What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,597
Reaction score
3,452
Points
195
They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government.
How do they do that with poverty wages that may require those actually employed to seek social services and that form of Big Government nanny-Statism? Are you sure you are simply being a right winger about this? Raising the minimum wage can actually help lower the cost of Government while generating more tax revenue in the process.
I agree that a fully employed person should be making a living wage for the area they live in. And for places that don't do that I would absolutely support raising the min wage.
gee----I started babysitting ----saturday nites---for 50 cents per hour at age 14. I was
DESPERATE for a job of ANY KIND. If those people who hired me had to pay me 15 dollars per hour-------it wouldn't happen and I would not have a dime. Believe it or not --MY DESPERATION for a job was for the sake of ------saving for college---paying for the
SAT exams-----and........ buying a bit of clothing from the "AS IS" and "seconds" and
''damaged" store up the block. All of my four brothers went to college (like me) on
scholarship, loans and minimum wage jobs. (at 19 I got a job as a clerk type thing in
a hospital at a WOPPING 175 per hour. NOT ALL WORKING PEOPLE CAN GET A JOB THAT PAYS FOR A HOUSE AND A CAR five kids, AND WEEKLY TRIPS TO THE HAIR SALON. The "system" cannot support it. AOC cannot "make ends meet" on 175 thousand dollars per year. ---------
Sorry, I'm not talking about people paying neighborhood kids cash for babysitting. I'm talking about functioning businesses that hire full time employees. Sorry if I was confusing
OK----at age 18, I had a minimum wage job in a large department store----1.25 per hour----------I worked 20 hours per week ---senior year in High School. I NEEDED that one too.
Employees get around that one by hiring PART TIME ONLY
These kinds of jobs are called entry level jobs for a reason. They give young people a chance to enter the work force. At 14 I was a waitress for 50 cents an hour. I was overjoyed to get a raise to 75 cents an hour. There are no more entry level jobs. All jobs are expected to pay enough to support a family of four.

This change happened because of immigration. Adult immigrants started taking those entry level jobs. They didn't need money for school or go to a movie. They weren't saving for that first car. They had kids in school themselves. They have medical issues. They have spouses and sick parents.

That's how minimum wage got out of control.
Simple question. Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Yes. Of course. Entry level jobs are commonly not worth more than seven dollars an hour. Give the job to a teen who is just learning to show up on time.

Labor has a value. Each job is worth a dollar amount notwithstanding the corporation making millions of dollars an hour. If the job is worth 7 bucks an hour that's what it pays.
Interesting... and what would be an example of a job worth $7 an hour?
Stuffing squashed hamburgers into paper bags
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,819
Reaction score
6,005
Points
1,140
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,597
Reaction score
3,452
Points
195
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit
Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,819
Reaction score
6,005
Points
1,140
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit
Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
Thanks for giving a direct answer
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,922
Reaction score
3,217
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit
Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
Corporate management needing corporate welfare bailouts? Stuffing fries would have been less expensive to the People.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,597
Reaction score
3,452
Points
195
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit
Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
Corporate management needing corporate welfare bailouts? Stuffing fries would have been less expensive to the People.
what fast food company ever got a bailout?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,819
Reaction score
6,005
Points
1,140
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit
Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
For perspective we are talking about somebody standing in a kitchen serving people food for 8 hours a day. Walking with about $50 a day, $250 a week, $1000 a month, $12,000 a year. That’s what this full time employee will have to support themselves. Meanwhile the restaurant is making millions. Sound good to you?
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,922
Reaction score
3,217
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I would still be spending money in my local economy and contributing to the multiplier effect.
Incentivizing your sloth is a negative multiplier.
Prove it. UC has already been measured with a multiplier of 2. For comparison and contrast regular government spending including defense spending only generates a multiplier of around .8.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,922
Reaction score
3,217
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
What do you mean by "employment is at-will"? Do you mean that there is no legal requirement that you have to work? We've already established that. You don't have to work, and you don't have to get paid if you don't.
The is the law. You mean an employer doesn't have to pay me for not working toward their bottom line. I agree with you on that. Under a more efficient regime of unemployment, employers would not have direct responsibility for UC benefits. Unemployment is an externality to employers. UC is a State obligation along with ensuring equal protection of the laws.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,922
Reaction score
3,217
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work).
You appeal to ignorance of economics. That is not how it works since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.
Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

Production is economic activity.
Incentivizing sloth will reduce production.
So is spending money. What sloth would be incentivized with an institutional upward pressure on wages? No one would be required to be in poverty merely so the Rich can get richer.
So is spending money.

No, spending money is not production.

What sloth would be incentivized

Idiots like you, sitting on the couch and getting paid.
Investment is not production either? Nor is savings?

I would still be spending money in my local economy and contributing to the multiplier effect.
And contributing to the opportunity cost you caused by taxing what someone else earned.
Not at all. That is another appeal to ignorance by the special pleading right wing. Simply circulating capital incurs general taxes.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,657
Reaction score
5,949
Points
280
What do you mean by "employment is at-will"? Do you mean that there is no legal requirement that you have to work? We've already established that. You don't have to work, and you don't have to get paid if you don't.
The is the law. You mean an employer doesn't have to pay me for not working toward their bottom line. I agree with you on that. Under a more efficient regime of unemployment, employers would not have direct responsibility for UC benefits. Unemployment is an externality to employers. UC is a State obligation along with ensuring equal protection of the laws.
So, basically, you're saying nothing when you say "employment is at-will". Employers are not responsible to take care of you if you don't work for them.

UC is a specific program targeted to help specific people after they have been laid off from a job, that's it. Stop pretending that it applies to people who never worked a job, or walked off a job voluntarily, or were fired from a job for cause. It simply does not, and complaining that it's unequal protection under the law that you can't collect it is a FALLACY.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,657
Reaction score
5,949
Points
280
And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work).
You appeal to ignorance of economics. That is not how it works since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.
Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

Production is economic activity.
Incentivizing sloth will reduce production.
So is spending money. What sloth would be incentivized with an institutional upward pressure on wages? No one would be required to be in poverty merely so the Rich can get richer.
So is spending money.

No, spending money is not production.

What sloth would be incentivized

Idiots like you, sitting on the couch and getting paid.
Investment is not production either? Nor is savings?

I would still be spending money in my local economy and contributing to the multiplier effect.
And contributing to the opportunity cost you caused by taxing what someone else earned.
Not at all. That is another appeal to ignorance by the special pleading right wing. Simply circulating capital incurs general taxes.
And this is why no one takes the left seriously about economics, because they are ignorant of, and refuse to consider, the opportunity cost of taxation. They refuse to consider where the money will come from to create their socialist utopia. LOOK IT UP. Opportunity cost is a real thing, and you have to first STOP capital from circulating by taking it from someone who earned it in order to START it circulating by giving some of it to someone who didn't earn it.

Now, again I ask, where do you think the money will come from that you think will be circulating?
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
11,597
Reaction score
3,452
Points
195
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit
Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
For perspective we are talking about somebody standing in a kitchen serving people food for 8 hours a day. Walking with about $50 a day, $250 a week, $1000 a month, $12,000 a year. That’s what this full time employee will have to support themselves. Meanwhile the restaurant is making millions. Sound good to you?
Since when is any job wage based on what it costs for a person to support himself?

And FYI no single franchised fast food store makes millions a year.

In fact most franchise owners make less than 100K a year

And a person sells his labor to an employer and that labor is only worth what the market will pay for it. If a person wants to get more for the labor he is selling then he has to make his labor worth more by increasing its value to an employer.

This is what entry level jobs are for.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,922
Reaction score
3,217
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
These kinds of jobs are called entry level jobs for a reason. They give young people a chance to enter the work force. At 14 I was a waitress for 50 cents an hour. I was overjoyed to get a raise to 75 cents an hour. There are no more entry level jobs. All jobs are expected to pay enough to support a family of four.

This change happened because of immigration. Adult immigrants started taking those entry level jobs. They didn't need money for school or go to a movie. They weren't saving for that first car. They had kids in school themselves. They have medical issues. They have spouses and sick parents.

That's how minimum wage got out of control.
So what. Inflation happens regardless. Nothing costs nominally what it cost a few decades ago. Wages need to meet or beat inflation. That includes entry level jobs.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,819
Reaction score
6,005
Points
1,140
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking
If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit
Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
For perspective we are talking about somebody standing in a kitchen serving people food for 8 hours a day. Walking with about $50 a day, $250 a week, $1000 a month, $12,000 a year. That’s what this full time employee will have to support themselves. Meanwhile the restaurant is making millions. Sound good to you?
Since when is any job wage based on what it costs for a person to support himself?

And FYI no single franchised fast food store makes millions a year.

In fact most franchise owners make less than 100K a year

And a person sells his labor to an employer and that labor is only worth what the market will pay for it. If a person wants to get more for the labor he is selling then he has to make his labor worth more by increasing its value to an employer.

This is what entry level jobs are for.
Your first question is at the crux of the debate. The concept of a living wage is that if a person is working full time then that time should be compensated enough for them to support themselves without the need of welfare.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,922
Reaction score
3,217
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Apparently he does appeal to ignorance, you seem to be following him everywhere, I can’t think of anyone more ignorant than yourself.
That would mean so much more, if you had a habit of rebutting with valid arguments instead of appeals to ignorance and ad hominems.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,922
Reaction score
3,217
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
What do you mean by "solve simple poverty"? You say it all the time and never define it. It means nothing.
I asked him that same question months ago. Why no concern over "complex poverty", and what is the difference?
The three main ingredients of a Danielpalos word salad:
1. At will employment
2. Equal protection of laws
3. Solve simple poverty

Mix incoherently with bits of lazy entitlement mentality, ad hominem, and virtue signaling for best results.
Not my fault right wingers want to be taken seriously with nothing but appeals to ignorance. What part of the first post in this thread is unclear?
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,922
Reaction score
3,217
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?
Depends. How much value do they add?
Inflation happens regardless. Besides, the value of the job is a factor of market based arbitrage not a constant factor as right wingers would have us believe.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top