BF2S Forums Minimum Wage and Unemployment.

Until we secure the border, minimum wage doesn't mean much.  Most jobs that pay minimum wage are heavily farmed out to illegals.  Raising the minimum wage just encourages more employers to hire illegals.

If we really want to help those at the bottom of the labor market, we need to secure the border, deport the illegals, and prosecute their employers.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

They are exclusive because YOU the earner have the same benefit as those that do not. Hardly fair.

To answer your question, the answer is no. There will always be plenty of slackers that refuse to make themselves marketable to keep unemployment around 3-5 percent. The key is, just make sure you are not one of them.

lol I don't view myself as having the same benefit - I have a massively more comfortable life than those who are just starting out in life or have fallen on hard times. My disposable income is ample. I take pride in the fact I offer them a safety net and that I will be provided that same net in the event that something terrible should befall me (not that I would need it given that I have ample savings and pay for medical insurance). I take pride in the fact that my money educates people in universities for free. Our ethos here in Europe is that we owe a debt to society and that people don't simply have a dollar value. In the US you seem to view humans as just another commodity. Over here we have more respect for our fellow man. Ironically, we take a more 'Christian' view of socio-economics.

Oh and as for your ludicrous last point - you know fine well that there isn't a single thing on earth that operates with 100% efficiency. Nice sidestep.

Give me a break! Americans are far more generous in their charitable contributions than Europeans are.

See here in America, we generally believe in a moral obligation to take care of those in need. However we do not believe that the government has the right to forcibly take your money to do so. Not only does the government not have that right, they are particularly illsuited to decide who is to get the help and who isn't. Government hand-outs are prone to low efficiency and abuse. They are also one of the primary causes of racial tension because "we" believe that "they" are getting a larger share of the money.

An individual is far more effective at determining who and where his hard earned money should go. Many donate to their local churches or to non-profit organizations like the United Way. The majority of scholarships in the United States are privately funded.

It is a good thing that you are proud of your contributions, but they should be your contributions out of your own free choice, not forced upon you by the government.

Varegg wrote:

Even $7.25 is ridiculously low ... my 14 year old son makes twice that amount on his paper route ... i find it strange that US merchandice isn't more competitive with wages like that ...

I agree. But operating on the idea that nothing is better than something just doesn't work.

Things are also less expensive here (I think Cam pointed that out). If you look at our PPP it's not terribly bad.

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Even $7.25 is ridiculously low ... my 14 year old son makes twice that amount on his paper route ... i find it strange that US merchandice isn't more competitive with wages like that ...

I agree. But operating on the idea that nothing is better than something just doesn't work.

Things are also less expensive here (I think Cam pointed that out). If you look at our PPP it's not terribly bad.

Then perhaps it is time for a person to decide to leave the kiddie wages to the kiddies and go get marketable. Whatcha think?

Of course that would take some personal motivation and responsibility, and I know those are not commodities that are very popular in this forum in regards to personal wealth and achievment.

If you read the OP you see that the "marketable" people are still employed. The kiddies (aka entry level positions) have lost their opportunity now. These are mostly kids that are out for summer breaks.


I've posted this before.. but it breaks minimum wage legislation down nicely.
Timeless
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6813529239937418232&q=milton+friedman&ei=TddNSKarIoO8rwLntdW5DA[/google]

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then perhaps it is time for a person to decide to leave the kiddie wages to the kiddies and go get marketable. Whatcha think?

Of course that would take some personal motivation and responsibility, and I know those are not commodities that are very popular in this forum in regards to personal wealth and achievment.

If you read the OP you see that the "marketable" people are still employed. The kiddies (aka entry level positions) have lost their opportunity now. These are mostly kids that are out for summer breaks.


I've posted this before.. but it breaks it down nicely.
Timeless
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6813529239937418232&q=milton+friedman&ei=TddNSKarIoO8rwLntdW5DA[/google]

Nooooo there are plenty of entry level kiddie wage jobs available, people are moving here illegally even and can't even speak English and are getting some....

Looks like it is time to come up with a plan rather than wait for the govt. to coddle you

You miss the larger point. I am making the same case of destructive government interference here. I doubt those illegals are being paid the new mandatory minimum wage requirements.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

How do you feel about people that live in a country with free college educations and yet do not take advantage of it?

100% free college and university education to all those capable?

lowing wrote:

As far as my ludicrous last point: Did I basically say that we will never achieve 100% efficiency? I thought I did.

The ludicrousness came in your pretence that the only reason there is unemployment is because of lazy people.

lowing wrote:

I think it is funny how you think America is a place to be kept down and not allowed to achieve. If there is a "ludicrous" insinuation that is it.

That last assertion makes no sense whatsoever. You are free to operate your own system, I don't particularly care which. I see the benefits or your system and see the benefits of ours. I prefer a less mercenary culture where individuals are not simply commodities. It provides a better breeding ground for the arts, strengthens social harmony and values living life over and above perpetual toil.

1. Yes Cam, do you give a shit about those that have free college and still are not educated or marketable?

2. Nope, we simply allow ourselves to succeed or fail as we see fit. It is called freedom. I di not endorse charging my govt. with the responsibility of taking care of me. I charge my govt. with my protection so that I can remain free to pursue what I want as I want.

Lowing, ever heard this: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

that's exactly what the cost of your supposed protection is, freedom.

The relationship between minimum wage and unemployment is fairly basic economic principle, although certainly not agreed upon by every economist. Although, when I took economic courses, my professors were all adamant that minimum wage is an economically bad thing.

However, if labour is low, then there is little harm in raising the minimum wage. It's all about balance. In British Columbia, there is consideration to raising the minimum wage to $10 from $8. We're quite short on labour.

Drakef wrote:

The relationship between minimum wage and unemployment is fairly basic economic principle, although certainly not agreed upon by every economist. Although, when I took economic courses, my professors were all adamant that minimum wage is an economically bad thing.

However, if labour is low, then there is little harm in raising the minimum wage. It's all about balance. In British Columbia, there is consideration to raising the minimum wage to $10 from $8. We're quite short on labour.

In theory free market is great.  In theory Communism is great.

In practice Communism gets corrupted, and free market needs limitations.

Sooo lowing ... you think it is allright then for the less fortunate that haven't had the same oppurunities as you to work for minimum wage and miss out on the american dream ? ... there can be loads of reasons for just that to happend, a disability, a work accident that lost them their well paid job and later forced them to take another or is everyone without a uni degree freeloaders ?

Don't you need bolt installers and clerks in the US ? ... why not pay them a little more so they can afford their mortage, a reasonable mortage that is ...

A little more emphasis would do you good ... you can't really compare everybody else up against yourself ...

Minimum wage was not designed nor intended as something to be paid in perpetuity and raise a family on. It has always been intended as a [i]starting[/] wage for unskilled labor. As the worker gains skill, they move up and earn more pay, leaving the unskilled positions open for new workers. That one, starting, unskilled laborer should not be living below the poverty line while making the minimum wage.

The problem is that people have started to believe (including lawmakers) that one should be able to support a family of 3-4 on one or two minimum-wage incomes and keep it above the poverty line.

Following the original intent of the US minimum wage, it should be $5/hour. That would keep one person at the poverty line. $5.85 would keep them above it. source

One can tell by running the numbers that Congress' intent is to have a single wage earner at minimum wage be able to support a multi-member family indefinitely at that wage...far from the intent of the minimum wage.

We had what was almost a freeze on the minimum wage for a good 10-15 years.  Nothing much changed locally but after this period, going abroad got all the more expensive as overseas wages had risen more than ours.  Lately, the Labour (liberal) government has been bumping up the minimum wage, but theres still a lot of work to be done.

Minimum wage here is $NZD12/hour (USD9/hr).  I'm on NZD15/hr for fairly relaxed storeroom work - stack a few boxes, drive a forklift etc

Last edited by Pubic (2008-06-10 03:35:18)

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Minimum wage was not designed nor intended as something to be paid in perpetuity and raise a family on. It has always been intended as a [i]starting[/] wage for unskilled labor. As the worker gains skill, they move up and earn more pay, leaving the unskilled positions open for new workers. That one, starting, unskilled laborer should not be living below the poverty line while making the minimum wage.

The problem is that people have started to believe (including lawmakers) that one should be able to support a family of 3-4 on one or two minimum-wage incomes and keep it above the poverty line.

Following the original intent of the US minimum wage, it should be $5/hour. That would keep one person at the poverty line. $5.85 would keep them above it. source

One can tell by running the numbers that Congress' intent is to have a single wage earner at minimum wage be able to support a multi-member family indefinitely at that wage...far from the intent of the minimum wage.

How it was intended and how it actually works has been coopted to work is are two different things ...

Fixed.

Similar to social security in that respect.

FEOS wrote:

Minimum wage was not designed nor intended as something to be paid in perpetuity and raise a family on. It has always been intended as a [i]starting[/] wage for unskilled labor. As the worker gains skill, they move up and earn more pay, leaving the unskilled positions open for new workers. That one, starting, unskilled laborer should not be living below the poverty line while making the minimum wage.

The problem is that people have started to believe (including lawmakers) that one should be able to support a family of 3-4 on one or two minimum-wage incomes and keep it above the poverty line.

Following the original intent of the US minimum wage, it should be $5/hour. That would keep one person at the poverty line. $5.85 would keep them above it. source

One can tell by running the numbers that Congress' intent is to have a single wage earner at minimum wage be able to support a multi-member family indefinitely at that wage...far from the intent of the minimum wage.

If you list a minimum wage, then there are going to be a large number of people, including those supporting families, living on it.  The fact is many/most people on minimum wage will be supporting families, and easily replaced.