Obama wants to raise the minimum wage when we're on the verge of a second recession?

[Bern80]

The GOP has gotten their wish. With the sequester, we most certainly will head for a second recession. Yup, they have finally crashed the economy. It is too bad they couldn't get it done before Obama was re-elected...so sad.

Other way around. The dems get what they want. They get to mask they fact that they can't control their spending by blaming Republicans for not compromising. The budget sheet that our federal government has would be unacceptable in any other facet of society. A private business could never afford to be as financially irresponsible as the government, nor could a personl household. But no, dems say the federal government doesn't have a spending problem. It just needs more money. The dems are just blowing smoke because the fact is they don't want to cut spending.

We are past the point where we can make minor tweaks and fix this mess. A meat cleaver needs to be taken to federal spending. This has to be fixed primarily on the spending side, not the revenue side because spending is what we can actually change the most. You can't raise taxes enough to fix this problem.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obama the slickster...The Senate passed a bill giving the POTUS discretion on which items can be cut due to the sequester.
Not wanting to take ANY responsibility, presumably wanting to have ammunition to blame the GOP, has threatened to veto such a bill.
Obama is the nation's best ever politician. And it's worst ever statesman.
Obama Threatens Veto of GOP Sequester Bill | Defense News | defensenews.com

 

[Dubya]

I red first 4 pages and since things started repeating I'll just skip to the rest and give my opinion.

Maybe a year ago I stated on this forum, minimum wage should be a zero. Yeah, ZERO.

Why? Here is why: Min. wage increase always reduce number of jobs and increase unemployment, especially among young and unskilled. Raising min. wage also increase control over the access to available jobs.

I've never seen min. wage to be applied to high skilled jobs and it will never be. It's always set for the "introductory level" jobs, or trainees and it never stays at that level. Those tho are worth keeping get promoted and higher wage, those who are not productive are let go. If you understand this part, then you will most likely agree that what sets the wage is simply - marketplace. If there is demand for one kind of job, wage for that kind of labor will go up. If is too expensive to pay for worker's wage, worker will either lose the job or get lower wage.
If you involve government and artificially enforce higher pay, what will happen? Your work become more expensive for the employer, and if is not high demanding job (that is as I said above never paid low), you're most likely lose it.

Someone said that some states have higher min. wage then federal. If you look for those states you'll also find out that in those states the market sets pay at a higher wage than the laws demand. If your work is not worth how much government (or union) demand to pay for it, you become burden for the employer, simple as that.

Min. wage is subsidy to young, inexperienced, or unskilled workers that gov't levied on small businesses, just like the tax increase and every time gov't increase min. wage, unemployment rise as well. There could be short term benefit to those who get pay increase, but it wont last or it will last as long the employer find the solution to make up for the loses.

M2c.

Minimum wage applies to all jobs, even high skill jobs. Having minimum wage too low is a subsidy to the business allowed to get away with it and requires social programs to make up the difference.

Yet I would like to see high skilled to accept minimum wage.

Oh, do you know what subsidy is?

Do you know what meaning is?

 

[Dubya]

None of my questions have anything to do with the employee fulfilling their job duties. Please answer my questions. How will you justify paying to of your employees that are of equal merit that do the same job, different wages? Ho do you morally justify the fact that someone else must earn for themselves plus you that which you think you are owed from them for the most basic of tasks?


P.S. Listen to yourself. You're practically making my argument. All I have to do is substitute a couple of words. "Unless someone sucks at everything don't you think just making minimum wage all the time might teach them to do something that earns more than minimum wage?" The attitude that it's your employers duty to provide you enough to live on is the attitude that has to change.

Listen to yourself and translate that shit into English!

Is there something about the questions you don't understand?

Yes, the words you type.

 

[Dubya]

What the **** are you talking about? None of this even remotely answers the above questions.The business is paying for labor, based on the market rate for that skill set. Try again. Hint: Maybe try taking it one question at a time.

The market rate for minimum wage is what the minimum wage is. If labor isn't making a business money, then the business isn't going to survive by paying below minimum wage. Even slaves were given room and board so they could survive. Should a business survive by starving off a segment of the population? The taxpayer shouldn't assist a failed business model by subsidizing it with social programs.

There is no 'market rate' for minimum wage. There can't be. It is an artificial number set by the government. Not those participating in the labor market. I labor isn't making money there are one to two problem. Labor is being misallocated by management or labor isn't doing its job. In either case lowering wages would never be the solution. The taxpayer should not assist YOU just because you aren't willing to hold yourself to a higher standard. Again if you're going to make up this really crappy scenarios make sure they're grounded somewhat in reality.

Start reading you posts and editing out the nonsense, meaning errors. I can't read the crap you're writing.

 

[Bern80]

Listen to yourself and translate that shit into English!

Is there something about the questions you don't understand?

Yes, the words you type.

Yes, I type too fast sometimes. Anyway here you go.....again.

How will you justify paying two of your employees that are of equal merit, that do the same job, different wages?

How do you morally justify the fact that someone else must earn for themselves plus you that which you think you are owed from them to live on?

 

[Nika2013]

True..and the poor would spend it...They must...Good answer..Addressed to Lahkota's first post..

And...Grandpa..you would benefit by having people buy your product or service with more money circulating...

 

[Dubya]

Is there something about the questions you don't understand?

Yes, the words you type.

Yes, I type too fast sometimes. Anyway here you go.....again.

How will you justify paying two of your employees that are of equal merit, that do the same job, different wages?

How do you morally justify the fact that someone else must earn for themselves plus you that which you think you are owed from them to live on?

We are talking about minimum wage jobs, so how do you come up with different wages? Are you talking about the differences in the cost of living throughout the country? If so, life is still a requirement to do a job. Wages tend to follow the cost of living of the area where the employees are working.

On your second question, are you saying it's the owner who does the earning and not the workers? Again, we are talking about minimum wage jobs and usually one employer isn't going to work his employees 2,000 hours per year, because the employer wants to call them up to fill in for someone calling off sick or not showing up. Wages set at the poverty level for 2,000 hours per year are not high wages and a business can function paying that much for labor.

You people who object to minimum wage increases say all kinds of things that don't really apply. Almost every minimum wage job has basic requirements that must mastered. You keep acting like someone who can only run a cash register or make hamburgers half as fast can be paid half the rate and it will work. It doesn't work that way on jobs. The customers aren't going to want to wait twice as long in line or twice as long to get a hamburger. There isn't usually room to have twice the people doing a job slowly. You may consider all those jobs unskilled, but many require abilities, that everybody doesn't possess.

 

[Bern80]

We are talking about minimum wage jobs, so how do you come up with different wages? Are you talking about the differences in the cost of living throughout the country? If so, life is still a requirement to do a job. Wages tend to follow the cost of living of the area where the employees are working.

What I am trying to point out to you is you are arguing for a living wage. To me that means enough for a person to live on. So figure it out some time. What would your expenses be just to survive? Do you really think that's going to be the same things for any two people? And I'm not talking about two people with the same job in two different parts of the country. I'm talking about two employees that have the same job, are of the same merit, that work for the same employer in the same place. Let's take two production workers that work for the same company I do. They both have the same job requirements. They are both equally proficient at it. One of those people is a single mother of two. The other is a single male. Obviously the mother of two requires more money to meet the needs of herself and here children then the single male. People are going to have different living expenses as well. One person will have to pay a mortgage and property taxes while another may be a renter. One will live further from work than another and thus require more gas money. It goes on and on. These are the logistical things I am talking about that make a well intended idea immoral. Rarely are you going to be able to come up with one figure that is going to cover everyone's basic needs and no more. Thus the premise of my original question. To meet your demand that everyone make a living wage, I see no way to meet that without having to pay two people (or more) different wages for the same work. Again, how do either a) get around the obvious moral problem with that or b) how do you justify that requirment of your position?

On your second question, are you saying it's the owner who does the earning and not the workers? Again, we are talking about minimum wage jobs and usually one employer isn't going to work his employees 2,000 hours per year, because the employer wants to call them up to fill in for someone calling off sick or not showing up. Wages set at the poverty level for 2,000 hours per year are not high wages and a business can function paying that much for labor.

My point is your argument is that everyone deserves enough to live on even for jobs that require the most basic of skill sets. The problem is for you to get what you say you deserve, someone else must earn that and more. They must hold themselves to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself to provide that which you say you deserve. There are all kinds of ways a person's income stream can be improved. What bothers me is you only advocate for solutions that require somoene else to give a person that extra income flow rather than advocate for the many things a person can do for themselves to improve their income flow.

You people who object to minimum wage increases say all kinds of things that don't really apply. Almost every minimum wage job has basic requirements that must mastered. You keep acting like someone who can only run a cash register or make hamburgers half as fast can be paid half the rate and it will work. It doesn't work that way on jobs. The customers aren't going to want to wait twice as long in line or twice as long to get a hamburger. There isn't usually room to have twice the people doing a job slowly. You may consider all those jobs unskilled, but many require abilities, that everybody doesn't possess.

They are, in part, indeed unskilled. It's also that the skills they do posses are common to a lot of people. That's why they get paid what they do. Again it goes back to supply and demand. If there is excess supply of something its cost goes down. Labor is no exception. Those jobs pay low wages because there is a surplus of people who can do it. If one person won't accept wages for that skill set, someone else will. One person may be trying to make enough to live on. Someone else may not need that much and will be fine with it. That is the beauty of the free market. Two parties can enter into whatever agreement they feel like without outside interference posing unneccessary rules. Who are you, as a third party, to get in the middle of agreed upon compensation between two parties? Maybe it isn't a living wage, but if it's fine with the employee, what business is it of yours? Why is an employer not allowed to pay as little as an employee will agree to?

 

[Katzndogz]

Some people don't need to earn a wage high enough to support a family. They are young and living at home. They are seniors who use a post retirment job to supplement their retirement or just keep busy. They are disabled intending to be useful.

Every time the minimum wage goes up employment participation goes down.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obama wants to see an increase in the minimum wage.
What is the president's reasoning to see this occur? Why is the President concerning himself with this issue?
What business is it of the executive branch of the federal government to interfere with the affairs of private sector businesses?

 

[Dubya]

We are talking about minimum wage jobs, so how do you come up with different wages? Are you talking about the differences in the cost of living throughout the country? If so, life is still a requirement to do a job. Wages tend to follow the cost of living of the area where the employees are working.

What I am trying to point out to you is you are arguing for a living wage. To me that means enough for a person to live on. So figure it out some time. What would your expenses be just to survive? Do you really think that's going to be the same things for any two people? And I'm not talking about two people with the same job in two different parts of the country. I'm talking about two employees that have the same job, are of the same merit, that work for the same employer in the same place. Let's take two production workers that work for the same company I do. They both have the same job requirements. They are both equally proficient at it. One of those people is a single mother of two. The other is a single male. Obviously the mother of two requires more money to meet the needs of herself and here children then the single male. People are going to have different living expenses as well. One person will have to pay a mortgage and property taxes while another may be a renter. One will live further from work than another and thus require more gas money. It goes on and on. These are the logistical things I am talking about that make a well intended idea immoral. Rarely are you going to be able to come up with one figure that is going to cover everyone's basic needs and no more. Thus the premise of my original question. To meet your demand that everyone make a living wage, I see no way to meet that without having to pay two people (or more) different wages for the same work. Again, how do either a) get around the obvious moral problem with that or b) how do you justify that requirment of your position?

On your second question, are you saying it's the owner who does the earning and not the workers? Again, we are talking about minimum wage jobs and usually one employer isn't going to work his employees 2,000 hours per year, because the employer wants to call them up to fill in for someone calling off sick or not showing up. Wages set at the poverty level for 2,000 hours per year are not high wages and a business can function paying that much for labor.

My point is your argument is that everyone deserves enough to live on even for jobs that require the most basic of skill sets. The problem is for you to get what you say you deserve, someone else must earn that and more. They must hold themselves to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself to provide that which you say you deserve. There are all kinds of ways a person's income stream can be improved. What bothers me is you only advocate for solutions that require somoene else to give a person that extra income flow rather than advocate for the many things a person can do for themselves to improve their income flow.

You people who object to minimum wage increases say all kinds of things that don't really apply. Almost every minimum wage job has basic requirements that must mastered. You keep acting like someone who can only run a cash register or make hamburgers half as fast can be paid half the rate and it will work. It doesn't work that way on jobs. The customers aren't going to want to wait twice as long in line or twice as long to get a hamburger. There isn't usually room to have twice the people doing a job slowly. You may consider all those jobs unskilled, but many require abilities, that everybody doesn't possess.

They are, in part, indeed unskilled. It's also that the skills they do posses are common to a lot of people. That's why they get paid what they do. Again it goes back to supply and demand. If there is excess supply of something its cost goes down. Labor is no exception. Those jobs pay low wages because there is a surplus of people who can do it. If one person won't accept wages for that skill set, someone else will. One person may be trying to make enough to live on. Someone else may not need that much and will be fine with it. That is the beauty of the free market. Two parties can enter into whatever agreement they feel like without outside interference posing unneccessary rules. Who are you, as a third party, to get in the middle of agreed upon compensation between two parties? Maybe it isn't a living wage, but if it's fine with the employee, what business is it of yours? Why is an employer not allowed to pay as little as an employee will agree to?

I don't give a shit what a living wage means to you and quote where I said I was arguing for a living wage! I said the minimum wage should be equivalent to the poverty level at 2,000 hours and adjusted to the true cost of living. I've pointed out many times that very few minimum wage workers will get 2,000 hours from one employer, so rarely will they ever receive overtime for working more than 40 hours per week. The amount of wages I suggested have been proven in the past to work for the American economy and that was back in the days when people were paid minimum wage to pump gas.

The rest of your bullshit statements ignore the reality that employers who hire minimum wage workers don't have a means to accommodate people who can't perform the job. Employers can't hire twice the people to make french fries and pay them half as much because they are slow. Employers can't have slow people operating cash registers, because the customers aren't going to put up with the hastle of someone being slow. They'll find another way to shop. You believe minimum wage jobs are unskilled, but how many people like you could actually hold down some of those jobs? It takes skill to quickly find the bar codes on all the products in a store. I'm not claiming most people can't do it, but some people can't do it fast enough to be acceptable. The fact is we need people doing those jobs and the people should be directly paid for their work and not paid substandard wages with taxpayers subsidizing the business.

You support the bullshit from the elites designed to preserve the value of their fortunes by suppressing wages, while I support what's best for the market. Work that is required will survive inflation even if the wages keep pace with inflation. The economy of the United States should be controlled to help the people and not the elites.

 

[Bern80]

I don't give a shit what a living wage means to you and quote where I said I was arguing for a living wage! I said the minimum wage should be equivalent to the poverty level at 2,000 hours and adjusted to the true cost of living. I've pointed out many times that very few minimum wage workers will get 2,000 hours from one employer, so rarely will they ever receive overtime for working more than 40 hours per week. The amount of wages I suggested have been proven in the past to work for the American economy and that was back in the days when people were paid minimum wage to pump gas.

Oh so now all of a sudden you disagree with Obama's statement that anyone working 40 hours a week should make enough to live on? Now you're just being a dishonest weasel because you know you're caught in a totally indefensible position. You know you can't answer the question so you'll just change the terms of the debate, huh? Well guess what you lying sack of shit. You have in fact been arguing for a LIVING wage:

Here, Post 331

but the point is if someone is buyng fast food they should be paying for it and the employee shouldn't be getting public assistance.

Obviously for a person to not be on public assistance they would need to be paid enough to live on.

Again, Post 691

If everybody has a PhD, someone is still going to have to collect garbage and run a cash register for society to buy things. There are obvious jobs that are needed in an economy for it to function and very few jobs are not needed. If you need a human being to do a job, pay them enough money so they can live just off of that amount.

And again, Post 768

If your business can't pay it's employees enough to live on, then you shouldn't have a business.

Demand and ye shall receive.

The rest of your bullshit statements ignore the reality that employers who hire minimum wage workers don't have a means to accommodate people who can't perform the job. Employers can't hire twice the people to make french fries and pay them half as much because they are slow. Employers can't have slow people operating cash registers, because the customers aren't going to put up with the hastle of someone being slow. They'll find another way to shop. You believe minimum wage jobs are unskilled, but how many people like you could actually hold down some of those jobs? It takes skill to quickly find the bar codes on all the products in a store. I'm not claiming most people can't do it, but some people can't do it fast enough to be acceptable. The fact is we need people doing those jobs and the people should be directly paid for their work and not paid substandard wages with taxpayers subsidizing the business.

They're not supposed to have a means of accommodating people that can't handle the most basic of tasks. They're supposed to fire them. Pretending you're now not arguing for a living wage for a second, who the hell decides what qualifies as 'substandard' wages? If you're not going to raise them enough to live on, what is the point of raising them at all? This point you're trying to make, whatever it is, is completely irrelevant to my question. Unless mentally or physically handicapped in some way, the people that can't perform the most basic of tasks are shit out of luck and have nothing to do with the conversation. We're talking about the people that meet the most criteria for being employed at the most basic of positions. Not people who don't. Since you are trying to claim (unsuccessfully) that you weren't arguing for a living wage, I guess I have to take it that you are conceding those points I have presented. You must agree that it is in fact immoral to pay two people that work at the same place, work the same job, are of the same merit, different wages, right? You must agree that is in fact none of your damn business what two separate parties agree on for compensation right? You would have to concede that if you were arguing that someone deserves a living wage for even the most basic job, that someone else must hold themselves to a higher standard than that to earn that person's living wage, correct?

 

[Dubya]

I don't give a shit what a living wage means to you and quote where I said I was arguing for a living wage! I said the minimum wage should be equivalent to the poverty level at 2,000 hours and adjusted to the true cost of living. I've pointed out many times that very few minimum wage workers will get 2,000 hours from one employer, so rarely will they ever receive overtime for working more than 40 hours per week. The amount of wages I suggested have been proven in the past to work for the American economy and that was back in the days when people were paid minimum wage to pump gas.

Oh so now all of a sudden you disagree with Obama's statement that anyone working 40 hours a week should make enough to live on? Now you're just being a dishonest weasel because you know you're caught in a totally indefensible position. You know you can't answer the question so you'll just change the terms of the debate, huh? Well guess what you lying sack of shit. You have in fact been arguing for a LIVING wage:

Here, Post 331

but the point is if someone is buyng fast food they should be paying for it and the employee shouldn't be getting public assistance.

Obviously for a person to not be on public assistance they would need to be paid enough to live on.

Again, Post 691



And again, Post 768

If your business can't pay it's employees enough to live on, then you shouldn't have a business.

Demand and ye shall receive.

The rest of your bullshit statements ignore the reality that employers who hire minimum wage workers don't have a means to accommodate people who can't perform the job. Employers can't hire twice the people to make french fries and pay them half as much because they are slow. Employers can't have slow people operating cash registers, because the customers aren't going to put up with the hastle of someone being slow. They'll find another way to shop. You believe minimum wage jobs are unskilled, but how many people like you could actually hold down some of those jobs? It takes skill to quickly find the bar codes on all the products in a store. I'm not claiming most people can't do it, but some people can't do it fast enough to be acceptable. The fact is we need people doing those jobs and the people should be directly paid for their work and not paid substandard wages with taxpayers subsidizing the business.

They're not supposed to have a means of accommodating people that can't handle the most basic of tasks. They're supposed to fire them. Pretending you're now not arguing for a living wage for a second, who the hell decides what qualifies as 'substandard' wages? If you're not going to raise them enough to live on, what is the point of raising them at all? This point you're trying to make, whatever it is, is completely irrelevant to my question. Unless mentally or physically handicapped in some way, the people that can't perform the most basic of tasks are shit out of luck and have nothing to do with the conversation. We're talking about the people that meet the most criteria for being employed at the most basic of positions. Not people who don't. Since you are trying to claim (unsuccessfully) that you weren't arguing for a living wage, I guess I have to take it that you are conceding those points I have presented. You must agree that it is in fact immoral to pay two people that work at the same place, work the same job, are of the same merit, different wages, right? You must agree that is in fact none of your damn business what two separate parties agree on for compensation right? You would have to concede that if you were arguing that someone deserves a living wage for even the most basic job, that someone else must hold themselves to a higher standard than that to earn that person's living wage, correct?

Do you see the words living wage in any of my posts? A minimum wage at the poverty level for 2,000 hours of work is just enough to exist, meaning not starve to death or succumb to the elements from exposure. It's room and board pay. Let me see you live off of that amount!

The only point I'll make about your position is it's the position of a fool. Running an economy with our present minimum wage destroys the market just like outsourcing jobs destroys the market for any business relying on the American market. When you are in business paying low wages is only a benefit to you if you are the only one doing it. When wages are generally too low the whole market is depressed. The corporation outsourcing jobs initially benefits, but all the other businesses lose that money from their market. Eventually, the corporation doing the outsourcing will suffer once too many other corporations follow the same example. Importing goods is only beneficial when a country has balanced trade and can benefit from comparative advantage in the exchange. Businesses that depend on the American market are obviously affected by low wages eating up their sales volume more than they save paying lower wages.

You people are just puppets for the elites and I'm not talking about small businesses that lose with our present market, just like the workers.

 

[Dubya]

Some people don't need to earn a wage high enough to support a family. They are young and living at home. They are seniors who use a post retirment job to supplement their retirement or just keep busy. They are disabled intending to be useful.

Every time the minimum wage goes up employment participation goes down.

Then you should be able to post data supporting your statement, but you can't, because economists have examined the connection between raising the minimum wage and employment/unemployment and there is no such effect.

I've posted the data on minimum wage and below minimum wage workers and they aren't the people you claim they are. If some kid or elderly person happens to make more than they need to exist, what does that hurt? I doubt seriously if a surplus is going to follow that kid throughout his life and if some elderly person has some money left when they die, their family can more than likely use it. Why do conservatives think it's good for working people to be poor? All we have to do to make poor people is elect a Republican, because that's what you people stand for.

 

[Gadawg73]

If adults are making only the minimum wage THEY SHOULD NOT REPRODUCE.
That is the problem with this country.
Irresponsible people that want others to pay for their bad choices.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yesterday some Democratic clown offered that it needs to be $10.10/

How about $40 a hour then?
Or $100 for everyone a hour?
Why not? That is a good "living" wage.

 

[Dubya]

If adults are making only the minimum wage THEY SHOULD NOT REPRODUCE.
That is the problem with this country.
Irresponsible people that want others to pay for their bad choices.

You're an arrogant SOB, who definitely shouldn't reproduce more scum like yourself.

Figure this out, fool! The Federal Reserve has a mandate from Congress to prevent a wage/price spiral and the Fed openly states they watch the unemployment rate and up their discount rate as unemployment begins to approach 4% in the sub-5% range. They are on record saying 4% unemployment is considered full employment, therefore 1 in 25 people will always be out of work and necessity dictates some of those jobs by working people have to be minimum wage jobs, because our economy requires them to be. Those are the realities facing the people of working age, so some of those people are left with the choice of taking a minimum wage job or not working at all. Like you were told, regardless of how much education the entire work force acquires, someone is going to have to do those jobs or change our economic reality with some advanced technology to eliminate that necessary work.

 

[Gadawg73]

If adults are making only the minimum wage THEY SHOULD NOT REPRODUCE.
That is the problem with this country.
Irresponsible people that want others to pay for their bad choices.

You're an arrogant SOB, who definitely shouldn't reproduce more scum like yourself.

Figure this out, fool! The Federal Reserve has a mandate from Congress to prevent a wage/price spiral and the Fed openly states they watch the unemployment rate and up their discount rate as unemployment begins to approach 4% in the sub-5% range. They are on record saying 4% unemployment is considered full employment, therefore 1 in 25 people will always be out of work and necessity dictates some of those jobs by working people have to be minimum wage jobs, because our economy requires them to be. Those are the realities facing the people of working age, so some of those people are left with the choice of taking a minimum wage job or not working at all. Like you were told, regardless of how much education the entire work force acquires, someone is going to have to do those jobs or change our economic reality with some advanced technology to eliminate that necessary work.

No one is forced to have children.

 

[Dubya]

If adults are making only the minimum wage THEY SHOULD NOT REPRODUCE.
That is the problem with this country.
Irresponsible people that want others to pay for their bad choices.

You're an arrogant SOB, who definitely shouldn't reproduce more scum like yourself.

Figure this out, fool! The Federal Reserve has a mandate from Congress to prevent a wage/price spiral and the Fed openly states they watch the unemployment rate and up their discount rate as unemployment begins to approach 4% in the sub-5% range. They are on record saying 4% unemployment is considered full employment, therefore 1 in 25 people will always be out of work and necessity dictates some of those jobs by working people have to be minimum wage jobs, because our economy requires them to be. Those are the realities facing the people of working age, so some of those people are left with the choice of taking a minimum wage job or not working at all. Like you were told, regardless of how much education the entire work force acquires, someone is going to have to do those jobs or change our economic reality with some advanced technology to eliminate that necessary work.

No one is forced to have children.

That has nothing to do with our controlled economy.