America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

I get your point, but personally I don't believe education should be decided by the amount of money parents are willing to pay to get their kids enrolled. It should be decided by the willingness of the students to study. The parents' task is to take care of their children by motivating them to want to work for their education. I just hate to see a spot in a university go to waste because of some lazy bastard who is only enrolled because of his parents' financial situation. It's a waste of time for the professors and a waste of a spot in the classroom, in which a smart child from a less fortunate family could have been.

If I can afford to send my child to whatever university he chooses, then I shoud be able to use MY money to do that. The parent's task is to take care of their children by motivating them to want to work and opening a few doors along the way if possible. Providing for your children is one of the chief motivating factors behind earning money. Try to require that all children start out on an equal footing - that no child should get any more from his parents than any other child - and you'll stifle your economy.

And about fairness. I don't think someone who has a lot of money produced more. Just like with being born in a family, also luck plays a large part in it. Whether it's good luck by winning the lottery, or losing all your money with a bad investment. Not to mention inheritages and money earned by crime (including fraud).

Obviously gambling winning and crime are not productivity. Inheritence is the result of the productivity of the person leaving behind the money. Generally, in a society like the US, more money means more productivity.

 

[smellysocks12]

If I can afford to send my child to whatever university he chooses, then I shoud be able to use MY money to do that. The parent's task is to take care of their children by motivating them to want to work and opening a few doors along the way if possible. Providing for your children is one of the chief motivating factors behind earning money. Try to require that all children start out on an equal footing - that no child should get any more from his parents than any other child - and you'll stifle your economy.

I agree completely with the first part, I don't with the 2nd part. Those few doors along the way shouldn't be there, not the ones who need to be opened with money which can only be afforded with money from parents.


The American economy hasn't been doing very great for years when compared to the European economy, yet we do have a educational system with less of those 'economic doors' along the way. I'm not saying it is free, but I pay about 1300 euros to be enrolled to my university for a year, which is affordable for anyone with serious intentions to get a degree.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That's a fact huh? Not an opinion. I can see how you might think that the BBC is unbiased then. If by "better" you mean "inequitable", then yes, it is a fact.

What empirical evidence do you have suggests the United States has a more equitable system than Europe?

Give me an example.

Consider this:

• Today, about 45 million Americans are uninsured. The number of people without health insurance nationwide increased by 1.4 million last year and by 5.2 million since 2000.
  
• There are 7.4 million African Americans like myself without health insurance and many more who can barely afford to pay their premiums. Despite this, $60 billion is supposed to be cut from Medicaid.
  
• According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans working more than one job at the same time has increased by 306,000 from June 2004 to June 2005 - increasing to 5.4 percent of all working Americans.
  
• According to the BLS (again), wages from April through June grew at an average annual rate of 2.8% while inflation during the same period increased 4.4%.
  
• Before I forget, the poverty rate increased as well -- especially among Blacks. Median income has also dropped about 7%.
  
• Minimum wage is only about 30% of the current average hourly wage. Also, over the last 8 years the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has also dropped by ~ 17 percent. Less so in New York I think because minimum wage has increased to $6.00/hr up from $5.15/hr. My opinion? Minimum wage should be at least $8/hr. I digress...

...there's more, but I don't have the time.

How can anyone when faced with these statistics call that equitable? Denmark is equitable, Sweden is equitable, France is equitable (and more productive)...

 

[smellysocks12]

*edit*

Nevermind... I read it wrong.


English isn't my first language so I had to look up inequitable and didn't notice that you didn't put the in- part..

 

[Danoff]

What empirical evidence do you have suggests the United States has a more equitable system than Europe?

Dictionary.com Equitable - 1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally

What people earn they get paid for. What people do not earn, they do not get paid for. That's fair. That comes closer to describing the US than Europe, where more people are paid less for what they earn - or conversely - more people are paid more money for what they did not earn.

Consider this:

• Today, about 45 million Americans are uninsured. The number of people without health insurance nationwide increased by 1.4 million last year and by 5.2 million since 2000.

• 
  
  ...and?
  
  

  [*]There are 7.4 million African Americans like myself without health insurance and many more who can barely afford to pay their premiums. Despite this, $60 billion is supposed to be cut from Medicaid.

  
  That's equitable.
  
  

  [*]According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans working more than one job at the same time has increased by 306,000 from June 2004 to June 2005 - increasing to 5.4 percent of all working Americans.

  
  Point being?
  
  

  [*]According to the BLS (again), wages from April through June grew at an average annual rate of 2.8% while inflation during the same period increased 4.4%.

  
  Largely due to the price of oil I imagine - which has been lower than the market could bear - so this is also fair.
  
  

  [*]Before I forget, the poverty rate increased as well -- especially among Blacks. Median income has also dropped about 7%.
  
  [*]Minimum wage is only about 30% of the current average hourly wage. Also, over the last 8 years the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has also dropped by ~ 17 percent. Less so in New York I think because minimum wage has increased to $6.00/hr up from $5.15/hr.

  
  Good. I hope one day minimum wage is essentially zero. That would be fairer to the poor.
  
  

  How can anyone when faced with these statistics call that equitable? Denmark is equitable, Sweden is equitable, France is equitable (and more productive)...

  
  France is more productive than the US... ??

 

[ledhed]

People should be willing to put in effort to get somewhere, but not everyone thinks the same way, so when it seems like it's too hard to get somewhere many people will give up

And this is my problem because why ? People who want to do well or be rich, actually have to WORK at it ? It seems to me that those who have chosen to " give up " rather than work to hard should just move to Europe and let the social system you brag about take care of them . No more " ghetto's " ...why didnt someone think of this before ?
This strange concept of actually having to work at getting ahead in the world just might be why the US is the worlds only superpower and first in just about anything meanigfull to pointless...It must explain why our GNP exceeds any 10 of your socialist paridises combined...And more than likely also explains why so many of the worlds best and brightest cant wait to get here so that they can keep some of what they earn .
Instead of taking care of all those that just dont want to work real hard .

France is more productive than the US... ??

Hahahahahahahahahaha........omg thats funny..france/productive is an oxymoron of the first rate .

On the growth front, developments have been less positive. Output growth and employment creation in the euro area have been unsatisfactory – indeed disappointing when compared with the high expectations which many people had when the euro was launched. Countries outside the euro area – especially the United States – have evidently outperformed the euro area. In the six years since the introduction of the euro, the average rate of growth was 1.9% in the euro area and 3.0% in the United States. Furthermore, in the ten years prior to the introduction of the euro (1989-1999), growth in the euro area on average lagged behind that in the United States by almost 1%. However, it should be noted that the introduction of the euro is not associated with the increase in this growth gap

Seems to me the US economy is better than Europes ....
http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2005/html/sp050415.en.html
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/latest-digest.html

In the early 1990s, optimism was growing that the burgeoning European Union (EU) would become a driver of productivity growth around the globe. Those hopes were tied to the relaxation of trade barriers and close integration of the various EU markets. Today, however, the outlook is less optimistic. Instead of sustained growth, the 1990s witnessed a slowing of the EU's economic growth, and by mid-decade the EU was running behind the United States.

On a broad scale, pre-1970s France and Germany had more hours worked per capita than the United States, but from 1970 to 2002, the United States increased its hours worked per capita by 20 percent, while there was a decrease of roughly 20 percent in France, and similar decreases in most other European countries.

U.S. labor productivity increased significantly between 1995 and 2000 — a period of growth largely attributable to the “tech bubble,” which was not as pronounced in Europe. From 1990 to 2000, U.S. industries that utilized information and computer technology enjoyed considerably higher labor productivity than EU countries (see Issues in Productivity Performance, U.S. vs. Europe, Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods, Social Security Advisory Board, Washington, D.C., 11 April 2003

http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Apr/productivity.asp
http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s2.html

It seems to me when someone makes a claim they should be able to back it up with facts....Smellystocking if thats what they are teaching you in school maybe you are getting just what you paid for .

28-Jun-2005
Unemployment remains relatively low in the United States by comparison with other highly industrialised countries: the US unemployment rate was 5.6% in 2004, as compared to an average of 6.9% for all 30 ...
Related documents: OECD Employment Outlook 2005 - (English)

Follow the link to see how far your particular socialist paridise has to go to even smell out fumes.. Our state of California has better economic growth and a larger GDP than some European countrys....


http://www.oecd.org/country/0,3021,en_33873108_33873886_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

In the United States, real GDP is forecast to increase by some 3.5 per cent in 2005, down from 4.4 per cent in 2004 (table 1). Overall, economic activity will be supported by the continued, albeit moderating strength of domestic demand. Exports should be stimulated by the depreciation of the dollar and by strong external demand in the USA’s major markets in Asia and the Americas. The Federal Reserve is expected to continue gradually raising short-term interest rates to move monetary policy closer to a neutral stance during 2005. But monetary policy is expected to be still accommodative during 2005. Fiscal policy will be slightly restrictive in 2005.

A moderate rate of recovery in the euro area
For the euro area, real GDP is forecast to increase on average by 1.8 per cent in 2005 (table 1). Positive growth in the rest of the world will continue to support exports, which remain the mainstay of growth. This moderate rate of economic expansion will be associated with only small gains in employment. The average annual unemployment rate in the euro area will be 8.9 per cent in 2005, unchanged from 2004. Inflation is expected to fall slightly below the ECB’s 2 per cent threshold.

Smellyfeet this is too easy . But look at the bright side this schooling was free !
http://www.unece.org/press/pr2005/05gen_p04e.htm

But this did not mean that European industry was as far behind as those numbers suggested, both economists agreed. Productivity, or output per hour worked, has come much closer to U.S. rates. Barry Eichengreen in his presentation reported that the EU-15 average GDP per hour worked in 2000 was 90.7% of the United States and four of the fifteen, Belgium, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, have higher labor productivity than the U.S.

http://www.isop.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=16974

Well dip me in poopy and call me stinky ! FRANCE !!!!!! has higher labor productivity than the US !!!! ...whats more suprising is Italy...they have come a long way !

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Dictionary.com Equitable - 1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally

What people earn they get paid for.

That's fair.

What people do not earn, they do not get paid for.

No, that is not fair.

That comes closer to describing the US than Europe, where more people are paid less for what they earn - or conversely - more people are paid more money for what they did not earn.

As it should be. They recognize the need for a market economy to establish prices (efficiency) and yet they recognize the need for a people to live comfortably as a whole (equity). The US is as Libertarian as I want it to get. Hence my reluctance to your economic ideas.

...and?

And that means that there's 1.4 million more people who are more likely to die because they aren't "covered". This doesn't bother you?

That's equitable.

That's bull. Everyone should have access to equal healthcare benefits. If that's too extreme, there should be a minimum standard of healthcare for all.

Point being?

People wouldn't need 2-3 jobs if they were adequately paid. It is in a corporation's best interest to minimize their expenses. Hence the need for a minimum wage. Were the market to determine wages, they would be significantly lower for many people.

Largely due to the price of oil I imagine - which has been lower than the market could bear - so this is also fair.

I agree with the reason as to why inflation has outpaced wages, however, I disagree with your conclusion. Low-income earners are hit harder by inflation than high-income earners. How is that fair?

Good. I hope one day minimum wage is essentially zero. That would be fairer to the poor.

[sarcasm=]You are absolutely right. It would be fairer to pay unskilled laborers $2.00/hr than it would be to pay them $6/hr or more. If they are paid less, they'll have less money to waste on garbage that they don't really need like basic healthcare, food, clothing or shelter. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, though... some people will benefit from a zero minimum wage status (just not enough to justify it's elimination). I won't deny that. However, I believe the minimum wage should be linked to the CPI that way the "wage slaves" aren't beaten to death by inflation. That's equity.

France, for example, is more productive than the US. Their minimum wage is set at over $9/hr.

France is more productive than the US... ??

Yes. GDP per hour is $47.20 while in the US it is $43.50. I know that about 1/10 of their population is out of work but that's because students delay as long as possible before they enter the workforce (as it should be) and the "elderly" are encouraged to retire early.

So even though we have a longer workweek and a later retirement age (and start work earlier) we produce less thanks to the economic disincentive in the form of an unnecessarily low minimum wage.

 

[ledhed]

So even though we have a longer workweek and a later retirement age (and start work earlier) we produce less thanks to the economic disincentive in the form of an unnecessarily low minimum wage.

And how exactly did you reach that conclusion ! ?
Considering that GDP = private consumption + government + investment + net exports
(or simply GDP = C + G + I + NX) how did the minum wage enter the equation ?

if you are interested in learning how GDP and productivity are related ...
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/11/22413472.pdf

At any rate the US either leads or is amongst the top five in the world in almost all economic areas and there are some that the US leads by a substantial margin .

Social economic pratices are not measured in GNP or GDP .

 

[smellysocks12]

And how exactly did you reach that conclusion ! ?
Considering that GDP = private consumption + government + investment + net exports
(or simply GDP = C + G + I + NX) how did the minum wage enter the equation ?

The formula for GDP measured using the income approach, called GDP(I), is:

GDP = Compensation of employees + Gross operating surplus + Gross mixed income + Taxes less subsidies on production and imports

^^ that's how, you used the expenditure approach to display the GDP, but there are more ways..

 

[MrktMkr1986]

And how exactly did you reach that conclusion ! ?

Thanks for catching that. I meant we produce less per hour. The aggregate is way more than any other country on the planet. I do believe that people tend to be less efficient when they are not paid what they think their labor is worth.

A dramatic increase (or decrease for that matter) in the minimum wage may not be immediately beneficial for the economy. Instead, the minimum wage should be linked to the CPI.

*edit* That's not fair! I didn't see the edit while I was typing!

Anyway, what smellsocks12 said is correct.

^^ that's how, you used the expenditure approach to display the GDP, but there are more ways..

 

[ledhed]

The minimum wage is a subjective issue for an economist because you reach a point of diminishing returns with it. It is an artificial restraint on free trade . Did you learn Keysian economics ? Look into it . I have to try to figure out what neo - classical micro economics is...
My son wants to use the computer....poor bastard ..

G is the sum of government expenditures on final goods and services. It includes salaries of public servants, purchase of weapons for the millitary, and any investment expenditure by a government. It does not include any transfer payments, such as social security or unemployment benefits. The relative size of government expenditure compared to GDP as a whole is critical in the theory of crowding out, and the Keynesian cross.

So part oh the cost of the minimum wage is eaten up bythe cost of government regulation .
Then there is always the fact that in some instances the minimum wage is no different than if free market practices were to set the wage. Others where it inflates the value of productivity by overpaying workers for what the market would actually bear ..in that case it is a detriment to productivity as measured in GDP . And I am in favor of a decent living minnimum wage law...but you have to be very carefull with it .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The minimum wage is a subjective issue for an economist because you reach a point of diminishing returns with it. It is an artificial restraint on free trade .

That is very profound. I never looked at it that way!

Did you learn Keysian economics ? Look into it .

Based on what I've read so far, many of my ideas as to how an economy should run are very similar to that of Keynesian economics. Keynes is better than Friedman -- plain & simple.

I have to try to figure out what neo - classical micro economics is...

Me too!

My son wants to use the computer....poor bastard ..

So part oh the cost of the minimum wage is eaten up by the cost of government regulation .

That makes sense.

Then there is always the fact that in some instances the minimum wage is no different than if free market practices were to set the wage. Others where it inflates the value of productivity by overpaying workers for what the market would actually bear ..in that case it is a detriment to productivity as measured in GDP .

That is definitely true.

It all goes back to trying to find a balance between efficiency (what the market will bear; keeping a relatively high level of productivity vs. GDP) and equity (what one needs to survive/live).

And I am in favor of a decent living minimum wage law...but you have to be very carefull with it .

That's cool. I agree with the latter, though, too. Reform... but not eliminate.
👍

 

[smellysocks12]

My son wants to use the computer....poor bastard ..

Increase C by buying another computer, one for you, one for your son. That way you'll help increasing the GDP. Of course you should buy a Dell, not a Tosshiba or else NX decreases because IM increases, you wouldn't want that to happen.



Now from an income perspective, if minimum wages would have been higher you would have been able to afford 2 (!!!) pc's.

 

[ledhed]

Unless of course if the minimum wage was considered too high for an employer to create a job. Or a prospective owner to open a business , in that case my potential job doesnt exist .
So do you want an income or a potential income ? Last time I bought bread they didnt take potential income .

 

[Danoff]

Dictionary.com Equitable - 1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally

What people earn they get paid for.

That's fair.

Then you should stop advocating otherwise.

What people do not earn, they do not get paid for.

No, that is not fair.

How is that not fair? You fundamentally cannot reconcile this with the previous statement. If people earn what they get paid for then they must not get paid for what they do not earn. It is simply impossible for people to get paid for what they do not earn if everyone gets paid for what they earn.

That comes closer to describing the US than Europe, where more people are paid less for what they earn - or conversely - more people are paid more money for what they did not earn.

As it should be. They recognize the need for a market economy to establish prices (efficiency) and yet they recognize the need for a people to live comfortably as a whole (equity). The US is as Libertarian as I want it to get. Hence my reluctance to your economic ideas.

People living comfortably as a whole is not equity, it’s inequity… because not everyone earns a comfortable living.

And that means that there's 1.4 million more people who are more likely to die because they aren't "covered". This doesn't bother you?

No. They aren’t covered because they didn’t produce enough to be covered. This does not bother me in the slightest. It’s their lives and they can make their own choices about what they can afford, are willing to pay for, and how hard they are willing to work. I will not impose any standard on them that they are not willing to give themselves. In short, I will not run other people’s lives.

That's bull. Everyone should have access to equal healthcare benefits. If that's too extreme, there should be a minimum standard of healthcare for all.

I see. The rich should have the same healthcare as the poor. What’s the point of being rich if it doesn’t mean you can buy better services (services like healthcare). You’re taking away a major incentive to produce and advocating the immoral redistribution of money from the rich to provide services to the poor that they did not earn.

People wouldn't need 2-3 jobs if they were adequately paid. It is in a corporation's best interest to minimize their expenses. Hence the need for a minimum wage. Were the market to determine wages, they would be significantly lower for many people.

People who’s income is set by the market are inherently adequately paid. The value of their work to the country is taken into account. The skill involved in their job and the availability of others who can do the job just as well is accounted for by the market when setting their income. Who are you to decide that they aren’t being paid what is fair? Let THEM decide that. If they don’t think they are making a fair wage they can go get a different job. If they are correct, they will find a higher paying job. If they were wrong, they will not.

I agree with the reason as to why inflation has outpaced wages, however, I disagree with your conclusion. Low-income earners are hit harder by inflation than high-income earners. How is that fair?

It is fair because low-income earners generally produce less.

[sarcasm=]You are absolutely right. It would be fairer to pay unskilled laborers $2.00/hr than it would be to pay them $6/hr or more. If they are paid less, they'll have less money to waste on garbage that they don't really need like basic healthcare, food, clothing or shelter. [/sarcasm]

It would be fairer to allow businesses to pay people what they are worth. I would prefer that 3 people be paid at the market rate of $2 an hour than that one person is paid above market and two are unemployed.

Seriously, though... some people will benefit from a zero minimum wage status (just not enough to justify it's elimination). I won't deny that.

It’s not a matter of cost/benefits. It’s a matter of right/wrong. You don’t have to justify it’s elimination on fiscal grounds. Its elimination can be justified on moral grounds. I’m not arguing… hang on let me make this clear… I’m not arguing based on what will make the most money for the people I want to make money. I’m arguing based on what is right.

France, for example, is more productive than the US. Their minimum wage is set at over $9/hr.

France is not more productive than the US. French workers are more productive per hour than the US but they work a lot less and are overall less productive.

So even though we have a longer workweek and a later retirement age (and start work earlier) we produce less thanks to the economic disincentive in the form of an unnecessarily low minimum wage.

We produce MORE. Get it straight.

Unless of course if the minimum wage was considered too high for an employer to create a job. Or a prospective owner to open a business , in that case my potential job doesnt exist .
So do you want an income or a potential income ? Last time I bought bread they didnt take potential income .

👍

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Then you should stop advocating otherwise.

Advocating otherwise would be hypocrisy on my part -- I can't do that.

How is that not fair? You fundamentally cannot reconcile this with the previous statement. If people earn what they get paid for then they must not get paid for what they do not earn. It is simply impossible for people to get paid for what they do not earn if everyone gets paid for what they earn.

Not necessarily. That's what is happening right now. People who make above the minimum wage are getting paid exactly what they earned. People making the minimum wage are getting paid for what they did not earn. The two situations are not mutually exclusive.

People living comfortably as a whole is not equity, it’s inequity… because not everyone earns a comfortable living.

Not everyone earns a comfortable living because the minimum wage is too low. Nationally, it has not been adjusted for inflation since the early 90s. That is inequity. If everyone earned a comfortable living, we as whole would benefit from it. If everyone got paid what they "earned" the gap between the rich and the poor widens making it increasingly difficult for low-income people to succeed.

No. They aren’t covered because they didn’t produce enough to be covered. This does not bother me in the slightest. It’s their lives and they can make their own choices about what they can afford, are willing to pay for, and how hard they are willing to work. I will not impose any standard on them that they are not willing to give themselves. In short, I will not run other people’s lives.

If everyone could be employed, then I would agree with you. However, there is the natural rate of unemployment. Unemployment will never reach 0 (that's impossible), but the closer we get to zero is more inflation we (usually) have. So either way, someone will lose.

I see. The rich should have the same healthcare as the poor. What’s the point of being rich if it doesn’t mean you can buy better services (services like healthcare).

Healthcare is crucial to survival -- hence everyone should have the same or at the least a minimum standard of. Other "non-vital" services/products should cost more because they are not needed to survive. I don't believe that I should have inferior medical care because I cannot afford it.

You’re taking away a major incentive to produce and advocating the immoral redistribution of money from the rich to provide services to the poor that they did not earn.

Selling a Maybach 62 for $36 (as opposed to $362,000) is taking away a major incentive to produce. Selling a haircut for $0.01 as opposed to $10 or $100 is taking away a major incentive to produce. Healthcare is crucial to survival. If the redistribution of wealth was so inimical to productivity, why do we have so many millionaires and billionaires in this country?

People who’s income is set by the market are inherently adequately paid.

Adequtely paid? That's subjective... I consider adequately paid enough to put aside at least 10% of your take-home pay without having to use that money to pay for basic living expenses such as rent, food, clothing, healthcare (private -- in case the company doesn't provide such benefits) etc.

The value of their work to the country is taken into account. The skill involved in their job and the availability of others who can do the job just as well is accounted for by the market when setting their income.

The market is [usually] efficient -- not equitable. This is why we have a minimum wage.

If they don’t think they are making a fair wage they can go get a different job.

You make it sound so easy! It's a lot more involved than that.

If they are correct, they will find a higher paying job. If they were wrong, they will not.

How many people have to be "wrong", though, before something changes?

It is fair because low-income earners generally produce less.

I don't think it's fair that people who produce less, not only "have" less, but they also "lose more" at the same time.

How do explain people who have amassed millions of dollars based on illegal activity, then? Why are they rewarded as productive members of society (assuming they don't get caught and thrown in the pen)?

It would be fairer to allow businesses to pay people what they are worth.

No. It would be fairer to businesses to pay people what they [the businesses] decide they [the employees] are worth.

I would prefer that 3 people be paid at the market rate of $2 an hour than that one person is paid above market and two are unemployed.

Usually how it works is, 3 people are initially paid $2/hr, then 2 people are laid off, and 1 person is paid to do all 3 jobs. I've seen it happen in real life. A businesses only purpose is to make a profit. No business is going to hire 3 people if 1 person can do the job.

It’s not a matter of cost/benefits. It’s a matter of right/wrong.

This is where we differ. With you, the costs can be great and the benefits miniscule, but as long as it is considered "right", you believe it should be that way. I feel that if the benefits exceed the cost, then it is the right thing to do. If the costs exceed the benefit, then it is not the right thing to do.

You don’t have to justify it’s elimination on fiscal grounds. Its elimination can be justified on moral grounds. I’m not arguing… hang on let me make this clear… I’m not arguing based on what will make the most money for the people I want to make money. I’m arguing based on what is right.

I agree.

France is not more productive than the US. French workers are more productive per hour than the US but they work a lot less and are overall less productive.

We produce MORE. Get it straight.

OK, fine. They're less productive overall because they work less and there are less people in their workforce. That means nothing to me.

Company A may make more money than Company B, but if Company B has better profit margins, it's a better company (put simply -- obviously there are many other factors that determine how "good" a company actually is).

I'm going by GDP/hour -- not the total figure. Ratios tend to do a better job of accurately portraying a company's financials than raw figures. Like the debt-to-equity ratio. Sure if Company A has more debt (remember it's a bigger company) that needn't be a bad thing. Just because Company B has less debt because it's a smaller company, it may have a higher debt-to-equity ratio (which is bad).

Or do countries operate differently than corporations?

 

[smellysocks12]

It is just a matter of time until India and China catch up with the USA in total GDP, I guess danoff will agree that those countries are doing better when that happens.

 

[ledhed]

Not everyone earns a comfortable living because the minimum wage is too low. Nationally, it has not been adjusted for inflation since the early 90s. That is inequity. If everyone earned a comfortable living, we as whole would benefit from it. If everyone got paid what they "earned" the gap between the rich and the poor widens making it increasingly difficult for low-income people to succeed.

Here's where your argument falls flat. You are making a huge assumption and a huge mistake . Just because the minimum wage is in place 'Dosn't mean an employer will not pay more ! In fact under normal market conditions the employer will be FORCED to pay more to get the best out of the pool of employees . He may have to pay more JUST TO GET an employee..never mind the best...the minimum wage is good for those times when there is a huge glut of UNSKILLED labor competing for available jobs..Who do you know ...with skills ...that is in the minimum wage market ? Your whole premise in a huge fallacie . The minimum wage only benifits a minority of potential wage earners ..but it acts as insurance that the least skilled will be able to get that wage .. when employers are not competing for their services And in areas were this is a large pool of unskilled labor where this competition dosnt naturaly exist . the minimum wage is not a cure for poverty.. An education or a skill and hard work IS . The mw IMO helps keep the playing field level for those on the margin until they can improve thier situation...I do not know anyone....who only aspires to a nice comfy minimum wage job . The minimum wage is a starting point for an employer..almost like the cost of insurance..if a job is going to cost an employer 11.00 an hour when you consider ( wages @ 5.50 + UE + WC + SS+ other overhead =apprx . 11.00 ) to cut grass but you are only getting 15.00 for the job...then guess what thats a job thats not being created ..or an employer who will hire an illegal immigrant or pay off the books So only those that can AFFORD to create a job at Min. do so . You are NOT improving anyone's lot in life by the MW . If a job is to costly when the MW go's up..then it gets eliminated and the former MW employee is just out of luck . You cant force someone to create a job..but you can give them an incentive . Just how is the MW an incentive to an employer if he feels its not fair ? You can social engineer untill your green in the face ...but you cant create jobs without employers.

@ smellyfeet..Most economist do not see India and China matching the GDP or GNP of the US in the near future..its not impossible maybe in your Grandchildrens lifetime that it may happen ,but there are just too many things working against them for it to happen anytime soon if ever . Go to the links in my other post for insights into why they feel that way ..but it has to do with the fact that a tiny % of their population earns the cash to support the rest and keep them from starving to death. Sometimes a huge population IS NOT a benifit .
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948421.htm
http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uscn/state/2005/072601.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050209-075842-1522r.htm
http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s2.html

US per capita GDP for 2004 was $40540 compared to $1118 for China and $594 for
India. ...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Here's where your argument falls flat. You are making a huge assumption and a huge mistake .

Just because the minimum wage is in place 'Dosn't mean an employer will not pay more ! In fact under normal market conditions the employer will be FORCED to pay more to get the best out of the pool of employees .

To a point, I would think. It is in the employers best interest to pay the lowest amount that they can possibly pay while keeping the employee satisfied.

He may have to pay more JUST TO GET an employee..never mind the best...

This is true.

the minimum wage is good for those times when there is a huge glut of UNSKILLED labor competing for available jobs..Who do you know ...with skills ...that is in the minimum wage market ?

You're right... I don't know of anyone in that market with marketable skills.

Your whole premise in a huge fallacie . The minimum wage only benifits a minority of potential wage earners ..but it acts as insurance that the least skilled will be able to get that wage .. when employers are not competing for their services And in areas were this is a large pool of unskilled labor where this competition dosnt naturaly exist .

That makes sense.

the minimum wage is not a cure for poverty.. An education or a skill and hard work IS .

I know a minimum wage is not a cure for poverty -- I just think that it should be adjusted for inflation. An education/skill is paramount.

The mw IMO helps keep the playing field level for those on the margin until they can improve thier situation...I do not know anyone....who only aspires to a nice comfy minimum wage job .

That would be hysterical.

The minimum wage is a starting point for an employer..almost like the cost of insurance..if a job is going to cost an employer 11.00 an hour when you consider ( wages @ 5.50 + UE + WC + SS+ other overhead =apprx . 11.00 ) to cut grass but you are only getting 15.00 for the job...then guess what thats a job thats not being created ..or an employer who will hire an illegal immigrant or pay off the books So only those that can AFFORD to create a job at Min. do so . You are NOT improving anyone's lot in life by the MW . If a job is to costly when the MW go's up..then it gets eliminated and the former MW employee is just out of luck . You cant force someone to create a job..but you can give them an incentive . Just how is the MW an incentive to an employer if he feels its not fair ? You can social engineer untill your green in the face ...but you cant create jobs without employers.

You can't create jobs without employers -- that's true.

Consider this, though. I used to work for a small business. This employer fired (layed off) the remaining employees in the company (4 or 5 people in total) leaving only 2 people left working at the company at one point: me, and the president of the company (obviously I did a majority of the work while the employer sat around talking on the phone making personal calls all day). Then the employer hired temporary workers (to help me and save money) and eventually, after I left, closed down for good (so I've heard).

My question is, do you believe that this was the result of restrictive minimum wage payments that acted as a disincentive to create jobs? Obviously I know the ACTUAL reason as to why the company closed, but I want your opinions first before I give the real reason.

 

[ledhed]

I know nothing of the compamys circumstances before they went under . How can I answer that with no information ?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I know nothing of the compamys circumstances before they went under . How can I answer that with no information ?

Actually, you can't now that I think about it... So what makes you think most/all companies are not going to hire people (or worse fire people) because the minimum wage is slightly increased annually to hedge against inflation? When the federal minimum wage was last increased in the early 90s, was there a massive wave of unemployment as a result of it? Even if there was because I don't remember, didn't the unemployment rate decrease gradually anyway?

By the way, the company moved from a smaller location to a larger location thinking they were "expanding" the business. However, sales did not meet expectations and they were unable to pay their rent for the entire building. Slowly but surely, more and more people were layed off until there were 2. I would call that "mismanagement of resources" not "the cost of government-imposed price floors".

 

[ledhed]

since the mw is the same all over the country how is that fair to someone from California vs someone from Iowa ? The same dollar in Iowa will be worth less due to the cost of living in California. If the wage went up a dollar it would be significant but I do not know nearly enough about that demagraphic to guess how it would effect unemployment . I do know a gradual increase is almost always better than a sudden one .

 

[ledhed]

GDP Europes top twenty .


1 Germany 2,906,658
2 United Kingdom 2,295,039
3 France 2,216,273
4 Italy 1,836,407
5 Spain 1,120,312
6 Russia 755,437
7 Netherlands 629,391
8 Belgium 387,840
9 Switzerland 384,642
10 Sweden 383,816
11 Austria 318,343
12 Poland 312,257
13 Norway 285,604
14 Denmark 265,934
15 Greece 230,684
16 Republic of Ireland 206,467
17 Finland 204,385
18 Portugal 185,091
19 Czech Republic 125,709
20 Hungary 107,144

As Compared to ;

1 United States 11,733,475
2 Japan 4,668,418
3 Germany 2,706,673
4 United Kingdom 2,125,509
5 France 2,018,080
6 Italy 1,680,691
7 People's Republic of China 1,649,387
8 Canada 995,833
9 Spain 992,992
10 Korea 681,469

 

[smellysocks12]

GDP means NOTHING when comparing productivity between countries. Now when you take GDP per capita you might start to get somewhere. But that still wouldn't be a fair comparison, since you can only compare when using the same valuta for each country. Then exchange rates enter the mix which still make it hard to compare. Not to mention the different price levels within countries.


$10 in the USA is worth $10, $10 in Ethiopia is worth $1000 when looking at the REAL value (value in goods, not in numbers) of the money, not the nominal value. If you go shopping in Indonesia and spend $10, you have an entire shopping cart full with goods. If you spend $10 in the USA you have a bag of chips, a bottle of coke and toilet paper and you're broke already.



So that list you posted makes no sense in here. You might as well have posted a top 10 list of Paris Hilton's favorite cities to go shopping.

 

[ledhed]

Gdp is an indicator of the relative strength of each economy. You do not use it to measure standard of living although you can assume a contry with a high GDP has a decent standard of living. GDP is an INDICATOR only and is used to measure relative stregth by measuring the same indicators in diverse economys/ country's . It is very meaningfull when used for the correct purpose. Unless of course you know more than the world bank and all the leading economist in the world .

 

[Danoff]

OK, fine. They're less productive overall because they work less and there are less people in their workforce. That means nothing to me.

Company A may make more money than Company B, but if Company B has better profit margins, it's a better company (put simply -- obviously there are many other factors that determine how "good" a company actually is).

I'm going by GDP/hour -- not the total figure. Ratios tend to do a better job of accurately portraying a company's financials than raw figures. Like the debt-to-equity ratio. Sure if Company A has more debt (remember it's a bigger company) that needn't be a bad thing. Just because Company B has less debt because it's a smaller company, it may have a higher debt-to-equity ratio (which is bad).

Or do countries operate differently than corporations?

Yes, countries operate differently than corporations, but that's really beside the point here. GDP/hour is a silly figure. Let's pretend that there was a law in the US that we could only work 1 hour per week. What would happen? Productivity per hour would skyrocket. You'd try to get as much crammed into that hour as you possibly could. There would be no distractions, no wasted time, no lunch break, no coffee break. You would concentrate to the fullest extent for that hour.

But we'd sacrifice a huge amount of productivity.

It is just a matter of time until India and China catch up with the USA in total GDP, I guess danoff will agree that those countries are doing better when that happens.

Not if they have a far larger population, or if they manage to boost their GDP by infringing human rights.

Again, I'm not about what makes whoever the most money. I'm about what is moral.

 

[PS]

Again, I'm not about what makes whoever the most money. I'm about what is moral.

Would you say that rights, values, and morals are all different, the last two being a personal choice?

 

[Danoff]

Would you say that rights, values, and morals are all different, the last two being a personal choice?

I would say they are all different, but values are the only personal choice in your list. What is and is not moral is independant of the observer.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I would say they are all different, but values are the only personal choice in your list. What is and is not moral is independant of the observer.

And if two people have conflicting values relating to the size and scope of government, then what is one to do in the United States?

 

[Danoff]

And if two people have conflicting values relating to the size and scope of government, then what is one to do in the United States?

Vote.

That's prefectly fine. But it's necessary for the government to be restricted to moral action (via the bill of rights) to avoid the tyranny of the majority that inevitably occurs.

The government can grow and shrink, but there are certain restrictions that cannot be up for vote. Like the right to life, or the right to due process. This is why even the majority cannot pass a law requiring that the government kill all red haired people for example, or that there cannot be a law saying all black people are slaves, or cannot vote, or are not required to be tried by their peers should they request such a trial.

Part of this is the constitutional guarantee that people will recieve equal protection under the law. This is a fundamental statement that the government will not treat citizens differently. This is why affirmative action is unconstitutional, why slavery is unconstitutional, why the refusal to allow women to vote is unconstituational. This kind of "equal treatment" doctrine makes perfect sense. We all belong to this society, we all pay taxes... we should each be treated no differently by our government.

This is a constitutional guarantee that should not be changeable, even by the majority. Our country DOES allow the majority to change the rules in the form of a constitutional ammendment, but that's a dangerous process and one that I'm not sure should even be allowed... because it opens up the ability for the majority to oppress the minority. However, thus far, constitutional ammendments have been used mostly to increase the fairness of government.