Your response surely made it look like you didnt understand that. This is your quote
I did address the point you were making. You didnt know how the value of labor is determined in the market.
Really? Shit I didn't know that, other than the fact that that's exactly what I said.
Are you fuckers brain dead? If you aren't then perhaps you could address the point I was addressing.
You want people to be paid what they are worth? How exactly does one determine that?
Feel free to re visit this thread, which you conviently left after I provided data to the contrary of your claim:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35363862&highlight=#post35363862
Or you can continue doing what you always do which is talk out of your ass while not providing any evidence of your claims other than your gut.
Your posts are a step above incorruptible's in that you have a larger vocabulary but that's not really saying much.
Old people taking younger people's jobs? Jesus fuck quit living in denial.
Or is Grandpa bagging my groceries? Making my sandwich? I'm sure the efficiency of an older man vs. younger is the reason why :hmm:
This is an immigration issue and always has
I think those statistics are more indicative of how useless a Bachelor's degree really is.
If you come out of college with a BA in Philosophy, what jobs are you really qualified to do? Pretty much none. So, you go for an unskilled labor position.
We need to end government grants, assistance, and loans for useless liberal arts degrees.
Your response surely made it look like you didnt understand that. This is your quote
I did address the point you were making. You didnt know how the value of labor is determined in the market.
So you don't think that the gradual increase in the price of American labor over time in the US has had ANYTHING to do with the offshoring of a massive number of our jobs, or the importing of a massive number of illegal immigrants willing to work for less than American citizens?
Enjoy your mooncheese.
Straw man to the rescue!!
The market will determine what they are worth to the employers. Most people (~95%) are already above what the government says is the minimum wage so I don't see your point. The market ALREADY has made the minimum wage a moot point for almost all of the workers in this country.You want people to be paid what they are worth? How exactly does one determine that? If you remove government there are only two forces at work; the number of jobs available and the number of qualified workers available. Guess which group is smaller, guess which group holds the power.
We don't need a plan. Meddling is your gig. I believe the market is the fairest way to determine most things in the economy. My plan, if you must, is to get out of the way of the market.You and the other poster may have good intentions but they aren't based in reality. Your mentality is the same as ron pauls, good ideas but no way to get their in reality. It's no different than wishing for hope and change when there isn't a game plan to get from A to B.
I wasn't really talking about historic minimum wage increases as they haven't been all that significant. However, if you force companies to pay 50k a year to a fry cook you'll see much more obvious results.And I've already pointed out that raising the minimum wage has zero to no affect on anyone negatively and yet you keep posting the same shit.
You'll have to provide some sort of justification for the belief that the market would lead businesses to pay dirt cheap wages if left to their own devices. This seems to be contrary to the fact that 95% of the job market is above the minimum wage as it stands.Lol, I guess if that's where you stopped reading then I can see your point, however, my posts are usually read by people who can make it past two scentences.
The stupid is strong with you!
I'd like to spend $400 for a new car but there isn't any company willing to give me the car for that price so I have to move my price up the scale if I'm going to buy a new car.
I am not entirely sure what you are talking about. I have aknowledged many times about the min wage and support it for the bottom ring of society. Min wage jobs are subsidized how exactly? And if that subsidy is taken away how does the cheap labor pool dry up?
You'll have to provide some sort of justification for the belief that the market would lead businesses to pay dirt cheap wages if left to their own devices. This seems to be contrary to the fact that 95% of the job market is above the minimum wage as it stands.
Businesses may very well want to pay dirt cheap prices or "slave wages" but there are two axis in the supply demand curve. I'd like to spend $400 for a new car but there isn't any company willing to give me the car for that price so I have to move my price up the scale if I'm going to buy a new car.
Yes if I'm to take your point seriously.Lol! You need justification for my belief?
5% of jobs are minimum wage jobs. I think some people could benefit from even lower paying jobs that your minimum wage law makes illegal. In any case the fact that almost all jobs pay more than minimum wage strongly supports my belief that employers wouldn't be able to hire people out for peanuts.How about the fact that some businesses still pay their employees the minimum rate.
Again, only 5% of the jobs are minimum wage. What is the big deal?Do you think these businesses are thinking, "well if there wasn't a minimum I had to pay my employees I would be paying them more!".
It's around $15/hr now with most workers making above minimum wage. So I think it will be higher.Sure there is a curve where the market will not allow a wage below a certain level but do you think it will be higher or lower than $9?
What is your point? There is a shortage of jobs now and average wages are still $15/hour. In other words there is a glut of labor in the market and there are still 95% of the workers making more than minimum wage.Keep in mind that during a "good" economy the unemployment rate hovers around 4%. How are wages going to go up when there never will be a shortage of labor?
Nobody is advocating anarchy. Even if I wanted it there is absolutely zero chance I'd get it so why don't you put a red herring in the strawman's pocket you've just created.Alas, all that is common sense and we all know that common sense can be wrong so I submit to you the US employment history between 1860-1930, how did those years work out? Shall we go back to 12 hour work days 7 days a week? Should we start allowing kids to work in factories again?
This is just the first source that came up on the google search, I don't particularly endorse the author or the website, but they illustrate the issue at hand.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...y-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net
"as many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores using food stamps."
Our taxes are subsidizing minimum wage workers. They wouldn't exist as such without food stamps, housing, or medicare assistance.
>And if that subsidy is taken away how does the cheap labor pool dry up?
Use your brain. If you take away the cheap labor pool's food, health care, housing, how is that going to effect them? Think for a good solid 30 seconds and I'm sure you can figure out the result.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-detroit-dogs21-20130821,0,979563.story
Sounds like an awesome place to live. Good to know I could have a cheap home there if I lose my real job.
This is just the first source that came up on the google search, I don't particularly endorse the author or the website, but they illustrate the issue at hand.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...y-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net
"as many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores using food stamps."
Our taxes are subsidizing minimum wage workers. They wouldn't exist as such without food stamps, housing, or medicare assistance.
>And if that subsidy is taken away how does the cheap labor pool dry up?
Use your brain. If you take away the cheap labor pool's food, health care, housing, how is that going to effect them? Think for a good solid 30 seconds and I'm sure you can figure out the result.
How many of those 80% of workers who are on food stamps got themselves into that position on their own?
I'd be willing to bet most have 1+ DUIs, 3+ children, and no significant other to help pay the bills.
Logic dictates that if you only make $8-10/hr, you're probably not in a position to have children. A single person working full time making $8-10/hr should be able to support themselves. I know this because I did it. Heck, I even bought a car while I was poor as fuck.
(1) So, you are saying that food stamps is nothing more than corporate welfare? So why then have Democrats not joined Republicans in calls to cut food stamps? Or are they too in love with corporate welfare?
(2) How many of these 80% have children? Which would go to the point that was made the no shit a minimum wage job can't support a family.
(3) How many of these 80% are overweight. Which implies they don't really need food stamps.
(4) How many of these 80% have iphones, or cable tv, or expensive jeans, etc? Which shows that there real problem is with budgeting.
Wait - so instead of trying to argue facts about Food Deserts you just link to a story about Detroit? Why give up on your argument and shift the focus? Perhaps you now realize that the Food Deserts are defined using very flawed methodology and can't really be used to support arguments (other than an argument of 'Look at the data - otherwise you will believe there are problems that aren't really there). I am also hoping you understand that Michigan is more than just Detroit and that my example did not take place in Detroit.
How many of those 80% of workers who are on food stamps got themselves into that position on their own?
Wonderful, you can place the blame. I applaud your logic skills. Now tell me, who is paying the price for the mistakes these people made? We are, with our taxes.
The problem isn't them, the problem is the system that supports and encourages them.
Why not have an iphone? Government pays for it.
Why not have cable TV?
Why not eat food? You get the food stamps for free. (Though, you show extreme ignorance if you actually believe overweight people don't need assistance to buy food. Healthy food is generally more expensive than the junk that will make you fat.)
Why not have kids? Your welfare benefits *increase* with each child.
If you want to develop some awesome program or plan of action to eliminate stupidity in the world, great. But until your program starts working, fact is we (tax payers) are subsidizing corporate min-wage paid workers.
Except it isn't the responsibility of an employer to provide each of its employees any particular standard of living. Just because the government gives away goodies to some of Walmart's employees doesn't say anything about Walmart. It also says more about Walmart's employees than about Walmart as well. If you think you can raise a family of 6 on a Walmart job then you are the problem, not Walmart.Use your brain. If you take away the cheap labor pool's food, health care, housing, how is that going to effect them? Think for a good solid 30 seconds and I'm sure you can figure out the result.
Well for one you could stop subsidizing stupidity.
Your plan apparently is to force Walmart to subsidize them (through over-valuing their labor) instead of the taxpayer. But the fact is that Walmart is going to pass those costs onto its customers.
so we can either:
(a) Subsidize people who make poor life-choices with tax dollars
(b) Subsidize people who make poor life-choices by forcing companies to pay them above market wages which will be passed on to customers
Care to explain what the difference between (a) and (b) is?
You are beating a dead horse. Certain people can't differentiate between those that made poor life choices and the mentally retarded. Why do we have to subsidize those that made poor life choices? Stupid people can make good money (more than minimum wage). Those that made poor life choices (fuck around in school instead of actually pay attention, get knocked up at 15, etc) should not be given free handouts.
And I know others will say that I am short-sighted and we need to subsidize the poor or they will rise up against the people who didn't fuck up their lives. Well, I am willing to give that a try. I am willing to wait and see if that happens rather than help the fuck-ups of society. I have no problem helping the disabled, etc. At some point, society has to let people be responsible for their actions.