6th Mar: There is an option now on your profile page to use "compact" folders. This works pretty well for phone users and others who like less scrolling.
I changed accounts.That made my day, Yeah Bro. Of course, I know where it came from.
同志"The point is that if you have human beings whose work output is apparently so worthless that you cannot even survive on it, then you have a serious problem." The funny thing about this whole discussion is that worker productivity and output has been consistently increasing over time while wages have been dropping/remaining stagnant.
Which is entirely due to the controllers of the business having far more power then the workers. Unequal distribution of power and all that.
Moar and Moar and MoarYeah, if you make a concerted effort to maintain an economy where workers/employers have a balance of power, the minimum wage is actually much less important than if you intentionally maintain an economy where the power is shifted in favor of employers.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
^ Definitely. When the balance of power is equal, then the "competitive wage" myth actually works far more effectively then it does in a scenario where those on top have total control. (And, of course, things get bad when unemployment is high, since that's just another reason which shifts the balance of power towards the employers.)
Exactly. And since corporations have thrown the economy in the dumpster, wages get bid down when there are fewer jobs. In some respects, a minimum wage is necessary in order to prevent the wage-price deflationary spiral from going out of control. A strong minimum wage has the effect of not only protecting workers from businesses, but also in preventing deflationary spirals (which have major recessionary impacts on the economy).
Pro-Freedom Fanatic10, 25 ain't no money at all: We need a national minimum wage of no less than 15 bucks an hour. I know most small businesses can't pay that, but that ain't a problem: We should implement it now, but only applied to big businesses or subsidiaries thereof. Then the wealth would really trickle down. 'Bout a year later, extra purchasing power gives small businesses extra revenue. A year later small businesses (wich would now be able to afford it) are forced to pay fifteen bucks an hour as well. Now nobody gets crap wages and consumption and demand go through the roof, boosting earnings and eventually production. Just like the good ol'days of a fully unionized workforce.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
I changed accounts.I like that plan, but I think I would extend the timeline slightly for the transition to full use of the $14-16 minimum wage, from 2 years to 3 (unless I misread your post); this is going simply by my parents' assessment of your idea (well, my dad's, anyhow), as small business owners.
Writer's Welcome WagonFirst, we have to define what is considered a "big business". Second, if the plan is to be followed through, it should jump to $10 first, and then $15, but within a five-year timespan. Having it changed in only one year would cause some unstablity. What would be the drawbacks though?
edited 18th Dec '11 12:14:32 PM by chihuahua0
War Profiteer^ There is always inflation, one problem that comes from a raised wage at the bottom. Greedy businesses raise their prices to match the profits they were getting before wages were forced to be raised, and then to compensate all the people who were making 15 bucks before the raise will want 20, things of that nature. Which is why a gradual transition is much more agreeable, gives things time to balance themselves out. I make about 15 dollars right now, I know I'd damn sure want a raise if suddenly my wages were minimum wage, seeing as I'm a supervisor.
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
I changed accounts.I think what we should do, perhaps in addition to the minimum wage, is the ever-popular "tie the highest wage to the lowest wage scheme, " where the highest-earner in a company can only make X, where X is some factor of the wage of the lowest-earner in a company. So, say you have a CEO and a janitor, and the janitor makes minimum wage. This law would (ideally) then say that the CEO could only make, say, 10 times that amount. So, if the higher ups want to make more, they have to raise wages...
DecemberistBarkely, in the UK, Minimum wage rose faster and higher than inflation -shrug-
NOT THE BEES
I think what we should do, perhaps in addition to the minimum wage, is the ever-popular "tie the highest wage to the lowest wage scheme, "I'm actually eager to see what happens to places that are implementing that. I can see a few potential problems that can come from it (executives mysteriously getting more bonuses etc.), but I'm not sure to what degree and the idea sounds conceptually right.
Well it's about total yearly compensation not being able to exceed the lowest worker, not just a salary. I'm not sure if that idea is that great but I understand it and it may be a poor solution to a terrible problem (which is better than what we currently have). You can raise minimum wage up to 10 bucks almost within a year. Ontario did it with no problems, basically the province said to increase minimum wage according to inflation but within a 5 years raise up to the missing 30 years of inflation counting. Other provinces did the same thing, so the Canadian minimum wage levels are all roughly around 10 dollars depending on the province (higher in the north to account for the higher cost of living). But that's nearly nothing. The issue is and always has been workers not being able to get high wage jobs.
NOT THE BEESThat's not the issue either. The lowest-paying job out there — regardless of how many people are being paid slightly more — will presumably still be taken by someone, and it still has to feasibly support oneself and a possible child.
The US has incredibly low minimum wages. BC is moving towards a $10 minimum wage now (used to be $8), and I think ours is one of the lowest in Canada. I think it's reasonable to set the minimum wage at a level that enables a person earning it to survive and support themselves. As much as people hated it (and I believe it's being scrapped), BC's 'training wage' (a level lower than the minimum wage until you have the equivalent of two years' full-time work experience) had some value in terms of providing different levels for adults needing to support themselves and teens working a summer job, so that young people can still find work. I think that here they should cut back the training wage to only applying for the equivalent to your first six months or year of full-time work, and keep it at $8.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.