Graduated Minimum Wage?

Yes, I am evading a moronic, childish, and pointless conversation.

What do you think about the "graduated minimum wage" proposed by the op?

 

letlovin

No you are evading the point that when you claim you have and could defend your ideas form criticism you fail to be able to produce any evidence.

And when called on that you descend into moronic, childish, and pointless name calling.

*

I’m happy to talk about minimum wage, you are the one that brought up the moronic, childish, and pointless repeating thing not me.

Please give us your take rather than moronic, childish, and pointless tangents.

 

Why are you evading the question?

 

Letlovin


LOL – I’m not surprised you can’t produce the evidence that you have been able to defend your ideas – because there doesn’t seem to be any.


And so you are back to the evasion.

 

Letlovin

This is not the first time that there has been a discussion on the minimum wage here is one recent example -

[FONT=&quot]The minimum wage[/FONT]
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=474838

And of course it has cropped up in other threads like –

[FONT=&quot]Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect[/FONT]
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=453435

Anyway my views on the minimum wage issue are, as they say, out there – and do you not remember that you were in many of those threads, why didn’t you just read me then rather than getting me once more to repeat myself?

*

I believe in a minimum living wage, one that pays people enough to live on and allows a marginal surplus, enough to save or spend, beyond subsistence.

The problem is the neoliberalism of the past 30 years or so as set out here –

[FONT=&quot]Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat.[/FONT]
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

Here is something from a previous thread -

Background (simplified and general)

The political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism).

People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, decent wages etc (1). The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. In many nations that movement reached its zenith in the 60’s.

From the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.

(1)For an American perspective on that struggle try – Who built America (two volumes) by the American Social History Project)

The living wage was part of that struggle as I told you in a previous thread -

It was a social contract between people and state – the people would work and the state would strive for full employment to work toward creating the conditions were people had good decent jobs with living wages that allowed people to improve their lot.

But then neoliberal ideas that many right wingers support began to take hold in the 1970’s onward and they are not about seeking full employment (as the Keynesian based models are), it is about having unemployment because that is one of the means of driving down wage prices. It is the same reason why so many neoliberals oppose organised labour movements and social programmes because their removal would also increase the possibility for exploitation, as in work or starve.

The contract was broken those in control of the state were not trying for full employment they were not striving to better the lot of the majority of individuals or the community they were working in the interests of a few to drive down wages or assisting them in outsourcing jobs. It wasn’t about creating long term decent jobs it was about the short term maximisation of profit for a few.

What has happened - is that wages in some areas have fallen behind living, they are not living wages and private or public assistance is needed to supplement them.

As I told you –

Assistance was never meant to be long term and it shouldn’t be needed by people who are working - an employer should be paying a living wage not been subsidized by the tax payer to pay low wages. Those things have only appeared because the contract was broken and the priority of the managers of government shifted from helping the majority to helping the few.

But the appearance of long term assistance and the supposed ‘benefits culture’ they have created is now used by them to attack the system for not working and call for its reduction or removal to ‘incentivise’ people into low paid jobs that end up only benefiting the few.

So as I’ve said in a thread you were part of

I’m all for a minimum wage but I’d want it everywhere – how about if we worked out what a good living wage was in differing countries then banned the import of goods from countries that didn’t at the least pay that amount to their workers?

What we are getting in some developing countries are conditions that resemble what was happening in the west before people’s struggle to get rid of exploitation (the fire in Bangladesh that killed over a thousand factory workers comes to mind).

To me what neoliberal inspired right wingers seem to be aiming for is for a few to be able to exploit the many more easily.

 

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself. I didn't ask you what you thought about minimum wage. I did ask you what you thought of the 'graduated minimum wage' outlined in the op. Something that your long and redundant post failed to cover.

I personally don't like the idea because it brings age descrimination. A persons wage should be decided between the employee and the employer. There are many circumstances that I have personally seen where a green 19-20 year old is more valuable to a company than someone that's been doing the same job for 20 years. And I believe the young employee should be able to negotiate his/her wage accordingly.

 

An interesting proposition...............even though its been worked over pretty well on this thread.

How about a graduated wage based upon job function. Like: if the job involves handling cash, making change; or if the job involves driving a motor vehicle. Certain job functions might warrant extra income.

Perhaps the Min. wage should be higher if you are working after a certain hour on the clock: After 8PM the Min wage increases by a dollar. After 12AM by yet another dollar.

Heard on the radio; a recent court case; now home health care workers will be covered by the minimum wage.

 

letlovin

To me the thread is about what people opinions are on a minimum wage – the op said specifically that he “wanted to get a conversation going about minimum wage” then gave his opinion and I’ve given mine. On his idea I’d agree with you that I don’t like the age discrimination.

Anyway have you found that evidence yet?

 

As you already know, I'm not looking for any evidence.

Call it what you will I don't really give a shit. I come here for entertainment purposes. Not to sit around and circle jerk all day.

 

letlovin

Well as I’ve told you there doesn’t seem to be any to find.

LOL yes and a lot of the entertainment for me are the silly deceptions and hilarious evasions some people like to try and pull.


Anyway for balance would you give us your opinions on a minimum wage here as well?

 

I have mixed feelings about raising the minimum wage to be honest. I think the general Libertarian idea of eliminating it all together is risky business, and would only work in an ideal world. But I also think raising it, although well intended, could have some negative side affects. If its raised too high, the unskilled workers currently being paid minimum wage would have more competition. Employers would also let go of unskilled labourers and spread the workload onto other workers. Possibly resulting in an increase in unemployment for the poor.

Without doing extensive research, I don't know where the magic number is that would work best. I think that the best think we could do for the people making minimum wage is to focus on education and skilled job creation. They need to be motivated to better themselves instead of waiting for the government to give them a raise.

 

Libertarianism is all the rage here it seems, but it's really pretty lousy when you think about it. Social Darwinistic at heart. A little bit. Don't you think?

 

Believe me those bastards would pay you twenty five cents an hour, if it would, not even necessarily fly, but at least lift off the ground for a second or two.

 

Nobody's gonna pay me less than what I feel I'm worth. Minimum wage or no minimum wage.

 

letlovin

Thing is that there is not an equality of power and freedom between employer and employee. The gap is closer in societies with near full employment but becomes wider with high unemployment.

When the US was doing well economically was in the period from the end of WWII to the rise of neoliberal ideas. It was also a period of high employment and good wages, where manufacturing dominated and the US had a trade surplus.

The problem here is that the neoliberal ideas that many right wingers support and which began to take hold in the 1970’s onward are not about seeking full employment (as Keynesian based models are), it is about having unemployment because that is one of the means of driving down wage prices. It is the same reason why so many neoliberals oppose organised labour movements and social programmes because their removal would also increase the possibility for exploitation, as in work or starve.

As pointed out thousands of times many people that are seeking assistance are working. People in hardship may not like the wage been offered but are more likely to accept what they can; the power is with the employer.

You say nobody's going to pay you less than what you feel you’re worth, but in a work or stave economy, people might feel that just having food is worth it. For example in such economies parents have put their children to work up chimneys, and in dangerous factories just for the few pennies they could bring into the family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vev4PC9A_N4"]Horrible Histories victorian song - YouTube

 

Yes, the individual must remain strong, and assertive, we should never rely on government as a BIG BROTHER to do everything for us...but I do believe that alone we are weak and can be pushed around, beaten, and broken by stronger powers, when our interests clash.

Who else has the power to fight these greater powers than a centralized government?

We can't have it be like in the jungle or in the sea, with strong creatures devouring the weaker ones. It's an unnecessary evil for things to be that way in human society.

 

Yeah, imagine all the dead bodies along the streets. Societies are bad things huh? So we need a stronger and more powerful central government to bring about greater equality where none exists?

Social Darwinism is an excellent, but meaningless perjorative thrown about by the Left in their attempt to reform the U.S.A. into a Socialist form of Democracy.

 

And how many persons do you think would line up to apply for a job?

 

And when the government becomes the oppressor, who has the power to overcome IT?

Are you saying that Government=good and People=bad?

 

You said this far better than I ever could. It's perfectly true. Terrifying but true. But be of good cheer, nature will find a cure for this eventually. Human beings will surely be a short-lived phenomena, a blip on the timeline of evolution that has already stretched for billions of years.