Chicago requires big-box stores to pay 'living wage'

[vladimir]

Yes - you said:

no, you missed something there. try again.

*sigh*

Yes, increased demand increases price. I'd say it falls directly within the simplistic supply and demand theory.

Increased price affects the acceleration in demand. But the basic axiom holds true. Price goes up, demand goes down, even if it's demand growth that takes the hit first rather than the demand velocity or acceleration being discontinuous (which is what would be required for demand to instantaneously reverse directions).

Oil is an excellent example to back me up. But if you don't believe supply and demand, my recommendation (again) is for you to take a course in economics.



It's actual demand, but not based on consumption.

the amount of workers you have in your store also determines how much you can sell.
as i said, they are not employed to sit on their asses, they are employed because they are needed to work at the cashier, fill the shelves etc.
if walmart moves out of chicago or lays off workers won't mean there is no more demand for its products. and not everyone is going to drive out of town to buy some groceries.
that could mean that smaller stores (which are unaffected by the law) might get into its place.

 

[Famine]

no, you missed something there. try again.

At no point in this thread have you offered a position or argument contrary to your earlier statement. You did say you were "opposing the stark simplification", but didn't offer anything which might cast light on your earlier position being false. Perhaps there's some subtext in there somewhere lost in the syntax.


Still avoiding questions though, I see. They aren't tough ones or trick questions - I promise. See if you can attempt one of them in your next response.


Incidentally, you missed the earlier comment about nationality. We have a nationalised healthcare system in the UK. We have a national minimum wage. Neither work.

 

[vladimir]

At no point in this thread have you offered a position or argument contrary to your earlier statement. You did say you were "opposing the stark simplification", but didn't offer anything which might cast light on your earlier position being false. Perhaps there's some subtext in there somewhere lost in the syntax.

i wasn't saying that my simple math was better then anyone else's. i just intended to show that simple math isn't suitable to grasp the issue.

Still avoiding questions though, I see. They aren't tough ones or trick questions - I promise. See if you can attempt one of them in your next response.

actually, i just ignored them because i don't think that they are contributing to this thread in any way.


but oh well, if it makes you happy:

"Why is $100/hour absolutely unsupportable (and "outrageous") but $7.50/hour worthy of consideration (albeit without conclusion)?"
- 100$ could not be afforded by the companies, while 7.50$ might do something against companies making a profit by exploiting a shortage of jobs.


"What would happen to the market price of gold if everyone on Earth was given one and only one solid gold ingot?"
- it would plummet

Incidentally, you missed the earlier comment about nationality. We have a nationalised healthcare system in the UK. We have a national minimum wage. Neither work.

i don't think so:

i don't see nationality as a qualification for anything.

 

[Swift]

sorry, i don't understand this sentence.

Because you didn't read it carefully

It's very simple, you say that I'm not actually listening to what you say but going on the "he's a liberal so he must be saying X" frame of mind. I was saying that being on the recieving end of such prejudice in the Creation vs Evolution thread and others, I wouldn't knowingly do that to another member. Very simple.

so what would you suggest? work even more than 50 hours per week? stop working altogether and starve?

I suggest that people not take on more then they can support. Wow, incredible logic there huh?

even in politics you can abstain.

Of course, you are currently not.

i'm not saying that people should get stuff they did not earn, i just believe that a society has to sustain certain living conditions for its members.
i also believe that businesses should not be allowed to exploit workers based on high unemployment rates and a low welfare standard.
finally, in a fair society, healthcare should not be something that only rich people can afford.

Who said this system was fair? It's simply the most fair of all systems. Not a pure capitalist society, but not socialist either.

 

[Famine]

actually, i just ignored them because i don't think that they are contributing to this thread in any way.

Mmm. Ironic, isn't it?

but oh well, if it makes you happy:

"Why is $100/hour absolutely unsupportable (and "outrageous") but $7.50/hour worthy of consideration (albeit without conclusion)?"
- 100$ could not be afforded by the companies, while 7.50$ might do something against companies making a profit by exploiting a shortage of jobs.

"What would happen to the market price of gold if everyone on Earth was given one and only one solid gold ingot?"
- it would plummet

Your second answer negates your first.

If everyone got a gold ingot, the price of gold would plummet. If everyone got paid $100 an hour, the relative value of money would plummet - that is, inflation would rise. Why? To compensate for the fact that everyone now has gold/$100 an hour and no-one wants what they already have.

So if everyone were paid $100 an hour, $100 an hour would become the baseline. Item prices would rise accordingly and companies would be able to afford the $100 an hour.

So I ask again - why is $100 an hour "outrageous" and instantly dismissible out of hand, but you are unable to draw a conclusion on whether $7.50 an hour (or $10) is good or bad?

i don't think so:

I ought to have said that you missed why it was relevant. Again, you dismissed it out of hand. We have both things - nationalised healthcare and minimum wages. Neither work - to the point that we have roughly 4 million - or 10% of the adult working population - out of work (though official figures vary between 1.2 million and 2 million, there is a massive sector of people who aren't counted in official stats as they are out of work but not claiming unemployment benefit) and it's almost impossible to find a dentist willing to do NHS work. This is why it is relevant - we have the experience.

 

[YSSMAN]

i can only support that piece of advise because i already live in germany and i quite like it here.

And thats great that you live in Germany, as I've always wanted to plan a holiday there. However, living in a Social-Democratic state like Germany is completely different than living in Capitalist-Democratic America. I have a fairly healthy knowlege of the economics and social systems in Germany, and it really is a difference of culture between Deutschland and America.

i don't see nationality as a qualification for anything.

I was under the assumption that you were an American before the note before, thus I made an example out of Famine who lives in England (using a quasi-capitalist/socalist economic system) and doesn't support the law.

so you are also in favour of third world child labour?

Anyone with two cents in their head doesn't like the idea of a five-year-old kid in China making their Nike Basketball shoes, but thats part of how the global economy works. I'm certain that a good number of the products sold by my employer are made in a third-world country by small children, and I have been confronted by customers about it, but what do you expect when everything is $6.98?

yes, i am all for a national healthcare system.

Again, living in Germany you live with it. But how would you rate the healthcare in Germany? People in America want to become doctors because they know there is money to be made, and given the strong competition in that market, quality goes up, and thus we have the greatest level of heathcare in the world. If we were to create a national heathcare system, there wouldn't be an incentive for people to become doctors, as there wouldn't be any money to be made. Thus, heathcare suffers in our country, despite the fact anyone can get it for free.

We have friends from the UK and Canada who are amazed by the quality of heathcare in the US, and atleast for our friends from Canada, they often come to the US to get any specialized work done.

as for the rest, why don't you guys ever get bored with that stupid stereotyping? i'm fed up with it. as soon as you start with that typical "every liberal is a commie, wants the highest taxes, welfare so much that nobody will work anymore and no more punishment for rapists and murderers than shoplifters" attitude you are disqualifying yourself.

Again, it is a difference of culture here in America as compared to Europe. We aren't nearly as progressive as the lot over there, and that even includes the occasionally "uptight" folks from the UK. We don't want to pay taxes, and it is our right as Americans to choose our leaders so we do not have to pay them.

Ben Franklin was right when he said two things were certain in life, "Death and taxes." Many Americans take pride in their work, and thus don't want the government there to take all of that away. Taxes may "even" the income gaps in America, but does the man who works hard as a full-time lawer deserve to be thrown a handicap by comparison to some teenager at McDonalds?

I suppose neither side would completely understand one-another, and although I can concede to some liberal ideas when it comes to some things, generally speaking I'm sticking with my conservative ways.

 

[ledhed]

before they make this decision however, they want to be certain that they can sell theor product succesfully.
thus in a saturated market education won't help you.

and before you can do and investment, you need something to invest. those working fulltime at walmart kind of jobs usually don#t have anything to invest.

why are you arguing something that is pointless ? if the markets saturated you go somplace it is not.


making assumptions without first at least doing some research into a subject is stupid...making a blanket statement also is stupid .

People working full time at Wallmart type jobs can and do have 401 k's and a 401 k is an investment . plenty of people who work at wallmart improve their living conditions and eitherrmove on to a better paying job within or at another company using the experiance gained at wallmart or become part of management..IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL AS TO WHAT HE IS WILLING TO DO TO BE SUCCESSFULL. If you educate yourself and work hard you will prosper . The promise of America . I know people who invested 300.00 to 400.00 in a year to start in the stock market and now have over 16,000 .00 (in a year !)..because they did their homework researched the market and the offering and bought when the stock was dirt cheap.

Look at ADM I bought it when it was first offered..I think I got it at an ave. of 22.00 a share ..I own 1000 shares now and its around 38 to 42 ..I almost doubled my investment in that one stock...do the math.

Put the money in a 401 k and its not taxed . ( unless you use it before retirement ) .

Thats the great secret and the reason the US is a super power leaving the rest of the world in our wake economicaly .

There are millions of middle Class Americans just like me. And nothing is stopping anyone who isnt middle class except themselves . ( that works for rich people too...they can make themselves middle class by being stupid just as fast as a poor person can by being smart ...more likely faster...a poor person doesnt have the overhead a rich person accumulates )

 

[Sphinx]

Incidentally, you missed the earlier comment about nationality. We have a nationalised healthcare system in the UK. We have a national minimum wage. Neither work.

In 1999 the UK’s Labour Government implemented the minimum wage. The aim was to eliminate once and for all the exploitation of lower than low wages paid to workers throughout the UK and thus aid the commitment to bring many thousands of working families out of poverty. Before and leading up to the introduction of the minimum wage the Conservatives sang their usual song, the same song that’s being sung now in this very thread. The song told the story of the doom and gloom that would arise from a minimum wage.

The Conservatives were bitterly opposed. Michael Howard (former Conservative Party leader) claimed that any introduction of a minimum wage would result in 2 million job losses (as if that had ever bothered him before) and called the idea “extreme, dangerous and absurd”. The Liberal Democrats were also opposed to the idea fearing (together with the Conservatives) that it would lead to the ”ripple effect” that FoolKiller mentions and send wage increases in every sector out of control and thus create higher inflation and therefore damage the economy.

6 years since the introduction of the minimum wage, where in the UK are the additional 2 million job losses, the ”ripple effect”, the high inflation and damaged economy????

6 years since the introduction of the minimum wage the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats now support the minimum wage in the UK.

£3.19 basic hourly rate for a compulsory 49 hr week! Maybe when Thatcher was in power, but now they can kiss my arse. By all means make as much profit as you like from supplying the consumer with quality goods and services but not by bleeding us idiots dry in order to make a bigger profit.

 

[Famine]

6 years since the introduction of the minimum wage, where in the UK are the additional 2 million job losses, the ”ripple effect”, the high inflation and damaged economy????

They're there - they just aren't counted. We have somewhere in the region of 4 million unemployed, though it's hard to pin down precise numbers since they aren't released in any coherent format.


You don't think our economy is damaged? Honestly?

£3.19 basic hourly rate for a compulsory 49 hr week! Maybe when Thatcher was in power, but now they can kiss my arse.

What was compulsory about it? Jobs only pay what the employers and employees think they're worth. If people will accept 50p an hour, employers will pay it. If they won't, employers must raise the salary or lose productivity from unfilled vacancies.

 

[Sphinx]

They're there - they just aren't counted. We have somewhere in the region of 4 million unemployed, though it's hard to pin down precise numbers since they aren't released in any coherent format.

And yet when there was 3 million unemployed (1 in 10 of the working population) it took me 8 months to find a job that paid £3.19. Toady I can go out and get a job in 3 hours if I wanted to.

You don't think our economy is damaged? Honestly?

Not by the minimum wage. Prove me wrong by supplying research that proves that the minimum wage is responsible for 2 million job losses, the "ripple effect, higher inflation etc?

What was compulsory about it? Jobs only pay what the employers and employees think they're worth. If people will accept 50p an hour, employers will pay it. If they won't, employers must raise the salary or lose productivity from unfilled vacancies.

A compulsory 49 hour week (extra 10 hrs paid at time and a quarter) means that if you didn’t work the extra hours you’ll be sacked. Desperate people will do desperate things when faced with the dole, but that doesn’t mean that businesses (a minority of) can exploit the unemployed by paying them peanuts for more profit. The minimum wage stopped all that crap and was even welcomed by the business sector, although cautiously.

Then again, I suppose the desperate/"idiots" could always eat cake.

 

[Famine]

And yet when there was 3 million unemployed (1 in 10 of the working population) it took me 8 months to find a job that paid £3.19. Toady I can go out and get a job in 3 hours if I wanted to.

Which proves?

Does it prove that there's less unemployed? Nope - because there aren't.
Does it prove that there's more jobs? Hmmmm, nope, though it's an indicator of it, certainly.
Does it prove that there's more low-paid jobs? Again, not really, though it's a strong indicator of it.
What it does prove is that you weren't willing to settle for any less than £3.19 an hour 20 years ago (I'm assuming you're talking about somewhere in the mid-1980s), whereas now you'd do even more menial tasks because they pay better.

This says that you're a mercenary - you'll do whatever, as long as it pays well. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - in fact it's probably a very good thing, and if there were more people like you (rather than me - I don't care about the salary, I only want to do what I enjoy and won't consider anything else) we wouldn't need a minimum wage, as employers would have to pay a higher market rate...

Not by the minimum wage. Prove me wrong by supplying research that proves that the minimum wage is responsible for 2 million job losses, the "ripple effect, higher inflation etc?

Ah, now I deliberately didn't say that - I'm careful to avoid the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, so because of this), especially after the MMR/autism debacle. I just asked whether you honestly think that the economy isn't currently damaged.

A compulsory 49 hour week (extra 10 hrs paid at time and a quarter) means that if you didn’t work the extra hours you’ll be sacked.

But it's most certainly not compulsory to do the work at all.

Choose the job. If you can't live with the conditions imposed on it, don't choose the job. If people didn't accept the conditions, employers would have to change them because otherwise they'd have unfilled vacancies and severely harm their productivity, competitiveness, income and profit. The very fact that people did accept those conditions signalled to the businesses that it was okay to impose them.


I'd like to ask another question of you, if I may. Did you ever participate in strike action?

Then again, I suppose the desperate/"idiots" could always eat cake.

Yet again with the pseudo-classist chip, I see. You seem have this aura that other people are upper or middle (or upper-middle) class, or at least that no-one else here is as working class as you are. I really do wonder where it's coming from - or why it's at all relevant in this thread.

Leave the emotions at the door when you come in, please. They are not helpful in rational discussion.

 

[FoolKiller]

good point. i guess it would be more fair if the minimum wage was increased generally.

That would only be fair to employers, but what about the non-minimum wage employees? Did you read my hypothetical example I gave to Yssman?

i wasn't saying that my simple math was better then anyone else's. i just intended to show that simple math isn't suitable to grasp the issue.

Which is why I went into macro-economics. It takes a large scale economical view to understand the issue.

the cnn article does not state that.

You're right. The article says:
The first Wal-Mart in Chicago itself is set to open in September, and the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company has more than 40 other stores within 50 miles of the city.
AND
Wal-Mart spokesman John Bisio said earlier that if the measure passed, "We'd redirect our focus on our suburban strategy and see how we could better serve our city of Chicago residents from suburban Chicagoland."

So, the store isn't even open yet, which would make it even easier to move out to "focus on their suburban strategy."

As for the stats on how many people it takes to run a store; I know those from working at Meijer and Sams/Wal*Mart both. Those were the stats given to us in orientation. Of course that was many years ago and I can only assume that with "supercenters" getting larger and larger they require even more people.

i guess walmart won't be able to employ everyone in the city.
now i suppose that there isn't exactly a great shortage of labour in that area (prove me wrong if you can) so there will still be ernough people to do the other jobs.

won't happen as long as there isn't a massive shortage of labour.

No, you don't need a massive shortage of labor, but in a country where the employment rate is below 5% you begin to be left with what I like to call the "unemployables." These are the people who are unemployed, but they lack skill, honesty, a good work ethic, a work mentality, other traits needed to hold any kind of job, or a combination of these things. This is why wages are already starting at a minimum of $7.25 in Wal*Mart and many other places. They pay more to try and attract the few good employees that are left away from lower paying jobs. When a Wal*Mart requires hundreds of people just to operate then you get a stiff competition with other employers to try and get the remaining good employees. No one really wants the lower 3% of the labor market. There is a reason why some people can't hold down a job and an employer would rather not find out what that is.

6 years since the introduction of the minimum wage, where in the UK are the additional 2 million job losses, the ”ripple effect”, the high inflation and damaged economy????

The ripple effect is only a rare possibility if employers or government decides to equally raise all wages to even out the inequality of a minimum wage hike. It is an unlikely scenario, but one I wanted people in favor of minimum wage increase to consider when you make some people suddenly have relatively less money by causing them to only have minimum wage when they were making $2 more.

Of course the wage increase ripple effect will not occur because no one cares about what happens to those that make above minimum wage. All anyone ever sees is the fact that the minimum wage workers got more money. You didn't take anything away from the above minimum wage workers, even though their newly adjusted tax bracket disagrees with you.

I think you should also review my scenario I presented to Yssman. How do you make things right for him without creating this ripple effect?

Here, I will make it really easy and link the post for you. It's point #3.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2359941&postcount=52

 

[Danoff]

Raising the minimum wage is not likely to have a drastic effect on the middle or upper class. It's not even likely to have a major effect on large business owners (though it will make it more difficult for small businesses). The reason? There aren't very many minimum wage jobs right now. The vast vast vast majority of working people make more than minimum wage because the vast majority of people have more skills than the bare minimum job requires.

Huge unemployment or dramatic inflation are not likely when the government requires an increase in pay for such a small portion of the jobs in the country.

So what WILL it do?

Price goes up, demand goes down. It will reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available and create SOME unemployment. The effect will be unbelievably disproportionately felt among low-income workers. Some of them will lose their jobs. Those that do will have a hard time finding new ones. Young people entering the workforce will have a hard time finding that gap-filler job that creates some experience and pads a resume.

Basically 90% of the poeple in this country won't feel a thing and assume the minimum wage worked beautifully. The bottom 10% will feel a pinch and not understand where it came from.

I could make the argument based on principle, but I don't have to. The very people minimum wage proports to protect are the ones it will screw over.

Minimum wage is bad for poor people . Not rich people, rich people won't mind.

 

[ledhed]

The minimum wage provides JUST that...a minimum wage ...nothing more ...it gives prospective employers a GUARATEE of what they must at least pay....just like rent or any other overhead ..bark up a different tree..unless the minn...is unreasonable it works and it helps .


I know .


I have used it to hire and train people I would not have even looked twice at at a different rate...and I was glad I hired them..so IMO ..the min wage is a BIG go for it ..as long as you don't go insane .

 

[Danoff]

The minimum wage provides JUST that...a minimum wage ...nothing more ...it gives prospective employers a GUARATEE of what they must at least pay....just like rent or any other overhead ..bark up a different tree..unless the minn...is unreasonable it works and it helps .


I know .


I have used it to hire and train people I would not have even looked twice at at a different rate...and I was glad I hired them..so IMO ..the min wage is a BIG go for it ..as long as you don't go insane .

I don't understand how this invalidates anything I've said.

 

[Sphinx]

The ripple effect is only a rare possibility if employers or government decides to equally raise all wages to even out the inequality of a minimum wage hike. It is an unlikely scenario, but one I wanted people in favor of minimum wage increase to consider when you make some people suddenly have relatively less money by causing them to only have minimum wage when they were making $2 more.

Of course the wage increase ripple effect will not occur because no one cares about what happens to those that make above minimum wage. All anyone ever sees is the fact that the minimum wage workers got more money. You didn't take anything away from the above minimum wage workers, even though their newly adjusted tax bracket disagrees with you.

I think you should also review my scenario I presented to Yssman. How do you make things right for him without creating this ripple effect?

Here, I will make it really easy and link the post for you. It's point #3.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2359941&postcount=52

Thanks, but I've already read post #52 and I believe I understood the point you were making. I have no solution to make things right for him, but then again has he been wronged in the first place? However, If he is now closer to the minimum wage then his tax bracket would be adjusted accordingly (perhaps depending on status) and a saving would be made there. Apart from that, I have no idea.

The reason why I picked up on your 'ripple effect' comment is due to the fact that the Conservatives here in the UK used this very same scenario (ripple effect) as their main argument for the 2 million jobs that they believed would be lost if a minimum wage was introduced into this country.

 

[Sphinx]

Which proves? .

What did your 4 million unemployed claims prove? Nothing, because it’s an opinion and nothing more.

At least my comment is based on real life experiences which are more factual than any opinion. I saw first hand the dole queues, the social unrest it caused which came to a head with the poll tax. Where is all that crap now with so many unemployed? All living a life of riley on benefit?

I can also make claims that the 3 million unemployed in the 80’s was actually 5, 6 or 7 million. Do you really believe that the method of counting the unemployed is very much different than it was in the 80’s? YTS for example (what a scam that was btw)? Unemployed = those looking for employment. Not the sick, the infirm, those disabled whom cannot work, the incarcerated or anything else you’ve used to make your unproven point..

This says that you're a mercenary - you'll do whatever, as long as it pays well. This isn't necessarily a bad thing - in fact it's probably a very good thing, and if there were more people like you (rather than me - I don't care about the salary, I only want to do what I enjoy and won't consider anything else) we wouldn't need a minimum wage, as employers would have to pay a higher market rate... .

So you admit that we need a minimum wage?

Ah, now I deliberately didn't say that - I'm careful to avoid the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, so because of this), especially after the MMR/autism debacle. I just asked whether you honestly think that the economy isn't currently damaged. .

The only thing you’ve been careful to avoid is the question I put to you. If what you say is true then answer the question and prove your claim that the minimum wage in this country doesn’t work. I'll put it to you again, show me the 2 million job losses, the “ripple effect”, the high inflation etc?

I'd like to ask another question of you, if I may. Did you ever participate in strike action? .

Yes I have. Would you like to hear about it before you jump all over it?

Leave the emotions at the door when you come in, please. They are not helpful in rational discussion.

Only if such things like classifying low wage earners as “idiots” (very rational) stops. If not, then I’ll keep to using emotion over cold hearted, discriminative, stereotypical and hurtful comments every time.

 

[Famine]

What did your 4 million unemployed claims prove? Nothing, because it’s an opinion and nothing more.

At least my comment is based on real life experiences which are more factual than any opinion. I saw first hand the dole queues

Bang! Opinion.

My "opinion" that there's 4 million unemployed is not opinion. It is very hard to pin down the precise number because great lengths are taken not to reference them at all.

The only people listed in unemployed stats are those claiming "Jobseekers' Allowance". If you aren't claiming it, you aren't listed as unemployed. But here's the kicker... You can only claim Jobseekers' Allowance for a maximum of 12 weeks. If you are not employed by then, you are sent to do an HNC at the local adult education establishment in order to enhance your employability. You're still unemployed, of course, but you just aren't counted.

We also have 2 million "NEET"s (Not in Education, Employment or Training - got to love tabloid pigeonholing). These are people who aren't in... errr... well, you get the picture.

There's also a significant population of "transients". You know who I mean.


In total there's something in the order of 4 million people who have a National Insurance number, who are between the ages of 16 and 65, who are not retired, are not in prison, are not in educational establishments and are not registered disabled who make no NI contributions at all.

Where is all that crap now with so many unemployed? All living a life of riley on benefit?

Between that, "parental support", criminal activity (including "cash-in-hand" work) and the absolutely destitute, yes.

I can also make claims that the 3 million unemployed in the 80’s was actually 5, 6 or 7 million. Do you really believe that the method of counting the unemployed is very much different than it was in the 80’s? YTS for example (what a scam that was btw)? Unemployed = those looking for employment. Not the sick, the infirm, those disabled whom cannot work, the incarcerated or anything else you’ve used to make your unproven point..

YTS is bigger and better than ever - and I don't count registered disabled, retired or those in full time education.

Yes, the methods of counting the unemployed was very different then compared to now. We had only limited experience with "managing the press" (the now-ubiquitous "spin") and information like this was free to the press and anyone who asked. This started to change with Thatcher - and to an extent Major (who was rubbish at it) - but 3 million unemployed was 3 million unemployed.

Blair's definition is very much the same as yours. But we have a colossal population of wasters who have no intention of looking for a job and we have a section of society who aren't counted as looking for a job, because their allotted 12 weeks is up. I was one.

So you admit that we need a minimum wage?

Not at all - but if we had more people like you, willing to do any work as long as the money was good, it wouldn't even be an issue.

The only thing you’ve been careful to avoid is the question I put to you. If what you say is true then answer the question and prove your claim that the minimum wage in this country doesn’t work. I'll put it to you again, show me the 2 million job losses, the “ripple effect”, the high inflation etc?

You'll probably find that my question was tabled earlier. I made no claim that minimum wage law has led to more unemployment and a "broken" economy. You said that the Tories claimed this would happen and it hasn't. I merely pointed out that we DO have more unemployed and asked if it was your honest opinion that the economy isn't broken.

Is it your honest opinion that the economy isn't broken?

Yes I have. Would you like to hear about it before you jump all over it?

Not really - I don't care about the motives or anything around it, and I'm not going to attack you for it. I'm just interested in the striking, as it serves a purpose. Stick with me on this.

When you were on strike - probably over pay and conditions - were there people who worked anyway? Did the company/companies bring in other, outside people to cover for the duration of the strike(s)?

Only if such things like classifying low wage earners as “idiots” (very rational) stops. If not, then I’ll keep to using emotion over cold hearted, discriminative, stereotypical and hurtful comments every time.

Please find where I have made those references.

When you cannot, please restrict yourself from making barbed class-related comments addressed in response to my posts.

 

[ledhed]

I don't understand how this invalidates anything I've said.

danoff i am not trying to validate ...nor ...invalidate anything you say.


I just threw out my opinion on the minimum wage with a bit of explaining as to why .

 

[ledhed]

What did your 4 million unemployed claims prove? Nothing, because it’s an opinion and nothing more.

At least my comment is based on real life experiences which are more factual than any opinion. I saw first hand the dole queues, the social unrest it caused which came to a head with the poll tax. Where is all that crap now with so many unemployed? All living a life of riley on benefit?

I can also make claims that the 3 million unemployed in the 80’s was actually 5, 6 or 7 million. Do you really believe that the method of counting the unemployed is very much different than it was in the 80’s? YTS for example (what a scam that was btw)? Unemployed = those looking for employment. Not the sick, the infirm, those disabled whom cannot work, the incarcerated or anything else you’ve used to make your unproven point..



So you admit that we need a minimum wage?



The only thing you’ve been careful to avoid is the question I put to you. If what you say is true then answer the question and prove your claim that the minimum wage in this country doesn’t work. I'll put it to you again, show me the 2 million job losses, the “ripple effect”, the high inflation etc?



Yes I have. Would you like to hear about it before you jump all over it?



Only if such things like classifying low wage earners as “idiots” (very rational) stops. If not, then I’ll keep to using emotion over cold hearted, discriminative, stereotypical and hurtful comments every time.

i think I was guilty of calling low wage earners " idiots " in a sarcastic manner...unfortunately sarcasm doesnt translate well in a written media.

 

[Sphinx]

I made no claim that minimum wage law has led to more unemployment and a "broken" economy. You said that the Tories claimed this would happen and it hasn't.

So far as job losses etc. are concerned it must be working then?

What else is left for it not to work? Poverty?

Is it your honest opinion that the economy isn't broken?

Allow me to quote Harold Macmillan:

”We have never had it so good”

When you were on strike - probably over pay and conditions - were there people who worked anyway?

No.

Did the company/companies bring in other, outside people to cover for the duration of the strike(s)?

No.

i think I was guilty of calling low wage earners " idiots " in a sarcastic manner...unfortunately sarcasm doesnt translate well in a written media.

Indeed.

 

[Famine]

So far as job losses etc. are concerned it must be working then?

What else is left for it not to work? Poverty?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - just because I am not currently saying that minimum wage law has led to those things doesn't mean that it hasn't, or that it won't.

But, between the really bleak Thatcher-era times you describe and now, there's been a national minimum wage and a million more people not working.

That doesn't mean that the one has led to the other - and conversely just because it doesn't mean that, doesn't mean that it hasn't. I simply don't have any evidence to say either way with any certainty - only that the one has happened and the other has also happened, without any reference to a link between them.


Overload of "n"s and "t"s there, I feel.

Allow me to quote Harold Macmillan:

”We have never had it so good”

You have got to be kidding me, right? This is some sort of elaborate joke, designed to wind people up, isn't it?

No.

No.

Kinda ruins the example I was going to give - or at least depersonalises it.


Let's say you and your fellow workers at my reciprocating flangepipe factory feel you aren't being paid enough and, just because I pipe water for the urn in from the effluent pipe of the local genitourinary clinic, you feel that the conditions are below par. Due process is followed and you all head out for a day's strike.

I bring in outsiders to do your jobs for the day. The scabs! Now, I lose absolutely nothing for you having your day on strike (and you lose a day's pay - as I believe that's the law with regards to union walkouts). So what has your day on strike acheived? I still pay you absolutely sod all, and you still drink clap-brew and I still made exactly the same money. Your strike, justified though it was, has had no effect, because of the scabs who did your jobs, for less money.


Now, let's blow this up nationwide. I still have my reciprocating flangepipe factory - amazingly H&S haven't closed me down, despite the outbreak of gonorrhoea. Say that the agreed "breadline" figure for the country is £4 an hour and anyone making less is officially in poverty. I have a bunch of vacancies for flangepipe fabrication, for which I offer £3.50 an hour.

Almost everybody agrees not to even bother applying - it's a stupid figure and it's below what you need to survive effectively. If nobody applied, I'd either lose productivity/income/profit with those vacancies unfilled, or I'd readvertise on a higher salary. But some really desperate people who have no money at all DO apply - hell, the JobCentre makes them apply or they lose benefits. I fill my vacancies, I keep my productivity/income/profit and, next time I need flangepipe fabricators, I go right ahead and advertise at £3.50 an hour, knowing that people will apply.


How is this relevant to the strike? Well, you all agreed to not work, which should have harmed the business enough to make them change their ways, but in came the scabs and the only people who lost out were those actually on strike. Similarly, you all agreed not to work for £3.50, which should have harmed the business enough to make them change their ways, but in came the desperate and the only people who lost out are those near the breadline who didn't apply.

If the scabs didn't work, and the desperate didn't agree to sell themselves short, the business would change their practises to everyone's benefit.



What does this have to do with minimum wage law? Well, without minimum wage law, the free market should assert itself to give everyone who works an above-breadline wage - but the free market is harmed by the poor who will do your job for less and that in turn harms the poor who will be paid less for doing your job. With a minimum wage law, businesses must pay a set salary at worst but, it costs the businesses (who now have to deal with a free market at one end and a tether at the other) who can now hire fewer people - and a concommitant small rise in inflation, to account for the fact that some minimum wage earners are now earning more than they were before, pushes the breadline up nearer to a lot more people, meaning that more people are classed as poor and though fewer are in poverty, those that are are in deeper poverty than before...

So the very poorest get poorer as jobs lessen. The breadline is dragged up to within a few points of the minimum wage, so more people become poor. The very richest get richer as they slash overheads. Sounds exactly like what Socialists pledge to stop...

Mix into this a near-complete cessation of manufacturing industries - which require more unskilled workers (coming from predominantly poor families/backgrounds) - an increase in service industries - which require more skilled workers, or at least those with training in certain areas (who don't come from predominantly poor families/backgrounds) - more than a fifth of the average salary including minimum wage earners going into the treasury and a rapidly ageing population who are entitled to public pensions that there isn't the money to pay for...

"We've never had it so good"? We're walking face first into a disaster - and I mean a disaster - though it won't happen for another couple of elections hence.

You've got to admire Blair. He knows his party won't survive another election - but he also knows that Labour can blame someone else when it happens, just in time to win power back and pick up the pieces...

 

[FoolKiller]

Thanks, but I've already read post #52 and I believe I understood the point you were making. I have no solution to make things right for him, but then again has he been wronged in the first place?

Let's see: He worked to earn his $7 over time and is rewarded by being given his raises to let him know that his work is more valued than those that are still making minimum wage. Now all of a sudden everyone that didn't work as hard as he did or those that just got hired on make the same thing he did. What did they do to make that extra money? He has essentially been told that all his extra work and efforts were worthless. Now tell me, has he been wronged? Also, what desire does he now have to try hard in the future?

However, If he is now closer to the minimum wage then his tax bracket would be adjusted accordingly (perhaps depending on status) and a saving would be made there. Apart from that, I have no idea.

Do you know why his tax bracket has been adjusted? Because compared to everyone else he is now poor. Now he gets put into the lowest income tax bracket.

Does this mean that he will save tax money? Sure, but why is he saving tax money? The answer is complex, but it boils down to the fact that the economy moves forward and thus places him in poverty because poverty now means making $7.

See, when you raise minimum wage all the companies won't just accept the loss in profits; they are evil and greedy afterall. Loss in profits across the board would mean an overall drop in the stock market and no one wants that, and as danoff said they won't get hurt and thsi is why: Companies will do what they can to regain those losses and every board member and stock owner will agree. This will mean that prices go up or people lose their jobs, or both. Since this increase is nationwide it means that every company raises prices slightly or lays people off, or does both. So, you aren't just paying an extra few cents on flangepipes, but you are also spending them on groceries, electronics, everything. So the minimum wage earner might be making more money but over time he will discover that he is also paying more.

This brings us back to the man that was making $7 before. He has to pay more as well. You just made him poor(er). This is why he pays lower taxes, because he makes relatively less money than he did before the minimum wage was increased.

The reason why I picked up on your 'ripple effect' comment is due to the fact that the Conservatives here in the UK used this very same scenario (ripple effect) as their main argument for the 2 million jobs that they believed would be lost if a minimum wage was introduced into this country.

The ripple effect would only ever occur if you tried to fairly adjust my above situation, but as I said before no one cares about the guy making just above minimum wage. Who cares if he gets screwed over as long as the minimum wage earners get more money, right?

Here is a question regarding your minimum wage in the UK: Are the poor suddenly not poor? Is everyone now making a "living wage"?

 

[Danoff]

Almost everybody agrees not to even bother applying - it's a stupid figure and it's below what you need to survive effectively. If nobody applied, I'd either lose productivity/income/profit with those vacancies unfilled, or I'd readvertise on a higher salary. But some really desperate people who have no money at all DO apply - hell, the JobCentre makes them apply or they lose benefits. I fill my vacancies, I keep my productivity/income/profit and, next time I need flangepipe fabricators, I go right ahead and advertise at £3.50 an hour, knowing that people will apply.

It's a fine example, but what you fail to mention is the level of competence, loyalty, and quality you've purchased with your 3.50 an hour. If the job requires only the worst worker, I think nobody deserves more than 3.50 an hour for doing it - and yes the salary will stay low.

But almost all jobs require some level of care and competence. - which is the incentive for the vast majority of jobs currently existing to pay more than the minimum... and I'd bet you'd find that over time fewer and fewer jobs pay min wage as the value of money inflates.

I'd suggest that we need a few jobs offering very very low wages out there to help people get back on their feet. I'd also suggest that almost no jobs will pay that little because they want to attract a competition for the job.

 

[Famine]

Oh yeah - reciprocating flangepipe fabricators are so unskilled that even a foetus could do the job.

 

[Danoff]

Oh yeah - reciprocating flangepipe fabricators are so unskilled that even a foetus could do the job.

...that's a good way to get around the minimum wage!!

 

[YSSMAN]

...Just to clear things up about me and my $7.75/hr job, $7 is the entry rate at all positions at our Steve and Barry's. From what I understand there are other stores in which employees make minimum wage, and there are others who make more than I do to begin with.

My raises came after being there for a year, and moving up a position or two. That said, I'm due for another raise soon, and another move up in the rankings may happen again soon as well.