|
| Thread: Minimum Wage |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted March 07, 2004 11:08 PM |
|
|
Dingo, richness is not calculated in ratio to other people, but in ratio to: "How much do i need to live a normal life , and how much MORE than that do i have?
So if i have 2.000$ more money in month than needed, i will have them also if another man has now 300$ instead of 200$.
And communism is something more different....i think you know that very well...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted March 07, 2004 11:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Dingo, richness is not calculated in ratio to other people, but in ratio to: "How much do i need to live a normal life , and how much MORE than that do i have?
There is no such thing as a normal life. Everybody views it differently. A normal life can be living in a apartment and driving a Geo Metro and another normal life can be living in a Mansion and driving a Mercades.
Quote:
And communism is something more different....i think you know that very well...
My communism point was, if everybodies pay started to get closer together. Its a little bit like communism.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted March 07, 2004 11:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
People will not be generally happier. The only people that will be happier and the ones that make minimum wage. The more wealthy people will not be happy because now there money is worth less.
Wrong economic thinking Dingo...
If the poor people (and normaly they are the majority) have MORE money, the will spend MORE in buying stuff.
Conclusion: The stores will earn MORE money...
Conclusion: The stores have to pay MORE taxes....
Conclusion: The government will have MORE money..
Conclusion: The government is now able to decrease taxes..
Conclusion: The fee costs for the companies decrease...
....and now the circle is closed, cause first of all, the fee costs will raise coz of raising the minimum wage.
Well, very easy explained, not considered all things, but somehow like this it could/would work....
Because the lower class is spending more money and has more money, there will be an increase in demand for the products. Now if we remember the law of supply and demand, then the prices of the goods will increase making the cost of living greater. So basically raising the minimum wage simply throws the economy off balance. In certain instances, I would agree that raising the minimum wage would be a good thing, but in today's economy, one with millions of small businesses, this would be counter productive. We no longer live in a society that completely depends on the big businnesses to provide jobs the way that it was in the 19th and 20th centuries.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted March 09, 2004 11:04 PM |
|
|
The world rushing toward communism
Quote:
My communism point was, if everybodies pay started to get closer together. Its a little bit like communism.
Oh, strong point indeed. And you’re saying that because it’s kinda like communism, decreased gap between poor and rich is bad. (!!!) Am I the only one who can see this is totally irrational? Can’t you see that that is the “communism” we are all fighting for. You and me, everybody! Isn’t our ultimate goal more just society and an equal share of happiness for all?!
And yes, there is a standard for normal life, at least in economics theory. That would be the amount of money you’d need for decent food every month, basic clothes, rent and some $xxx extra. This is the criterion upon which every nation determines the share of poor people of its population. That is why we can say that in Niger for e.g., 95% of population lives under the poverty line, and in Norway – only 0.2%. (I made up the numbers, just to illustrate.)
Quote:
Because the lower class is spending more money and has more money, there will be an increase in demand for the products. Now if we remember the law of supply and demand, then the prices of the goods will increase making the cost of living greater.
No, no, no… Increase is demand (or production) is always a positive sign. What I mean here is increase in demand that is not caused by decreased production (such as our case). So, the effect that in these conditions the increased demand would cause, would be the possibility for growth of production, through the investment of the profit.
This is where the trick in economy is, actually - Balancing the profit (so that it can respond to the demand) and the demand (so that it can spur production).
A capitalist owner in a free market society has these two choices when in crisis: Is he going to keep his profit and reduce workers income or lay off some of them; or is he going to pay them more in order to increase their purchasing power and by doing that expand his own market. Unfortunately, his choice is obvious. Deceived by his short-sightedness (as RSF says), he digs his own grave. While this logic may not be very clear for individual companies, if you take society as a whole, you should get the idea.
At this point my title comes into play, “The world rushing toward communism”.
You see, socialist thinkers and economists realized this a long time ago. Ever since the 19th century, when they predicted that capitalism will suffocate itself, by concentrating the producing capacity in very few people, with the rest of society (workers) having no money to pay for the large amount of goods produced. But they made one mistake however. They thought that the “always profit, profit, profit” logic of capitalism would not change, and that in time, workers would have to overthrow the dominant class. They also oversaw the incredible power of adaptation and survival of capitalism.
Eventually, big capitalists also saw how they might end, so they switched their die-hard profit-making policies to more leftist ones, thus gradually increasing the wages of workers. Ever since then, the economy is slowly going left, with the wealthiest Scandinavian countries, as one example. In time this might even lead to full communism. But that’s only a prediction. While a bare historical fact is that the capitalism of today is a “socialist utopia” compared to the ruthless capitalism of 19 century.
For a bunch of you out there, this seems like a Marxist bullsnow. I don’t blame you. You are perfectly fine when you see the present free market system functioning. But it’s only functioning because the world is still far from developing its full productive potentials. Thus, capitalism is able to linger on the back of sweatshop workers from Indonesia, Congo, Bolivia. But, unless we act more leftist, a day will come when the gap between poor and rich countries will become an ocean, and the only possible outcome would be either a total economic breakdown, or an all-out social war. The capitalists realized they have to increase income for their workers. It’s now time for the world leaders to realize the same for the poorest countries.
Socialism is nothing more, than a way to speed this inevitable process up. By doing that, we can save an enormous amount of people working themselves to death in factories. It has its flaws, however, the biggest one (and I think, the only one), the imperfect human nature and its tendency to corruption. Back to the economic terms, socialism is OK when dealing with giving enough money to workers, thus keeping the demand stable (and workers happy, of course  ). Its only flaw comes into play when deciding how/where to spend the profit. With this leading to less production, that causing inflation, as it has happened in the initial years after the break-up of USSR.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted March 10, 2004 12:14 AM |
|
|
I am dead set against anything communistic. Sure, communism sounds nice in theory however in practice it always fails. You must take into account human nature. First of all, I'm not even talking about the corruption of man. I am talking about the laziness of man. Without a reason to succeed to strive to be better, you will have a society that will do just enough to get by and nothing more. The fact of the matter is that competition breeds success. The ability to strive to be more successful then the man next to you. It is this that drives our economy. The more you try to close the gap between the rich and the poor, the more you restrict the successes, the more you restrict their desire to more than just get by.
The backbone of capitalism is competition. It is the one thing that is often forgotten or not taken into account in other theories of economics. I am a teenager and I make a minimum wage salary and I don't have to do a damn thing at work to keep my job. As long as I do just enough to get by I'm all set. Another thing I hate about raising the minimum wage is that you give more money to people who haven't done anything to try to be more successful financially. If you really can't find a better job or work hard enough to get one, than you aren't trying very hard or at least not hard enough. The capitalist society practices what nature has been practicing for millions of years. Survival of the fittest. If you argue with that than you are arguing with mother nature. However, I would agree that big businnesses can be very bad for the economy, because there isn't enough competition. For example, WalMart. WalMart comes into a big town and starts off with really low prices. They drive all the other guys out of business and then raise their prices once all their competition is gone.
IMO, communism is bad. I also think Laissez-faire is also really bad. Communism has no competition. Laissez-faire has no restrictions on keeping big companies from bullying everyone around. I believe the ideal economic situation is one in which the big businesses are restricted from buying out too many other smaller businesses or doing what WalMart has done to so many small towns. These restrictions must be applied in order to keep competition high. Otherwise, there will be no competition in a capitalist market. This is where the capitalist society has gone wrong. When the big businesses have driven all of the little guys out of business and preventing any new ones from cropping up. Then there are monopolies or situations with very few competitors. At this point the big businesses can exploit little guy. However, with the many small businesses that we have in our economy right now, there is plenty of competition and so the ecomony will set a working minimum wage all on it's own. For example, in the big cities no one makes minimum wage income. It's always much higher, because the cost of living is higher. The fact of the matter is that a functioning economy will set it's own wages and it's own prices. It will only become unbalanced when there isn't enough competition.
Edit: So far I think that you have made some excellent points, however I still feel that minimum wage is unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that a competitive market will set it's own wages and it's own prices. We don't set prices for the market, so why do we set wages? Raising either one will result in an increased rate of inflation.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 16, 2004 09:44 PM |
|
|
Hey RSF, I hope you read my post about socialism and communism, although you didn’t address those particular issues. Still, you provided some good arguments here, but not entirely correct, or at least variable from economy to economy, or from one form of socialism to another.
Quote:
Sure, communism sounds nice in theory however in practice it always fails.
You know as they say: Practice makes it perfect.
First af all, socialism doesn’t mean no competition, although go-till-death capitalist competition is not the case either. A general myth about socialism is the “equal salary for all”. Absolutely not true, but socialism does strive to provide minimal living conditions for all. So there’s still competition for bigger salaries, but the difference is that the “weakest link” is not instantly and ruthlessly eliminated. So, the “less fitter” also survive.
Quote:
The capitalist society practices what nature has been practicing for millions of years. Survival of the fittest. If you argue with that than you are arguing with mother nature.
And don’t you think that man tries to make order out of chaos? Should we let the cruel laws of nature govern our lives?
Quote:
I believe the ideal economic situation is one in which the big businesses are restricted from buying out too many other smaller businesses or doing what WalMart has done to so many small towns.
It’s always nice to see rightist guys with leftist logic. Keep up the good thinking. lol
Btw, in a free-market economy, monopolies are not the case, because people are allowed to lead small buisnisses. If in any case, a single company is dominant, that is perfectly legitimate, because that means it’s the best. I don’t see how can protecting small buisnisess the way you suggest help, because what good is the protection, when their buisniss still goes down, caused by the tough big-business competition.
IMO, you locate the problem exactly, but not the solution.
Quote:
We don't set prices for the market, so why do we set wages?
You didn’t read my post afterall, did ya?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
tigerangelz
Known Hero
Angelic Tigress
|
|
posted March 17, 2004 06:42 AM |
|
|
There is no way that a person, or even a couple, could survive if they were both making minimum wage, and living the town we live in in Colorado.
Minimum wage is alright for kids who just need fun money, but I feel for anyone that has to try & live on it.
____________
Gaia Forums
Guardians Grove
|
|
RSENL7
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted March 17, 2004 07:55 AM |
|
|
If the standard of living is higher than the minimum wage should be to match it, then it should be raised.
____________
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted March 17, 2004 11:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no way that a person, or even a couple, could survive if they were both making minimum wage, and living the town we live in in Colorado.
Minimum wage is alright for kids who just need fun money, but I feel for anyone that has to try & live on it.
Well, I challange anyone who says he or she can live in a country (any country) with a wage of about 80 USD per month. It seems that in Romania you can't, but you have to. Oh, and by the way, 80 is, sometimes, a lucky break
____________
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted March 18, 2004 01:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
with a wage of about 80 USD per month.
How is that possible? 80 Dollars a month is terrible. I can't even live on 80 dollars a week.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted March 18, 2004 01:47 PM |
|
|
Well, that's a fact, and you know what, the economical system here is so damn stupid that some old people have a retirement payment of (hold on to something) 0.3 USD a month!!!
Can you belive that? And the politicians all have big big wages. I cannot understand things anymore
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 18, 2004 05:21 PM |
|
|
Well, politicians don't have big wages on their own, but they somehow find... shall we say, "ways" to make them bigger and bigger.
and btw, everything is a LOT cheaper here.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Athimus_Phaeni
Famous Hero
Final Fantasy Fan
|
|
posted March 19, 2004 02:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How is that possible? 80 Dollars a month is terrible. I can't even live on 80 dollars a week.
Minimum wage in Brazil is about 85 USD. And lots of people live with that. Of course, as Svarog said, many things are cheaper here, like food, clothes.
How much do you pay for your regular meat(cow)? In my city, it is about 2-3 USD/Kg. The most expensive is about 5-6/Kg.
____________
But I won't be
Burned by the reflection
Of the fire in your eyes
As you're starying at the sun
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted March 19, 2004 09:08 AM |
|
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted March 19, 2004 09:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, strong point indeed. And you’re saying that because it’s kinda like communism, decreased gap between poor and rich is bad. (!!!) Am I the only one who can see this is totally irrational? Can’t you see that that is the “communism” we are all fighting for. You and me, everybody! Isn’t our ultimate goal more just society and an equal share of happiness for all?!
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but one of the big political philosofy battles is Freedom vs Equality.
If we are all equal (the same) there will be no freedom, since everyone will do the same things, and not have a choice to live their own life.
However, if we are all free, differences in competence, will to work, and starting riches, will cause inequalities.
Where to put society in between these 2 options is a very hard thing, because different people have different values and ideals, and different interests.
As it is now in many advanced countries, is we try to have equal opportunity to get our lives working well. Note that this does not mean equal situations, because that is influenced by competence and will to work, and also the situation of your parents. But equal opportunity is a good compromise for now, that lets us keep also freedom.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 19, 2004 05:08 PM |
|
|
That's also what I mean bjorn. Equal opportunity, equal rights. Only in my vocabulary that's the same with equality. For me equaliti is NOT the same with equal wages, equal education, equal homes, equal behavior etc.
Only the problem I see with capitalism and class differences is that there is hardly any "movement" between the classes. If you were born in a worker's familiy you'll remain worker (more or less payed), while if you were a son of a company owner, you'll inherit the family business. That's not an equal opportunity. It's ruthless class exploitation, not much different than in ancient times, only with a lot of "make-up".
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 04:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Only the problem I see with capitalism and class differences is that there is hardly any "movement" between the classes. If you were born in a worker's familiy you'll remain worker (more or less payed), while if you were a son of a company owner, you'll inherit the family business. That's not an equal opportunity. It's ruthless class exploitation, not much different than in ancient times, only with a lot of "make-up".
I completely disagree with you Svarog. You completely miss the point. There are people who work really hard to support their children. Those people who start up those businesses work really hard to give their children good opportunities and to punish their hard work is ridiculous. I also completely disagree with your outlook on people being stuck in classes. My father started out with nothing and he has worked his way into management for a direct response company making very good money. There are more opportunities than people realize and most of those opportunities are earned, not simply given to you. I am a believer in opportunities as something that people earn and work for. Often times people are so unprepared or simply not looking that they cannot take advantage of them. There are more than enough opportunities to go around for everyone. I believe that if everyone took advantage of all possible opportunities, they could be millionaires even a homeless man. However not many people are willing to work and earn their opportunities and when they find themselves going nowhere they complain about not getting opportunities and other people having it better. In fact inheriting a business is both a burden and a gift. It burdens you with great responsibility that you may or may not want to have. You may have wanted to do something else with your life.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 05:49 AM |
|
|
off topic rant?
There is more social mobility now than there was in ancient times. People are more accepting of social mobility now than they were then. There is actually a middle class now, and there wasn't one back then. The system now is not just the same old/same old with new dressings; there have been real changes.
However...start rant mode... statistically, it doesn't happen very often. The American Dream is basically a myth. Just enough people make it to keep the myth going, but it is a myth nevertheless. What's worse, it functions to exploit and give false hope to the lower classes. Lots of people work very hard, hoping to get a break. Very few have that good luck. The system is geared towards keeping people in their current socio-economic place.
Just look at education. In the US, public schools are funded by property taxes. Surprise, surprise: districts with expensive property have well funded schools. Those with less money have schools that struggle. The tracking system of schools also trains kids for a certain station in life. Private schools just add another layer to the system. I went to a college-prep school, and they meant that literally. 98% of my high school's alumnae graduate from college. The national statistic is 25%. Do the students at my high school work harder and are deserving of a college education than 75% of the population? Obviously not! The school did have high educational standards, but most of us had been to really good grammar schools beforehand, so we were prepared. Even those in my class who didn't work very hard, who got Cs and Ds, were accepted to some college because of the name of their alma mater. Our peers who got As and Bs in the regular track of the local public school, however, didn't even have a chance.
I took the whole college-culture for granted. Then, once at college, I took a sociology course. That class just opened my eyes to all of the systems, the norms, the unconcious ways that societies work. Yeah, maybe a few of those kids who are shuttled into the service industry after high school can start up a new business, make it big, move up in life. But what percentage? Of the thousands who are destined this way because of where they are born, how many have the perseverance and plain dumb luck to defy the odds?
That's not even going into the other stuff...how that dream can propel people to find alternative ways to prove themselves...like selling drugs, the fastest and most reliable route into middle class status when you're stuck in the slums...terminate rant mode.
Erm...none of this has much to do with minimum wages. As I mentioned before, raising minimum wages is probably a backfire strategy in helping the working poor. But, the inequality based on luck is why I prefer a socialist softening of the raw brutality of capitalism.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 07, 2004 07:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I believe that if everyone took advantage of all possible opportunities, they could be millionaires even a homeless man.
Oh, oh, oh... Are you sure you beleive this? Living the American dream, huh? I guess it doesn't hurt.
You know, you talk about your hard-working father making it to a menager. What was the cost of it? High, that's for sure.
No matter how high your dad's salary is, he will always be just that - an employee. Someone else will possess the factories and the means of production.
It's a fact today that the most successful global companies have more financial power than many states national GDP. And who owns these factories? So we come to a situation where all of this financial power is situated in the hands of only a miniscule percent of the world population. Now, wouldn't it be better if it was more equally distributed?
The capitalists were not stuped not to allow a vertical fluctuation among the working calss too. They did that in order to provoke maximum motivation so that they can get top effectiveness from the workers (and you know to whose benefit that is) However the gap between them, the capitalists, and the working class is as huge as the Atlantic Ocean (more like the Pacific).
Excellent post and example Khaelo, just as always.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 05:43 AM |
|
|
Global corporations aren't so bad...
Quote:
Now, wouldn't it be better if it was more equally distributed?
Absolutely not, because I am a firm believer in trickle down economics. These large companies are good for the economy. It is these large corporations that are supplying jobs and keeping the cost of products down. Imagine if all the big businesses were gone. All of them. Haven't you ever heard of the industrial revolution. Mass producing goods lowers the cost of the product. At least I feel that completely removing an upper class would throw off the economy.
There is a reason those people are at the top and own worldwide corporations. The people that own the big businesses are there, because they are talented at running the business. If they weren't they would go bankrupt. So by removing these big businesses you give the economy back to people that simply do not have the same mass-producing power. And are not as good as running businesses. Yeah sure everyone will have more money, but everyone will have to pay more as well, because the cost of the products will go up. And that is because there simply is no means of acquiring the same large scale mass-production without global corporations. If big businesses are no longer allowed to be in existance then who is going to be able to create such mass-production? The government?  That would be the day.
Edit: Just re-read my post. Can I hold any sort of flowing thought process? The first paragraph was just a series of random unrelated arguements.
Edit Again: Okay revised. Added a conclusion to relate to other arguements.
So how does this relate to my theories earlier. We need both small businesses and big businesses. Both are good, however big businesses can sometimes be a bit too powerful as I have already admitted. They are known to completely drive out all other competitors by means of unethical means. However if other businesses simply cannot compete then it is better off that they go out of business, because it was not meeting the needs of the market. Khaelo, you said that the capitalist economy was a bit too brutal, however this brutality keeps something that has been used in nature for aeons. Survival of the Fittest. The competition will weed out all the other unsuccessful businesses.
|
| |
|
|
