PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Bob Noel on July 11, 2016, 08:03:43 AM
-
"living wage" "minimum wage" blah blah blah
Given the ever higher minimum wages being required now, how about a teen wage so that inexperienced teens have an opportunity to gain some work experience?
-
Why not just remove wage controls and let the market dictate the wage?
-
Why not just remove wage controls and let the market dictate the wage?
Sometimes we have to compromise.
My question was posed in the context of the reality of today.
-
Sometimes we have to compromise.
My question was posed in the context of the reality of today.
So was mine.
Wage controls are what keeps employers from hiring inexperienced teens.
-
So was mine.
Wage controls are what keeps employers from hiring inexperienced teens.
implying that we could get rid of all wage controls is hopelessly unrealistic.
-
implying that we could get rid of all wage controls is hopelessly unrealistic.
Don't think it's hopelessly unrealistic. Wage controls just add to the problem and offer few solutions.
-
So was mine.
Wage controls are what keeps employers from hiring inexperienced teens.
So, wait, you support price controls on imports (ie. tariffs), but not on wages. That's an intellectually incoherent position, but as a Trumpist, that's not a surprise
-
(http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif)
-
Teen wage would get a lot of teenagers hired in place of others.
-
Teen wage would get a lot of teenagers hired in place of others.
What about an adult without a skill? Shall we exclude them or create a "no skill minimum wage"?
-
So, wait, you support price controls on imports (ie. tariffs), but not on wages. That's an intellectually incoherent position, but as a Trumpist, that's not a surprise
There you go again.
-
The mandated "minimum wage" is as anachronistic as trade unions.
-
There you go again.
Not worth wasting your time with.
-
The mandated "minimum wage" is as anachronistic as trade unions.
More so. The original intent was to keep employers from hiring blacks, who would work for less than whites. Perhaps if that was publicized more, then more Dems would be ok with eliminating it.
-
Not worth wasting your time with.
Go back to your safe-space. Adults are talking.
-
The mandated "minimum wage" is as anachronistic as trade unions.
Sadly no. In this globalized world, it is becoming a necessity to provide close to a living wage to people that want to work, but for one reason or another can't just go get a "good job". In the old days, unions and factories filled this capacity and they are greatly diminished. If we drive these marginal workers that make up a sizable portion of the work force into poverty and ultimately unemployment, what do you think that will do to the country as a whole? What do you think that will do to the crime rates?
I personally have come to the conclusion that we need to tie the minimum wage to a fixed formula that is based on the cost of living index and forget about it until something wonderful happens and we no longer need it. Federally, we should fix it so that the lowest paid worker in the lowest cost of living state can get by and then let the various states and municipalities supplement it to reflect a higher cost of living in a particular area. Once this is set up, no more talk about it. No more increases unless the states want to do it by themselves.
-
Sadly no. In this globalized world, it is becoming a necessity to provide close to a living wage to people that want to work, but for one reason or another can't just go get a "good job". ...
In other words, don't offer a job unless the wage is a "living wage". Any other nanny regulations you want to impose on companies?
What about the worker that just wants to get some experience... ya know, like an apprentice? Not a living wage, then can't do it.
What about a semi-retired worker that feels like putting in some hours, but doesn't need a "living wage"? Not a living wage, then can't do it.
-
Go back to your safe-space. Adults are talking.
No. They aren't.
-
Sadly no. In this globalized world, it is becoming a necessity to provide close to a living wage to people that want to work, but for one reason or another can't just go get a "good job". In the old days, unions and factories filled this capacity and they are greatly diminished. If we drive these marginal workers that make up a sizable portion of the work force into poverty and ultimately unemployment, what do you think that will do to the country as a whole? What do you think that will do to the crime rates?
I personally have come to the conclusion that we need to tie the minimum wage to a fixed formula that is based on the cost of living index and forget about it until something wonderful happens and we no longer need it. Federally, we should fix it so that the lowest paid worker in the lowest cost of living state can get by and then let the various states and municipalities supplement it to reflect a higher cost of living in a particular area. Once this is set up, no more talk about it. No more increases unless the states want to do it by themselves.
So what about the people who, due to the high cost to employers to hire someone, cannot get a job? If i have to pay more then I either raise my prices, necessitating another rise in the minimum wage, etc...or I expect more from fewer people, which is where most companies head. A higher minimum wage means fewer jobs and an ever increasing gap between the working and the indigent.
Before this, I would say a great start would be to remove temporary foreign workers from the job force.
France has this model. Youth unemployment is sky high.
-
In other words, don't offer a job unless the wage is a "living wage". Any other nanny regulations you want to impose on companies?
I never said that. The minimum wage is an hourly wage based on a 40 hour work week. I never suggested we eliminate part time work. Yes, I would like to impose a no whining mandate on all companies.
What about the worker that just wants to get some experience... ya know, like an apprentice? Not a living wage, then can't do it.
Internships are done all the time now with no wages earned. I did one myself. I have never heard of an apprenticeship program that if they did pay a wage, was less than the minimum wage, but if there are, that's kind of pathetic. Regardless, the apprentice could be paid part time, or on a contract, or salaried basis below the minimum wage for a period of time has that person would not really be an actual employee yet. So yeah, they could do it.
What about a semi-retired worker that feels like putting in some hours, but doesn't need a "living wage"? Not a living wage, then can't do it.
Yes can do it. Do what they do now, work part time.
The country has had a minimum wage for ages. Our empire has not collapsed because of it. We have a problem with the middle class, particularly the lower middle class struggling primarily because manufacturing has gone away and automation has replaced many. Paying them even less doesn't really help.
Notice I didn't list a dollar amount for the national minimum wage. I don't know what it would be. It might even be less than now. Like I said it would be based on the area in the country determined to have the lowest cost of living. It would then be a simple formula to adjust for inflation. There would be no more talks about it or cries to raise it. Any raises would be done by the states if they choose.
What's all the fuss about?? Do you feel your Happy Meal cost too much now?? Why do you want our country to race to the bottom as fast as it can? Do you really think that having people work 40 hours a week and still not be able to pay their bills is the best way to boost the middle class? Call me a clueless libtard or whatever, but I don't get the obsession with lowering the wages for people already living near the poverty line.
-
The best solution to all of this is to allow tax benefits to manufacturers that can support the "Made in USA" label. It brings manufacturing back to the US, increases employment and allows affordable small business.
-
So what about the people who, due to the high cost to employers to hire someone, cannot get a job? If i have to pay more then I either raise my prices, necessitating another rise in the minimum wage, etc...or I expect more from fewer people, which is where most companies head. A higher minimum wage means fewer jobs and an ever increasing gap between the working and the indigent.
Before this, I would say a great start would be to remove temporary foreign workers from the job force.
France has this model. Youth unemployment is sky high.
I never said anything about raising the minimum wage, just that we need a minimum wage. For a person who is trying to survive and live as an adult, what is the point in having a job that you work at for 40 hours a week and you still can't pay your bills and you live in poverty?
Why do you think that removing the foreign workers will get you your Happy Meal cheaper? So the idea is to remove the artificial base wage, but then artificially increase demand for labor and thereby raise the wages back up?? Here again, the McDonald's owner now has to either hire less people because they cost so much, cut into his own bottom line, or charge the customer more.
The owner will do as they always have. They will hire the minimum they need to run the place and then if that costs more than it used to, they will raise the prices. Just because wages are lower does not mean employers will go out on hiring spree. They only need what they need regardless of what it costs.
France does not have this model. France pays people even when they are not working at all. I am not suggestion we do that at all. France does not suffer because it has a minimum wage. It has problems greater than that and yet notice how France does not crumble and fall into financial ruin. If you're going to go all straw man, at least pick some place that actually has failed like Greece as your example.
-
Sadly no. In this globalized world, it is becoming a necessity to provide close to a living wage to people that want to work, but for one reason or another can't just go get a "good job". In the old days, unions and factories filled this capacity and they are greatly diminished. If we drive these marginal workers that make up a sizable portion of the work force into poverty and ultimately unemployment, what do you think that will do to the country as a whole? What do you think that will do to the crime rates?
I personally have come to the conclusion that we need to tie the minimum wage to a fixed formula that is based on the cost of living index and forget about it until something wonderful happens and we no longer need it. Federally, we should fix it so that the lowest paid worker in the lowest cost of living state can get by and then let the various states and municipalities supplement it to reflect a higher cost of living in a particular area. Once this is set up, no more talk about it. No more increases unless the states want to do it by themselves.
In the mean time, a high minimum wage presents an impediment to hiring young people to do low-skilled jobs, something that probably every single one of us did when we were young. Today's unemployment rate among young people age 16-24 is in the 17-18% range. On 1/1/2000 it was 9.4%.
-
The best solution to all of this is to allow tax benefits to manufacturers that can support the "Made in USA" label. It brings manufacturing back to the US, increases employment and allows affordable small business.
Many states already do this and it helps in some cases to bring some jobs back, but at some point we just cannot compete with overseas labor rates for unskilled factory workers regardless the tax breaks. Manufacturing is not coming back and even if it did, it would be far more automated than before, so still not boost the middle class much. In addition, think of the whining we'll hear when they find out that the big corporation pays less taxes than the secretary!
-
Many states already do this and it helps in some cases to bring some jobs back, but at some point we just cannot compete with overseas labor rates for unskilled factory workers regardless the tax breaks. Manufacturing is not coming back and even if it did, it would be far more automated than before, so still not boost the middle class much. In addition, think of the whining we'll hear when they find out that the big corporation pays less taxes than the secretary!
You've said this many times, and it's just not true. We are the second largest manufacturing country on the planet, only eclipsed by China a few years ago. We manufacture a lot of stuff. The mix changed - textiles, for example, are probably never coming back - but manufacturing is still a major part of our economy.
-
In the mean time, a high minimum wage presents an impediment to hiring young people to do low-skilled jobs, something that probably every single one of us did when we were young. Today's unemployment rate among young people age 16-24 is in the 17-18% range. On 1/1/2000 it was 9.4%.
I personally said nothing about a high minimum wage. That is your assumption. When got my first paycheck in 1979, it was a mandated minimum wage. They somehow found the money for me. If it were much less, I never would have taken that job. Even then I could figure out ways to make money by myself.
Today's youth unemployment is because the kids don't want to work and their helicopter parents coddle them, support them and allow them to not work. In addition, many have learned that they are better off working for themselves with contract work under the table, so they are not tracked.
-
What's all the fuss about??
why? because it's ass-backwards.
the whole minimum wage crowd thinks that companies are a bottomless pit of money and that people deserve to be paid no matter how little value they provide to the company.
If a worker wants more money, then provide more value to the employer.
If you want someone to be paid more, then show how they can provide more value to the employer.
Everytime the wage gets increased, it makes automation more financially viable (which means less employment). Which leads to less employment for unskilled workers. A really stupid thing to do.
-
I personally said nothing about a high minimum wage. That is your assumption. When got my first paycheck in 1979, it was a mandated minimum wage. They somehow found the money for me. If it were much less, I never would have taken that job. Even then I could figure out ways to make money by myself.
Today's youth unemployment is because the kids don't want to work and their helicopter parents coddle them, support them and allow them to not work. In addition, many have learned that they are better off working for themselves with contract work under the table, so they are not tracked.
Regarding your first paragraph, I'm referring to the current whining and gnashing of teeth regarding doubling the minimum wage or bringing it up to $15/hour. YOU many not be talking about it, but every leftist politician is.
As for your second, you are only partially correct. I have clients who own machine shops and other manufacturing businesses that would hire high school or college kids to sweep floors and do other non-skill work, but won't pay the $11.68/hour minimum wage in Milwaukee. The state minimum is the federal minimum of $7.25. Ever check the unemployment rate in Milwaukee?
-
In the entry level business world teens are often shut out because unemployment is high. Paying a green kid with no experience the same as an adult that might actually have some working skills makes no sense.
-
I never said anything about raising the minimum wage, just that we need a minimum wage. For a person who is trying to survive and live as an adult, what is the point in having a job that you work at for 40 hours a week and you still can't pay your bills and you live in poverty?
we need to tie the minimum wage to a fixed formula that is based on the cost of living index
You did say it in your earlier post but maybe you didn't realize that you said it. If the minimum wage is tied to a fixed formula based on the cost of living AND employes raise their prices to pay for the new higher wages then that raises the cost of living, doesn't it? Ergo, wages must go up again to maintain the living wage and it's an escalating cycle. Eventually the higher prices will eliminate the need for the job unless it stabilizes before that.
Why do you think that removing the foreign workers will get you your Happy Meal cheaper?
A Happy Meal is gross and I don't care whether it's cheaper or not. If we get rid of guest workers, we will have to fill in with American workers. We have close to a million foreign workers in the US, doing jobs that Americans could do. We are paying people not to work while we bring someone in from another country to do a job. It would be a more moral use of government to encourage and train people in real job skills and not replace them with cheap overseas labor. The government should operate to benefit the citizens of the country, not to screw them over.
France does not have this model. France pays people even when they are not working at all. I am not suggestion we do that at all. France does not suffer because it has a minimum wage. It has problems greater than that and yet notice how France does not crumble and fall into financial ruin. If you're going to go all straw man, at least pick some place that actually has failed like Greece as your example.
And we don't pay people who aren't working? Granted, we don't pay them much. That "straw man" model BTW is that we have workers who require a generous level of employment benefit. That is both the model in France (worked there, trust me on this) and the model that I heard you propose with a living wage as the minimum. The result is very high unemployment for the young. Greece is not the same, there people just don't really want to work.
Rather than calling it names, why don't you refute the outcome?
-
You've said this many times, and it's just not true. We are the second largest manufacturing country on the planet, only eclipsed by China a few years ago. We manufacture a lot of stuff. The mix changed - textiles, for example, are probably never coming back - but manufacturing is still a major part of our economy.
I don't care about the rest of the world and how we compare to them. I'm talking about jobs here in the US. Manufacturing as a percentage of our national GDP has remained pretty steady, but manufacturing as a percentage of our nation's employment is way down from the good ol' days. Below is a graph showing the drop off in manufacturing employment from 1960 to 2011. From 25% of the work force to about 8%. What this means is the manufacturing we have kept is very efficient, productive and uses a lot of automation. All great things, but not so good for employment.
(http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2014/02/us-manufacturing-past-and-potential-future-baily-bosworth/us-manufacturing-past-and-potential-future-baily-bosworth-figure-1.jpg?la=en)
-
Minimum wage doesn't follow cost of living or inflation, it causes it.
-
Minimum wage doesn't follow cost of living or inflation, it causes it.
Yeah sure, that's the cause of inflation... minimum wage earners. Cut back spending on those nearly worthless peons and we can get this runaway inflation in check I tell you!!
::)
-
Yeah sure, that's the cause of inflation... minimum wage earners. Cut back spending on those nearly worthless peons and we can get this runaway inflation in check I tell you!!
::)
Raising the minimum has a snowball effect on all wages. Union workers who have contracts for pay at some multiple of the minimum, supervisors and managers who won't work for less than the people they supervise, people earning more than minimum who won't appreciate the new guy getting paid the same as they are. It also causes price inflation all down the line. It isn't just a matter of paying the lowest paid workers a little more.
-
Yeah sure, that's the cause of inflation... minimum wage earners. Cut back spending on those nearly worthless peons and we can get this runaway inflation in check I tell you!!
::)
You serious? What is the guy working a job for 5 years who's making $15 an hour now going to want when the new guy with no experience at all demands the same pay? Now multiply by 100 million.... you must be a liberal arts major.
-
Yeah sure, that's the cause of inflation... minimum wage earners. Cut back spending on those nearly worthless peons and we can get this runaway inflation in check I tell you!!
::)
suuuuuuure. The minimum wage has zero impact on inflation. riiiiiiiiighhhht.
the minimum wage is FREE FREE FREE...
-
suuuuuuure. The minimum wage has zero impact on inflation. riiiiiiiiighhhht.
the minimum wage is FREE FREE FREE...
They'll just take money from the rich employers, problem solved. Just spreading the wealth around a little.
-
Yeah sure, that's the cause of inflation... minimum wage earners. Cut back spending on those nearly worthless peons and we can get this runaway inflation in check I tell you!!
::)
http://beetlebailey.com/
-
You did say it in your earlier post but maybe you didn't realize that you said it. If the minimum wage is tied to a fixed formula based on the cost of living AND employes raise their prices to pay for the new higher wages then that raises the cost of living, doesn't it? Ergo, wages must go up again to maintain the living wage and it's an escalating cycle. Eventually the higher prices will eliminate the need for the job unless it stabilizes before that.
This makes the assumption that the entire economy hinges on the lowest paid workers and that a change in the minimum wage makes a huge... in Trump speak, YUUUGE difference. This is just not the case. While it is true that the cost is passed on to the consumer and raises the price, the amount of money is negligible in the overall economy. There is no need to fear a "critical mass" and runaway inflation. If you're worried about inflation, pray we never get any significant tax cuts for the middle class!
A Happy Meal is gross and I don't care whether it's cheaper or not. If we get rid of guest workers, we will have to fill in with American workers. We have close to a million foreign workers in the US, doing jobs that Americans could do. We are paying people not to work while we bring someone in from another country to do a job. It would be a more moral use of government to encourage and train people in real job skills and not replace them with cheap overseas labor. The government should operate to benefit the citizens of the country, not to screw them over.
So, it's simple and elegant plan. Get rid of the foreigners (including the high paid white collar ones too I assume), get rid of any kind of government assistance, get rid of the minimum wage, let the market find out how low we can go and then the lazy poorly educated Americans will rise to the occasion and become productive with little incentive other than they may not starve to death. Oh yeah, and hit 'em with a flat tax too!
There's just one yuuuuge problem with that plan. There is a middle ground between marginal employment and starving to death. That is crime.
If you push the marginal people to these extremes, they will turn to crime for sure. The worst that can happen to them then is they go to jail and get taken care of. If they think they can be good at crime they think they can work their way up and let's face it, everybody thinks they are smarter than the average bear but a very, very few actually are. Let's see... pay whatever we do now, or put these people up at the Holiday Inn for the rest of their lives... hmmm.
Now you might say, "Well, we'll make prison so horrible that they would never pick that option!!" Never minding international standards for prison standards, let's say that is implemented and prison becomes like it was in say the 18th century. This is the point at which you now have an insurrection and an uprising. This is where people like ISIS move in like a cancer. This is why most countries pay their worthless people to settle the hell down.
How do I say we fix it???
- Admit that we will always have poor people in this country. In fact capitalism demands it.
- Admit that it is worth the money to take care of these people on the front end rather than prison.
- Work to reduce the numbers of poor by breaking the cycle of poverty and by real rehabilitation.
- Pay young women living below the poverty line to not have children. Basically cash for no kids.
- Those women living below the poverty line that do have kids, you give quality free day care and primary education of their kids.
- Set up real education and work programs programs for those that apply themselves, that have guaranteed jobs after graduation for people in prison.
- Advocate and support trade schools, apprenticeship programs and specialized skill boot camps rather than just college after high school.
If we do these things we will shrink the poor population and the cost to support the poor population gets lower and lower. More and more people will have a better basic education and even a work ethic that can set them on paths to living above the minimum wage rather than just becoming career minimum wage earners.
The problem we have now is we have a whole class of people that are either totally unemployable, or are so learning impaired that pushing a broom is all they can do in life. Numerous studies have shown that this learning impairment that creates this cycle of poverty begins before a child even goes to the first grade. Basically learning impaired people are teaching the next generation of learning impaired people how to be useless.
Break this cycle and we have less poor people, less expense to support poor people and less need for a minimum wage. To put all this in the context of this thread, we basically need a minimum wage because we are now stuck with a whole group of marginal workers who's entire career is going to be at, or near the minimum wage because they are learning impaired and by the time they are adults, it is very difficult to change that.
-
You serious? What is the guy working a job for 5 years who's making $15 an hour now going to want when the new guy with no experience at all demands the same pay? Now multiply by 100 million.... you must be a liberal arts major.
Go back and quote me where I advocated a $15 an hour minimum wage. I dare ya. Read and think. That is the whole point of discussion. If you want to just shout, spout and insult people, call up any of the call in radio shows and have at it.
-
Raising the minimum has a snowball effect on all wages. Union workers who have contracts for pay at some multiple of the minimum, supervisors and managers who won't work for less than the people they supervise, people earning more than minimum who won't appreciate the new guy getting paid the same as they are. It also causes price inflation all down the line. It isn't just a matter of paying the lowest paid workers a little more.
Really? So if they did raise the minimum wage (which for the 95th time I am not really advocating!) you're telling me your personal income will go up? You're going to get a raise? I doubt that very much. We have had a minimum wage for decades through numerous administrations and our countries inflation rate has stayed low and in check. Minimum wage has not caused a runaway inflation problem and history has born that out.
I'm just curious though, how much do you think a raise in minimum wage will bump the inflation rate up? I seriously doubt it would go beyond a quarter, or maybe a half of a percent.
-
suuuuuuure. The minimum wage has zero impact on inflation. riiiiiiiiighhhht.
the minimum wage is FREE FREE FREE...
Don't worry, according to you guys, a rising tide floats all boats, so you'll get a raise too and still be able to afford your Happy Meal at everyday low prices.
-
Go back and quote me where I advocated a $15 an hour minimum wage. I dare ya. Read and think. That is the whole point of discussion. If you want to just shout, spout and insult people, call up any of the call in radio shows and have at it.
The actual dollar amount is immaterial. Raising a minimum wage will result in a cascade of wage and price increases (inflation) and less employment for entry level workers. FACT.
-
Don't worry, according to you guys, a rising tide floats all boats, so you'll get a raise too and still be able to afford your Happy Meal at everyday low prices.
Where does wage money come from?
-
If the people in this country think that everyone deserves a minimum standard of living, then the people of this country need to pony up the money. It is ignorant and self defeating to put the burden on employers.
Tax EVERYONE and redistribute those confiscated funds to the poor. Why should an enterprising entrepreneur be saddled with the expense of paying someone more than they are worth when that entrepreneur is pouring his heart and soul into building a business so that HE/SHE won't be poor.
I'm not advocating this, but I think it would make more sense than a minimum wage.
An enhancement to that tax-redistribution method (or the Robin Hood method) would be to require some sort of work from any able bodied recipient, whether it is picking up litter, volunteering in a child care program, or patrolling the border looking for people sneaking in. Everybody (with some exceptions) can help somehow.
-
Don't worry, according to you guys, a rising tide floats all boats, so you'll get a raise too and still be able to afford your Happy Meal at everyday low prices.
I'm not surprised you missed the point.
Maybe a more direct question that you can answer yes or no: Do you believe the minimum wage has zero impact on the cost of living?
-
This makes the assumption that the entire economy hinges on the lowest paid workers and that a change in the minimum wage makes a huge... in Trump speak, YUUUGE difference. This is just not the case. While it is true that the cost is passed on to the consumer and raises the price, the amount of money is negligible in the overall economy. There is no need to fear a "critical mass" and runaway inflation. If you're worried about inflation, pray we never get any significant tax cuts for the middle class!
So, it's simple and elegant plan. Get rid of the foreigners (including the high paid white collar ones too I assume), get rid of any kind of government assistance, get rid of the minimum wage, let the market find out how low we can go and then the lazy poorly educated Americans will rise to the occasion and become productive with little incentive other than they may not starve to death. Oh yeah, and hit 'em with a flat tax too!
There's just one yuuuuge problem with that plan. There is a middle ground between marginal employment and starving to death. That is crime.
If you push the marginal people to these extremes, they will turn to crime for sure. The worst that can happen to them then is they go to jail and get taken care of. If they think they can be good at crime they think they can work their way up and let's face it, everybody thinks they are smarter than the average bear but a very, very few actually are. Let's see... pay whatever we do now, or put these people up at the Holiday Inn for the rest of their lives... hmmm.
Now you might say, "Well, we'll make prison so horrible that they would never pick that option!!" Never minding international standards for prison standards, let's say that is implemented and prison becomes like it was in say the 18th century. This is the point at which you now have an insurrection and an uprising. This is where people like ISIS move in like a cancer. This is why most countries pay their worthless people to settle the hell down.
How do I say we fix it???
- Admit that we will always have poor people in this country. In fact capitalism demands it.
- Admit that it is worth the money to take care of these people on the front end rather than prison.
- Work to reduce the numbers of poor by breaking the cycle of poverty and by real rehabilitation.
- Pay young women living below the poverty line to not have children. Basically cash for no kids.
- Those women living below the poverty line that do have kids, you give quality free day care and primary education of their kids.
- Set up real education and work programs programs for those that apply themselves, that have guaranteed jobs after graduation for people in prison.
- Advocate and support trade schools, apprenticeship programs and specialized skill boot camps rather than just college after high school.
If we do these things we will shrink the poor population and the cost to support the poor population gets lower and lower. More and more people will have a better basic education and even a work ethic that can set them on paths to living above the minimum wage rather than just becoming career minimum wage earners.
The problem we have now is we have a whole class of people that are either totally unemployable, or are so learning impaired that pushing a broom is all they can do in life. Numerous studies have shown that this learning impairment that creates this cycle of poverty begins before a child even goes to the first grade. Basically learning impaired people are teaching the next generation of learning impaired people how to be useless.
Break this cycle and we have less poor people, less expense to support poor people and less need for a minimum wage. To put all this in the context of this thread, we basically need a minimum wage because we are now stuck with a whole group of marginal workers who's entire career is going to be at, or near the minimum wage because they are learning impaired and by the time they are adults, it is very difficult to change that.
I wonder - do you realize that I largely agree with you on this?
What I disagree with -
1) Employing foreigners when citizens of our own country go without jobs. It just makes no sense for us to let people into the country to take a job and then have an American go without one. Yes, I would include white collar jobs here.
2) getting rid of the minimum wage
3) letting the market find out how low we can go
4) flat tax
5) That people who are getting welfare have any incentive to put forth effort to improve their lives. You're expecting too much from them. The problem is not a lack of opportunity. The problem is that they're choosing the opportunity to not work.
Welfare is one the most dehumanizing and humiliating thing I can think of because it sends the message that a person has no value. If you truly value someone, you help them get work and help them realize the pride of self sufficiency and self reliance. But what do you do if they refuse and they just want to collect a check and make do with something less?
Otherwise - I'm in favor of training, I'm in favor of training programs. But we've had training programs before now and they're not being highly used. Also, training programs aren't going to work out well if the people can't get work after getting trained - because foreigners are doing the work. Here I'm thinking about the trade work. In NC, it seems that most tradesmen are Hispanic now...because they will work for less money, they are very successful in getting work. Quality is sometimes an issue, but there's always another cousin to hire.
-
What I disagree with -
1) Employing foreigners when citizens of our own country go without jobs. It just makes no sense for us to let people into the country to take a job and then have an American go without one. Yes, I would include white collar jobs here.
I absolutely agree! This should have been stopped long ago.