Minimum wage argument

[HereWeGoAgain]

Then move to the closest socialist country. Problem solved.

Nah, we just need to fix this one. Another area where corporations have way too much control over our government.

And how would that solve the problem? You WANT workers here making $5 a week?

You know I've lived and worked in a right to work state all my life. Never had a union job and started at the bottom of the pile.
Yet I retired at 46.
So what the ***** your problem? I mean I'm no genius and if I can get ahead anyone can.
I think people are so afraid of failure that they slip into the easy way out in mediocrity and never get out of it. Or they join a union.

 

[tooAlive]

Then move to the closest socialist country. Problem solved.

Nah, we just need to fix this one. Another area where corporations have way too much control over our government.

And how would that solve the problem? You WANT workers here making $5 a week?

If the government wasn't nearly as powerful, they wouldn't have to buy it.

You apparently want to fix the issue by giving the government even more power. Do you honestly think they will do stuff to benefit the poor workers, when the corporations have BILLIONS invested in the government?

C'mon.

 

[dblack]

ALL private industries are colluding to hold wages down.

Is that meant to be taken seriously? Or were you just engaging in hyperbole to make a point?

Where there is collusion, especially if it's backed up by law (which almost any lasting collusion is), then we should root out who is involved and fix it. Punishing everyone for the crimes of some isn't justice.

 

[candycorn]

You have not given enough information to answer the question.. but like a typical progressive, you just want an arbitrary number than either makes you feel good or that you can use to mocjk the person who posted it

Not playing your silly reindeer game

A guy installs a desktop computer. Keyboard, mouse, speakers, monitor, CPU... On a desk.

What more information do you need?

It was in Scottsdale, Arizona lets say.

From the looks of it you need a lot more information.

First of all, a CPU does not go on a desk. The CPU is relatively small chip that goes installed on the motherboard. The motherboard sits inside a case. Inside the case you will also find a power supply, hard drive(s), ram, possibly a dedicated video card(s), optical drive(s), a heatsink to cool the processor (CPU), and added fans to move hot air outside the case.

They are all connected to the motherboard.

Not everyone knows how to connect them, or how to troubleshoot a machine that isn't working. So I'd assume that those that do know would charge more for their knowledge and expertise.

Personally, I'd charge in the neighborhood of ~$100+ an hour.

Thanks for the info and the answer.

 

[candycorn]

That's not really on topic. We can argue about collusion laws if you like, but let's do it in another thread. I'm for, or against them, depending on how they're framed.

Anyway, you still don't seem to grasp my point. What someone else "should" be paid is none of my business (nor yours, nor the government's). It's an agreement between two people, nothing more. Neither should be forced into, or prohibited from, such an agreement by the state.

Ahh...so if it benefits the employer, you're willing to hear it. If it benefits the employee...it's needless governemtn intervention. I see.

What are you talking about?

See bolded part above.

You're against a wage floor for employees (i.e. minimum wage).
You don't seem to be so gung ho about employers colluding (i.e. for or against).

Again, if you're against an artificially (sp?) low wage being set, please tell me why if you for an artificially high (giggle) minimum wage being set. In both cases it's the government telling private industry how much to pay for labor, right?

 

[candycorn]

Then move to the closest socialist country. Problem solved.

Nah, we just need to fix this one. Another area where corporations have way too much control over our government.

And how would that solve the problem? You WANT workers here making $5 a week?

I guess they like paying for people to be on public assistance...dunno

 

[dblack]

Ahh...so if it benefits the employer, you're willing to hear it. If it benefits the employee...it's needless governemtn intervention. I see.

What are you talking about?

See bolded part above.

You're against a wage floor for employees (i.e. minimum wage).
You don't seem to be so gung ho about employers colluding (i.e. for or against).

Again, if you're against an artificially (sp?) low wage being set, please tell me why if you for an artificially high (giggle) minimum wage being set. In both cases it's the government telling private industry how much to pay for labor, right?

Well, like I said, collusion has nothing to do with the topic. But given that you seem to have no understanding or interest in the actual topic, and since most here don't get my point anyway, I'll play:

Voluntary collusion is fine. If a group of business owners want to get together and agree to cap the wages they offer, they should be free to do so. Of course, any company that wants to come along and scoop up their best talent, by offering higher wages, is free to do so as well.

On the other side, employees should be free to unionize and do the same thing - they can agree to not work for less than a certain amount. But, like with the business's collusion above, anyone who wants to undercut the union's colluded wages should be free to do so.

Anyway, you seem more interested in putting words in my mouth and playing other nonsensical games than having a serious discussion. If you can't stay on topic, or refrain from building strawmen, I'll not bother responding. Thanks.

 

[FA_Q2]

Something that seems to be glossed over in all this is the fact that minimum wage is a rather meaningless idea. Supporters seem to think that paying someone more for an identical product means that the worker ends up better off. This is flat out false.

The reality is that the dollar has no value other than the vale that the market assigns it. IOW, when it takes X dollars to produce a product and the investors in such production expect some ROI, that product's cost is set. As you demand more money be paid for the creation of said product, the cost raises and the workers end up in the EXACT same position with more paper in their pocket.

You feel good for awhile as the prices in the market adjust but in the end, you are in the same place. I fail to see how this concept is so damn hard for people to understand. It does not matter if you make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour, the people that work at McDonalds, sweep the floor and sell magazines are all going to be poor. they are not poor because of some bullshit arbitrary number you assign as the minimum wage. They are poor because the products that they produce and the number of available people that can produce them. The burger flipper can be replaced at any time by anyone, takes less than 15 minutes of training to be effective and produces a product that has little to no value. Paying him 100 dollars an hour does not change this. It just changes the end value of that dollar. The execs are not going to loose money on such a deal. Instead they are going to make more too as the products that are produced cost more.


You arbitrary numbers and minimum wage ideas are meaningless in the long run. There are always going to be people that are poor because they are replaceable and they do not produce products of value. Simple as that.

 

[dblack]

Something that seems to be glossed over in all this is the fact that minimum wage is a rather meaningless idea. Supporters seem to think that paying someone more for an identical product means that the worker ends up better off. This is flat out false.

The reality is that the dollar has no value other than the vale that the market assigns it. IOW, when it takes X dollars to produce a product and the investors in such production expect some ROI, that product's cost is set. As you demand more money be paid for the creation of said product, the cost raises and the workers end up in the EXACT same position with more paper in their pocket.

You feel good for awhile as the prices in the market adjust but in the end, you are in the same place. I fail to see how this concept is so damn hard for people to understand. It does not matter if you make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour, the people that work at McDonalds, sweep the floor and sell magazines are all going to be poor. they are not poor because of some bullshit arbitrary number you assign as the minimum wage. They are poor because the products that they produce and the number of available people that can produce them. The burger flipper can be replaced at any time by anyone, takes less than 15 minutes of training to be effective and produces a product that has little to no value. Paying him 100 dollars an hour does not change this. It just changes the end value of that dollar. The execs are not going to loose money on such a deal. Instead they are going to make more too as the products that are produced cost more.


You arbitrary numbers and minimum wage ideas are meaningless in the long run. There are always going to be people that are poor because they are replaceable and they do not produce products of value. Simple as that.

Exactly. Essentially these laws deny anyone unable to meet a minimum level of productivity the right to work.

 

[candycorn]

What are you talking about?

See bolded part above.

You're against a wage floor for employees (i.e. minimum wage).
You don't seem to be so gung ho about employers colluding (i.e. for or against).

Again, if you're against an artificially (sp?) low wage being set, please tell me why if you for an artificially high (giggle) minimum wage being set. In both cases it's the government telling private industry how much to pay for labor, right?

Well, like I said, collusion has nothing to do with the topic. But given that you seem to have no understanding or interest in the actual topic, and since most here don't get my point anyway, I'll play:

Voluntary collusion is fine. If a group of business owners want to get together and agree to cap the wages they offer, they should be free to do so. Of course, any company that wants to come along and scoop up their best talent, by offering higher wages, is free to do so as well.

On the other side, employees should be free to unionize and do the same thing - they can agree to not work for less than a certain amount. But, like with the business's collusion above, anyone who wants to undercut the union's colluded wages should be free to do so.

Anyway, you seem more interested in putting words in my mouth and playing other nonsensical games than having a serious discussion. If you can't stay on topic, or refrain from building strawmen, I'll not bother responding. Thanks.

Didn't put words in your mouth....just asked you to take the other side of the argument. Both are governmental interventions. You have no problem with employers all colluding to keep the price of labor artificially low and you have no problem with employees colluding to keep the price of labor artificially high. At least you're honest about it. Good show.

One other question, the example was skilled labor; registered nursing. If Wal*Mart wanted (in some small towns the largest employer) to pay $1.50 an hour to it's associates, if I understand you correctly, you'd be fine with that; right?

 

[candycorn]

Something that seems to be glossed over in all this is the fact that minimum wage is a rather meaningless idea. Supporters seem to think that paying someone more for an identical product means that the worker ends up better off. This is flat out false.

The reality is that the dollar has no value other than the vale that the market assigns it. IOW, when it takes X dollars to produce a product and the investors in such production expect some ROI, that product's cost is set. As you demand more money be paid for the creation of said product, the cost raises and the workers end up in the EXACT same position with more paper in their pocket.

You feel good for awhile as the prices in the market adjust but in the end, you are in the same place. I fail to see how this concept is so damn hard for people to understand. It does not matter if you make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour, the people that work at McDonalds, sweep the floor and sell magazines are all going to be poor. they are not poor because of some bullshit arbitrary number you assign as the minimum wage. They are poor because the products that they produce and the number of available people that can produce them. The burger flipper can be replaced at any time by anyone, takes less than 15 minutes of training to be effective and produces a product that has little to no value. Paying him 100 dollars an hour does not change this. It just changes the end value of that dollar. The execs are not going to loose money on such a deal. Instead they are going to make more too as the products that are produced cost more.


You arbitrary numbers and minimum wage ideas are meaningless in the long run. There are always going to be people that are poor because they are replaceable and they do not produce products of value. Simple as that.

So why not raise it to $9.00 an hour if it doesn't matter in the end?

 

[dblack]

See bolded part above.

You're against a wage floor for employees (i.e. minimum wage).
You don't seem to be so gung ho about employers colluding (i.e. for or against).

Again, if you're against an artificially (sp?) low wage being set, please tell me why if you for an artificially high (giggle) minimum wage being set. In both cases it's the government telling private industry how much to pay for labor, right?

Well, like I said, collusion has nothing to do with the topic. But given that you seem to have no understanding or interest in the actual topic, and since most here don't get my point anyway, I'll play:

Voluntary collusion is fine. If a group of business owners want to get together and agree to cap the wages they offer, they should be free to do so. Of course, any company that wants to come along and scoop up their best talent, by offering higher wages, is free to do so as well.

On the other side, employees should be free to unionize and do the same thing - they can agree to not work for less than a certain amount. But, like with the business's collusion above, anyone who wants to undercut the union's colluded wages should be free to do so.

Anyway, you seem more interested in putting words in my mouth and playing other nonsensical games than having a serious discussion. If you can't stay on topic, or refrain from building strawmen, I'll not bother responding. Thanks.

You have no problem with employers all colluding to keep the price of labor artificially low and you have no problem with employees colluding to keep the price of labor artificially high. At least you're honest about it. Good show.

Right, but neither should be able to employ coercion, whether via state sponsored laws or mob action - and that's currently what goes on at both levels. The unions lobby for special legal perks, and the business do likewise. That's the aspect that bothers me. We are creating a government that no longer protects universal rights but hands out special privilege instead.

One other question, the example was skilled labor; registered nursing. If Wal*Mart wanted (in some small towns the largest employer) to pay $1.50 an hour to it's associates, if I understand you correctly, you'd be fine with that; right?

Sure. Though I doubt they'd have much luck finding people to work for that much. Depends on the market I suppose.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Sure. Though I doubt they'd have much luck finding people to work for that much. Depends on the market I suppose.

And if they're the largest or only employer of means in town? Are you ok with government picking up the slack with food stamps and section 8 housing, since no one can remotely live on $1.50/hour? And when all the other businesses that actually survive Wal-Mart moving into town lower their wages to match Wal-Mart's what then? Then you have a whole town making slavery wages. What do you do then?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

If the government wasn't nearly as powerful, they wouldn't have to buy it.

You apparently want to fix the issue by giving the government even more power. Do you honestly think they will do stuff to benefit the poor workers, when the corporations have BILLIONS invested in the government?

C'mon.

No, the government was SUPPOSED to work for and protect the people. The corporations have paid big money to control the government it to ensure that the government now protects THEM from us. Just look at the Monsanto case being heard by the Supreme Court right now.

 

[dblack]

Sure. Though I doubt they'd have much luck finding people to work for that much. Depends on the market I suppose.

And if they're the largest or only employer of means in town? Are you ok with government picking up the slack with food stamps and section 8 housing, since no one can remotely live on $1.50/hour? And when all the other businesses that actually survive Wal-Mart moving into town lower their wages to match Wal-Mart's what then? Then you have a whole town making slavery wages. What do you do then?

That's a pretty ridiculous scenario. I started trying to answer your questions, but it's a pointless exercise.

 

[dblack]

If the government wasn't nearly as powerful, they wouldn't have to buy it.

You apparently want to fix the issue by giving the government even more power. Do you honestly think they will do stuff to benefit the poor workers, when the corporations have BILLIONS invested in the government?

C'mon.

No, the government was SUPPOSED to work for and protect the people. The corporations have paid big money to control the government it to ensure that the government now protects THEM from us. Just look at the Monsanto case being heard by the Supreme Court right now.

Right. I actually agree with this. Which is why I find it astounding that so many of you want to give government ever-more power to dictate how we live our lives. Have you notice the direction that's going?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Right. I actually agree with this. Which is why I find it astounding that so many of you want to give government ever-more power to dictate how we live our lives. Have you notice the direction that's going?

We do not want to "give" government ever more power. We want to take back the government control from corporate interests & the moneyed puppetmasters. We do not want a plutocracy. The government is not some phantom entitiy... it is us. WE need to protect ourselves from the private sector. Right now, the private sector has hijacked our own government to insulate itself against US, and well, you can see what dire straits that has gotten us into.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

That's a pretty ridiculous scenario. I started trying to answer your questions, but it's a pointless exercise.

How so? What exactly do you think would happen in this scenario if the minimum wage suddenly did not exist, pray tell? Hint... wages most CERTAINLY would not go up. And if they don't go up, and everyone is now working for less and less, what exactly do you think will happen? People have to have food and shelter to survive. You take away the minimum to get that in any area, what do you think will happen?

 

[dblack]

Right. I actually agree with this. Which is why I find it astounding that so many of you want to give government ever-more power to dictate how we live our lives. Have you notice the direction that's going?

We do not want to "give" government ever more power. We want to take back the government control from corporate interests & the moneyed puppetmasters. We do not want a plutocracy. The government is not some phantom entitiy... it is us. WE need to protect ourselves from the private sector. Right now, the private sector has hijacked our own government to insulate itself against US, and well, you can see what dire straits that has gotten us into.

Yeah. Well, that's one narrative I suppose. Frankly, I'm getting sort of tired of making the case. Most people seem to agree with you; that the solution to bad government is more government. I'm pretty sure we're pushing headlong into a corporatist hellhole. Probably the best any of us can do is step aside and watch it burn. I sure don't see much resistance. Most of you are cheering for it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Right. I actually agree with this. Which is why I find it astounding that so many of you want to give government ever-more power to dictate how we live our lives. Have you notice the direction that's going?

We do not want to "give" government ever more power. We want to take back the government control from corporate interests & the moneyed puppetmasters. We do not want a plutocracy. The government is not some phantom entitiy... it is us. WE need to protect ourselves from the private sector. Right now, the private sector has hijacked our own government to insulate itself against US, and well, you can see what dire straits that has gotten us into.

But in looking for that what you really attaining is giving government and, by extension, the companies that have purchased it power and not the people.

Campaign financing laws do nothing to change this. it only pushes more of it into the background. Idiotic bureaucracies like the new 'consumer' protection agency actually created this problem in the first place. I find it difficult to understand why you and other seem to be unable to grasp the reality in giving government such powers. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no way around this basic truth. Look at what happens after these agencies and laws that are supposedly 'protecting' us. Who wins out with the new healthcare requirements. Sure is not the people. It is the insurance companies that now have a customer that is required by law to purchase their product. How are the big banks doing now that they are subject to all those onerous regulations that are going to protect us from them? They are bigger and more powerful than they ever were.

This is what happens when you give agencies so much damn power. It does not matter if it is the corporations that you give power to or the government. It ends up the same with the people controlling the system consolidating power for themselves and lording over the rest of us.

Simply put, you cannot return power to the people by giving that power to something else. Be that something the government or not, you are not going to gain that power or control back for the people when you are actively relinquishing it. It has been shown over and over and over again right here in this country not to mention history.