Minimum wage

[BluesDriver66]

There are some good posts in this thread, from both sides.

There are some points that have been missed though and those are;

1. The government, at any level, that raises minimum wage is in effect giving itself a raise. At the Federal level the most regressive tax is the payroll tax. It's a fixed percent of the wage earners paycheck. This percentage is matched by the employer. The higher the minimum wage, the more the government collects. At the local and state level this translates into higher prices for goods and services which in turn translates into more tax dollars flowing into the state/county/city coffers.

2. Let's call minimum wage earners what they are, menial workers. These jobs require the least skill of any in the job market and virtually anyone can be trained to fulfill these rolls. The minimum wage worker is usually found in those sectors of the economy that provide basic services. Fast food, grocery, construction laborer (in some areas only). There comes a point where the goods/services provided are not worth the cost to those who are earning above minimum wage. Minimum wage acts as an incentive to price these individuals out of the labor market or as pointed out in another post, to automate the job.

3. Anyone not severely handicapped, mentally or physically, can move out of the minimum wage arena through education and hard work. Hard work is recognized by any employer and is rewarded. Minimum wage is a foot in the door, not a career.

4. Higher minimum wages drive automation. Today everyone points to Amazon as a driver in working their people hard but you need to look at the level of automation in their distribution centers. A model that was actually created by Avon decades ago. Low wage earners (minimum wage) are replaced by higher skilled workers, just far fewer of them. This in turn creates a situation where far too much labor is chasing far fewer jobs. At some point the welfare system breaks down.

Overall minimum wage laws do no good for anyone except the politicians. They can pretend they're doing 'good' while actually doing harm in the long run. Go to the grocery store, the gas station, the lumber yard, damn near anywhere you go, what are you paying for the goods and services today? This is all do to government interference in the markets. And these higher prices are driving the calls for higher minimum wages, which in turn will increase the cost of good and services which will require yet more calls for higher minimum wages. See the cycle here?

There is a percentage of the population in an economy, any economy, that live at a subsistence level. Some out of choice, some out of self-imposed limitations. You can raise the minimum wage to $100/hr., the economy will adjust and they'll still be living at a subsistence level. No law conceived by man, no matter how well intentioned, will ever change the nature of man.

That's the biggest load of horse shit I've ever read. This "poor people are poor because they are stupid and/or lazy and deserve less than what it takes to survive" attitude. I can't count how many hard working and highly educated IT workers lost their jobs to India or forced to train their low wage replacement workers imported on HB1 visas.

I personally know many many people who work hard their entire lives and get nothing and then there are dumb fucks Paris Hillton and Donald Trumps of the world who never worked a hard day in their life and live in the lap of luxury.

You really have to be some brain dead gullible dupe to believe that Horatio Alger crap of hard work being rewarded. Might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

 

[srgreene]

That's the biggest load of horse shit I've ever read. This "poor people are poor because they are stupid and/or lazy and deserve less than what it takes to survive" attitude. I can't count how many hard working and highly educated IT workers lost their jobs to India or forced to train their low wage replacement workers imported on HB1 visas.

I personally know many many people who work hard their entire lives and get nothing and then there are dumb fucks Paris Hillton and Donald Trumps of the world who never worked a hard day in their life and live in the lap of luxury.

You really have to be some brain dead gullible dupe to believe that Horatio Alger crap of hard work being rewarded. Might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Long on the vituperation, short on any logical refutation.

Yes, some people, Paris, and perhaps Donald, luck into situations by which the amass considerable wealth- lottery winners too. Hey, it helps to have dear old dad "lend" you a cool $14 million when you are just starting out in business. Still, Donald didn't blow it entirely. I would even say that Steve Jobs was incredbly "lucky"- he just happened to come along at the right time and place. If he'd been in Akron, my guess is he'd have been a career loser.

But these observations in no serious way address the arguments presented here against minimum wage. BTW, simply working hard does not mean you offer economic value. Even if you get with the mops and brooms 80 hours a week, while there is certainly some utility there, your economic contribution to society is de minimus.

I repeat, if you are a career minimum wage earner (at least at current level of federal minimum wage in the USA) the problem lies with you. The world does not owe you a living- it is up to you to earn one. Capitalism is the best way humans have devised to generate wealth, and that wealth generally- the Paris Hiltons not withstanding- goes first to those who contribute something of economic value to society.

Capitalism has the added advantage of being the only economic system by which large groups of people can engage solely in mutually agreed upon economic transactions. Socialism, communism, "mixed economies" like the USA today, cannot make that claim. I will hazard a guess that you personally place little value on an economic system that does not involve the initiation of the use of force, fraud, or the threat thereof. I do.

 

[KimGordon67]

FDR was absolutely correct. If you can't pay your workers a living wage you have a shitty business model. Just the same if you can't pay your suppliers or lease. Imagine these same shitty arguments for the cost of labor if used elsewhere. "You're a new supplier so I don't have to pay you market prices for your products" or "If I have to pay fair market rent prices I'll go out of business", or "The only way I can make a profit is to under pay my vendors and landlord. They should be happy to be under payed because they would have no customers at all if I didn't under pay them".

Yep ... if people working a 40 hour week aren't earning enough to live in, I'd suggest that capitalism is broken, and someone should be returning it to the shop.

Our minimum wage is $20 an hour (as of this year) - I'm not sure what to benchmark it against to get some indication of how that compares in real terms compared to the US, but I'm guessing that it's somewhat higher. Businesses don't appear to be going broke.

 

[srgreene]

Yep ... if people working a 40 hour week aren't earning enough to live in, I'd suggest that capitalism is broken, and someone should be returning it to the shop.

And why, may I ask, would you "suggest" that? You certainly offer to explanation for your thesis.

Allow me to point out that, in the great sweep of human history, the 40 hour work week is, oh, perhaps a century or so old. It was only made possible by the greater productivity that capitalism created.

Allow me to also point out that those who really make a difference, economically, overwhelmingly, I would say, work far more than 40 hours a week to achieve their ambitions. Thomas Edison, Jay Gould, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk .... those are names that come to mind as working "insane" hours (as Musk put it). The rest of us are beneficiaries of their oftentimes Herculean labors.

 

[Goldenfinger]

Here’s a story. I know a guy who was very excited that they were raising minimum wage. Even though he made more than minimum he too would get a corresponding raise. About 6 months after all this took place he was bitching because his rent and overall cost of living went up. It went up to the point where he actually makes less money.

I asked him if he thought he was the only one that got a raise. Labor costs are a factor in the cost of most items. The price of labor goes up and you hear about automated fast food restaurants. One day someone got a great idea of putting movies in a vending machine. Now blockbuster and Hollywood is all but gone. When you go into the bank a lot of times they tell you that you can do your transactions using the machine out front. You can buy a car online and it gets delivered to you. They tout vehicles that drive themselves. How long will it be before automation takes too many jobs.

Only time will tell what the push for higher minimum wage will do. Some say that a higher minimum wage with just result in a increased cost of living. So it’s a net 0.

 

[Goldenfinger]

Yep ... if people working a 40 hour week aren't earning enough to live in, I'd suggest that capitalism is broken, and someone should be returning it to the shop.

Our minimum wage is $20 an hour (as of this year) - I'm not sure what to benchmark it against to get some indication of how that compares in real terms compared to the US, but I'm guessing that it's somewhat higher. Businesses don't appear to be going broke.

And what do we exchange it for. And if we exchange it what will we loose? A lot of the things we have in life were created by someone who wanted to get rich.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Long on the vituperation, short on any logical refutation.

Yes, some people, Paris, and perhaps Donald, luck into situations by which the amass considerable wealth- lottery winners too. Hey, it helps to have dear old dad "lend" you a cool $14 million when you are just starting out in business. Still, Donald didn't blow it entirely. I would even say that Steve Jobs was incredbly "lucky"- he just happened to come along at the right time and place. If he'd been in Akron, my guess is he'd have been a career loser.

But these observations in no serious way address the arguments presented here against minimum wage. BTW, simply working hard does not mean you offer economic value. Even if you get with the mops and brooms 80 hours a week, while there is certainly some utility there, your economic contribution to society is de minimus.

I repeat, if you are a career minimum wage earner (at least at current level of federal minimum wage in the USA) the problem lies with you. The world does not owe you a living- it is up to you to earn one. Capitalism is the best way humans have devised to generate wealth, and that wealth generally- the Paris Hiltons not withstanding- goes first to those who contribute something of economic value to society.

Capitalism has the added advantage of being the only economic system by which large groups of people can engage solely in mutually agreed upon economic transactions. Socialism, communism, "mixed economies" like the USA today, cannot make that claim. I will hazard a guess that you personally place little value on an economic system that does not involve the initiation of the use of force, fraud, or the threat thereof. I do.

You can believe that happy horse shit if you want to. It's okay. The French aristocracy didn't see it coming either.

 

[mayfly13]

My theory is that there are two categories of people who defend low minimum wages and low corporate taxes:

those who follow some economic theory.
and those who have investments and shares in corporations. Bobo for example.


As to the latter:
Fair enough, we're all selfish creatures, we all buy cheap stuff made by slavery in China.
What I don't get is their disdain for the people whose underpaid labour keeps their shares and investments up.

 

[mayfly13]

I researched the topic a bit, and I'm starting to see where a few posters --like bellusarius-- are coming from. Indeed:
---Only a v. small percentage of Americans (a few hundred thousands) are on minimum wage menial jobs. So at first glance it's not AS tragic, as "living-wage" jobs Are available. So one could argue that the problem partially lies with the employee.
---And with the bizarre dystopian state of affairs in which humans now compete with automation, those people feel lucky not to have been put on the streets by an esspresso-making machine.

On the other hand,
---it's not like the "living-wage" jobs, held by millions of Americans, are That much better.
Those are poverty wages, the income goes towards rent, food, electricity, a few small perks and that's it.
--Those minimum wage jobs were initially designed to help teenagers living with their parents acquire skills. But no longer: now most min-wage workers are adults with years of work experience, so their pace and productivity are much higher; and they are now being exploited with abysmal workloads and time management schedules.
---Had they kept up with productivity, minimum wages should be twice as much.

https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2020/01/Screen-Shot-2020-01-22-at-9.22.50-AM-510x422.png[/URL]

Now coming back to the first paragraph:
If I understood correctly bellisarius's & arguments (although Economics/ Statistics aren't my forte):
---The sad truth is -- the way everything has been structured since the 70's (Raegan-Thatcherian globalist neoliberalism), if 1st world countries raise minimum wages & corporate taxes, the whole Economy could go downhill, and China,India& would gain advantage.

 

[mayfly13]

Long on the vituperation, short on any logical refutation.

I repeat, if you are a career minimum wage earner (at least at current level of federal minimum wage in the USA) the problem lies with you.

Capitalism is the best way humans have devised to generate wealth.
Capitalism has the added advantage of being the only economic system by which large groups of people can engage solely in mutually agreed upon economic transactions. Socialism, communism, "mixed economies" like the USA today, cannot make that claim. I will hazard a guess that you personally place little value on an economic system that does not involve the initiation of the use of force, fraud, or the threat thereof. I do.

"Capitalism" my ass. More like neo-feudalism, where a handful of retail and tech giants hold global monopoly, and the system is rigged.

I'm repeating things that everyone knows, but what's different now is that studies are now popping up with evidence to confirm our suspicions.

You're operating on a great paradigm "capitalism-the American dream". BUT sadly, capitalism is half gone, and still being gradually phased out.






"Alarming new (Australian) research into the online economy has found that just 10 domains command the majority of the world’s attention and are on course to grab even more in the coming years.
Almost 40% of new domains registered in 2006 survived their first five years. However, by contrast, just 3% of those created in 2015 have survived to the present day.

The researchers’ findings underscore a startling reality: it’s not just online businesses that are affected by the loss of online diversity, but the entire online economy.
While businesses can establish themselves anywhere with a stable internet connection, their ability to scale in the face of emerging monopolies for any significant length of time and stand on their own two feet is increasingly under threat."

Evolution of diversity and dominance of companies in online activity
Published: April 28, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249993
https://www.rt.com/news/522729-world...nline-domains/



ADDIT.
Unlike their 'small business competitors', Nike and 45 other US retail monopolies paid zero taxes the last few years. As did Trump.
Walton sold goods at a loss to kill the competition. Bezos was allowed to sell tax-free for years. Gates used dirty tricks to abort competitors.

 

[Rightguide]

FDR was absolutely correct. If you can't pay your workers a living wage you have a shitty business model. Just the same if you can't pay your suppliers or lease. Imagine these same shitty arguments for the cost of labor if used elsewhere. "You're a new supplier so I don't have to pay you market prices for your products" or "If I have to pay fair market rent prices I'll go out of business", or "The only way I can make a profit is to under pay my vendors and landlord. They should be happy to be under payed because they would have no customers at all if I didn't under pay them".

Only a Communist thinks everyone making the same "living wage" is a good thing. Only a stupid Communist thinks an escalating Minimum Wage isn't inherently racist or a precursor to massive unemployment. After all, it's only an order from the government to the people, that says if your lack of marketable skills prevent you from being able to produce goods and services for a prospective employer at the proscribed level stated in the law, it is illegal for you to work in the United States.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Only a Communist thinks everyone making the same "living wage" is a good thing. Only a stupid Communist thinks an escalating Minimum Wage isn't inherently racist or a precursor to massive unemployment. After all, it's only an order from the government to the people, that says if your lack of marketable skills prevent you from being able to produce goods and services for a prospective employer at the proscribed level stated in the law, it is illegal for you to work in the United States.

 

[silver gurl]

List of minimum wage per State. Quite a few are pathetic. Fine for a 14 year old but that’s about it.
https://blog.wagepoint.com/all-content/minimum-wage-requirements-by-state

 

[KimGordon67]

And why, may I ask, would you "suggest" that? You certainly offer to explanation for your thesis.

Allow me to point out that, in the great sweep of human history, the 40 hour work week is, oh, perhaps a century or so old. It was only made possible by the greater productivity that capitalism created.

Allow me to also point out that those who really make a difference, economically, overwhelmingly, I would say, work far more than 40 hours a week to achieve their ambitions. Thomas Edison, Jay Gould, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk .... those are names that come to mind as working "insane" hours (as Musk put it). The rest of us are beneficiaries of their oftentimes Herculean labors.

I think you'll find the number of people who work 'insane' hours is far greater than this - a large number of people living in relative poverty work far more than 40 hours a week just to keep food on the table. It's just that most of them don't happen to have had a ridiculous amount of variables align in their favour.

 

[KimGordon67]

Here’s a story. I know a guy who was very excited that they were raising minimum wage. Even though he made more than minimum he too would get a corresponding raise. About 6 months after all this took place he was bitching because his rent and overall cost of living went up. It went up to the point where he actually makes less money.

I asked him if he thought he was the only one that got a raise. Labor costs are a factor in the cost of most items. The price of labor goes up and you hear about automated fast food restaurants. One day someone got a great idea of putting movies in a vending machine. Now blockbuster and Hollywood is all but gone. When you go into the bank a lot of times they tell you that you can do your transactions using the machine out front. You can buy a car online and it gets delivered to you. They tout vehicles that drive themselves. How long will it be before automation takes too many jobs.

Only time will tell what the push for higher minimum wage will do. Some say that a higher minimum wage with just result in a increased cost of living. So it’s a net 0.

I'm assuming your friend was still able to pay his rent though? And so were a lot of other people. There's a fair bit of research that shows that raising the minimum wage is good for the economy, because people who have next to nothing spend everything they have with (usually local) business, rather than putting it into places where it does the local economy little-to-no good.

Automation would be happening regardless. That's a red herring. The 'ideal' of automation was that we'd all have to work less, while money was still being generated that we could all benefit from. Unfortunately the second part of that equation (which relies on something resembling 'trickle down' economics - which turns out to be a load of arse) never quite happens.

If rents are becoming untenable, the state needs to put in some form of control. The ways in which property owners make profit from their capital AND from the rent they charge is woefully undertaxed, and the rental market is woefully under-regulated. (I'm talking about the local context here - I'm not sure if this is the case in the US.)

 

[KimGordon67]

And what do we exchange it for. And if we exchange it what will we loose? A lot of the things we have in life were created by someone who wanted to get rich.

I'm not sure what 'things' you're talking about, but I'm going to hazard a guess and say that in the majority of cases, the planet (like, the actual environment) would probably be better off without those 'things'. So I don't really think that's a loss. You seem to be off the opinion that 'more is better'. That's just not the case. There's ample research to demonstrate that people with 'more' (above a certain point) are not happier, and that people in countries with high levels of redistribution of wealth are happier.

(Yes, I realise I'm not providing citations - I gave up doing that on the GB years ago, because it became painfully obvious that no read anything I linked to, and instead just leapt onto the next talking point, without actually addressing any of the information I'd provided.)

 

[srgreene]

ADDIT.
Unlike their 'small business competitors', Nike and 45 other US retail monopolies paid zero taxes the last few years.

Your source for this insight? I doubt that you have the financial acumen to know what you are talking about- even how to intelligently address that question. I don't either- but I know it's not q trivial question. But here is a reasonably reliable source:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nike-says-its-paid-over-9-billion-in-taxes-since-2016-214337187.html

In a statement given to Yahoo Finance, the Swoosh brand says it pays federal, state, and local taxes.

“NIKE, Inc. is a global business with 73,000 employees and we comply with tax laws everywhere we do business. NIKE is paying significant U.S. federal, state, and local direct and indirect taxes every year. In fact, including customs duties, Nike has paid more than $9.1 billion in U.S. taxes since 2016," the statement read.



I suspect the rest of your statement is full of similar intellectual integrity. Doubt that it matters to you.

But even if you claim were true, which is highly dubious (and I'm being generous toward you), one cannot draw any conclusions without considering their balance sheet and earnings history. For example, are they simply taking advantage of depreciation of plants and equipment (unlikely in Nike's case, I should think) or taking credits for prior losses? Those, and various other things, would need to be evaluated before you had anything intelligent to say on the matter, which I gather you do not.

 

[mayfly13]

But even if you claim were true, which is highly dubious (and I'm being generous toward you) you cannot draw any conclusions without considering their balance sheet and earnings history. For example, are they simply taking advantage of depreciation of plants and equipment (unlikely in Nike's case, I should think) or taking credits for prior losses?

Those, and various other things, would need to be evaluated before you had anything intelligent to say on the matter, which I gather you do not.

My last tested IQ was 87. But the one tested in my country of origin was much higher: 103, so cultural variations played a big role.

You? I place you at a 97.

 

[srgreene]

My last tested IQ was 87. But the one tested in my country of origin was much higher: 103, so cultural variations played a big role.

You? I place you at a 97.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. You say absolutely nothing to justify your claim. But, hey, among people like you, who needs to justify their claims, eh?

Truly amazing that you can make baseless claims, grounded in zero discernible knowledge of the subject matter, and yet think that you have the wisdom to structure the economy of advanced societies. Representative democracy cannot prevail in the face of large numbers numbers of ignoramuses like yourself.


P.S. FWIW, and not that it makes a scintilla of difference to me, my mom told me that as a little girl, I tested rather higher on the IQ score than you apparently ever did. The fact that you think you can assess mine says ever so much more about you than it does me.

 

[KimGordon67]

And why, may I ask, would you "suggest" that? You certainly offer to explanation for your thesis.

Allow me to point out that, in the great sweep of human history, the 40 hour work week is, oh, perhaps a century or so old. It was only made possible by the greater productivity that capitalism created.

Allow me to also point out that those who really make a difference, economically, overwhelmingly, I would say, work far more than 40 hours a week to achieve their ambitions. Thomas Edison, Jay Gould, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk .... those are names that come to mind as working "insane" hours (as Musk put it). The rest of us are beneficiaries of their oftentimes Herculean labors.

To be fair, my comment was a bit of a throwaway. I tend to hold to the social democratic principle that capitalism is probably the most efficient means of organising the market BUT that a high degree of state intervention (usually in the form of taxation and redistribution) is necessary to balance out the inequalities that inevitably occur under capitalism. Basically, I'd like to see more state intervention.

I find the idea of a UBI interesting, athough it's tricky to know how it would work in reality - the evidence is often based on small and not fully operationalised trials. I'd also be in favour of the idea of inheritances being basically abolished (maybe just those over a small base level), and that money going back into a central pool, from which everyone received a chunk of cash at a certain age to help set them up - I think this would address a lot of the issues around inequality, while allowing individuals to accrue whatever wealth they wanted during their lifetime. (Admittedly, I haven't done the math to see how that would work out, but I'm fairly firmly of the belief that the intergenerational transfer of wealth - or poverty - is a huge problem.)

 

[srgreene]

To be fair, my comment was a bit of a throwaway. I tend to hold to the social democratic principle that capitalism is probably the most efficient means of organising the market BUT that a high degree of state intervention (usually in the form of taxation and redistribution) is necessary to balance out the inequalities that inevitably occur under capitalism. Basically, I'd like to see more state intervention.

I find the idea of a UBI interesting, athough it's tricky to know how it would work in reality - the evidence is often based on small and not fully operationalised trials. I'd also be in favour of the idea of inheritances being basically abolished (maybe just those over a small base level), and that money going back into a central pool, from which everyone received a chunk of cash at a certain age to help set them up - I think this would address a lot of the issues around inequality, while allowing individuals to accrue whatever wealth they wanted during their lifetime. (Admittedly, I haven't done the math to see how that would work out, but I'm fairly firmly of the belief that the intergenerational transfer of wealth - or poverty - is a huge problem.)

Glad you recognize your comment for what it was. Why is "inequality" a problem? Different people have vastly different desires in terms of money, power, knowledge, status, sex .... you name it.

Why does any adult have the right to unearned income? Even though I am a Christian, I don't believe that your existence, as an adult, generally obligates me to act on your behalf. Depending on circumstances, I may choose to do so.

I want to create an opportunity society, and I believe free minds and free markets maximize opportunity, and that your "state intervention" (initiating the use of force) limits opportunity.

BTW, nothing I have said here applies to children.

 

[KimGordon67]

Glad you recognize your comment for what it was. Why is "inequality" a problem? Different people have vastly different desires in terms of money, power, knowledge, status, sex .... you name it.

Why does any adult have the right to unearned income? Even though I am a Christian, I don't believe that your existence, as an adult, generally obligates me to act on your behalf. Depending on circumstances, I may choose to do so.

I want to create an opportunity society, and I believe free minds and free markets maximize opportunity, and that your "state intervention" (initiating the use of force) limits opportunity.

BTW, nothing I have said here applies to children.

Glad you're in agreement with me - inheritances are 'unearned income', so that's one of my points dealt with.

Opportunity is not 'maximized for everyone' when many, many people are disadvantaged from the get-go. It's only maximized for those who start with advantages (and a very very select group of the disadvantaged so that the boot-straps argument can have some evidence). State intervention works to level the playing field, so that everyone really does have access to opportunity.

Inequality is problem when 10% of your population live in poverty - how can you not consider that a 'problem'? Are you seriously suggesting it's because they WANT to be dirt poor ... although I'm sure you are going to attribute it to some individual failing.

These are just fundamentally basic points in the 'free market' vs 'redistribution of wealth' argument. There's literally no point even having a discussion at this level - these arguments have been rehearsed a million times here and elsewhere. You believe that capitalism creates good for everyone - I don't. I personally think the actual evidence tends to favour my position, but you're determined to interpret that evidence according to your own ideology.
The end.

 

[mayfly13]

I want to create an opportunity society, and I believe free minds and free markets maximize opportunity, and that your "state intervention" (initiating the use of force) limits opportunity.

Representative democracy cannot prevail in the face of large numbers numbers of ignoramuses like yourself.

not to mention anti-Americans & freedom and free market-haters.

 

[srgreene]

Glad you're in agreement with me - inheritances are 'unearned income', so that's one of my points dealt with.

Opportunity is not 'maximized for everyone' when many, many people are disadvantaged from the get-go. It's only maximized for those who start with advantages (and a very very select group of the disadvantaged so that the boot-straps argument can have some evidence). State intervention works to level the playing field, so that everyone really does have access to opportunity.

Inequality is problem when 10% of your population live in poverty - how can you not consider that a 'problem'? Are you seriously suggesting it's because they WANT to be dirt poor ... although I'm sure you are going to attribute it to some individual failing.

These are just fundamentally basic points in the 'free market' vs 'redistribution of wealth' argument. There's literally no point even having a discussion at this level - these arguments have been rehearsed a million times here and elsewhere. You believe that capitalism creates good for everyone - I don't. I personally think the actual evidence tends to favour my position, but you're determined to interpret that evidence according to your own ideology.
The end.

True, inheritances are unearned. However, as I see it, it is the right of the deceased to say how their assets will be distributed. So the relevant right belongs to the person giving the money, not the person receiving it. That same dynamic should apply while a person is alive.


"State intervention levels the playing field so that everyone really does have access to opportuniyy ."

A claim you parrot, but do not seriously address, and one that I greatly question. How much state intervention did Hong Kong, its heyday, or Taiwan provide? While purporting to do so (thereby gaining votes for the re-distributionists), it reduces opportunities, particularly, I would say, for young people without marketable skills other than a willingness to work. For example, raising minimum wage encourages automation, thereby reducing a range of entry level jobs.

Being disadvantaged in some way or other in no way excludes you from embracing opportunities that are available to you. True, you may not have the opportunity for, say, a college education- well there are many forms of education in this world. For example my husband chose the considerable opportunity offered by the US Army (ok, he got a degree later, while on active duty, a degree for which he has little respect, but it was needed for advancement). Frankly, I don't believe there are a surplus of skilled machinists and plumbers, at least in the USA.

I agree, poverty is a problem- we may disagree on what constitutes poverty. America's poor generally have more in the way of material possessions and access to a range of benefits than most people in the world would envy. The lack of opportunity is certainly correlated with poverty, but is far from the only contributor. No, it is not that America's poor WANT to be "dirt poor"- but neither, for the most part, do they want to take those sustained actions necessary to alleviate their poverty. Well with the cradle to grave welfare state, why should they make the hard changes required to improve themselves? By and large, America's poor- and not so poor- are perfectly happy to live off the wealth generated by others, and I submit that that attitude is a major reason why poverty spans generations in the USA.


I do notice you didn't bother to answer the question I asked you about why an adult, by virtue of his or her existence, is entitled to the benefit of someone else's work. I will hazard a guess you prefer to avoid such issues, on the grounds that addressing them would cause you to question your world view. Since your claim lacks any specificity, I can only wonder what "evidence" you think I "interpreted according to [my] own ideology."

In closing, capitalism has been the greatest wealth generator in the history of humanity- can you point to anything that comes close? To the extent it is allowed to flourish, societies prosper. True, people will share in its bounty unequally- so be it. That is superior- morally, as well as economically- than an economic system such as you advocate, based on plundering the wealth of those who create it. Like a great many people on the Internet, you show every sign of not wanting to carefully consider your positions. Well I'm sure life is easier that way.

 

[Goldenfinger]

I'm assuming your friend was still able to pay his rent though? And so were a lot of other people. There's a fair bit of research that shows that raising the minimum wage is good for the economy, because people who have next to nothing spend everything they have with (usually local) business, rather than putting it into places where it does the local economy little-to-no good.

Automation would be happening regardless. That's a red herring. The 'ideal' of automation was that we'd all have to work less, while money was still being generated that we could all benefit from. Unfortunately the second part of that equation (which relies on something resembling 'trickle down' economics - which turns out to be a load of arse) never quite happens.

If rents are becoming untenable, the state needs to put in some form of control. The ways in which property owners make profit from their capital AND from the rent they charge is woefully undertaxed, and the rental market is woefully under-regulated. (I'm talking about the local context here - I'm not sure if this is the case in the US.)

Thank You for your articulate comments. I do like to read other opinion besides my own and add my 2¢. I do so far too infrequently because there are too many keyboard warriors that jump you with vulgar responses.

I do believe in trickle down economics. I think everything is like that. I own a business (I don’t) I hire people and pay them a fair wage in regards to the skill level of the work. I get contracts to do work I pay my people, they pay their people who pay their people. It’s also the same with taxes. Who ever is at the end of the chain pays.