Minimum wage

[frigidweirdo]

Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need. Secondly the rich want people to be poor so they can work these minimum wage jobs and make others rich. Again, we're a society, shouldn't we at least make sure that people can afford a fucking roof over their head if they are actually being productive and actually making other people rich?

What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing. The right moans and bitches that people don't work, then when they do work they couldn't give a fuck about whether it's actually worth their while to do so.

Firstly, the US isn't doing enough to get people the skills that they need.

Its up to the US to get people trained?

I always thought that was MY job.

What kind of a selfish world do we live in where we say to people that 40 or even 50 hours isn't even enough to get a roof over their head, no matter what kind of work they're doing

The real world.

You should visit sometime

The problem is a country needs certain skills. Look at Germany, they set out to be a high tech manufacturer, seeing, rightly, that if you stick to the cheap stuff, that countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam will be able to come along with low skilled and much cheaper workers and take over your jobs. The US is trying to get back jobs that it shouldn't have, and because it hasn't gone out there to get higher tech jobs, many of these are being done abroad too or require foreign workers to do them. This is a problem.

Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be, and they decided they want their society to be strong. You lot have decided you want low paid manufacturing jobs. I don't get it.

The US is the world leader in manufacturing. We produced $2.3 Trillion in manufactured goods.

The next highest is Japan with $1.6 Trillion in goods.
Germany is $460 Billion in goods.

The entire EU as a whole, only produced $2 Trillion in goods.

Regardless, when you say "Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be", what exactly are you suggesting?

We force students into the degree programs we want? So when a girl says she wants a degree in nursing, or a snowflake wants a liberal arts degree, we do what about that? Demand they take engineering?

View attachment 103549
What is your solution to this?

Again, the US now might be the leader, but countries like China are emerging and doing what the US does cheaper. Trying to stem this isn't going to work, other than to make all goods more expensive (and people can't even afford a place to stay as it is).

http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user...ts/World_manufacturing_production_2016_Q3.pdf

Figure 4 page 12
Growth in developing countries is growing fast, in developed countries not so fast or going backwards.

Table 1 page 13 shows that Europe has 24.1% of manufacturing, North America has 20.6%. China has 19.9% and rising, FAST (7% growth a year right now).

How do you solve the problem of someone wants to do one degree and you want them to do others? Limit how many places there are for certain degrees, push certain subjects at school, tell kids how much money they'll earn if they do this job or that job. You know, it's not that hard.

That's not really surprising. Growth is always faster when you are catching up, than blazing the trail.

I would be shocked if China wasn't growing faster. That has nothing to do with their system being better, or ours being worse.

Remember just from the population numbers alone, they will over take the US no matter how fantastic our system is, or how bad theirs is.

If we have 100,000 people making $50,000 a year in goods... that's $5 Million in GDP.

If they have 1 billion people making $10,000 in goods a year, that's $10 Trillion in GDP.

The idea that we will always be the world leader economically is absolutely impossible no matter what economic, educational, or cultural policies you put in place.

The only way we do that, is if all those other countries re-adopted socialists policies that destroy their economies again. But there is no possible way, regardless of anything government does here, that is going to allow a country of 310 million keep leadership over a country of 1.3 Billion people. Can't happen.

Yes, it's not surprising, however what is surprising is that many people ignore this fact. The US is falling behind, China is catching up and growing and will be, within 20 or 30 years, a world superpower dictating things. Now, if they have a much more educated workforce (right now they produce robots who work hard, but they might figure out better education on top of working their kids to death to achieve higher levels of education) then what will happen to the US? It'll lose those middling manufacturing jobs, it'll gain the lower paid manufacturing jobs, becoming a lower GDP country.

China wouldn't necessarily overtake the US, India probably won't. Why? Well their system isn't great, democracy is hindering their development because they have too many caste system problems and people are voting to keep entrenched ideas, as opposed to China.

Looking at GDP per capita is a better way, population matters in terms of superpower status, China will have a military no one will be able to deal with in 20 or 30 years time.

The problem is, the US will not only not be a world leader, but it will fall behind. History repeats itself, all great powers rise and fall and the US is falling.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

 

[eflatminor]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

Causation vs correlation....and the logical fallacy of anecdote.

Look at the unemployment rate among youth. Look at the number of people on the dole! Look at corporations installing machines the moment technology becomes more efficient than your minimum wage and other meddling in private matters of compensation.

Look at objective studies:

Let the Data Speak: The Truth Behind Minimum Wage Laws

Now I'm sure you can cite leftist economists that will swear minimum wage laws do not affect employment, despite logic and reason.

Fine, because here's the important part: You have no right to tell a man what he's willing to work for, you meddling fuck.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

clearly if you can't make more than MW you need to attain the skills that will garner more pay in the marketplace

Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers, and people should be able to afford accommodation, food etc, right? We're not talking about having the latest smart phone here, we're talking about a roof over your head, something everyone who is working should be able to afford with 1/3 of their wage.

Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers

Boot 20 million illegals and the number of jobs available to American low-skill workers will increase.
Wages for some will increase due to supply and demand.

Yeah, and for less than minimum wage.... and they'll just have to live under the bridge, or take money from the govt to live.

Wages will increase if you boot the illegals competing with them.

how much will a war on illegals cost? more financing?

how much will a war on illegals cost?

A war on illegals? LOL!

We'll save billions a year. Not to mention reducing the CO2 we emit.

They'll release a lot less back in Mexico. Do it for Mother Earth!!!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

You do know the reason why MW was put in place across the globe right?

It was because of racism..

Here in America and over seas.. Don't let facts get in your way though carry on.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers, and people should be able to afford accommodation, food etc, right? We're not talking about having the latest smart phone here, we're talking about a roof over your head, something everyone who is working should be able to afford with 1/3 of their wage.

Again, the problem is that there will always be minimum wage workers

Boot 20 million illegals and the number of jobs available to American low-skill workers will increase.
Wages for some will increase due to supply and demand.

Yeah, and for less than minimum wage.... and they'll just have to live under the bridge, or take money from the govt to live.

Wages will increase if you boot the illegals competing with them.

how much will a war on illegals cost? more financing?

how much will a war on illegals cost?

A war on illegals? LOL!

We'll save billions a year. Not to mention reducing the CO2 we emit.

They'll release a lot less back in Mexico. Do it for Mother Earth!!!

Not to mention wages would rise.. Simple case of supply and demand.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Got to love those high costs of living deep blue States. LMAO

 

[Andylusion]

Its up to the US to get people trained?

I always thought that was MY job.

The real world.

You should visit sometime

The problem is a country needs certain skills. Look at Germany, they set out to be a high tech manufacturer, seeing, rightly, that if you stick to the cheap stuff, that countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam will be able to come along with low skilled and much cheaper workers and take over your jobs. The US is trying to get back jobs that it shouldn't have, and because it hasn't gone out there to get higher tech jobs, many of these are being done abroad too or require foreign workers to do them. This is a problem.

Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be, and they decided they want their society to be strong. You lot have decided you want low paid manufacturing jobs. I don't get it.

The US is the world leader in manufacturing. We produced $2.3 Trillion in manufactured goods.

The next highest is Japan with $1.6 Trillion in goods.
Germany is $460 Billion in goods.

The entire EU as a whole, only produced $2 Trillion in goods.

Regardless, when you say "Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be", what exactly are you suggesting?

We force students into the degree programs we want? So when a girl says she wants a degree in nursing, or a snowflake wants a liberal arts degree, we do what about that? Demand they take engineering?

View attachment 103549
What is your solution to this?

Again, the US now might be the leader, but countries like China are emerging and doing what the US does cheaper. Trying to stem this isn't going to work, other than to make all goods more expensive (and people can't even afford a place to stay as it is).

http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user...ts/World_manufacturing_production_2016_Q3.pdf

Figure 4 page 12
Growth in developing countries is growing fast, in developed countries not so fast or going backwards.

Table 1 page 13 shows that Europe has 24.1% of manufacturing, North America has 20.6%. China has 19.9% and rising, FAST (7% growth a year right now).

How do you solve the problem of someone wants to do one degree and you want them to do others? Limit how many places there are for certain degrees, push certain subjects at school, tell kids how much money they'll earn if they do this job or that job. You know, it's not that hard.

That's not really surprising. Growth is always faster when you are catching up, than blazing the trail.

I would be shocked if China wasn't growing faster. That has nothing to do with their system being better, or ours being worse.

Remember just from the population numbers alone, they will over take the US no matter how fantastic our system is, or how bad theirs is.

If we have 100,000 people making $50,000 a year in goods... that's $5 Million in GDP.

If they have 1 billion people making $10,000 in goods a year, that's $10 Trillion in GDP.

The idea that we will always be the world leader economically is absolutely impossible no matter what economic, educational, or cultural policies you put in place.

The only way we do that, is if all those other countries re-adopted socialists policies that destroy their economies again. But there is no possible way, regardless of anything government does here, that is going to allow a country of 310 million keep leadership over a country of 1.3 Billion people. Can't happen.

Yes, it's not surprising, however what is surprising is that many people ignore this fact. The US is falling behind, China is catching up and growing and will be, within 20 or 30 years, a world superpower dictating things. Now, if they have a much more educated workforce (right now they produce robots who work hard, but they might figure out better education on top of working their kids to death to achieve higher levels of education) then what will happen to the US? It'll lose those middling manufacturing jobs, it'll gain the lower paid manufacturing jobs, becoming a lower GDP country.

China wouldn't necessarily overtake the US, India probably won't. Why? Well their system isn't great, democracy is hindering their development because they have too many caste system problems and people are voting to keep entrenched ideas, as opposed to China.

Looking at GDP per capita is a better way, population matters in terms of superpower status, China will have a military no one will be able to deal with in 20 or 30 years time.

The problem is, the US will not only not be a world leader, but it will fall behind. History repeats itself, all great powers rise and fall and the US is falling.

I can't imagine any situation that would cause India or China to not over take the US, short of diving back into socialism.

Even with India voting to keep a caste system, they still have the fastest growth rate in the world, and have for several years now.

Again, they don't even have to achieve a production of half of what an American does. They barely need to produce 1/4th of our GDP per person, and they will have an economy that is greater in production than the USA.

Reaching the same level as the US, would be horribly difficult. Reaching half, not so much. Reaching 1/4th? That really wouldn't be all that difficult, which is precisely why their growth rate has been 7% and 8% per year.

Let me put that in a different context. If everyone in India today, got a job producing the lowest level of GDP in the US, a minimum wage job.... that would be $15,000 a year per person. 1.252 Billion people, working the equivalent of a minimum US wage job, over in India, would translate to $18.7 Trillion in GDP.

That's if they work the easiest, least productive, minimum wage job we have in the US.

Now that's simple mathematics. In order to keep them from achieving that, it would require something far more damaging than voting for a caste system.

So again, my position is, yes... we're going to fall behind. There is no way around that. It's going to happen. Unless they do something to truly destroy themselves, we are going to fall behind, no matter what we do. Even if they completely eliminate all higher education, we're going to fall behind. Even if we make college free, and mandate by law everyone study engineering, we're going to fall behind.

Now of course I'm talking country economy to country economy. More people = more wealth.

Only in a socialist system, does more people = less wealth.

On a per capita GDP basis, there is no support to claim we're falling behind. When you compare any job and it's income, verses their jobs, and their income. We're not falling behind. We're so far ahead of them, they can't see the back end of our butts. So I disagree with that.

 

[Andylusion]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

What evidence do you have to support this? Are you sure the minimum wage was not accompanied by a decrease in welfare benefits, forcing people who were living off the government, into the work force?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

Causation vs correlation....and the logical fallacy of anecdote.

Look at the unemployment rate among youth. Look at the number of people on the dole! Look at corporations installing machines the moment technology becomes more efficient than your minimum wage and other meddling in private matters of compensation.

Look at objective studies:

Let the Data Speak: The Truth Behind Minimum Wage Laws

Now I'm sure you can cite leftist economists that will swear minimum wage laws do not affect employment, despite logic and reason.

Fine, because here's the important part: You have no right to tell a man what he's willing to work for, you meddling fuck.

Ah, amazing what you get when you read the whole post. You get INSULTS, what a surprise. I don't answer points made when insults are thrown.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

You do know the reason why MW was put in place across the globe right?

It was because of racism..

Here in America and over seas.. Don't let facts get in your way though carry on.

.

Okay, you seem to be trying to make a point, so make it. Otherwise I have no idea what you're going on about.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is a country needs certain skills. Look at Germany, they set out to be a high tech manufacturer, seeing, rightly, that if you stick to the cheap stuff, that countries like China, Taiwan, Vietnam will be able to come along with low skilled and much cheaper workers and take over your jobs. The US is trying to get back jobs that it shouldn't have, and because it hasn't gone out there to get higher tech jobs, many of these are being done abroad too or require foreign workers to do them. This is a problem.

Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be, and they decided they want their society to be strong. You lot have decided you want low paid manufacturing jobs. I don't get it.

The US is the world leader in manufacturing. We produced $2.3 Trillion in manufactured goods.

The next highest is Japan with $1.6 Trillion in goods.
Germany is $460 Billion in goods.

The entire EU as a whole, only produced $2 Trillion in goods.

Regardless, when you say "Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be", what exactly are you suggesting?

We force students into the degree programs we want? So when a girl says she wants a degree in nursing, or a snowflake wants a liberal arts degree, we do what about that? Demand they take engineering?

View attachment 103549
What is your solution to this?

Again, the US now might be the leader, but countries like China are emerging and doing what the US does cheaper. Trying to stem this isn't going to work, other than to make all goods more expensive (and people can't even afford a place to stay as it is).

http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user...ts/World_manufacturing_production_2016_Q3.pdf

Figure 4 page 12
Growth in developing countries is growing fast, in developed countries not so fast or going backwards.

Table 1 page 13 shows that Europe has 24.1% of manufacturing, North America has 20.6%. China has 19.9% and rising, FAST (7% growth a year right now).

How do you solve the problem of someone wants to do one degree and you want them to do others? Limit how many places there are for certain degrees, push certain subjects at school, tell kids how much money they'll earn if they do this job or that job. You know, it's not that hard.

That's not really surprising. Growth is always faster when you are catching up, than blazing the trail.

I would be shocked if China wasn't growing faster. That has nothing to do with their system being better, or ours being worse.

Remember just from the population numbers alone, they will over take the US no matter how fantastic our system is, or how bad theirs is.

If we have 100,000 people making $50,000 a year in goods... that's $5 Million in GDP.

If they have 1 billion people making $10,000 in goods a year, that's $10 Trillion in GDP.

The idea that we will always be the world leader economically is absolutely impossible no matter what economic, educational, or cultural policies you put in place.

The only way we do that, is if all those other countries re-adopted socialists policies that destroy their economies again. But there is no possible way, regardless of anything government does here, that is going to allow a country of 310 million keep leadership over a country of 1.3 Billion people. Can't happen.

Yes, it's not surprising, however what is surprising is that many people ignore this fact. The US is falling behind, China is catching up and growing and will be, within 20 or 30 years, a world superpower dictating things. Now, if they have a much more educated workforce (right now they produce robots who work hard, but they might figure out better education on top of working their kids to death to achieve higher levels of education) then what will happen to the US? It'll lose those middling manufacturing jobs, it'll gain the lower paid manufacturing jobs, becoming a lower GDP country.

China wouldn't necessarily overtake the US, India probably won't. Why? Well their system isn't great, democracy is hindering their development because they have too many caste system problems and people are voting to keep entrenched ideas, as opposed to China.

Looking at GDP per capita is a better way, population matters in terms of superpower status, China will have a military no one will be able to deal with in 20 or 30 years time.

The problem is, the US will not only not be a world leader, but it will fall behind. History repeats itself, all great powers rise and fall and the US is falling.

I can't imagine any situation that would cause India or China to not over take the US, short of diving back into socialism.

Even with India voting to keep a caste system, they still have the fastest growth rate in the world, and have for several years now.

Again, they don't even have to achieve a production of half of what an American does. They barely need to produce 1/4th of our GDP per person, and they will have an economy that is greater in production than the USA.

Reaching the same level as the US, would be horribly difficult. Reaching half, not so much. Reaching 1/4th? That really wouldn't be all that difficult, which is precisely why their growth rate has been 7% and 8% per year.

Let me put that in a different context. If everyone in India today, got a job producing the lowest level of GDP in the US, a minimum wage job.... that would be $15,000 a year per person. 1.252 Billion people, working the equivalent of a minimum US wage job, over in India, would translate to $18.7 Trillion in GDP.

That's if they work the easiest, least productive, minimum wage job we have in the US.

Now that's simple mathematics. In order to keep them from achieving that, it would require something far more damaging than voting for a caste system.

So again, my position is, yes... we're going to fall behind. There is no way around that. It's going to happen. Unless they do something to truly destroy themselves, we are going to fall behind, no matter what we do. Even if they completely eliminate all higher education, we're going to fall behind. Even if we make college free, and mandate by law everyone study engineering, we're going to fall behind.

Now of course I'm talking country economy to country economy. More people = more wealth.

Only in a socialist system, does more people = less wealth.

On a per capita GDP basis, there is no support to claim we're falling behind. When you compare any job and it's income, verses their jobs, and their income. We're not falling behind. We're so far ahead of them, they can't see the back end of our butts. So I disagree with that.

Do you know how long it will take India to get a per capita GDP similar to that of the US? You're talking centuries. China, you're talking decades.

The point for the US is whether it is going to keep up a STANDARD OF LIVING, which is GDP per captia, not GDP as a whole. Seeing as per capita is the average of what everyone makes.

So you're barking up the wrong tree with GDP here.

Do Americans want to earn less money? Of course they don't How do you keep up a higher level of GDP? You direct workers towards what is necessary to make that money. You could have millions of people learning dry stone walling to a PhD level, but it's useless and won't take anyone anywhere.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

What evidence do you have to support this? Are you sure the minimum wage was not accompanied by a decrease in welfare benefits, forcing people who were living off the government, into the work force?

Well, firstly unemployment didn't rise.

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate | 1971-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar

As you can see unemployment was dropping from a recession in the early 1990, then unemployment dropped for the next 9 years more or less.

Benefit spending ROSE under Labour

As you can see the minimum wage came in soon after Labour got into power in 1997, welfare payments then increased from about 2000 onwards once they'd go what they wanted in place. So for the next 7 years of rising employment and rising welfare and the minimum wage rose throughout this time.

 

[FJO]

There were times in my life when the amount i earned failed to cover the expenses my life style demanded.

So, I packed up all my earthly belongings in my little duffel bag and hitch hiked to nearest place where the returns for my labor were more generous.

Along the way I learned to speak English, earned a high school diploma, vowed - successfully - never to do manual labor, ever again, taught myself in my spare time to write beautiful programs in COBOL, and end up comfortably retired after almost forty years of not EVER, hoping to work for minimum wage.

Fantastic. You are a winner, and a model to the next generation that they should follow.

I had the other side. I attempted to learn to do something that had a higher value, but failed. I failed routinely and with great distress.

But I still didn't start screaming and whining that life was unfair, and how society should make my life better.

When my income failed to meet the requirements of my life style.... I simply... cut my life style.

I know this is crazy, but I found that when I stopped buying things I couldn't afford... I could afford the things I bought.

Pearl of wisdom. Write that down.

There were times in my life when the amount i earned failed to cover the expenses my life style demanded.

So, I packed up all my earthly belongings in my little duffel bag and hitch hiked to nearest place where the returns for my labor were more generous.

Along the way I learned to speak English, earned a high school diploma, vowed - successfully - never to do manual labor, ever again, taught myself in my spare time to write beautiful programs in COBOL, and end up comfortably retired after almost forty years of not EVER, hoping to work for minimum wage.

Fantastic. You are a winner, and a model to the next generation that they should follow.

I had the other side. I attempted to learn to do something that had a higher value, but failed. I failed routinely and with great distress.

But I still didn't start screaming and whining that life was unfair, and how society should make my life better.

When my income failed to meet the requirements of my life style.... I simply... cut my life style.

I know this is crazy, but I found that when I stopped buying things I couldn't afford... I could afford the things I bought.

Pearl of wisdom. Write that down.

And therein lies the difference between a loser like you and a winner like me.

You bowed your head, gave up, cut down on your life, while I strived to make more of myself in every ways that were available for me. And succeeded.

And that is really the difference between a liberal like you, who cries for the minimum wage, and the conservative like me, while you and your ilk demand government dictated minimum wage while doing sweet fuck all for yourselves,

Good night, bother me no more.

 

[Andylusion]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

What evidence do you have to support this? Are you sure the minimum wage was not accompanied by a decrease in welfare benefits, forcing people who were living off the government, into the work force?

Well, firstly unemployment didn't rise.

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate | 1971-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar

As you can see unemployment was dropping from a recession in the early 1990, then unemployment dropped for the next 9 years more or less.

Benefit spending ROSE under Labour

As you can see the minimum wage came in soon after Labour got into power in 1997, welfare payments then increased from about 2000 onwards once they'd go what they wanted in place. So for the next 7 years of rising employment and rising welfare and the minimum wage rose throughout this time.

Benefit spending isn't entirely relevant to the discussion.

In the 1990s, the Republicans pushed welfare reform until it was passed. This forced millions of people off of food stamps and welfare, and into the work force. Unemployment unsurprisingly fell.

If you force people to work, they will work. So even if benefits increase over all, if you force people off welfare and food stamps, they may still collect subsidized housing, and other benefits, while still reducing unemployment.

Government benefits may go up or down, and not have a direct effect on unemployment.

Secondly, the minimum wage in this case, was not all that effective, for a number of reasons.

For one, the minimum wage is very low. When it was introduced, it was only £3.60, which is barely $4.25. In other words, in a country with a higher cost of living than the US, they had a lower minimum wage than the US.

However more importantly, the minimum wage has barely kept pace with inflation. £3.60 in 1999 converts to about £6 today. It was only this very year, that they bumped up the UK minimum wage from £6.70 to £7.20. It's it just barely ahead of inflation.

But likely the absolute most important aspect, is that every time the minimum wage gets high enough that it may actually affect employment, they introduce a new lower minimum wage.

From the beginning there was a lower minimum wage of just £3 an hour.

Then they introduced a lower 16-17 year old wage of £3, below the 18-21 wage of £3.20, which was below the top minimum wage of £4.50.

Then they added an apprenticeship wage that started out at £2.50.

And by the way, the new "living wage" they introduced this year, is only £7.20, which is about $8.80 an hour, and only applies to people over 25. Quite frankly I don't know anyone over 25, that is earning less than $8.80 an hour. I myself, have no degrees, no skills, no certification, nothing. I earn $12/hour.

And you think that proves the minimum wage doesn't ruin employment?

Do you see the problem? The specific people that would be most affected by a minimum wage, are exempt from the minimum wage.

Yeah if you exempt all the 16 to 17s, the 18 to 21, and all the apprenticeship laborers from the minimum wage.... if you exempt all the people who are the most likely to be earning minimum wage, from the minimum wage laws....... yeah it won't harm employment!

And if you wish to put in place a "living wage" like the UK, which is barely eight and half dollars an hour, knock yourself out. That won't hurt employment either.

But if you put in place a real massive minimum wage hike, like $15 an hour in Seattle, then yeah, that's going to kill jobs. And it does. And the proof is documented.

 

[Andylusion]

There were times in my life when the amount i earned failed to cover the expenses my life style demanded.

So, I packed up all my earthly belongings in my little duffel bag and hitch hiked to nearest place where the returns for my labor were more generous.

Along the way I learned to speak English, earned a high school diploma, vowed - successfully - never to do manual labor, ever again, taught myself in my spare time to write beautiful programs in COBOL, and end up comfortably retired after almost forty years of not EVER, hoping to work for minimum wage.

Fantastic. You are a winner, and a model to the next generation that they should follow.

I had the other side. I attempted to learn to do something that had a higher value, but failed. I failed routinely and with great distress.

But I still didn't start screaming and whining that life was unfair, and how society should make my life better.

When my income failed to meet the requirements of my life style.... I simply... cut my life style.

I know this is crazy, but I found that when I stopped buying things I couldn't afford... I could afford the things I bought.

Pearl of wisdom. Write that down.

There were times in my life when the amount i earned failed to cover the expenses my life style demanded.

So, I packed up all my earthly belongings in my little duffel bag and hitch hiked to nearest place where the returns for my labor were more generous.

Along the way I learned to speak English, earned a high school diploma, vowed - successfully - never to do manual labor, ever again, taught myself in my spare time to write beautiful programs in COBOL, and end up comfortably retired after almost forty years of not EVER, hoping to work for minimum wage.

Fantastic. You are a winner, and a model to the next generation that they should follow.

I had the other side. I attempted to learn to do something that had a higher value, but failed. I failed routinely and with great distress.

But I still didn't start screaming and whining that life was unfair, and how society should make my life better.

When my income failed to meet the requirements of my life style.... I simply... cut my life style.

I know this is crazy, but I found that when I stopped buying things I couldn't afford... I could afford the things I bought.

Pearl of wisdom. Write that down.

And therein lies the difference between a loser like you and a winner like me.

You bowed your head, gave up, cut down on your life, while I strived to make more of myself in every ways that were available for me. And succeeded.

And that is really the difference between a liberal like you, who cries for the minimum wage, and the conservative like me, while you and your ilk demand government dictated minimum wage while doing sweet fuck all for yourselves,

Good night, bother me no more.

No, I specifically said I didn't cry for a minimum wage. I'm staunchly against the minimum wage.

Try reading my post before responding to it. See you later.

 

[dblack]

How much apartment do you get of 0 hours a week?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Clearly isn't enough if you have to work between 53 and 92 hours at minimum wage simply to be able to afford accommodation.

Not everyone that works a menial job is paying the rent. He's a kid hoping to build a resume, maybe save a few bucks. He's a student living with a bunch of roommates. Maybe it's an retired lady that wants to get out of the house and engage with people. It's also the simple man, uneducated and perhaps slow, but is fully capable of sweeping the floors.

Your minimum wage laws PREVENT those people from working at all.

Shame on you.

Sure, however there are those that are. In the UK there is a different minimum wage for those within certain years (like 16-18, then 18 to 20 something).

No, minimum wage DOES NOT prevent people from working. More people were working AFTER minimum wage in the UK than before. Shame on you for making up bullshit lies. This is why I demand evidence from people, too many people just make shit up.

What evidence do you have to support this? Are you sure the minimum wage was not accompanied by a decrease in welfare benefits, forcing people who were living off the government, into the work force?

Well, firstly unemployment didn't rise.

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate | 1971-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar

As you can see unemployment was dropping from a recession in the early 1990, then unemployment dropped for the next 9 years more or less.

Benefit spending ROSE under Labour

As you can see the minimum wage came in soon after Labour got into power in 1997, welfare payments then increased from about 2000 onwards once they'd go what they wanted in place. So for the next 7 years of rising employment and rising welfare and the minimum wage rose throughout this time.

Benefit spending isn't entirely relevant to the discussion.

In the 1990s, the Republicans pushed welfare reform until it was passed. This forced millions of people off of food stamps and welfare, and into the work force. Unemployment unsurprisingly fell.

If you force people to work, they will work. So even if benefits increase over all, if you force people off welfare and food stamps, they may still collect subsidized housing, and other benefits, while still reducing unemployment.

Government benefits may go up or down, and not have a direct effect on unemployment.

Secondly, the minimum wage in this case, was not all that effective, for a number of reasons.

For one, the minimum wage is very low. When it was introduced, it was only £3.60, which is barely $4.25. In other words, in a country with a higher cost of living than the US, they had a lower minimum wage than the US.

However more importantly, the minimum wage has barely kept pace with inflation. £3.60 in 1999 converts to about £6 today. It was only this very year, that they bumped up the UK minimum wage from £6.70 to £7.20. It's it just barely ahead of inflation.

But likely the absolute most important aspect, is that every time the minimum wage gets high enough that it may actually affect employment, they introduce a new lower minimum wage.

From the beginning there was a lower minimum wage of just £3 an hour.

Then they introduced a lower 16-17 year old wage of £3, below the 18-21 wage of £3.20, which was below the top minimum wage of £4.50.

Then they added an apprenticeship wage that started out at £2.50.

And by the way, the new "living wage" they introduced this year, is only £7.20, which is about $8.80 an hour, and only applies to people over 25. Quite frankly I don't know anyone over 25, that is earning less than $8.80 an hour. I myself, have no degrees, no skills, no certification, nothing. I earn $12/hour.

And you think that proves the minimum wage doesn't ruin employment?

Do you see the problem? The specific people that would be most affected by a minimum wage, are exempt from the minimum wage.

Yeah if you exempt all the 16 to 17s, the 18 to 21, and all the apprenticeship laborers from the minimum wage.... if you exempt all the people who are the most likely to be earning minimum wage, from the minimum wage laws....... yeah it won't harm employment!

And if you wish to put in place a "living wage" like the UK, which is barely eight and half dollars an hour, knock yourself out. That won't hurt employment either.

But if you put in place a real massive minimum wage hike, like $15 an hour in Seattle, then yeah, that's going to kill jobs. And it does. And the proof is documented.

So, benefit spending isn't relevant to this discussion, so why did you bring it up then?

Yes, I agree, people should be forced to work if they can. But we're not talking about forcing people to work, we're talking about when they do work that they earn a livable wage.

Well minimum wage in the US wasn't exactly high at that time. It was about 5 bucks at the time, which was ridiculous even for then. At the time it was about 2/3 so, 3.60 would have been about the equivalent of about $5. However considering that people were earning 2.50 an hour in the UK, a hike of 1 pound an hour was actually quite a rise at the time. It was done sensibly, not simply just a "this is what we think they should get", they increased it over time.

Barely ahead of inflation is neither here nor there. The issue is whether it is a livable wage or not. UK house prices are actually quite high. In London this would definitely not be livable, elsewhere it might be.

What is the Living Wage?   Living Wage Foundation

This page says the living wage is 8.45 an hour and 9.75 in London, hardly surprising that the minimum wage is lower than this, and that the Tories have been in for 6 years.

UK minimum wage is hardly $8 an hour. The currency has lost a lot of weight recently, like 10% on the Euro and more on the dollar, so it was more like $9 or $10 and hour, however the British people have fucked themselves over.

However the argument was that a minimum wage would cause problems. Has it? Not, it hasn't.

 

[Andylusion]

The US is the world leader in manufacturing. We produced $2.3 Trillion in manufactured goods.

The next highest is Japan with $1.6 Trillion in goods.
Germany is $460 Billion in goods.

The entire EU as a whole, only produced $2 Trillion in goods.

Regardless, when you say "Some countries are deciding how they want their society to be", what exactly are you suggesting?

We force students into the degree programs we want? So when a girl says she wants a degree in nursing, or a snowflake wants a liberal arts degree, we do what about that? Demand they take engineering?

View attachment 103549
What is your solution to this?

Again, the US now might be the leader, but countries like China are emerging and doing what the US does cheaper. Trying to stem this isn't going to work, other than to make all goods more expensive (and people can't even afford a place to stay as it is).

http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user...ts/World_manufacturing_production_2016_Q3.pdf

Figure 4 page 12
Growth in developing countries is growing fast, in developed countries not so fast or going backwards.

Table 1 page 13 shows that Europe has 24.1% of manufacturing, North America has 20.6%. China has 19.9% and rising, FAST (7% growth a year right now).

How do you solve the problem of someone wants to do one degree and you want them to do others? Limit how many places there are for certain degrees, push certain subjects at school, tell kids how much money they'll earn if they do this job or that job. You know, it's not that hard.

That's not really surprising. Growth is always faster when you are catching up, than blazing the trail.

I would be shocked if China wasn't growing faster. That has nothing to do with their system being better, or ours being worse.

Remember just from the population numbers alone, they will over take the US no matter how fantastic our system is, or how bad theirs is.

If we have 100,000 people making $50,000 a year in goods... that's $5 Million in GDP.

If they have 1 billion people making $10,000 in goods a year, that's $10 Trillion in GDP.

The idea that we will always be the world leader economically is absolutely impossible no matter what economic, educational, or cultural policies you put in place.

The only way we do that, is if all those other countries re-adopted socialists policies that destroy their economies again. But there is no possible way, regardless of anything government does here, that is going to allow a country of 310 million keep leadership over a country of 1.3 Billion people. Can't happen.

Yes, it's not surprising, however what is surprising is that many people ignore this fact. The US is falling behind, China is catching up and growing and will be, within 20 or 30 years, a world superpower dictating things. Now, if they have a much more educated workforce (right now they produce robots who work hard, but they might figure out better education on top of working their kids to death to achieve higher levels of education) then what will happen to the US? It'll lose those middling manufacturing jobs, it'll gain the lower paid manufacturing jobs, becoming a lower GDP country.

China wouldn't necessarily overtake the US, India probably won't. Why? Well their system isn't great, democracy is hindering their development because they have too many caste system problems and people are voting to keep entrenched ideas, as opposed to China.

Looking at GDP per capita is a better way, population matters in terms of superpower status, China will have a military no one will be able to deal with in 20 or 30 years time.

The problem is, the US will not only not be a world leader, but it will fall behind. History repeats itself, all great powers rise and fall and the US is falling.

I can't imagine any situation that would cause India or China to not over take the US, short of diving back into socialism.

Even with India voting to keep a caste system, they still have the fastest growth rate in the world, and have for several years now.

Again, they don't even have to achieve a production of half of what an American does. They barely need to produce 1/4th of our GDP per person, and they will have an economy that is greater in production than the USA.

Reaching the same level as the US, would be horribly difficult. Reaching half, not so much. Reaching 1/4th? That really wouldn't be all that difficult, which is precisely why their growth rate has been 7% and 8% per year.

Let me put that in a different context. If everyone in India today, got a job producing the lowest level of GDP in the US, a minimum wage job.... that would be $15,000 a year per person. 1.252 Billion people, working the equivalent of a minimum US wage job, over in India, would translate to $18.7 Trillion in GDP.

That's if they work the easiest, least productive, minimum wage job we have in the US.

Now that's simple mathematics. In order to keep them from achieving that, it would require something far more damaging than voting for a caste system.

So again, my position is, yes... we're going to fall behind. There is no way around that. It's going to happen. Unless they do something to truly destroy themselves, we are going to fall behind, no matter what we do. Even if they completely eliminate all higher education, we're going to fall behind. Even if we make college free, and mandate by law everyone study engineering, we're going to fall behind.

Now of course I'm talking country economy to country economy. More people = more wealth.

Only in a socialist system, does more people = less wealth.

On a per capita GDP basis, there is no support to claim we're falling behind. When you compare any job and it's income, verses their jobs, and their income. We're not falling behind. We're so far ahead of them, they can't see the back end of our butts. So I disagree with that.

Do you know how long it will take India to get a per capita GDP similar to that of the US? You're talking centuries. China, you're talking decades.

The point for the US is whether it is going to keep up a STANDARD OF LIVING, which is GDP per captia, not GDP as a whole. Seeing as per capita is the average of what everyone makes.

So you're barking up the wrong tree with GDP here.

Do Americans want to earn less money? Of course they don't How do you keep up a higher level of GDP? You direct workers towards what is necessary to make that money. You could have millions of people learning dry stone walling to a PhD level, but it's useless and won't take anyone anywhere.

Yeah, but I never suggested that they would match us on per capita GDP. They might, and might not. But I wouldn't place a bet on it for sure.

It is not likely they will achieve our standard of living in our life times.

But as for judging our standard of living to ourselves.... there is absolutely no way you can claim we are losing our standard of living. We are better off today, all of us, from the least, to the greatest, than at any time in US history.

The poorest people in our country, who work..... live a better life than at any time in US history.

Now if you go down to the poorest places like Tchula, Mississippi, sitting outside the beer joint, waiting for life to get better, smoking your money away.... yeah, those people are worse off... by choice.

But anyone working a 40 hour week minimum wage, and showing up early, and leaving late, and working the entire time, is going doing better today, than any minimum wage employee of US history.

I don't know anyone, anywhere that is getting worse off year after year.

Where are these people? Where is the guy who was making $20 an hour in 2000, and is making $10 an hour today?

I was even reading about this guy who was a banker guy on Wall St 2008. Lost his job. Instead of sitting around at the beer joint, smoking and waiting for government to make life better, he made a choice to work. He got a job at McDonald. Literally, six-figures to burger flipper.

The owner noticed, this guy has work ethic. He talks like a human being, not cussing and swearing. He service the customer, like he has pride in his work. Said, you're not like the others here. What is your story?

Guy told him everything. Owner calls up McDonald's corporate. They give him an interview. He's now director of the North East properties. A dozen states. He's making more now, than he was at the banks.

This is the realty. Where are these mythical people that are worse off? Did they sit around and demand government fix their lives? That's why they are not better off. That's why their standard of living is falling. Not because we're not keeping up with China or something.

 

[Billy000]

Don't work for minimum wage all your life assholes. Try getting some skills and work experience.

You people reason like children. Okay let's pretend that your premise isn't complete bullshit and pretend EVERYONE working a low wage job got a very competitive higher wage job. Logistically that makes no sense whatsoever but let's pretend that happened. Who the fuck would do all of those empty positions paying shit wages? You know the kind of positions that restaurants and department stores rely on for their businesses to function?

You people are fucking stupid.