The rhetoric of the minimum wage

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Then Liberals raise the hue and cry for more taxes to help the less fortunate who can't find jobs...

 

[OrcishBarbarian]

Most of the cost of a new home is in the labor to build it. If wages went up, wouldn't the price of the house go up?

Considering how much the price of houses has gone up in the past ten years, I think the homebuilders can afford it.

If I were in charge, one of the first steps I'd take is banning any kind of zoning restrictions or other local official bias against manufactured housing. That alone would knock construction prices down. When you want to buy a car, you don't have Ford or Toyota come out to your driveway and assemble it there. They build it in a factory. Housing could likewise be assembled, at least in large part.

 

[OrcishBarbarian]

Then Liberals raise the hue and cry for more taxes to help the less fortunate who can't find jobs...

I know, I know...we'll just turn them into crunchy green wafers!

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Sweet, upscale trailor parks!

 

[Cheyenne]

Sweet, upscale trailor parks!

NIMBY!

 

[SleepingWarrior]

I know, I know...we'll just turn them into crunchy green wafers!

Well... we could use our dead to end world hunger....

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

OB, What happens to the accumulated weath of the evil rich CEO?

Well, Bill Gates put his into a charitable trust.

Paris Hilton is spending hers.

It's not a problem.

 

[Ishmael]

Because things have changed since the 1770s, that's why.

Because uncontrolled capitalism didn't work. That's why we got communism in the Soviet Union and China. That's why America wisely decided to meet Marx halfway. We kept private ownership and free-market economics, but also established social welfare programs and the minimum wage.

If you want to argue that welfare is imperfect, you'll get no quarrel from me. Lots of room for improvement. And if you want to say that some people are taking the minimum wage concept too far (like cities that want a "living wage" in the $10 an hour area), I likewise concur.

But if we can pay a CEO $67.5 million, we can pay a burger-flipper $6.75 an hour. That's $14,040 a year. The CEO's pay still exceeds the burger-flipper's by a factor of 4,807. I think that's enough incentive.

How have things changed since the 1770's? I see no change. I see technological progress, but I see no underlying change in human needs or behavior. None at all so you'd best get really detailed on this alledged 'change.'

What do you mean by 'control?'

You still haven't bothered to look into CEO renumeration. You say 'pay' like it's a salary. List those CEO's with a salary of 67 million. Just one. Or one anywhere near that 67 million. You can't, he/she doesn't exist. Only in the minds of those that don't understand how it all works, and won't take the time to find out how it does.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Well I stand corrected. Europe outside of England has a high unemployment rate.

That's because their unemployment rate is measured differently than in the United States. Going by the same standards, the US unemployment rate is almost equal to theirs.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Now the question is, who will make better spending decisions in regards to helping those who truly need it; the Gates Foundation, or Congress?

Bill's a helluva lot smarter than Nancy.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

How have things changed since the 1770's? I see no change. I see technological progress, but I see no underlying change in human needs or behavior. None at all so you'd best get really detailed on this alledged 'change.'

What do you mean by 'control?'

You still haven't bothered to look into CEO renumeration. You say 'pay' like it's a salary. List those CEO's with a salary of 67 million. Just one. Or one anywhere near that 67 million. You can't, he/she doesn't exist. Only in the minds of those that don't understand how it all works, and won't take the time to find out how it does.

Ishmael

The "change" is on the social level with more people expecting to live beyond their means and for the government to ensure that "right".

 

[kbate]

If we really want to target something to help the poorest of the poor, it's housing and health care costs that need to be controlled. Considering how much land and timber America has, it's absurd how much a simple home costs. And the health care industry has been making a killing--how many years now have health care costs risen at two, three, even four times the rate of inflation?

Availability of land and timber have nothing to do with home costs because most people do not wish to live in the middle of America's vast forests. People wish to live where they can work and that is normally near a population center where land is no longer plentiful and cheap.

Health care is another completely separate problem, one which in time is going to be addressed by a new income tax of about 10% or a national sales tax of 1%.

 

[kbate]

Now the question is, who will make better spending decisions in regards to helping those who truly need it; the Gates Foundation, or Congress?

Bill's a helluva lot smarter than Nancy.

Bill controls about 8 billion. Nancy controls about 2.2 trillion. I think Nancy's decisions will have a little more impact.

 

[Ishmael]

The "change" is on the social level with more people expecting to live beyond their means and for the government to ensure that "right".

That isn't a change SW. It was the basis of the entire fuedal economy. There has always been a group out there who would willingly live off the backs of others. The issue has always been the means used to achieve that objective.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[Cheyenne]

Bill controls about 8 billion. Nancy controls about 2.2 trillion. I think Nancy's decisions will have a little more impact.

That wasn't the question, who will have more impact. It was who is smarter?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Wow, all this whining about the working class getting a wage increase and not one word about Republican Congressmen voting themselves a taxpayer funded pay raise, or CEOs voting themselves a pay raise while laying people off.

No wonder you morons lost Congress.

 

[OrcishBarbarian]

How have things changed since the 1770's? I see no change. I see technological progress, but I see no underlying change in human needs or behavior. None at all so you'd best get really detailed on this alledged 'change.'

Okay...here you go. We had this thing called the Industrial Revolution. It changed the way people labor...from individual labor on farms to people leaving their homes and assembling en masse in central locations to work. This made a new class of super-rich and also an impoverished class.

In response to this, some (most notably Marx and Engels) proposed that production in these new factories be placed into the hands of the State, and the proceeds distributed equally to all. An asshat idea, to be sure, but going to bed hungry most nights while a handful of elite sleep in palaces can dull peoples' sense of logic. So the working classes revolted in some places to try Marx's idea. We all know how well full-blown Marxism worked.

Over here in America, we recognized that, although Marx's idea was unworkable and coiunterproductive, the man did have a point on the whole distribution of wealth thingie. So, we decided to moderate the sharp edges of industrial capitalism, taxing the super rich while helping the destitute and hungry. This way we could have social stability while also keeping the general idea of a market-based economy.

That sum it up for you?

You still haven't bothered to look into CEO renumeration. You say 'pay' like it's a salary. List those CEO's with a salary of 67 million. Just one. Or one anywhere near that 67 million. You can't, he/she doesn't exist. Only in the minds of those that don't understand how it all works, and won't take the time to find out how it does.

Ishmael

Call it salary, investment income, honoraria, vigorish, whatever--the fact is the rich make several thousand times what the poor make. Having the poor make a little more so the gap is 4000 to one instead of 5000 to one isn't going to kill us. We're not going to see the Soviet flag flying over the White House.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

That isn't a change SW. It was the basis of the entire fuedal economy. There has always been a group out there who would willingly live off the backs of others. The issue has always been the means used to achieve that objective.

Ishmael

Its the prevelence of that that has increased or maybe the acceptance of it. Back in the early years of this country people were proud to "just get by" and if a crop was lost they just tightened their belt and worked even harder the coming spring. Now very few are willing to tighten their belts and work for a better tomorrow.

 

[OrcishBarbarian]

That isn't a change SW. It was the basis of the entire fuedal economy. There has always been a group out there who would willingly live off the backs of others. The issue has always been the means used to achieve that objective.

Ishmael

Yes...we call these people "Fortune 500 CEOs," who like to prance around acting like they hit a home run when most were born on third base.

 

[kbate]

Because uncontrolled capitalism didn't work. That's why we got communism in the Soviet Union and China. That's why America wisely decided to meet Marx halfway. We kept private ownership and free-market economics, but also established social welfare programs and the minimum wage.

We didn't get social retirement because capitalism was not working. We got it because FDR was a Marxist socialist who kept the depression running strong by keeping taxes at levels that drove investment capital into cash and hiding places rather than into the market where it could create jobs.

He preferred the concentration camp labour of the CCCs and the soup kitchens of the cities to allowing the market to recover. Without Hitler and Tojo to stir up a war, America would have gone the way of the Soviet Union - poverty for all but FDR's select.

 

[kbate]

That wasn't the question, who will have more impact. It was who is smarter?

In a free market economy - one could argue that Nancy has put her self in a position to control more because she is the smarter.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

In a free market economy - one could argue that Nancy has put her self in a position to control more because she is the smarter.

I'd still go with the person who actually earned the money they are in control of as being "smarter". Being given access to large sums of money is not the same as earning it.

 

[Ishmael]

Okay...here you go. We had this thing called the Industrial Revolution. It changed the way people labor...from individual labor on farms to people leaving their homes and assembling en masse in central locations to work. This made a new class of super-rich and also an impoverished class.

In response to this, some (most notably Marx and Engels) proposed that production in these new factories be placed into the hands of the State, and the proceeds distributed equally to all. An asshat idea, to be sure, but going to bed hungry most nights while a handful of elite sleep in palaces can dull peoples' sense of logic. So the working classes revolted in some places to try Marx's idea. We all know how well full-blown Marxism worked.

Over here in America, we recognized that, although Marx's idea was unworkable and coiunterproductive, the man did have a point on the whole distribution of wealth thingie. So, we decided to moderate the sharp edges of industrial capitalism, taxing the super rich while helping the destitute and hungry. This way we could have social stability while also keeping the general idea of a market-based economy.

That sum it up for you?



Call it salary, investment income, honoraria, vigorish, whatever--the fact is the rich make several thousand times what the poor make. Having the poor make a little more so the gap is 4000 to one instead of 5000 to one isn't going to kill us. We're not going to see the Soviet flag flying over the White House.

I've already acknowledged the technological changes. Is that the best you can do?

As an incentive to increase shareholders value/earnings, CEO's are allowed to participate with stock options. The calue of those options are tied to the CEO's performance. You can call it a commision if you want. But it's NOT money. And it's NOT taxable until they divest. And those options are but a VERY small fractions of a percentage of the stock in circulation. Stock owned by individuals, Teachers Unions, Firefighter Unions, retirement funds both public and private. All of whom which benefited from the labors of this man/woman that certain individuals want to vilify.

When you see a CEO getting a big bonus you should be researching the stock to see how wise an investment it is, not bitching about the guy that made it possible for millions to share the wealth.

Ishmael