly look at it

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm

This is where I draw my conclusions from

[Chrysia]

So you are saying that no matter what your job is, if you do it 40 hours a week that you should be able to support yourself? Don't get me wrong, I would love if this was true but it is completely unfeasible.

No, it really isn't. It's not unfeasible in the slightest. Should a single parent be able to support a family of 3 (themselves and two children) or 4 at any job at 40 hours a week? No. Should they be able to support themselves at any job working 40 hours a week, even if it means a one-bedroom apartment and eating lean? Absolutely.

[Vivek]

In America, you get to choose between a socially progressive and scientifically modern party that knows nothing of economics, and a socially backwards religion-centric party that knows slightly more about economics.

I would suggest you stop kidding yourself.

[Nostop it]

No I am talking about reality here, where as I stated people will try to get away with everything they can. The "system will be gamed" if we are to employ your terminology here. Regulations work to minimize the hazardous end result.



I never stated that regulations are immune to error, critique and misuse. I simply stated their intended use, purpose and potential. Ofcourse everything can be exploited and misused and it is possible to have bad regulation. Your target here then should be bad regulation rather than all regulation. Society doesn't stop using guns simply because they can be and are misused right?

I'll compromise with you on that and focus on bad regulation instead of most or all. But the minimum wage would have to be one of those regulations unfortunately. Due to the evidence.

[Garnier Fructis]

This isn't some kind of thing that's exclusive to government regulation. The "free market" isn't as free or as benevolently pure as people want to believe.

This is kind of tangential, but it boggles my mind that Republicans/conservatives are quick to pull Lincoln out of their hats to prove a point, but seem to try their hardest to forget that Teddy Roosevelt ever existed, what with him, a Republican, being the one of the greatest environmentalists and anti corporation people in the history of the nation. A Republican president that liked to use federal regulations must be a sore point.

[Chrysia]

I'll compromise with you on that and focus on bad regulation instead of most or all. But the minimum wage would have to be one of those regulations unfortunately. Due to the evidence.

There is 0 evidence that a minimum wage acts as a significant impediment to progress. There is some argument that it can be an impediment to small business startups, but raising the initial funds is already a barrier. Wages will always be another barrier, minimum wage or not.

[Vivek]

I'll compromise with you on that and focus on bad regulation instead of most or all. But the minimum wage would have to be one of those regulations unfortunately. Due to the evidence.

What evidence would that be?

[diddle]

I would suggest you stop kidding yourself.

Very insightful retort? I am a liberal, I vote democrat. That doesn't mean I agree with the ludicrously naive belief that a full-time job entitles one to the concept they should be able to entirely support themself. Capitalism is a cold mistress, you are given as much as your personal skill set gives to the economy.

[vindicatorx]

Shitty jobs aren't going to do themselves. Someone has to do it so you don't have to. But fuck them, right?

See the thing about that is those people who opt to work those shitty jobs didn't do anything to be able to get a better job. I used to be one of them I'm in my 30's and about to graduate from college.