The minimum wage

That the 99% isn't united is a clear fact. But I don't think you will get much done by protesting or sit-ins or collecting signatures.

But if people stop buying stuff you might see a couple dozen flapping CEOs rushing to do some serious talking with the president or prime minister of any given country.

 

Bingo. Hence the reason I used this emoticon:

 

That made me smile pretty hard.

Carry on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html

I'll just leave this here.

 

Check post #5

 

Yes, saw that.

I was more responding to your response to that persons response to your post. He took you literally and it was funny.



Did that make sense?

Anyway post #5 didn't get into as much detail as that article.

 

Oh, ok I understand now.

It seems to me that after reading the article that Warren is just like any other political clone who thinks raising the minimum wage will solve the problem without even addressing the monetary issues caused by fiat currencies.

 

Yes, she doesn't have the answer.

 

The Occupy Movement, while well intentioned, had no organization and no sole leader emerged, in the way that the Civil Rights movement could rally around key figures like MLK.

They didn't make a list of things they wanted to see legislatively, and if they did make a demand, it was WAY to far LEFT of what could reasonably be put on a compromise table.

That's why the Occupy Movement did not gain real traction.

Ghost's idea of a entire country consumer strike, might work, but it would have to be organized to a T nationwide, endure lots of pressure from both the private sector and government, people will have to deal with water and electrical services being shut off to their homes, and then there are security concerns about people that just like to riot just because they can and aren't concerned about the cause for a strike. (The last point giving cause for the national guard to step in if property gets destroyed etc.)


Also keep in mind that lots of good people who still have their middle class jobs would also get caught up in the crossfire.


So I don't know does the "99%" have the stomach for this kind of movement?

 

There is a job action going on now in New York City. Fast food workers have walked off, seeking a $15. an hour wage. Way above what our President proposes.

 

15 dollars is bull shit, but ironically i saw that yesterday on the television when I signed my contract with Avon, on the big screen TV , at Mcdonalds

 

Lol at $15/hour to flip burgers

 

Its like why even go to school

 

The minimum wage presumes that an hour of human labor is worth a fixed amount no matter what function, if any, it is performing.
A living wage, on the other hand, is determined by many factors and may be promoted as why the minimum wage needs to be increased, but ignores the fact that many jobs are simply not worth paying that wage to be performed and as a result usually reduces employment opportunities.
The population, constantly increasing as a result of births and immigration both legal and illegal, provides a growing supply of workers in an environment in which employment opportunities are not able to keep up with.
Global competition increases the demand for imports, produced more cheaply and more affordable than the same locally produced, further reducing employment opportunities.

Is there a rational solution or only an emotional one?

Raising the minimum wage does not put more people to work, but does increase the cost of supporting those who cannot find jobs, as well as those who will not.

No job is worth more than what both the employer is willing to pay and the employee is willing to accept.

 

Uhh because $15 an hour, assuming an 8 hour workday year round is only approximately 44K rounding up BEFORE taxes.

That's not a lot of money if you paying $2000 or more rent for a slum in NYC.

 

Actually, 365/7=52.1429 weeks
52.1429x40=2085.7160 hours
2085.716x$15=$31,285.74 annual pretax income
$31,285.74/12=$2,607.14 monthly pretax income


I think I'd move out of NYC. There are places where the cost of living is much lower and employment opportunities are much greater.

 

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.

[FONT=&quot](1)For an American perspective on that struggle try – Who built America (two volumes) by the American Social History Project)[/FONT]

 

A Solution?

The problem is that we now have a global 21st century version of exploitative capitalism and the only way to counter it is by fighting for a global distributive system.

Yes I’m talking global governance.

Many national governments went along with globalisation out of short term self interest or ignorance but many are now waking up to what has happened when they discovered that money has gone global and their tax systems are national. And there is talk of some type of global tax system in the air – it would be a good start but…

I think we need to go further; we need international institutions that can enforce globally the say type of regulations that curtailed the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism.

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

 

Indie

But in an exploitative system that doesn’t work out very well for the employee, when it is a system of work or starve historically employees have gone for squeezing as much as they can out of people for as little ‘reward’ as possible.

And as has been shown on numerous occasions you seem to want to bring in such an exploitative system – saying that you’d like a system where those that through no fault of their own have fallen into hardship should suffer even unto dead from want.

I mean you have already said you support a “Spenceristic” approach named after that great champion of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer who said –

It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence…the same beneficence that brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the debilitated as the victims of an epidemic. . .

 

so the dude flippin burgers at mcdonalds deserves to make as much as the guy busting his ass in college so he can make 15?

 

Not neo-liberals, it's neo-cons. It was the deregulation of the republicans that gave us the Silverado savings & loan crisis and the Enron crisis, and most recently the real estate crisis that caused the global economic collapse of 2007.
It's the republicans that want to destroy welfare. It's the republicans that gave millionaires a $3 trillion tax cut in 2001. It's the republicans that want to destroy the minimum wage. And it's the republicans that want any government oversight.
I'm surprised and disappointed that you would use the con tactic of blaming the liberals for what they do.