...you then arrest them for non-payment of bills.
WAIT A MINUTE... Are you proposing the bringing back of debtors jail?
Oh BTW the "living wage" goes back to Adam Smith.
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
...you then arrest them for non-payment of bills.
WAIT A MINUTE... Are you proposing the bringing back of debtors jail?
Oh BTW the "living wage" goes back to Adam Smith.
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
Injustice is rampant in labor and if there are no unions it's because union organizing has been squashed by the Walmarts and Kmarts of this nation. Workers who try to organize for labor in those establishments get blacklisted and booted by their employers.
Remember this exactly what happened in England in the 19th century in the mining industry. When conditions deteriorated beyond the believable, the unions came into existence irrespective of the mining magnates bullying tactics.
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
I'm talking about a lower middle class wage for those who are now the working poor.
The problem being as follows: Is the wage meant for a single person, or should two adults combined be able to afford your proposed lifestyle. What about children? How many do you want the family to be able to afford? 2,3,1 or zero?
Are you proposing a multi tiered minimum wage?
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
So what about the capitalist argument: The market will bare - I'm ignorant of this. Please explain, using monosyllabic words and pictures ...
Ok ok... in other words supply and demand.
I don't believe people should expect the state to pay for their children, e.g. if a husband gets fired from his job, he should not be allowed to add to his brood unless he can afford to do so.
How do you discourage him? Taxation? Vasectomy? :)
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
...If they don't have unions like the UFCW that is because they haven't organized for one so far not because they don't need one.
Yeah sort of exactly: If injustice is rampant in labor, human beings will organize to counter it. The argument being the system seems to be working.
It is not an abstraction like "the market" but rather the marketeers, the corporate elite, who decide.
Lets just be clear: 90% of US companies have less than 19 employees.
Also 50% of all employment in the US is by small and medium businesses.
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
Rent in a moderate rent area (Not too poor and not too rich) + Basic food costs times the number of dependents (No eating out on a regular basis) + Car mileage and car insurance expenses for driving to and from work and supermarket + Utility and Internet bills + 20% for unforeseen circumstances which always occur.
That sounds a bit like an average wage and not a minimum wage.
For a single provider or a family of two adult workers?
How many dependents? Isn't one straying into the domain of social engineering?
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
A sensible minimum wage should be a part of that.
So your argument goes back to the original idea of labor in the late 19th and first part of the 20th century, where the minimum wage fought for was a "living wage" instead of what it seems to have become today: a price floor primarily designed to curb exploitation.
But economists argue that labors original idea has become irrelevant. They point to the natural decline of trade unions in the 20th century as the indicator that businesses have met workers expectations to a large extent.
So what about the capitalist argument: The market will bare.
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
Not sure, but a big issue should be geographical area.
Interesting idea. What about people flocking to areas with higher minimum wages? Wouldn't it contribute to accelerated urbanization? Is that something one wants?
It must be higher than any safety net of benefits...
So it should be higher than social benefits. Sounds reasonable.
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
Talesin and LoveUniHateExams,
I've been following your joust and I have to say that I really want an answer:
Is a minimum wage a good idea? And if so, how should it be determined?
Slimboyfat suggested citizen income but I'm not convinced yet.
So you two, what is the correct answer???
during the gop debates donald trump said that american’s “wages [are] too high” and later said “that having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country” (7:25)..
do you agree and if so why?.
my two cents on this issue; do the math.
First let me say this: Price floors and price ceilings are generally a very bad idea. They express themselves in unexpected and more often than not negative ways in an economy and one ends up with unintended consequences.
HOWEVER
The beauty of the minimum wage is that there is nothing that labor intensive or service industry businesses can do about it. For example: McDonald's can't hire less personnel unless they bring in more automation (which is a good thing in itself as it drives down prices). So they either bite the bullet and the minimum wage is reflected in their product pricing or it gets reflected in a reduction in profits. A company like McDonald's cannot mess with product pricing too much because they rely on volume so inevitably it will be reflected in profits.
I believe minimum wage is a primary mechanism for determining the basic living standard of a population.
HOWEVER
Minimum wages were increased in the USA during the Great Depression as a counter against exploitation. The result was that Businesses stopped hiring. So a minimum wage increase can also have a severely deleterious effect.
CONCLUSION:
I am very conflicted on the subject. I feel that there is something to be said for a reasonable minimum wage and as Village Idiot pointed out: "I remember in the 1980s how conservatives used to mock the misery of Russians living under the communist regime...Here in the US I know of a 40 year old man who has to live with his mother because his $9 an hour job cannot afford him anything else."
I sometimes feel that the minimum wage can be used as a powerful economic tool to uplift a population's living standards. For example: What if a country decided that two adults did not have to work full time to support a family of four but only a single adults minimum wage income should suffice. The country could increase minimum wages accordingly and encourage a return to the nuclear family. But what about a single person? They would now be living in luxury. Well that would be an incentive for people not to procreate and remain single. Perhaps that is what one wants in a particular circumstance.
On the other hand it could undermine an economy if the economy is already under strain.
In short: I REALLY DUNNO