Seattle Announces $15 Minimum Wage Highest In The U.S.
- Thread starter deleted5
- Start date
cool_name
Active member
12978685:zzzskizzz said:
Yes, education is how you advance, but education comes in many different forms other then just school. One great form of education is from being on the job.
Now i hope you can agree that the people who can simply just go to school are the not the people the minimum wage law is intended to help because anyone who can afford the expenses incurred from it is clearly not just scrapping by paycheck to paycheck.
The people these laws are intended to help are the people with a low skill set and are unable to further their formal eduction. Now in the free market they are still able to compete in the labour market, by selling their labour at price equivalent to what it is worth, i think it is unlikely it would be as low as $3.50, but if it was all the more fitting for this example. Once employed the workers will then be given a chance to improve their skill set on the job and therefore be able to gain a higher wage. This actually how almost every single person progresses in the working world, your first job doesn't pay that well, but as you improve your skill set and gather experience your wage rises accordingly.
Now what the minimum wage law does is it forces employers to discriminate against those individuals without a skill set that justifies a wage at or above the set minimum wage by making it that any employer is not allowed to employ a worker with a skill set below that minimum wage without having to pay premium for his services.
Now lets take our hypothetical man who has a skill set worth only $3.50 an hour and without any way to access additional formal education. Under a free market situation he could get a job at that wage and through experience work his way up to a higher pay rate. Under the situation of a $15 dollar minimum wage however any employer who previously would of employed him now has to pay a $11.50 an hour surcharge for employing him in which case to put it bluntly he wont get employed and will have no way of improving his skill set to meet the 15 dollar requirement for employment rendering him unemployed.
milk_man
Active member
12978785:zzzskizzz said:
What does 'helping' poor people mean to you? Giving them money doesn't necessarily help them.
If you set up a class to help people with lower incomes learn how to manage their money better, that would definitely be worth your while. If the government put some of the welfare money towards that rather than just handing it out, those people would be better off.
Another positive thing are food pantries, thats one less bill for them to pay and yet it isn't giving them money. When you give someone money there is a huge possibility that they will spend it on something that they don't need at all, rather than spend it on necessities.
Didnt proofread
12978835:the_trap said:
Yeah we could give them a class to teach them how to manage their money, that's really not going to set a person up for success it's just going to teach them how to spend $18,000 to buy the bare necessities. That's my point, we teach them how to fish instead of giving them fish. And giving them a little bit more money Along with teaching them how to save and invest will set people up for success. And I'm the last person to talk about Proof reading.
12978823:cool_name said:
I agree with what you're saying to a certain extent. But the problem with your argument is you're holding people down. they know one thing to do for work, and they may move up a little bit in the construction business but they're going to be stuck in construction for the rest of their life. People should have options and be able to pursue their goals just because you grew up in a rich family and you have a choice of what you want to do. Doesn't mean that someone born in poverty shouldn't go to school or try to pursue another career because it's what interests him.
milk_man
Active member
12978855:zzzskizzz said:
True. Although I think people appreciate money alot more when they earn it rather than when someone gives it to them. If i had to use my own money and earn $300,000 for a Lamborghini I would never do it, but if someone handed me a million dollars I would consider it, even though it is technically and practically a waste of money. That was probably a long and pointless analogy but I have nothing better to do haha.
cool_name
Active member
12978859:zzzskizzz said:
holding them down more then making them unemployed? at no point did i say they have to stay in that career forever, but in order to get those options to change careers or pursue more schooling, they first need to get going and gather some more knowledge skills and experience which will be virtually imposable with such a high minimum wage
walcott
Member
12978211:AT-AT said:
The amount of kids who took Econ 101 here and think they know everything makes me want to vomit. The free market is great, but corporations like Walmart rely on the government to give their employees welfare money so they can make ends meet. What is so great about that?
$15 is too high but raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour would have a pretty minuscule affect on the price of goods.
cool_name
Active member
12979230:walcott said:
I think I'm dumber after reading this post
Your rational for why a free market isn't good is that Walmart relies on goverment subsidies to help pay there employees, which is in no way a characrstic of a free market
Maybe you should retake that Econ 101 class and learn what a free market actually is instead of spewing bullshit
walcott
Member
Lol I stated that the free market is great in my post. I know that government subsidies are not characteristics of a free market, that is that point I was trying to make. So many people oversimplify the free market, when it is not actually as free as they think. I must of done a bad job explaining my in my first post because it sounds like you agree with me.
fghtoffyrdmns
Active member
12979230:walcott said:
Austin gets it. The "free" market isn't as free as you would think. If it was a free market, nobody would have gotten bailed out in 2008. 15 dollars is definetly wayyyy too high of a jump, and will lead to inflation in the local area, if not the state/ to an extent the country. I mean look at australia. In australia the minimum wage is 15.50, however that only equates to around 9.50 in us dollars/goods. A similar situation is probably going to happen in seattle, just watch. the cost of living is about to go up by a decent amount.
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/02/how-15-50-in-australia-can-still-equate-to-9-50-in-the-us/
Utard
Active member
12978211:AT-AT said:
Well let's see, my car is made by GM (bailed out by the federal government), don't have a tv and don't plan on it especially with this Comcast-Time Warner monopoly merger coming down the pipe, my food is massively subsidized by heavily lobbied government farm subsidies, and my water comes from an evil socialist public utility. But yeah, capitalism's working real good around here!
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
12979616:Utard said:
But you have internet I assume as well as a smartphone/cellphone. Do you purchase soda? Or fastfood? Capitalism has its flaws, but so does every other economic system out there. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending who you talk to, it was chosen decades ago as the primary economic policy among countries and has rooted itself deeply into global society.
Utard
Active member
12979651:.MASSHOLE. said:
Internet: developed by the govt
Soda and fast food: don't consume but again, agri subsidies
You're missing the point. "Capitalism" as described doesn't exist. There is no such thing as the "free market" and there never will be because it's a fiction. This is a much more complex issue than the "free markets win" vs "businesses are bad, poor people are good" way that it's being made out to be.
cobra_commander
Active member
12979616:Utard said:
I don't think anyone is advocating for a 100% free market economy. There is however, a value cost for all government involvement. deltaG is always positive.
The fact is, there are many people who are unable to produce $15/hr + employment costs of value. These people will become unemployed, or need to commute further for the same wage they earn now.
An additional fact is that many businesses in Seattle will not be able to afford to pay their employes $15/hr. These businesses have to compete with those 10-30 minutes away who will have much lower costs. The incentive to keep your business, or start a new one, in Seattle just about disappeared.
Additionally, the $15/hr minimum wage is a spit in the face to everyone who worked to earn a wage between $9 and $15 an hour. Congratulations to that socialist cunt, cum guzzling mayor, and all their progressive scum supporters. You just reduced more working American's to minimum wage employment.
I find it amusing that they argue for more open immigration controls at the same time as defending a high minimum wage. You can't have it both ways. The work force is either elastic or inelastic; not both.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
12979748:Utard said:
My point is that despite who it was constructed by originally, it is now in the hands of a "Capitalist" society. Is it a pure capitalist society? Hell no, and I never argued it was. My argument is that it there are capitalist aspects of your every day life whether you realize it or not.
cool_name
Active member
12979616:Utard said:
12979748:Utard said:
you are right we dont live in a perfectly capitalist society, that must mean any argument suggesting an idea based on a free market idea is and wrong, oh shit we don't leave in a perfectly communist country either that must therefore mean any idea based on a communist ideology is also wrong. huh who would of know every political idea is wrong!
just because an idea in an absolute form doesnt exist doesnt make any arguments drevied from its ideologly wrong
cool_name
Active member
12979616:Utard said:
12979748:Utard said:
you are right we dont live in a perfectly capitalist society, that must mean any argument suggesting an idea based on a free market idea is and wrong, oh shit we don't leave in a perfectly communist country either that must therefore mean any idea based on a communist ideology is also wrong. huh who would of know every political idea is wrong!
just because an idea in an absolute form doesnt exist doesnt make any arguments drevied from its ideologly wrong
feihlination
Active member
free markets ARE NOT GOOD. capitalism failed more often than planned economies. but they are supported for political reasons. i am not saying they are better than planned economy, only that there are a lot of potential economical systems out there and thinkable, but we prefer to rely on a system which is in principal 3000 years old and in detail over 80 years old.
but but but humans are egoistic animals, right? no, they are not. humans are primates, and therefore among the most social animals. this whole protestant-fordian-worldview is why we are egoistical, not our genes.
and no, i have not taken a 101 economics course.
but but but humans are egoistic animals, right? no, they are not. humans are primates, and therefore among the most social animals. this whole protestant-fordian-worldview is why we are egoistical, not our genes.
and no, i have not taken a 101 economics course.
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
12981097:feihlination said:
But here is a question, can a planned economy predict everything?
Planned economies have failed as well. No economic system will ever be flawless, not when there are competitive economies.
cool_name
Active member
12981097:feihlination said:
you haven't taken an economics course sweet, you sound really educated and prepared to offer an intelligent opinion on the subject then.
now here his an counter argument made by someone who has studied economics
Ill start off with your first premise just to clear things up, Capitalism has failed no where close to how often a planned economy has failed, please go ahead and try and offer examples of capitalist economies that have failed and i will be able to return with planned markets that have that failed. Secondly I would really love to hear of these alternative economic systems that don't fall between communism and capitalism. Thirdly, nice genetic fallacy.
This second part is also just wrong, according to your logic women should only raise kids and man's job should be to get as many women as possible pregnant and nothing else, because that is what primates do, right? Also there is no reason why being social is even slightly related to not being egoistical, in fact it is the opposite of that, species hang together in groups to further their own survival, not survival of the pack. Finally dont you think it is more likely that our views are a result of our nature, not the other way around.
huh, looks like i didnt even need economics to disprove any of your ridiculous claims
Mr.Panda
Active member
feihlination
Active member
12981381:cool_name said:
uh, nice that you jump on this little nugget i left up there. actually, i am currently on my way to a phd in finance, so i know a little bit about economy. this was just a joke to see if someone would try to nullify my response simply based on my knowledge instead of its actual content.
you know about all those stock market crashes that DESTROYED wealth since you studied economics. planned economies failed in several instances, yes, but its a stretch to say that they failed more often. 1929, mid 70s, 1987, 2000 and 2007-09, all worldwide crashes that severly impacted the life of hundreds of millions of people, and i am not even talking about all the crashes that were "limited" to one country. its a perspective kind of thing, but sheer counting probably wouldnt be a good idea if i was defending your position.
almost every economic is a middle thing between planned economy and capitalism. i often hear fanatics complain here about how the US arent even fully capitalist given how they despise even relatively minor governmental interference.
this is simply not true. i dont act like i know a lot about biology, but how do you explain altruism, which is clearly evident in hundreds of animals? animals DO NOT only live in groups to promote their own survival. there are species that are poisonous, but only to predators that actually kill them. such a mechanism would be completely meaningless if your position was true. it doesnt improve my own survival rate since the predator cannot know that i am poisonous. but it decreases the chance of other animals of the same species being killed by the same predator. darwins evolution thingy is a theory, which has been falsified (if youre a popperianer) several times and survival of the fittest isnt something that should be taken overly serious in every single case. there are animals that actively waste energy to do something which would be useless according to darwin.
i believe that "our" views are the result of protestantism mixed with the industrial revolution. humans are altruistic, social animals by nature, but several decades/centuries of profit-only and egoistic character moulding changed that.
cool_name
Active member
12988628:feihlination said:
Wow, I wish I thought of that amazing argument strategy first! Claiming not to know anything about a subject and then just be kidding, that is some presidential debate shit right there!
First off, i would hardly call any of those stock market crashes examples of capitalist economies failing. In my mind an economy failing would be more along the lines of the citizens revolting the very structure of the economy falling apart, not just an rescission.
You are right though, i do know all about those crashes and there 'destruction' of wealth, want to know what i also know about? The massive gains of wealth before and after all of these crashes that far surpass the losses created during the rescissions. Seeing that you are getting a PHD in finance i am sure you are well aware that for example the s&P 500 is well above its pre crash price at the moment, so please go on about all this wealth that gets 'destroyed' through capitalism.
Glad to see you agree that every economy is somewhere in between communism and capitalism, given that, I am now even more curious about those other thinkable systems your original post alluded to.
Let me guess in your next post you will say "just kidding i am getting phd in biology and just said i didn't know much about it to trick you!"
I do not know what causes altruism, nor do i have to though because it is not at odds with animals living in packs because they are looking out for their own survival.
I never said the only reason animals travel in packs is for survival, but will say the majority of the time it is the largest factor. I also can't see how animals being poisonous is relevant to them being in packs. Great to hear about Darwinism another thing i never mentioned at all.
Again what caused those views in the first place and the so called profit searching nature to evolve in the first place, because all i see in your post is circular argument saying they developed through long term exposure to those views and the accompanying conditions that go along with them.
in your next reply can please actually read my post and reply to what i said instead of creating a straw man by putting words in mouth
.MASSHOLE.
Active member
Interesting article by one of the early funders of Amazon.com about Seattle, minimum wages, and inequality.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U626tY1dVNc
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U626tY1dVNc
I was actually thinking about this thread today and how some people think you should be paid what's your work is worth whether that be 10 or 3 cents an hour. let's make it even better why don't we make people work for food and a place to live and beat them with a stick when they don't do what we want.
13045599:cool_name said:
I have no idea what you're trying to say, and I didn't reread this thread so it might not have been in here. But there are some people on newschoolers who think if your skill is worth five cents an hour you should be paid five cents an hour. "Let the market decide"
13044132:.MASSHOLE. said:
I agree with many of his points, but he also fails to adequately address the (valid) reasons for not exorbitantly raising minimum wage. His example about the CEOs getting paid more without their jobs decreasing off is completely unrelated to the minimum wage workforce and has no meaning.
I'm with Warren Buffet: both sides offer good arguments, so lets use EITC as a compromise.