why not make the minimum wage $30 an hour?

[kiwiman127]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Well first of all I decided look where this $30 minimum wage thing came from. To no surprise, it's a right wing talking point.
Raising th minimum wage to $30:
"Intuitively, most everyone understands that raising the minimum wage to $20 or $30 an hour would have devastating effects on the employment prospects of less skilled workers: unemployment rates would skyrocket within such groups, so we see no serious proposals for increases of such magnitudes. Raising the minimum wage to only $10.10 would have much milder effects that might be difficult to detect in the aggregate – though such effects would still be noticed by employees who received raises or lost their jobs."
Ask an Economist Department of Economics
The above explanation basically covers why nots.
Now, the right likes to scream that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would raise inflation and cause massive layoffs.
However, checking out historical facts one can see that facts don't back up that argument.
If one has the ambition, they can go to these sites which cover when historically the minimum wage was increased, the inflation rate (CPI) historically month-by-month and the historical unemployment rate month-by-month.
All a person has to do is match when the minimum wage went into effect and then match up the rise in the CPI and the unemployment rate. The conclusion is that there were no spikes in inflation or the unemployment rate.
Minimum Wage - Wage and Hour Division WHD - U.S. Department of Labor

Historical Consumer Price Index CPI

US Unemployment Rate by Month
The only time there was massive layoffs was during the Great Recession. Not one economist every blamed the increase in the minimum wage for the layoffs, plus inflation was completely flat and there was actually deflation.
Regarding your question about a $15 dollars minimum wage, if a city want to raise the minimum wage, it usually tied to the fact that the cost of living within a city is higher than it is in rural areas. That would be a judgement call for the city entity.
Also, I'd like to point out that increasing the minimum wage certainly does help the middle class per the Cato Institute.
Minimum Wage Hike Would Benefit 3X More Middle-Class Workers Than Poor
Minimum Wage Hike Would Benefit 3X More Middle-Class Workers Than Poor

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Minimum wage laws always result in inflation. They necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If they were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Did you check out the links I posted where you can actually see if raising the minimum wage is as devastating as you claim.
Don't be lazy, look at the real world facts.

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.

So there was no "spike"? Why must there be a "spike" when minimum wages are applied gradually? Does your link demonstrate that there was no inflation while minimum wage rates were increasing?

Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage?

Sure. Other price fixing and money printing ponzi schemes have the same effect... for the same reasons.

What could your point possibly be? That minimum wage is somehow magically exempt from the well established principles of economics?

And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean?

Folks who advocate for a minimum wage. What else could it possibly mean?

I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.

Thanks for sharing.

However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades.

And you're going to tell me that the OBVIOUS devaluing effect that minimum wage law must NECESSARILY have on wages has no role what-so-ever to play in that. Right?

Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy.

Well, maybe if work that was worth ony $1/hr (but still costs minimum wage) wasn't being subsidized by work worth more than minimum wage, perhaps wages would not be so persistently flat.

The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions.

Artificially devaluing the rewards for productive capacity (by artificially making $1.00/hr worth of work pay any amount more, say $15.00/hr, for instance) requires more money to be printed because buyers and sellers still know what shit is worth regardless of what the government says about the dollars. Printing more money, without also increasing productivity must lead inevitably to inflation. It does so because there is just more money around--printing new money is not the same thing as creating new wealth.

Introducing all that new money into the economy will not make every citizen more wealthy--they will just have more money. Having more money is of little consolation when it takes twice your daily wages to get a day's worth of food.

The above graph makes my point.

No. It really doesn't. It would make your point, if you were telling me we DON'T need to increase the minimum wage (yet again) because it has a history of being so effective.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I appreciate your response. It was well thought out.
However, your oratory was basically conjecture. You lacked lacked real-time evidence to back yourself up.
You didn't attempt to look into my links, you assumed and took it from there.
Regarding the graph, you basically discarded the evidence tying in flat wage growth and the remarkable coincidence that was clearly mirrored by the length of the recoveries when compared with similar downturns prior to the flat wage growth phenomenon.
Thanks again for your input.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

30 hr? then we will have to give all the call girls a raise to 60.00 hr.

this is going to kill my budget if they raise the min.wage to 30.00!!! where I live, the call girls are charging 20 !!! but if McDonalds starts paying their burger flippers 30.00hr,,,,local call girls will demand 60/70 hr! i cant afford it!!

 

[LOki]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Minimum wage laws always result in inflation. They necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If they were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Did you check out the links I posted where you can actually see if raising the minimum wage is as devastating as you claim.
Don't be lazy, look at the real world facts.

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.

So there was no "spike"? Why must there be a "spike" when minimum wages are applied gradually? Does your link demonstrate that there was no inflation while minimum wage rates were increasing?

Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage?

Sure. Other price fixing and money printing ponzi schemes have the same effect... for the same reasons.

What could your point possibly be? That minimum wage is somehow magically exempt from the well established principles of economics?

And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean?

Folks who advocate for a minimum wage. What else could it possibly mean?

I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.

Thanks for sharing.

However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades.

And you're going to tell me that the OBVIOUS devaluing effect that minimum wage law must NECESSARILY have on wages has no role what-so-ever to play in that. Right?

Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy.

Well, maybe if work that was worth ony $1/hr (but still costs minimum wage) wasn't being subsidized by work worth more than minimum wage, perhaps wages would not be so persistently flat.

The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions.

Artificially devaluing the rewards for productive capacity (by artificially making $1.00/hr worth of work pay any amount more, say $15.00/hr, for instance) requires more money to be printed because buyers and sellers still know what shit is worth regardless of what the government says about the dollars. Printing more money, without also increasing productivity must lead inevitably to inflation. It does so because there is just more money around--printing new money is not the same thing as creating new wealth.

Introducing all that new money into the economy will not make every citizen more wealthy--they will just have more money. Having more money is of little consolation when it takes twice your daily wages to get a day's worth of food.

The above graph makes my point.

No. It really doesn't. It would make your point, if you were telling me we DON'T need to increase the minimum wage (yet again) because it has a history of being so effective.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I appreciate your response. It was well thought out.
However, your oratory was basically conjecture. You lacked lacked real-time evidence to back yourself up.
You didn't attempt to look into my links, you assumed and took it from there.
Regarding the graph, you basically discarded the evidence tying in flat wage growth and the remarkable coincidence that was clearly mirrored by the length of the recoveries when compared with similar downturns prior to the flat wage growth phenomenon.
Thanks again for your input.

I looked into your links. They really don't cover you as well as you hoped.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

 

[rightwinger]

"Used to be, low wage scale workers could support themselves without relying on the taxpayer."

This is not true. Those same workers did rely on taxpayers to support them- their parents. Just like now the minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage. Also, if the minimum wage janitor/delivery person wages goes from $9/hr to $15/hr then as a skilled press operator (printer) my wages should also go up an equal percentage. Wouldn't you agree?

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

 

[rightwinger]

30 hr? then we will have to give all the call girls a raise to 60.00 hr.

this is going to kill my budget if they raise the min.wage to 30.00!!! where I live, the call girls are charging 20 !!! but if McDonalds starts paying their burger flippers 30.00hr,,,,local call girls will demand 60/70 hr! i cant afford it!!

Do they have a drive through?

 

[LOki]

"Used to be, low wage scale workers could support themselves without relying on the taxpayer."

This is not true. Those same workers did rely on taxpayers to support them- their parents. Just like now the minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage. Also, if the minimum wage janitor/delivery person wages goes from $9/hr to $15/hr then as a skilled press operator (printer) my wages should also go up an equal percentage. Wouldn't you agree?

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

 

[Rocko]

"Used to be, low wage scale workers could support themselves without relying on the taxpayer."

This is not true. Those same workers did rely on taxpayers to support them- their parents. Just like now the minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage. Also, if the minimum wage janitor/delivery person wages goes from $9/hr to $15/hr then as a skilled press operator (printer) my wages should also go up an equal percentage. Wouldn't you agree?

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

What a novel idea! You must be a radical right winger! /sarcasm

 

[kiwiman127]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Did you check out the links I posted where you can actually see if raising the minimum wage is as devastating as you claim.
Don't be lazy, look at the real world facts.

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.

So there was no "spike"? Why must there be a "spike" when minimum wages are applied gradually? Does your link demonstrate that there was no inflation while minimum wage rates were increasing?

Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage?

Sure. Other price fixing and money printing ponzi schemes have the same effect... for the same reasons.

What could your point possibly be? That minimum wage is somehow magically exempt from the well established principles of economics?

And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean?

Folks who advocate for a minimum wage. What else could it possibly mean?

I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.

Thanks for sharing.

However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades.

And you're going to tell me that the OBVIOUS devaluing effect that minimum wage law must NECESSARILY have on wages has no role what-so-ever to play in that. Right?

Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy.

Well, maybe if work that was worth ony $1/hr (but still costs minimum wage) wasn't being subsidized by work worth more than minimum wage, perhaps wages would not be so persistently flat.

The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions.

Artificially devaluing the rewards for productive capacity (by artificially making $1.00/hr worth of work pay any amount more, say $15.00/hr, for instance) requires more money to be printed because buyers and sellers still know what shit is worth regardless of what the government says about the dollars. Printing more money, without also increasing productivity must lead inevitably to inflation. It does so because there is just more money around--printing new money is not the same thing as creating new wealth.

Introducing all that new money into the economy will not make every citizen more wealthy--they will just have more money. Having more money is of little consolation when it takes twice your daily wages to get a day's worth of food.

The above graph makes my point.

No. It really doesn't. It would make your point, if you were telling me we DON'T need to increase the minimum wage (yet again) because it has a history of being so effective.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I appreciate your response. It was well thought out.
However, your oratory was basically conjecture. You lacked lacked real-time evidence to back yourself up.
You didn't attempt to look into my links, you assumed and took it from there.
Regarding the graph, you basically discarded the evidence tying in flat wage growth and the remarkable coincidence that was clearly mirrored by the length of the recoveries when compared with similar downturns prior to the flat wage growth phenomenon.
Thanks again for your input.

I looked into your links. They really don't cover you as well as you hoped.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I thought the links regarding the minimum wage timeframes, the CPI timeframes and the unemployment rates by timeframe were as accurate as one can find. It isn't hard al all to figure out .
Regarding what workers are paid, based on the three decade run on flat wage growth and the millions of jobs that have been shipped off shore during times of excellent profits. All of this coupled with the demise of the middle class, why would anyone trust that the American worker will get a fair shake in regards to fair pay?

 

[rightwinger]

"Used to be, low wage scale workers could support themselves without relying on the taxpayer."

This is not true. Those same workers did rely on taxpayers to support them- their parents. Just like now the minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage. Also, if the minimum wage janitor/delivery person wages goes from $9/hr to $15/hr then as a skilled press operator (printer) my wages should also go up an equal percentage. Wouldn't you agree?

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

In theory....that sounds great
In practice.....it isn't working

Why? Because wages are based on demand and not worth. Employers have figured out how to keep their workforce in fear and hungry. By keeping the supply of viable jobs low, employers get to set terms on wages and benefits.

 

[SAYIT]

"Used to be, low wage scale workers could support themselves without relying on the taxpayer."

This is not true. Those same workers did rely on taxpayers to support them- their parents. Just like now the minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage. Also, if the minimum wage janitor/delivery person wages goes from $9/hr to $15/hr then as a skilled press operator (printer) my wages should also go up an equal percentage. Wouldn't you agree?

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

And that is being addressed by the appropriate people ... American businesses and state and local gov'ts.

 

[SAYIT]

Regarding what workers are paid, based on the three decade run on flat wage growth and the millions of jobs that have been shipped off shore during times of excellent profits. All of this coupled with the demise of the middle class, why would anyone trust that the American worker will get a fair shake in regards to fair pay?

As such your plan should be to found your own company and pay your workers as much as you want thus forcing your competition to raise theirs in order to attract quality employees.
Problem solved!
See how easy that was?

 

[LOki]

"Used to be, low wage scale workers could support themselves without relying on the taxpayer."

This is not true. Those same workers did rely on taxpayers to support them- their parents. Just like now the minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage. Also, if the minimum wage janitor/delivery person wages goes from $9/hr to $15/hr then as a skilled press operator (printer) my wages should also go up an equal percentage. Wouldn't you agree?

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

In theory....that sounds great
In practice.....it isn't working

Why? Because wages are based on demand and not worth.

The demand for work is part of the function that determines the work's value.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

Employers have figured out how to keep their workforce in fear and hungry. By keeping the supply of viable jobs low, employers get to set terms on wages and benefits.

Like monopolies, monopsonies are only coercive with the assistance of legislation. Employers really don't have this power you claim.

 

[LOki]

View attachment 41746 ]41746[/ATTACH]

Yes, yes, yes,... you have links.

Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--folks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!

Seriously, what is your problem with paying folks exactly what their work is worth?

As the links prove, when the minimum wage is increased there has never been a spike in inflation or unemployment.

So there was no "spike"? Why must there be a "spike" when minimum wages are applied gradually? Does your link demonstrate that there was no inflation while minimum wage rates were increasing?

Secondly, "Yet, if these minimum wage laws were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--ffolks like you would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased yet again!" Did you ever think that inflation and unemployment increases happens without the increase in the minimum wage?

Sure. Other price fixing and money printing ponzi schemes have the same effect... for the same reasons.

What could your point possibly be? That minimum wage is somehow magically exempt from the well established principles of economics?

And "folks like you", what's that supposed to mean?

Folks who advocate for a minimum wage. What else could it possibly mean?

I have never worked while receiving the minimum wage, I have always been a salaried and paid quite a bit above the minimum wage.

Thanks for sharing.

However, I also know for a fact that wages for the working middle class and poor have been flat (in Real Dollars) for over three decades.

And you're going to tell me that the OBVIOUS devaluing effect that minimum wage law must NECESSARILY have on wages has no role what-so-ever to play in that. Right?

Thus the income inequality and the demise of the middle class. With an economy driven by over 70& consumer spending, flat wages hurt the US consumer driven economy.

Well, maybe if work that was worth ony $1/hr (but still costs minimum wage) wasn't being subsidized by work worth more than minimum wage, perhaps wages would not be so persistently flat.

The less expendable income, the less money to drive the consumer driven economy. This probably plays into the fact that our last three recessions have taken longer to recover than comparable and earlier recessions.

Artificially devaluing the rewards for productive capacity (by artificially making $1.00/hr worth of work pay any amount more, say $15.00/hr, for instance) requires more money to be printed because buyers and sellers still know what shit is worth regardless of what the government says about the dollars. Printing more money, without also increasing productivity must lead inevitably to inflation. It does so because there is just more money around--printing new money is not the same thing as creating new wealth.

Introducing all that new money into the economy will not make every citizen more wealthy--they will just have more money. Having more money is of little consolation when it takes twice your daily wages to get a day's worth of food.

The above graph makes my point.

No. It really doesn't. It would make your point, if you were telling me we DON'T need to increase the minimum wage (yet again) because it has a history of being so effective.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I appreciate your response. It was well thought out.
However, your oratory was basically conjecture. You lacked lacked real-time evidence to back yourself up.
You didn't attempt to look into my links, you assumed and took it from there.
Regarding the graph, you basically discarded the evidence tying in flat wage growth and the remarkable coincidence that was clearly mirrored by the length of the recoveries when compared with similar downturns prior to the flat wage growth phenomenon.
Thanks again for your input.

I looked into your links. They really don't cover you as well as you hoped.

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

I thought the links regarding the minimum wage timeframes, the CPI timeframes and the unemployment rates by timeframe were as accurate as one can find. It isn't hard al all to figure out .
Regarding what workers are paid, based on the three decade run on flat wage growth and the millions of jobs that have been shipped off shore during times of excellent profits. All of this coupled with the demise of the middle class, why would anyone trust that the American worker will get a fair shake in regards to fair pay?

Why don't you tell me why you object so strenuously at the notion that a worker's wages should be based solely upon what that worker's work is worth?

 

[SAYIT]

In theory....that sounds great
In practice.....it isn't working
Why? Because wages are based on demand and not worth. Employers have figured out how to keep their workforce in fear and hungry. By keeping the supply of viable jobs low, employers get to set terms on wages and benefits.

Yeah, because that's what drives American biz expansion and job creation ... the desire to control our minimum wage! I tell you, loony leftists are by far the dimmest people on the planet.

 

[rightwinger]

"Used to be, low wage scale workers could support themselves without relying on the taxpayer."

This is not true. Those same workers did rely on taxpayers to support them- their parents. Just like now the minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage. Also, if the minimum wage janitor/delivery person wages goes from $9/hr to $15/hr then as a skilled press operator (printer) my wages should also go up an equal percentage. Wouldn't you agree?

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

In theory....that sounds great
In practice.....it isn't working

Why? Because wages are based on demand and not worth.

The demand for work is part of the function that determines the work's value.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

Employers have figured out how to keep their workforce in fear and hungry. By keeping the supply of viable jobs low, employers get to set terms on wages and benefits.

Like monopolies, monopsonies are only coercive with the assistance of legislation. Employers really don't have this power you claim.

Actually, they do

Americas employers are sitting on $7 trillion in untapped cash reserves. There was a time this capital would be put back into the economy in the form of investment and capital improvements. Now, it just sits offshore while workers fight over the available crumbs

The World s Biggest Companies Have Amassed 7 Trillion In Cash - Business Insider

 

[SAYIT]

Americas employers are sitting on $7 trillion in untapped cash reserves. There was a time this capital would be put back into the economy in the form of investment and capital improvements. Now, it just sits offshore while workers fight over the available crumbs

The World s Biggest Companies Have Amassed 7 Trillion In Cash - Business Insider

You are a liar, RW, and we both know why you must lie.
The World s Biggest Companies Have Amassed 7 Trillion In Cash - Business Insider

 

[LOki]

"Used to be, low wage scale workers could support themselves without relying on the taxpayer."

This is not true. Those same workers did rely on taxpayers to support them- their parents. Just like now the minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage. Also, if the minimum wage janitor/delivery person wages goes from $9/hr to $15/hr then as a skilled press operator (printer) my wages should also go up an equal percentage. Wouldn't you agree?

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

In theory....that sounds great
In practice.....it isn't working

Why? Because wages are based on demand and not worth.

The demand for work is part of the function that determines the work's value.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

Employers have figured out how to keep their workforce in fear and hungry. By keeping the supply of viable jobs low, employers get to set terms on wages and benefits.

Like monopolies, monopsonies are only coercive with the assistance of legislation. Employers really don't have this power you claim.

Actually, they do

Americas employers are sitting on $7 trillion in untapped cash reserves. There was a time this capital would be put back into the economy in the form of investment and capital improvements. Now, it just sits offshore while workers fight over the available crumbs

The World s Biggest Companies Have Amassed 7 Trillion In Cash - Business Insider

Of course all those small businesses that in aggregate employ the most workers, are sitting on mad ca$h, just to stick it to burger flippers. I understand.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

 

[rightwinger]

I definitely agree that all low wage scale pay needs to be increased
They have been stagnant for too long

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

In theory....that sounds great
In practice.....it isn't working

Why? Because wages are based on demand and not worth.

The demand for work is part of the function that determines the work's value.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

Employers have figured out how to keep their workforce in fear and hungry. By keeping the supply of viable jobs low, employers get to set terms on wages and benefits.

Like monopolies, monopsonies are only coercive with the assistance of legislation. Employers really don't have this power you claim.

Actually, they do

Americas employers are sitting on $7 trillion in untapped cash reserves. There was a time this capital would be put back into the economy in the form of investment and capital improvements. Now, it just sits offshore while workers fight over the available crumbs

The World s Biggest Companies Have Amassed 7 Trillion In Cash - Business Insider

Of course all those small businesses that in aggregate employ the most workers, are sitting on mad ca$h, just to stick it to burger flippers. I understand.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

The money is out there...$7 trillion that could be pumped into the economy

It would increase the demand for all levels of employees......but our capitalists don't want that

 

[SAYIT]

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

In theory....that sounds great
In practice.....it isn't working

Why? Because wages are based on demand and not worth.

The demand for work is part of the function that determines the work's value.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

Employers have figured out how to keep their workforce in fear and hungry. By keeping the supply of viable jobs low, employers get to set terms on wages and benefits.

Like monopolies, monopsonies are only coercive with the assistance of legislation. Employers really don't have this power you claim.

Actually, they do

Americas employers are sitting on $7 trillion in untapped cash reserves. There was a time this capital would be put back into the economy in the form of investment and capital improvements. Now, it just sits offshore while workers fight over the available crumbs

The World s Biggest Companies Have Amassed 7 Trillion In Cash - Business Insider

Of course all those small businesses that in aggregate employ the most workers, are sitting on mad ca$h, just to stick it to burger flippers. I understand.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

The money is out there...$7 trillion that could be pumped into the economy

It would increase the demand for all levels of employees......but our capitalists don't want that

Again you repeat the $7T lie. It's like you can't help yourself. After all, you're a leftist

 

[LOki]

Why not base a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

In theory....that sounds great
In practice.....it isn't working

Why? Because wages are based on demand and not worth.

The demand for work is part of the function that determines the work's value.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

Employers have figured out how to keep their workforce in fear and hungry. By keeping the supply of viable jobs low, employers get to set terms on wages and benefits.

Like monopolies, monopsonies are only coercive with the assistance of legislation. Employers really don't have this power you claim.

Actually, they do

Americas employers are sitting on $7 trillion in untapped cash reserves. There was a time this capital would be put back into the economy in the form of investment and capital improvements. Now, it just sits offshore while workers fight over the available crumbs

The World s Biggest Companies Have Amassed 7 Trillion In Cash - Business Insider

Of course all those small businesses that in aggregate employ the most workers, are sitting on mad ca$h, just to stick it to burger flippers. I understand.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?

The money is out there...$7 trillion that could be pumped into the economy

It would increase the demand for all levels of employees......but our capitalists don't want that

Of course capitalists have no interest in a vibrant economy.

Why do you object to basing a worker's wages solely upon the value of that worker's work?