Original Post
Minimum wage
The federal minimum wage is $7.25/h in the United States as of 2009. Each state can mandate their own minimum wages above $7.25/h like in Massachusetts where it's $9.00/h as of 2015.
On the left the two front runners Hilary Clinton and Berny Sanders both agree that the federal minimum wage should be increased to nearly double of what it is currently (Sanders - $15/h) (Clinton - $12/h).
While on the right Trump is advocating for minimum wages to stay the same. And some advocating that we completely ditch the idea of a minimum wage in the US.
On the other hand, for those who support the idea of $15 an hour or ($31,000 annually) suggest that this will allow us to have a better standard of living.
Taking many of the people who are impoverished out of poverty and allowing for many cuts in government assignment programs now that people will be able to pay for food/healthcare and other daily things.
But the biggest concern I have with the $15/h argument is the fact that we already an issue with outsourced jobs. It's much cheaper for companies to pay China/Mexico and many other countries lower for similar work.
Since raising the minimum wage to $15 would possibly deter employers from hiring young employees a way to combat the issue would be to have a lower minimum wage for teenagers (maybe around $10.00/h) and once they become adults (age: 18+) they will be paid at the federal level (Possibly $15.00). This might also be flawed because people with more experience may get a lower chance of getting the same job but still promotes teenagers to get experience. This is just something that popped into my head, it's not the main discussion but it's just something to start on.
What do you guys think? Does this apply to your country too (if you aren't from the US)?
Things to stay away from in the discussion:
> Female/male pay gap (that's another discussion entirely)
On the left the two front runners Hilary Clinton and Berny Sanders both agree that the federal minimum wage should be increased to nearly double of what it is currently (Sanders - $15/h) (Clinton - $12/h).
While on the right Trump is advocating for minimum wages to stay the same. And some advocating that we completely ditch the idea of a minimum wage in the US.
On the other hand, for those who support the idea of $15 an hour or ($31,000 annually) suggest that this will allow us to have a better standard of living.
Taking many of the people who are impoverished out of poverty and allowing for many cuts in government assignment programs now that people will be able to pay for food/healthcare and other daily things.
But the biggest concern I have with the $15/h argument is the fact that we already an issue with outsourced jobs. It's much cheaper for companies to pay China/Mexico and many other countries lower for similar work.
Since raising the minimum wage to $15 would possibly deter employers from hiring young employees a way to combat the issue would be to have a lower minimum wage for teenagers (maybe around $10.00/h) and once they become adults (age: 18+) they will be paid at the federal level (Possibly $15.00). This might also be flawed because people with more experience may get a lower chance of getting the same job but still promotes teenagers to get experience. This is just something that popped into my head, it's not the main discussion but it's just something to start on.
What do you guys think? Does this apply to your country too (if you aren't from the US)?
Things to stay away from in the discussion:
> Female/male pay gap (that's another discussion entirely)
I think that raising the minimum wage would be great for the poorest of the poor who are actually getting minimum wage, but it would also hurt the middle class by decreasing their buying power. $15 an hour is just right, $12 is stupid for various reasons(doesn't really help the poorest, hurts a lot of folks anyways)
Prices would undoubtedly go up to compensate for the forced inflation of currency, which is sad but unavoidable. That means that people who are currently getting roughly $15k a year will be getting $31k or thereabouts, and everyone getting less than $31k by a smaller margin will be bumped up to it. This is a very good thing for these people, because it allows for financial security without much effort. That's the good part of it. The bad part of it is that now that everyone working fulltime is being paid $31k a year, which means that companies will inevitably raise the cost of their products to maintain their profit margin.
You can't prevent companies from securing their profit margin. To better explain why this is the case, consider this. In a society where the least paid citizen makes a dollar a day, and an average citizen makes $3 a day, apples cost 5 cents because they need to be affordable. Everyone can afford apples, including the least paid, because they are paid enough to be able to afford them but not enough to afford a lot of them. The least paid citizen can afford to buy 20 apples, whereas the average citizen can afford 60. Say the least paid citizen is bumped up to average, and average becomes the new minimum. Apples will no longer cost 5 cents because that would drop the profit margin of the company by 300%, because they are paying their employees 3 times as much. Therefore, the price of the apple goes up to $0.15 to maintain the profit margin. This now limits the former least paid and the former average citizens to 20 apples, effectively cutting the buying power of the former average citizen down to 33% of what it was, and essentially maintaining the buying power of the former least paid citizen. That's the absolute worst case scenario where the company does not want to give up a single cent from their profit margin. What people want to happen is to cut the company's profit margin by a third and balance the buying power of the former average citizen and the former least paid citizen to thirty apples each, which increases the buying power of the former least paid citizen by half and decreases the buying power of the former average citizen by a third.
In short, the average citizen will always be hurt by increasing the minimum wage, it's inevitable. However, if the wage the least paid person is receiving is not sufficient to live, then there must be a compromise between the buying power of the average citizen and that of the least paid citizen. Keep in mind that the least paid citizen is on the lower end of the spectrum, which is a bell curve. People on minimum wage are outliers. A utilitarian approach has always been tradition in the US. I wouldn't mind poor people being bumped up into a more comfortable wage, because I make enough that the decrease in buying power wouldn't noticeably hurt me, so provided that everyone's happy with it, I don't really care.
Instead of raising the minimum wage, I would rather we implement apprenticeship programs, education programs, and various other accessible programs to help unskilled laborers get out of the unskilled labor rut.
Prices would undoubtedly go up to compensate for the forced inflation of currency, which is sad but unavoidable. That means that people who are currently getting roughly $15k a year will be getting $31k or thereabouts, and everyone getting less than $31k by a smaller margin will be bumped up to it. This is a very good thing for these people, because it allows for financial security without much effort. That's the good part of it. The bad part of it is that now that everyone working fulltime is being paid $31k a year, which means that companies will inevitably raise the cost of their products to maintain their profit margin.
You can't prevent companies from securing their profit margin. To better explain why this is the case, consider this. In a society where the least paid citizen makes a dollar a day, and an average citizen makes $3 a day, apples cost 5 cents because they need to be affordable. Everyone can afford apples, including the least paid, because they are paid enough to be able to afford them but not enough to afford a lot of them. The least paid citizen can afford to buy 20 apples, whereas the average citizen can afford 60. Say the least paid citizen is bumped up to average, and average becomes the new minimum. Apples will no longer cost 5 cents because that would drop the profit margin of the company by 300%, because they are paying their employees 3 times as much. Therefore, the price of the apple goes up to $0.15 to maintain the profit margin. This now limits the former least paid and the former average citizens to 20 apples, effectively cutting the buying power of the former average citizen down to 33% of what it was, and essentially maintaining the buying power of the former least paid citizen. That's the absolute worst case scenario where the company does not want to give up a single cent from their profit margin. What people want to happen is to cut the company's profit margin by a third and balance the buying power of the former average citizen and the former least paid citizen to thirty apples each, which increases the buying power of the former least paid citizen by half and decreases the buying power of the former average citizen by a third.
In short, the average citizen will always be hurt by increasing the minimum wage, it's inevitable. However, if the wage the least paid person is receiving is not sufficient to live, then there must be a compromise between the buying power of the average citizen and that of the least paid citizen. Keep in mind that the least paid citizen is on the lower end of the spectrum, which is a bell curve. People on minimum wage are outliers. A utilitarian approach has always been tradition in the US. I wouldn't mind poor people being bumped up into a more comfortable wage, because I make enough that the decrease in buying power wouldn't noticeably hurt me, so provided that everyone's happy with it, I don't really care.
Instead of raising the minimum wage, I would rather we implement apprenticeship programs, education programs, and various other accessible programs to help unskilled laborers get out of the unskilled labor rut.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Goat
On the other hand, for those who support the idea of $15 an hour or ($31,200 annually) suggest that this will allow us to have a better standard of living.
This is for people working full time (40h/wk). Just a clarification for everyone else that joins in later.
Originally Posted by Goat
Taking many of the people who are impoverished out of poverty and allowing for many cuts in government assignment programs now that people will be able to pay for food/healthcare and other daily things.
I've never heard of this as an argument for raising the minimum wage. This is definitely a plus, however it should be noted that there is a certain balance between the total cost of increasing the minimum wage and the money that will be saved by not as many people relying on welfare-style programs. While I'm all for getting paid almost double what I am now, $15 might be a bit over the line and actually end up costing the government more money.
Originally Posted by Goat
But the biggest concern I have with the $15/h argument is the fact that we already an issue with outsourced jobs. It's much cheaper for companies to pay China/Mexico and many other countries lower for similar work.
That is also the main argument against minimum wage increases. This is the reason why many people who advocate for wage increases propose that it is increased over a period of time, rather than a hard spike from $7.25 to $15. This would (in theory) help ease everyone into it and hopefully keep businesses from pulling out their labor from the US.
Originally Posted by Goat
Since raising the minimum wage to $15 would possibly deter employers from hiring young employees a way to combat the issue would be to have a lower minimum wage for teenagers (maybe around $10.00/h) and once they become adults (age: 18+) they will be paid at the federal level (Possibly $15.00). This might also be flawed because people with more experience may get a lower chance of getting the same job but still promotes teenagers to get experience. This is just something that popped into my head, it's not the main discussion but it's just something to start on.
This is also an issue for employers to consider as well. If the business hires an underage worker with no experience, they will likely have to train that person more than the over-18 applicant who has experience with the job he's applying for.
Originally Posted by Hyde
I think that raising the minimum wage would be great for the poorest of the poor who are actually getting minimum wage, but it would also hurt the middle class by decreasing their buying power. $15 an hour is just right, $12 is stupid for various reasons(doesn't really help the poorest, hurts a lot of folks anyways)
Exactly how does $12 not help as many people and hurt more than $15 would? It seems like an arbitrary number you came up with.
Originally Posted by Hyde
Prices would undoubtedly go up to compensate for the forced inflation of currency, which is sad but unavoidable. That means that people who are currently getting roughly $15k a year will be getting $31k or thereabouts, and everyone getting less than $31k by a smaller margin will be bumped up to it. This is a very good thing for these people, because it allows for financial security without much effort. That's the good part of it. The bad part of it is that now that everyone working fulltime is being paid $31k a year, which means that companies will inevitably raise the cost of their products to maintain their profit margin.
Link. This only studied fast food restaurants and added in healthcare benefits as well. If you threw out healthcare benefits, but expanded it to every store, the price increase would likely be the same. I would trade a 4% increased price in goods if it meant I got paid more as well.
Originally Posted by Hyde
You can't prevent companies from securing their profit margin. To better explain why this is the case, consider this. In a society where the least paid citizen makes a dollar a day, and an average citizen makes $3 a day, apples cost 5 cents because they need to be affordable. Everyone can afford apples, including the least paid, because they are paid enough to be able to afford them but not enough to afford a lot of them. The least paid citizen can afford to buy 20 apples, whereas the average citizen can afford 60. Say the least paid citizen is bumped up to average, and average becomes the new minimum. Apples will no longer cost 5 cents because that would drop the profit margin of the company by 300%, because they are paying their employees 3 times as much. Therefore, the price of the apple goes up to $0.15 to maintain the profit margin. This now limits the former least paid and the former average citizens to 20 apples, effectively cutting the buying power of the former average citizen down to 33% of what it was, and essentially maintaining the buying power of the former least paid citizen. That's the absolute worst case scenario where the company does not want to give up a single cent from their profit margin. What people want to happen is to cut the company's profit margin by a third and balance the buying power of the former average citizen and the former least paid citizen to thirty apples each, which increases the buying power of the former least paid citizen by half and decreases the buying power of the former average citizen by a third.
This ties in with the above. Theoretical models of how the economy works only so far as they are accurate.
Originally Posted by Hyde
Instead of raising the minimum wage, I would rather we implement apprenticeship programs, education programs, and various other accessible programs to help unskilled laborers get out of the unskilled labor rut.
So instead of increasing the minimum wage (which allows workers to pay for education in addition to living expenses themselves) you propose that the government spend more money and go further in debt. Seems legit.
Last edited by hawkesnightmare; Feb 2, 2016 at 03:37 AM.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
In short, the average citizen will always be hurt by increasing the minimum wage, it's inevitable. However, if the wage the least paid person is receiving is not sufficient to live, then there must be a compromise between the buying power of the average citizen and that of the least paid citizen. Keep in mind that the least paid citizen is on the lower end of the spectrum, which is a bell curve. People on minimum wage are outliers. A utilitarian approach has always been tradition in the US. I wouldn't mind poor people being bumped up into a more comfortable wage, because I make enough that the decrease in buying power wouldn't noticeably hurt me, so provided that everyone's happy with it, I don't really care.
This is perfect. As much as I wish the assholes who have all the money would distribute it (because they don't work any harder than the ones who do normal jobs. Investing in stocks is not even that difficult. It also provides around 0 benefit for the society), that is not going to happen. We should however give a chance to those in poverty who can't support their families by sharing a little. I can't believe that people can be so egocentric to actually be offended that it "hurts" middle class. We are human. We should be supporting each other wtf.
I'm just saying, but if the rich shared their money, it would hard press you to find a lot of people living in poverty.
Last edited by WAPOW; Feb 2, 2016 at 01:49 AM.
Chickster: I literally don't know why I did it.
Originally Posted by Link
This is perfect. As much as I wish the assholes who have all the money would distribute it (because they don't work any harder than the ones who do normal jobs. Investing in stocks is not even that difficult. It also provides around 0 benefit for the society), that is not going to happen. We should however give a chance to those in poverty who can't support their families by sharing a little. I can't believe that people can be so egocentric to actually be offended that it "hurts" middle class. We are human. We should be supporting each other wtf.
I'm just saying, but if the rich shared their money, it would hard press you to find a lot of people living in poverty.
Sorry but how does rich people being rich hurt anyone? You understand how stocks work right? You understand that they don't store their money under their bed right? You understand that rich people are part of the economy right?
Communism always collapses, the root of poverty is overpopulation, not the free economy.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
