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

[danielpalos]

Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?

As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.

What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.

Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.

How to Establish Salary Ranges

1. Step 1: Determine the Organization's Compensation Philosophy. ...
2. Step 2: Conduct a Job Analysis. ...
3. Step 3: Group into Job Families. ...
4. Step 4: Rank Positions Using a Job Evaluation Method. ...
5. Step 5: Conduct Market Research. ...
6. Step 6: Create Job Grades. ...
7. Step 7: Create a Salary Range Based on Research.

How to Establish Salary Ranges

Follow these simple steps to create pay grades and salary ranges.

www.shrm.org

where in there does it say the employee's rent is part of the salary equation?

Market research that is influenced by market based arbitrage. Not everyone in a low skilled job is as ignorant as the right wing would prefer.

No one said everyone in a low skill job is ignorant. But if they managed to get to adulthood with no skills, you are not worth as much to a business.

Then, why require them to work instead of obtain unemployment compensation so they can learn new skills and become worth more to an employer?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

#1) You said you don't know anyone who is good with money that is poor
#2) We don't teach people how to budget. Parents may but teachers do not.
#3) Teach everyone how to open a bank account and manage money

Do the above and you will significantly reduce poverty. Education is the key. Fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

All corporate management is usually well educated and some specialize in business management.

All corporate management should have learned how to create a budget and manage their budgets.

All corporate management should know how to open a bank account and manage not only their money but also their corporation's money.

Why do we have Institutional corporate welfare?

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

― Calvin Coolidge

Corporations aren't people. CEOs aren't on the hook. How they manage personal finances has zero to do with how they manage corporate finances. They likely would not lever themselves at 7x but they will do so with corporations.

 

[Agit8r]

Some will no doubt note that without the fear of becoming an greater object of mockery for the rest of society, their wouldn't be enough prospective employees to do the roughly half of all jobs that relegate the employee to being a lesser object of mockery.

 

[danielpalos]

I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?

I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.

The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

They would already pay general taxes like sales taxes.

You want sales taxes to fund your bum gravy train? DURR.

General taxes are much better than direct taxes. What if it lowered your direct taxes since even the unemployed would be paying general taxes?

 

[danielpalos]

That is the folly of giving people money for not working. They have never learned to manage money.

Giving a lump sum of money does that not a consistent income. Why do lottery winners not simply go to a financial planner to help them manage their money? Even a bank would be happy to do that for their customers if they deposit their money with them.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.

How old are you?

Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?

You miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.

 

[danielpalos]

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

It is the difference between a cost and a value. The private sector is a price taker in this regard, just like any other regulation.

 

[danielpalos]

In there you will find the job multiplier effect of current jobs. When you take money out of business, jobs are lost and they are not lost in a vacuum, they cause other job loss as well.

Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.

You're missing the point, which is taxes take money out of the economy, and that represents lost opportunity. Every dollar that goes to taxes is another dollar that isn't spent on the economy.

You mean like taxes for our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

According to some studies, general welfare spending along with defense spending generates a multiplier of point .8. That means that for each dollar spent only point eight dollars worth of economic activity is generated. UC has a multiplier of two. That means that for each dollar spent on UC, two dollars of economic activity are generated. It is simply more cost effective to simply pay surplus labor to not work than to rely on ineffective social services.

 

[danielpalos]

Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.

You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.

You keep saying that the UC program would not change.

But you are changing how it is funded.
You are changing who is eligible.
You are changing the qualifications for receiving checks.
You are changing the length of time you can draw a check.

Those are all big changes. And welfare already exists.

The program itself would not change. We would be using the same legal and physical infrastructure, only the returns to scale would be improved. It would be analogous to improving the efficiency of a governor on an engine. The engine is not changed only the output is improved.

 

[danielpalos]

But they can't do that, can they?

Not right now, but what if they could through equal protection of the laws.

How would that not solve simple poverty and provide that upward pressure on wages?

They can't do that now, via UC.

But they CAN do that now via welfare. You may not be able to study HR, per se. But you can gain valuable job skills through a variety of programs.

Only due to unequal protection of the law. And, why do we have a homeless problem if even a War on Poverty has no simple solution only an expensive and ineffective non-solution?

 

[danielpalos]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

And, higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue. A (positive) multiplier effect.

 

[danielpalos]

In there you will find the job multiplier effect of current jobs. When you take money out of business, jobs are lost and they are not lost in a vacuum, they cause other job loss as well.

Except we are referring to the unemployed. There is no money being taken out of business. Jobs are lost for the profit seeking bottom line and that line of special pleading. You could say taxes take out money as well, yet even massive tax breaks did not solve simple poverty nor even balance the budget. Only the Rich got richer. And, the Richest don't tend to spend most of their income like the poor do and generate less of a multiplier as a result for our economy.

Here is where you don't understand how the economy works.

You claim the richest don't tend to spend most of their income. What do they do with the rest of it? Stuff it in a mattress?

Says you, story teller. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows better.

The authors—the first to use the PSID to estimate the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) by wealth—find that the MPC is indeed lower at higher wealth quintiles, suggesting that lower-wealth households respond more to changes in income than do higher-wealth households.

Estimating the Marginal Propensity to Consume Using the Distributions of Income, Consumption, and Wealth

www.bostonfed.org

.

The richest tend to invest (even in off-shore tax havens).

I see you didn't answer my question. Not a surprise.

Let me help you out. The richest do not spend most of their income. But that is their choice, and part of why the got rich.

They also do not remove their income from the economic cycle. They invest, which gives opportunities to businesses.

Even if they put their money in a savings account at a bank, it is not removed from the economy.

I did answer your economic question. The Poor simply tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later and that is what generates a (positive) multiplier effect.

 

[danielpalos]

#1) You said you don't know anyone who is good with money that is poor
#2) We don't teach people how to budget. Parents may but teachers do not.
#3) Teach everyone how to open a bank account and manage money

Do the above and you will significantly reduce poverty. Education is the key. Fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

All corporate management is usually well educated and some specialize in business management.

All corporate management should have learned how to create a budget and manage their budgets.

All corporate management should know how to open a bank account and manage not only their money but also their corporation's money.

Why do we have Institutional corporate welfare?

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

― Calvin Coolidge

Corporations aren't people. CEOs aren't on the hook. How they manage personal finances has zero to do with how they manage corporate finances. They likely would not lever themselves at 7x but they will do so with corporations.

You are being disingenuous.

Besides, corporations are persons for juridical purposes. And, they have entire Management Teams to what you claim Individuals should be able to do on their own. Yet, corporate welfare is alive and well.

 

[danielpalos]

Some will no doubt note that without the fear of becoming an greater object of mockery for the rest of society, their wouldn't be enough prospective employees to do the roughly half of all jobs that relegate the employee to being a lesser object of mockery.

We could goad employers to automate for their bottom line. We should have no supply problems with supply side economics.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

#1) You said you don't know anyone who is good with money that is poor
#2) We don't teach people how to budget. Parents may but teachers do not.
#3) Teach everyone how to open a bank account and manage money

Do the above and you will significantly reduce poverty. Education is the key. Fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

All corporate management is usually well educated and some specialize in business management.

All corporate management should have learned how to create a budget and manage their budgets.

All corporate management should know how to open a bank account and manage not only their money but also their corporation's money.

Why do we have Institutional corporate welfare?

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

― Calvin Coolidge

Corporations aren't people. CEOs aren't on the hook. How they manage personal finances has zero to do with how they manage corporate finances. They likely would not lever themselves at 7x but they will do so with corporations.

You are being disingenuous.

Besides, corporations are persons for juridical purposes. And, they have entire Management Teams to what you claim Individuals should be able to do on their own. Yet, corporate welfare is alive and well.

So do you know many corporations that don't have enough to eat or have to sleep outside at night? Corporate welfare is there to keep people employed. Corporations don't literally eat and drink, they are comprised of people. Who is really being disingenuous....?

 

[danielpalos]

#1) You said you don't know anyone who is good with money that is poor
#2) We don't teach people how to budget. Parents may but teachers do not.
#3) Teach everyone how to open a bank account and manage money

Do the above and you will significantly reduce poverty. Education is the key. Fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.

All corporate management is usually well educated and some specialize in business management.

All corporate management should have learned how to create a budget and manage their budgets.

All corporate management should know how to open a bank account and manage not only their money but also their corporation's money.

Why do we have Institutional corporate welfare?

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”

― Calvin Coolidge

Corporations aren't people. CEOs aren't on the hook. How they manage personal finances has zero to do with how they manage corporate finances. They likely would not lever themselves at 7x but they will do so with corporations.

You are being disingenuous.

Besides, corporations are persons for juridical purposes. And, they have entire Management Teams to what you claim Individuals should be able to do on their own. Yet, corporate welfare is alive and well.

So do you know many corporations that don't have enough to eat or have to sleep outside at night? Corporate welfare is there to keep people employed. Corporations don't literally eat and drink, they are comprised of people. Who is really being disingenuous....?

Corporations are in it for their bottom line not to keep individuals employed. You are the one being disingenuous or we would not have the expense of an alleged and endless War on Poverty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,

That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.

make their processes more efficient

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.

 

[danielpalos]

That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.

Even in the case where potential customers have more money to spend?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That has not been the case with QE.

No inflation under QE? DURR.