PDA

View Full Version : Elizabeth Warren: Why Isn't The Minimum Wage Today $22/Hour?




RonPaulFanInGA
03-18-2013, 12:01 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-hey-why-isnt-the-minimum-wage-22hour/


“If we started in 1960, and we said that, as productivity goes up — that is, as workers are producing more — then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And, if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour. So, my question, Mr. Dube, is what happened to the other $14.75?”

Sola_Fide
03-18-2013, 12:03 PM
Great question. It's like she is trying to make the free market argument for us.

bolil
03-18-2013, 12:03 PM
Well, Mrs. Warren, because the cost of keeping people somewhat comfortable hasn't reached that point yet.

dannno
03-18-2013, 12:04 PM
I think the other $14.75 is in her bank account somewhere.

torchbearer
03-18-2013, 12:06 PM
its should be $1500/hr. that way everyone is rich.

BAllen
03-18-2013, 12:06 PM
I think the other $14.75 is in her bank account somewhere.

LOL!
You simply MUST send that information to her.

sailingaway
03-18-2013, 12:07 PM
We need a 'comedy' section.

P3ter_Griffin
03-18-2013, 12:14 PM
"Okay, one big mac and one large fry, your total will come to $35."

I think Ron needs to council this lady on the federal reserve and inflation. I guess though, when your proposing government as the answer giving them the blame they are due doesn't fit the message well.

bolil
03-18-2013, 12:15 PM
"Okay, one big mac and one large fry, your total will come to $35."

I think Ron needs to council this lady on the federal reserve and inflation. I guess though, when your proposing government as the answer giving them the blame they are due doesn't fit the message well.

I think that Warren might become one of us, her hostility towards the banksters is a good sign.

gwax23
03-18-2013, 12:17 PM
How stupid can that woman be?

Very...very stupid.

Sorry for answering my own question.

CaptUSA
03-18-2013, 12:18 PM
I think that Warren might become one of us, her hostility towards the banksters is a good sign.I think you're giving her WAAAAY too much credit. She has hostility towards anyone who isn't giving enough of their money to the government to redistribute. Her disdain for the bankers is not in the same vain as ours.

kathy88
03-18-2013, 12:26 PM
Because, Pocahontas, wampum no worth what it once was.

Anti Federalist
03-18-2013, 12:30 PM
its should be $1500/hr. that way everyone is rich.

Piker.

Make $15,000 an hour.

Anti Federalist
03-18-2013, 12:31 PM
I think that Warren might become one of us, her hostility towards the banksters is a good sign.

Ummm...no, not even close.

juleswin
03-18-2013, 12:33 PM
Piker.

Make $15,000 an hour.

This way we can all spend more time with our family. What kind of heartless, baby hating, cretin will come out against this?

juleswin
03-18-2013, 12:34 PM
I think that Warren might become one of us, her hostility towards the banksters is a good sign.

She hated the bankers so much that she supported the banker bailout. I wish someone would hate me in this same manner :)

P3ter_Griffin
03-18-2013, 12:35 PM
I think that Warren might become one of us, her hostility towards the banksters is a good sign.

Yeah, I'm definitely not trying to knock her. She seems principled which I think may be the most important characteristic a politician can have. She's just principled to a philosophy most of us oppose. If she could be "converted" to our side she'd be a huge asset. Even if she doesn't come to our side though, I'd rather have her as a member of congress than someone who does the bidding for the highest bidder.

Deborah K
03-18-2013, 12:40 PM
Someone please buy that woman a copy of Hazlitt's Economics in one Lesson?

kathy88
03-18-2013, 12:45 PM
Yeah, I'm definitely not trying to knock her. She seems principled which I think may be the most important characteristic a politician can have. She's just principled to a philosophy most of us oppose. If she could be "converted" to our side she'd be a huge asset. Even if she doesn't come to our side though, I'd rather have her as a member of congress than someone who does the bidding for the highest bidder.

Principled people do not pretend to be native American to get cushy jobs.

Anti Federalist
03-18-2013, 12:46 PM
Someone please buy that woman a copy of Hazlitt's Economics in one Lesson?

Just send her one of these:

http://www.truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/images/news/2011/06/100Trillion_Zim.jpg

Anti Federalist
03-18-2013, 12:46 PM
Principled people do not pretend to be native American to get cushy jobs.

+rep

thoughtomator
03-18-2013, 12:47 PM
Warren is touching on an important point here. There has been a historic breakdown in the share of income earned by labor vs. capital. The reason for this is the neo-feudal corporatism that has taken hold in this country by controlling the banks, media, and government.

I don't trust Warren but she shouldn't be slammed when she's doing something right. What indeed happened to the earning power of a man's labor, and why? This question leads to profound and uncomfortable truths about our monetary system and related government policies.

Deborah K
03-18-2013, 12:51 PM
Warren is touching on an important point here. There has been a historic breakdown in the share of income earned by labor vs. capital. The reason for this is the neo-feudal corporatism that has taken hold in this country by controlling the banks, media, and government.

I don't trust Warren but she shouldn't be slammed when she's doing something right. What indeed happened to the earning power of a man's labor, and why? This question leads to profound and uncomfortable truths about our monetary system and related government policies.

By claiming that increasing minimum wage to keep up, she shows a lack of basic knowledge about economics. She may mean well, but she's barking up the wrong tree.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 12:53 PM
Ummm...no, not even close.

Glenn Beck, Elizabeth Warren....our tent is just getting so darned big I can hardly stand the excitement!

angelatc
03-18-2013, 12:55 PM
Warren is touching on an important point here. There has been a historic breakdown in the share of income earned by labor vs. capital. The reason for this is the neo-feudal corporatism that has taken hold in this country by controlling the banks, media, and government.

I don't trust Warren but she shouldn't be slammed when she's doing something right. What indeed happened to the earning power of a man's labor, and why? This question leads to profound and uncomfortable truths about our monetary system and related government policies.

The value of a man's labor has almost nothing to do with the cost of living. She thinks it should.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 12:57 PM
By claiming that increasing minimum wage to keep up, she shows a lack of basic knowledge about economics. She may mean well, but she's barking up the wrong tree.


She knows liberal economics, which entails government control of all aspects of the economy. Regulate profit, regulate wages, regulate prices....and we can all be comfortable.

thoughtomator
03-18-2013, 01:03 PM
The value of a man's labor has almost nothing to do with the cost of living. She thinks it should.

And I would agree that it should. When the value of an average man's labor goes below the cost of living the nation becomes a slow-motion death camp - it breaks through the fundamental bottom line that makes it worth it for the average person to prefer civilization to barbarism.

No Free Beer
03-18-2013, 01:03 PM
i dont see what's wrong with her statement

P3ter_Griffin
03-18-2013, 01:07 PM
Principled people do not pretend to be native American to get cushy jobs.

Which cushy job did she get by "pretending" to be Native American? And maybe a link to her family genealogy?

seraphson
03-18-2013, 01:09 PM
I think you're giving her WAAAAY too much credit. She has hostility towards anyone who isn't giving enough of their money to the government to redistribute. Her disdain for the bankers is not in the same vain as ours.

I saw a video the other day, forget where, but it made the point that people become a bit too concerned about "special interests" outside of politics that affects that they don't realize one of the greater "special interests" is the actual people inside the government. Makes sense seeing as she made a whopping $165,000 government salary in 2011 as an advisor for Obombya (consumer protection agency) and $192,722 salary in part of 08', all of 09', and part of 10' for being lead of the congressional panel of the bank bailout. I love how these humanitarian/philanthropist types seemingly almost always live on cloud nine making absurd publicly subsidized salaries.

itshappening
03-18-2013, 01:12 PM
I think that Warren might become one of us, her hostility towards the banksters is a good sign.

It's fake hostility that pleases the left. Maybe a bill or two will pass but nothing changes. Fed stays the same. Fiat monetary system stays the same. Banks still make big money. Smaller banks hindered by her new rules and regulations. Big banks happy and make even more. Yay, Warren's great... for Wall street.

TokenLibertarianGuy
03-18-2013, 01:12 PM
its should be $1500/hr. that way everyone is rich.

And workers should get a 5 day weekend.

itshappening
03-18-2013, 01:14 PM
And I would agree that it should. When the value of an average man's labor goes below the cost of living the nation becomes a slow-motion death camp - it breaks through the fundamental bottom line that makes it worth it for the average person to prefer civilization to barbarism.

The cost of living is manipulated by the Fed and its funny money creation schemes.

She needs to attack that but never will. The Fed is eroding the purchasing power and so the wages are not keeping up. It does not matter if there is a min wage or not, the wages will never keep up with Ben Bernanke's printing press

thoughtomator
03-18-2013, 01:25 PM
The cost of living is manipulated by the Fed and its funny money creation schemes.

She needs to attack that but never will. The Fed is eroding the purchasing power and so the wages are not keeping up. It does not matter if there is a min wage or not, the wages will never keep up with Ben Bernanke's printing press

You may not be aware of this, but Warren put together one of the most conclusively damning analyses of the financial trends that have been beggaring the nation. And she did it back in 2007 when the elites were still pretending that there was no housing bubble.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

juleswin
03-18-2013, 01:25 PM
The cost of living is manipulated by the Fed and its funny money creation schemes.

She needs to attack that but never will. The Fed is eroding the purchasing power and so the wages are not keeping up. It does not matter if there is a min wage or not, the wages will never keep up with Ben Bernanke's printing press

She could be unknowingly attacking it. See if the people realize that the same govt who claims to lift em up by creating the minimum wage is the same govt that inflated the currency to the point where the original minimum wage has more purchasing power than the current one. Maybe just maybe they might start seeing the fraud that is govt care for the poor.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 01:28 PM
And I would agree that it should. When the value of an average man's labor goes below the cost of living the nation becomes a slow-motion death camp - it breaks through the fundamental bottom line that makes it worth it for the average person to prefer civilization to barbarism.

And people call me crazy when I bemoan the liberal infiltration of the forums.

thoughtomator
03-18-2013, 01:35 PM
And people call me crazy when I bemoan the liberal infiltration of the forums.

If you think that I of all people am liberal, you are indeed crazy.

God forbid someone should make points that don't adhere to your biases.

DrHendricks
03-18-2013, 01:38 PM
I wonder if life is easier or more difficult being this stupid? Ignorance is bliss, but damn.

kathy88
03-18-2013, 01:42 PM
Which cushy job did she get by "pretending" to be Native American? And maybe a link to her family genealogy?

http://www.badeagle.com/2012/04/27/harvard-laws-first-american-indian-professor-elizabeth-warren-white/

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/05/elizabeth_warren_didnt_claim_m.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/elizabeth-warren-should-apologize-for-native-american-claim

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/article-cites-elizabeth-warren-as-first-woman-of-color-hired-by-harvard-law-school/

That should get you started.

kathy88
03-18-2013, 01:42 PM
DBL post

emazur
03-18-2013, 01:44 PM
Questions for people who advocate $22/hr min. wage:

1) Is it acceptable if a minimum wage means all the employees earn more than the employer? A business owner who worked 160 hours a month (a 40 hour workweek) with no vacations who was making minimum wage would have a salary of $42,240 a year. Since he is self employed, he also has to pay double the payroll tax for himself. And according to this study (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wells-fargogallup-more-than-half-of-small-business-owners-work-at-least-six-day-weeks-still-find-time-for-personal-life-54729812.html): "Today's small business owner works an average of 52 hours per week, with fifty-seven percent working at least six days a week, and more than twenty percent working all seven.". By the numbers, if the employer does not make at least $42,240 a year (minimum wage) than he is already worse off than the employee who makes a $22/hr minimum wage.

2) If it is acceptable that a minimum wage means all the employees earn more than the employer, can you describe why anyone would want to start their own business if they never expected to make more than $42k/year? Keep in mind that cost of the risk of business failure.

3) If it is not acceptable that a minimum wage means all the employees earn more than the employer, should the government also institute a Minimum Profit Law for business owners?

4) What percentage of small business owners make more than $42k/year?

Working Poor
03-18-2013, 01:51 PM
All she is going is kissing union ass don't kid yourselves.

thoughtomator
03-18-2013, 01:52 PM
Just to be clear, I don't advocate any minimum wage, but I do support people pointing out that yes, the value of labor has had a catastrophic collapse and it is right to demand reasons for this dramatic shift of economic power away from the people who are actually doing the work that creates value and wealth.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 01:55 PM
If you think that I of all people am liberal, you are indeed crazy.

God forbid someone should make points that don't adhere to your biases.

You're onto it man. I don't like Waren particularily but all she is doing nothing more then what Ron Paul did when he offered a mecery dime for gas. Its not the statment that anyone here should have trouble with, its the solution that we wouldn't see eye to eye on.

parocks
03-18-2013, 01:57 PM
If you think that I of all people am liberal, you are indeed crazy.

God forbid someone should make points that don't adhere to your biases.

I'm in agreement with you on the minimum wage matter.

Not arguing in favor of "living wage" or anything like that, but we've had a minimum wage for a while, and I think it should keep up with inflation.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 01:59 PM
The cost of living is manipulated by the Fed and its funny money creation schemes.

She needs to attack that but never will. The Fed is eroding the purchasing power and so the wages are not keeping up. It does not matter if there is a min wage or not, the wages will never keep up with Ben Bernanke's printing press

Couldn't you say the cost of living has been screwed up by other outside forces as well? What about the CEO-worker pay relationship? What about the dramatic rise in healthcare costs with full time vs part time employees?

She's probably never going to attack the monetary system as we woudl want to see her do but her complaint isn't all that far off from ours. She's just attacking the same beast from a different angle pitching to a different crowd.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 02:01 PM
The mix of skill sets today have different relative values than those of 1960. Lower wage earner skill sets have not evolved adequately. Employers hire labor up to the point where the wage equals the worker's marginal revenue product. If a minimum wage is forced upon employers they will hire less labor to maximize profits. The result is higher per unit cost, higher prices, less output, and fewer jobs. Thank you Elizabeth Warren.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 02:03 PM
The answers are easy. No one would open a small business. FYI I am a small business owner.

However, Warren is seeing a symptom of the monetary problem we're all seeing and experiencing.



Questions for people who advocate $22/hr min. wage:

1) Is it acceptable if a minimum wage means all the employees earn more than the employer? A business owner who worked 160 hours a month (a 40 hour workweek) with no vacations who was making minimum wage would have a salary of $42,240 a year. Since he is self employed, he also has to pay double the payroll tax for himself. And according to this study (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wells-fargogallup-more-than-half-of-small-business-owners-work-at-least-six-day-weeks-still-find-time-for-personal-life-54729812.html): "Today's small business owner works an average of 52 hours per week, with fifty-seven percent working at least six days a week, and more than twenty percent working all seven.". By the numbers, if the employer does not make at least $42,240 a year (minimum wage) than he is already worse off than the employee who makes a $22/hr minimum wage.

2) If it is acceptable that a minimum wage means all the employees earn more than the employer, can you describe why anyone would want to start their own business if they never expected to make more than $42k/year? Keep in mind that cost of the risk of business failure.

3) If it is not acceptable that a minimum wage means all the employees earn more than the employer, should the government also institute a Minimum Profit Law for business owners?

4) What percentage of small business owners make more than $42k/year?

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 02:06 PM
A better question would be why isn't my 'dollar' a dollar.

dillo
03-18-2013, 02:07 PM
well the median income today + the amount of federal debt per capita= The median income of the 1950s

phill4paul
03-18-2013, 02:07 PM
I'll take the 1964 minimum wage in silver quarters please.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 02:09 PM
I'll take the 1964 minimum wage in silver quarters please.
Exactly.

misean
03-18-2013, 02:10 PM
This is a Harvard Professor. I don't know what to say. I mean this country reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. This is a Senator. And she is held up as smart. This is the woman that people want regulating the financial system. I'm speechless. I actually feel physically uneasy watching that. Wow.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 02:10 PM
The mix of skill sets today have different relative values than those of 1960. Lower wage earner skill sets have not evolved adequately. Employers hire labor up to the point where the wage equals the worker's marginal revenue product. If a minimum wage is forced upon employers they will hire less labor to maximize profits. The result is higher per unit cost, higher prices, less output, and fewer jobs. Thank you Elizabeth Warren.

Disagree, lower wage workers today just have different skills then they did in the 60s. Get one of those 1960's cashiers to run a 2013 cash register. The same would be true if the rolls were reversed.

As for profit from investment we're in the most profitable time in the history of mankind from a corporate standpoint. While I agree that raising minimum wage would not fix anything. It is interesting to note the difference between what it was "then" and is "now" and compare it to inflation. I'm not advocating a higher minimum wage but by having a low minimum wage it sure seems to have encouraged an entire generation of workers to latch onto the government tit of food stamps, housing, phone etc etc etc.

A good question would be if I can make $7/hr working in a non-skilled position or I can make double + that sitting on my fat ass watching TV all day why would I choose to work at all?

FrankRep
03-18-2013, 02:10 PM
I think that Warren might become one of us, her hostility towards the banksters is a good sign.

Socialists hate bankers too. She's not "one of us."

jbauer
03-18-2013, 02:12 PM
I'll take the 1964 minimum wage in silver quarters please.

Which means you almost have to agree with Warren's statment although you might see the solution being something entirley different.

Brian4Liberty
03-18-2013, 02:13 PM
Because, Pocahontas, wampum no worth what it once was.

That is key. Look no further than the Federal Reserve, global corporatism, and immigration policy.


Warren is touching on an important point here. There has been a historic breakdown in the share of income earned by labor vs. capital. The reason for this is the neo-feudal corporatism that has taken hold in this country by controlling the banks, media, and government.

I don't trust Warren but she shouldn't be slammed when she's doing something right. What indeed happened to the earning power of a man's labor, and why? This question leads to profound and uncomfortable truths about our monetary system and related government policies.

Yep.


The cost of living is manipulated by the Fed and its funny money creation schemes.

She needs to attack that but never will. The Fed is eroding the purchasing power and so the wages are not keeping up. It does not matter if there is a min wage or not, the wages will never keep up with Ben Bernanke's printing press

Yep.

Alan Greenspan's master plan. Print and borrow, spend and spend, hoping for economic growth. Conceal inflation by suppressing wages. Works great until you run out of sources of ever cheaper labor, or you can't placate all of the people you turn into welfare serfs.

misean
03-18-2013, 02:13 PM
I think that Warren might become one of us, her hostility towards the banksters is a good sign.

"We" do not hate bankers. Bankers aren't the problem. Socialist politicians who bail bankers out are the problem.

I assure you she will never be a libertarian. She is an out of control socialist that will be perfectly happy to run your life for you.

phill4paul
03-18-2013, 02:18 PM
Which means you almost have to agree with Warren's statment although you might see the solution being something entirley different.

No. I don't agree with Warren's statement. I do not believe minimum wage needs to be raised. Though, I can see by my statement how that might be inferred. I don't think a minimum wage needs to be dictated by the government. I do believe that we need to have competing forms of currency if the U.S. dollar has been debased to the point that it has. Which is more to my point.

TonySutton
03-18-2013, 02:18 PM
Has anyone ever done a comparison between the minimum wage and the average cost of a fast food meal. It seems to be they have remained fairly close over my lifetime.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 02:21 PM
"We" do not hate bankers. Bankers aren't the problem. Socialist politicians who bail bankers out are the problem.

I assure you she will never be a libertarian. She is an out of control socialist that will be perfectly happy to run your life for you.
I hate usurers.

misean
03-18-2013, 02:29 PM
I hate usurers.

I assume you are joking. But just in case people who lend at high rates of interest provide an extremely valuable service. They provide credit to people otherwise couldn't get credit. Caps on credit rates just serve to limit the amount of credit.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 02:30 PM
No. I don't agree with Warren's statement. I do not believe minimum wage needs to be raised. Though, I can see by my statement how that might be inferred. I don't think a minimum wage needs to be dictated by the government. I do believe that we need to have competing forms of currency if the U.S. dollar has been debased to the point that it has. Which is more to my point.

I wasn't trying to imply that you thought a higher minimum wage was the correct answer. I was saying that at least in principal the Paul camp and the Warren camp are pointing to a rigged system that is destroying our economy. You used sliver vs dollars to show its distortion. She used minimum wage vs dollars to show the same distortion. A quick google search says that minimum wage in 1960 was $1/hr and that silver was $0.90/oz. Today spot price is $28.99/oz. Seems to me to be pretty close to what she says the minimum wage should be. Reflecting the same root problem.

supermario21
03-18-2013, 02:32 PM
Funny how Warren used to be a Republican until the mid-90s, then veered this way. She could have easily latched onto the Paul movement. :(

anaconda
03-18-2013, 02:33 PM
Disagree, lower wage workers today just have different skills then they did in the 60s. Get one of those 1960's cashiers to run a 2013 cash register. The same would be true if the rolls were reversed.


The economic data illustrates a divergence in the trending for the real wage among Americans between lower skill sets and higher skill sets. Previous to this divergence (pre 1980's I think) both the real wage for skilled vs. unskilled labor increased together (both upward) with productivity gains. But this is a thing of the past. The point is: "One of those 1960's cashiers" has not acquired the skill set to contribute the same marginal revenue product to a firm in 2012. So, yes "get them to do it" would be good, the question is "how?" Since you mentioned "cashier," keep in mind that cashiers now wave the purchase item over a bar code reader, rather than strike a large keypad with one hand while looking at and processing the customer's shopping haul with the other. And Cisco networking certifications did not exist in 1960. Etc.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 02:38 PM
I assume you are joking. But just in case people who lend at high rates of interest provide an extremely valuable service. They provide credit to people otherwise couldn't get credit. Caps on credit rates just serve to limit the amount of credit.
They provide credit at exorbitant rates to people who clearly cannot and will not ever pay. They loan out monies they do not have. [another issue] Then they rely on their 'too big to fail, too big to prosecute' crony government sponsored bullshit to remain afloat after confiscating things of actual value and investing in actual worth. No, I am not joking. I hate usurers, I hate banksters. I despise those who create wealth from 'the flick of a pen.' [those who actually steal the value of what you've worked for, by said 'flick of the pen' or entry into a computer]

Perhaps that falls back to your previous post of socialist politicians being in bed with them.


The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents - men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest - stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.- Lysander Spooner

And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived.- Lysander Spooner
That about sums up my feelings.

misean
03-18-2013, 02:43 PM
They provide credit at exorbitant rates to people who clearly cannot and will not ever pay. They loan out monies they do not have. [another issue] Then they rely on their 'too big to fail, too big to prosecute' crony government sponsored bullshit to remain afloat after confiscating things of actual value and investing in actual worth. No, I am not joking. I hate usurers, I hate banksters. I despise those who create wealth from 'the flick of a pen.' [those who actually steal the value of what you've worked for, by said 'flick of the pen' or entry into a computer]

Perhaps that falls back to your previous post of socialist politicians being in bed with them.


That about sums up my feelings.

Bankers don't just create wealth from the flick of the pen. They substitute liquidity by taking risk. A farmer who wants to expand his business might not have the capital for new equipment. He goes to a bank to get the capital. Liquidity isn't a problem for the bank. The bank then provides a service and gets paid for it. The farmer wins. The bank wins. The people then get the production of the farmer win.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 02:44 PM
The economic data clearly illustrates a divergence in the trending for the real wage among Americans between lower skill sets and higher skill sets. Previous to this divergence both the real wage for skilled vs. unskilled labor increased together (both upward) with productivity gains. But this is a thing of the past. The point is: "One of those 1960's cashiers" has not acquired the skill set to contribute the same marginal revenue product to a firm in 2012. So, yes "get them to do it" would be good, the question is "how?" Since you mentioned "cashier," keep in mind that cashiers now wave the purchase item over a bar code reader, rather than strike a large keypad with one hand while looking at and processing the customer's shopping haul with the other. Etc.

OR....the "skilled" workers are taking home more then their fair share of the pie. One need to look no further then the divergance between hourly workers and CEO's. I would imagine if you took out upper managment the numbers would be significantly closer. (And yes I know what I just typed sounds very socialist!!)

thoughtomator
03-18-2013, 02:46 PM
"We" do not hate bankers. Bankers aren't the problem. Socialist politicians who bail bankers out are the problem.

I assure you she will never be a libertarian. She is an out of control socialist that will be perfectly happy to run your life for you.

If you don't hate the bankers you aren't paying attention. They, not the government, are the prime movers in the usurpation of our government and depletion of the wealth of the nation. They own your money, they own the government, they own the media, and they are convinced that they own you as well.

"Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Rothschild

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 02:48 PM
Bankers don't just create wealth from the flick of the pen. They substitute liquidity by taking risk. A farmer who wants to expand his business might not have the capital for new equipment. He goes to a bank to get the capital. Liquidity isn't a problem for the bank. The bank then provides a service and gets paid for it. The farmer wins. The bank wins. The people then get the production of the farmer win.
I am not referring to honest banks making an honest living. [are there still any of those around?..] I am referring to this dishonest cabal of international banksters that have hijacked our country. Specifically,
- men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest - stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved

VoluntaryAmerican
03-18-2013, 02:50 PM
Is Warren a Communist?

jbauer
03-18-2013, 02:50 PM
Bankers don't just create wealth from the flick of the pen. They substitute liquidity by taking risk. A farmer who wants to expand his business might not have the capital for new equipment. He goes to a bank to get the capital. Liquidity isn't a problem for the bank. The bank then provides a service and gets paid for it. The farmer wins. The bank wins. The people then get the production of the farmer win.

You're right, banksters create wealth with the touch of a keyboard. Government creates weath with the flick of a pen. The reason the farmer is paying interest on the loan is there is a "risk" to the bank that he might not pay it back. When we take that risk off the table through government bailouts and artificially low rates the bank takes no risk but still get paid for it by us.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 02:52 PM
If you think that I of all people am liberal, you are indeed crazy.

God forbid someone should make points that don't adhere to your biases.


My bias is reality. If a days work is not enough to provide sustenance, then a person will not bother to work, but asserting that labor has to have some minimum value that entails an arbitrary standard of living lest we devolve into barbarism is condescending, self-righteous liberalism that has nothing to do with free markets.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 02:52 PM
Is Warren a Communist?

Either that or a lizard person. Maybe both.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 02:53 PM
OR....the "skilled" workers are taking home more then their fair share of the pie. One need to look no further then the divergance between hourly workers and CEO's. I would imagine if you took out upper managment the numbers would be significantly closer. (And yes I know what I just typed sounds very socialist!!)

Please define "their fair share of the pie." Are you implying that businesses are "giving away" money to "skilled" labor? They pay a market rate for a given skill.

misean
03-18-2013, 02:53 PM
I am not referring to honest banks making an honest living. [are there still any of those around?..] I am referring to this dishonest cabal of international banksters that have hijacked our country. Specifically,

I guess I don't know enough about international bankers.

I thought you were talking about investment banks and commercial lenders. Those two groups provide valuable services.


You're right, banksters create wealth with the touch of a keyboard. Government creates weath with the flick of a pen. The reason the farmer is paying interest on the loan is there is a "risk" to the bank that he might not pay it back. When we take that risk off the table through government bailouts and artificially low rates the bank takes no risk but still get paid for it by us.

That's clearly a fault of government. Banks are businesses. They want survive and profit like any other business. If they can get bailed out and lobby for special treatment that isn't their fault. That is the fault of elected officials.

Enough from my tangent.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 02:54 PM
If you don't hate the bankers you aren't paying attention. They, not the government, are the prime movers in the usurpation of our government and depletion of the wealth of the nation. They own your money, they own the government, they own the media, and they are convinced that they own you as well.

"Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Rothschild


Just because I blame the government for selling itself and not the bankers who bought it does not mean I am not paying attention.

VoluntaryAmerican
03-18-2013, 02:55 PM
Either that or a lizard person. Maybe both.

http://i.imgur.com/nmg4GB9.jpg

Warren, Obama and McCain. 3 of a kind.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 02:56 PM
OR....the "skilled" workers are taking home more then their fair share of the pie. One need to look no further then the divergance between hourly workers and CEO's. I would imagine if you took out upper managment the numbers would be significantly closer. (And yes I know what I just typed sounds very socialist!!)


There's a reason for that. Skilled workers taking home more than their fair share? CEOs making more than the employees?

Dude.....

anaconda
03-18-2013, 02:56 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nmg4GB9.jpg

Warren, Obama and McCain. 3 of a kind.

Moss-covered lizards!

angelatc
03-18-2013, 02:57 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nmg4GB9.jpg

Warren, Obama and McCain. 3 of a kind.


Sleezestaks !

angelatc
03-18-2013, 03:01 PM
I'm in agreement with you on the minimum wage matter.

Not arguing in favor of "living wage" or anything like that, but we've had a minimum wage for a while, and I think it should keep up with inflation.

OK, now I know I'm not crazy.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 03:03 PM
Please define "their fair share of the pie." Are you implying that businesses are "giving away" money to "skilled" labor? They pay a market rate for a given skill.

Honestly I don't know what the "fair share" is its what one is willing to pay. It just interesting to note the vast rise in excecutive pay since the 80s realitive to the stagnation of the common man. With that said why has executive pay increase 100x+ fold? Are the conducting 100x+ the work?

angelatc
03-18-2013, 03:06 PM
I wonder if life is easier or more difficult being this stupid? Ignorance is bliss, but damn.


I am fairly convinced that life is easier when you're stupid and mean. Without the internal drive to be correct, it's easier to get things done.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 03:09 PM
When the value of an average man's labor goes below the cost of living the nation becomes a slow-motion death camp

Who has the responsibility to acquire a skill set that is worth a handsome wage to an employer? How would Ron Paul answer this question?

angelatc
03-18-2013, 03:11 PM
Honestly I don't know what the "fair share" is its what one is willing to pay. It just interesting to note the vast rise in excecutive pay since the 80s realitive to the stagnation of the common man. With that said why has executive pay increase 100x+ fold? Are the conducting 100x+ the work?


Or maybe the obvious answer is obvious: there is a much bigger demand for CEO skills than low-end labor skills. Managing a company in the 80's was much different than managing a company today due to a myriad of factors.

Putting a nut on a bolt for 8 hours a day? Not so much. If anything, it's easier what with all the high tech tools and government work standards that CEO has to adhere to.

ANd of course, allowing unfettered transmigration increases the supply of labor, which also drives wage down.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 03:18 PM
That's clearly a fault of government. Banks are businesses. They want survive and profit like any other business. If they can get bailed out and lobby for special treatment that isn't their fault. That is the fault of elected officials.

Enough from my tangent.
They deceived people a century ago into supporting the establishment of a central bank and this is just a consequence of it. The people never would have went for it had it not been deceptively coined the Federal Reserve System. There was a great deal of resentment towards 'money trusts' at the time and the people did not want banking consolidated into the hands of a few extremely wealthy men. Of course politicians cater to them. They control the money. Elizabeth Warren says mininum wage should be 20 dollars an hours yet she forgets this simple fact- A 'dollar' is not a dollar. They can't even tell us what a 'dollar' is. From 1913 to now, the purchasing power has eroded something like 97%. I have some really good graphics but imgur isn't uploading them for some reason. :(

Here is another great quote. This one from Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the '20s, and second richest man in Britain- "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

anaconda
03-18-2013, 03:21 PM
why has executive pay increase 100x+ fold? Are the conducting 100x+ the work?

I have not looked into this but it is a fascinating question. I have a suspicion that 1) there are some less-than free market forces at work here and that 2) being an effective CEO today may require a phenomenal "skill set" compared to 1950.

One thing that comes to mind is that a CEO who has served in, or dealt with, or made political donations to, government at a high level may have the contacts to effectively lobby for huge taxpayer funded contracts and/or lobby for preferential regulations. So, that CEO might be a very valuable factor in getting revenue and "market share" for his/her firm ( nothing wrong with schmoozing and selling, I just don't like it on my tax dime). Don't know if there's any truth to this but it's a question I have.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 03:26 PM
I have not looked into this but it is a fascinating question. I have a suspicion that 1) there are some less-than free market forces at work here and that 2) being an effective CEO today may require a phenomenal "skill set" compared to 1950.

One thing that comes to mind is that a CEO who has served in, or dealt with, or made political donations to, government at a high level may have the contacts to effectively lobby for huge taxpayer funded contracts and lobby for preferential regulations. So, that CEO might be a very valuable factor in getting revenue and "market share" for his/her firm ( nothing wrong with schmoozing and selling, I just don't like it on my tax dime). Don't know if there's any truth to this but it's a question I have.


Sure there's lobbying involved. No major corporation can survive without lobbyists, because, as Google and Microsoft found out, if you don't go after the government they will come after you.

But just think how the markets have changed, and how many old corporations have gone under or been bought out by bigger companies. All of these happen at lightening speed compared to a generation ago, and the pressures from international competition is much greater than it ever was in the past. Keeping a company alive despite the endless needs of everybody else - consumers, customers, employees, government, suppliers, banks... takes as much art as skill.

Meanwhile, sweeping the floor after everybody goes home is still pretty much the same job as it ever was.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 03:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xu_LTt2wJM

angelatc
03-18-2013, 03:29 PM
They deceived people a century ago into supporting the establishment of a central bank and this is just a consequence of it. "

Those people are all dead. And while there's a lot of truth in that, the government still hasn't corrected the mistake?

otherone
03-18-2013, 03:31 PM
The minimum wage has made a labor monopoly for employers of unskilled workers. Employers don't have to compete for them, as everyone at the bottom pays the same. Remove the minimum wage, and the initial reaction by the market will be to lower wages, followed by an increasing wage war to attract employees.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 03:32 PM
Sure there's lobbying involved. No major corporation can survive without lobbyists, because, as Google and Microsoft found out, if you don't go after the government they will come after you.

But just think how the markets have changed, and how many old corporations have gone under or been bought out by bigger companies. All of these happen at lightening speed compared to a generation ago, and the pressures from international competition is much greater than it ever was in the past. Keeping a company alive despite the endless needs of everybody else - consumers, customers, employees, government, suppliers, banks... takes as much art as skill.

Meanwhile, sweeping the floor after everybody goes home is still pretty much the same job as it ever was.

I believe we are on exactly the same page here. And I assume that we both would like to eliminate or greatly reduce the circumstances whereby "the government comes after the corporation" and "the corporation goes after the government."

angelatc
03-18-2013, 03:44 PM
I believe we are on exactly the same page here. And I assume that we both would like to eliminate or greatly reduce the circumstances whereby "the government comes after the corporation" and "the corporation goes after the government."


Absolutely. Paypal and that direct lender-to-borrower site also came to mind after I typed that. They had innovative ideas, satisfied customer bases, and were targeted for investigation by the government just because they existed.

But the world is what it is - a CEO with the patience and skill to navigate the endless minefields is an asset that corporations can't easily replace. On the other hand, as a staff accountant, I could be swapped out by any number of people. Therefore I didn't make as much as the CEO.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 03:44 PM
The minimum wage has made a labor monopoly for employers of unskilled workers. Employers don't have to compete for them, as everyone at the bottom pays the same. Remove the minimum wage, and the initial reaction by the market will be to lower wages, followed by an increasing wage war to attract employees.

Employers will hire a minimum wage worker only if that worker's contribution to the marginal revenue product for that firm exceeds the minimum wage. If the minimum wage goes away, an employer now has the option of hiring additional, yet even less skilled, workers because, while they result in a lower addition to the marginal revenue product of the firm, the firm can further increase its profits by doing so. Among unskilled labor, there is still very much a stratum of work quality and skills. Not everyone can qualify to be a fast food service worker, as this requires a certain skill set as well. So, firms will very much compete for the best minimum wage labor as they all are seeking to hire the the most productive members of that labor group. It would be incorrect to assume that, below the minimum wage, "anyone" can do the particular job and that the labor pool is somehow homogenous.

TaftFan
03-18-2013, 03:49 PM
Notice where the new trend starts.

http://files.cwa-union.org/national/News/Misc/73rd-convention-lc-chart-2.jpg

Deborah K
03-18-2013, 03:50 PM
Couldn't you say the cost of living has been screwed up by other outside forces as well? What about the CEO-worker pay relationship? What about the dramatic rise in healthcare costs with full time vs part time employees?

She's probably never going to attack the monetary system as we woudl want to see her do but her complaint isn't all that far off from ours. She's just attacking the same beast from a different angle pitching to a different crowd.

But her solution perpetuates the problem.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 04:02 PM
Those people are all dead. And while there's a lot of truth in that, the government still hasn't corrected the mistake?
Propaganda is a hell of thing. Keep telling people something for long enough and eventually they'll believe it. Most of the people now, who are favorable towards the Fed, are the results of public school indoctrination that more or less teaches that the Fed protects us against the booms and busts. They never mention that is isn't federal and they never mentioned how it was implemented. They also never mention the '20s, the '70s etc. with regards to what the Fed's mission statement is supposed to be. [controlling the highs and lows of our economy] Honestly, I don't think I read more than a few paragraphs on the Fed the entire time I was in high school. And they were all positive. The money reaches far and long. There are still many [I think the majority of] people who do not know what the Fed is, how it came into place, or how it manipulates our money.

The politicians will be politicians. They run to get elected. Hardly a one has any type of back bone or principle. It is a cess pool of corruption and 'sold souls.' Elizabeth Warren might see there is a problem, but she does not know how to begin to address it. Someone ought to send her a copy of 'The Creature From Jekyll Island,' as well as Ron Paul's, 'Dollar Hegemony' speech. Now these banksters "can't" (won't) even be prosecuted for their litany of offenses because if they are, it could affect our already shaky economy negatively. Eric Holder ought to be impeached for even saying such horseshit. Without an actual full audit, we will never even truly begin to grasp how far it all reaches.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 04:02 PM
Notice where the new trend starts.

http://files.cwa-union.org/national/News/Misc/73rd-convention-lc-chart-2.jpg

What real wage is depicted here? U.S.? Average? Median? College educated? High school education? Etc. Thanks.

Deborah K
03-18-2013, 04:07 PM
Sure there's lobbying involved. No major corporation can survive without lobbyists, because, as Google and Microsoft found out, if you don't go after the government they will come after you.

But just think how the markets have changed, and how many old corporations have gone under or been bought out by bigger companies. All of these happen at lightening speed compared to a generation ago, and the pressures from international competition is much greater than it ever was in the past. Keeping a company alive despite the endless needs of everybody else - consumers, customers, employees, government, suppliers, banks... takes as much art as skill.

Meanwhile, sweeping the floor after everybody goes home is still pretty much the same job as it ever was.

You're on fire, girl.

TaftFan
03-18-2013, 04:07 PM
What real wage is depicted here? U.S.? Average? Median? College educated? High school education? Etc. Thanks.

I know it is U.S. but I am not sure how the BLS calculates those things. My observation was that it coincided with the ending of Bretton Woods.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 04:15 PM
Or maybe the obvious answer is obvious: there is a much bigger demand for CEO skills than low-end labor skills. Managing a company in the 80's was much different than managing a company today due to a myriad of factors.

Putting a nut on a bolt for 8 hours a day? Not so much. If anything, it's easier what with all the high tech tools and government work standards that CEO has to adhere to.

ANd of course, allowing unfettered transmigration increases the supply of labor, which also drives wage down.

Thats so bullshit that even you can't possibly believe what you typed. The skill set hasn't changed one damn bit since the 60s. The rat race might be a different course but the rats still race. Now days exec pay is taken from the common man by board rooms buddies, government under the table deals and pure and simple bullshit. Heck I drove by the powerball billboard today it was for $220 million or some big number like that. Its record is somewhere in the middle of the $300m's. Micheal Jordan over the course of his carreer plus his ongoing endorsment deals has been able to amass a fortune of $460M.

You're telling me that the proper demand for the most highly skilled CEO in the world should be double the record powerball and more then all the wealth Michael Jordan amassed? PER YEAR!!!!!

amy31416
03-18-2013, 04:19 PM
If they raise the minimum wage, wouldn't the dems just tax 'em back into poverty?

Humanae Libertas
03-18-2013, 04:21 PM
Translation: Let's raise unemployment even more!

jbauer
03-18-2013, 04:21 PM
But her solution perpetuates the problem.

Go back and read my posts. None of them has said raising the minimum wage is the correct answer. All of them say that Warren is pointing to the EXACT undermining problems that we are. She uses minimum wage to illustrate the devaluation of our currency, Ron Paul used precious metals.

T

jbauer
03-18-2013, 04:27 PM
Sure there's lobbying involved. No major corporation can survive without lobbyists, because, as Google and Microsoft found out, if you don't go after the government they will come after you.

But just think how the markets have changed, and how many old corporations have gone under or been bought out by bigger companies. All of these happen at lightening speed compared to a generation ago, and the pressures from international competition is much greater than it ever was in the past. Keeping a company alive despite the endless needs of everybody else - consumers, customers, employees, government, suppliers, banks... takes as much art as skill.

Meanwhile, sweeping the floor after everybody goes home is still pretty much the same job as it ever was.

Again complete BS. There is no CEO out there that has it any rougher then their comparable counterparts did in the 60s. The only reason "deals" move faster now is because information does. You're also not taking into account the massive middle management that helps do ALL of the operations the CEO does. I completely understand what I'm saying sounds socialistic maybe even a bit Marxist. But the cronyism that is America today is just that. We're slaves in our own filth because we've let the world get away with to much for to long.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 04:28 PM
If they raise the minimum wage, wouldn't the dems just tax 'em back into poverty?

Well....it would kick all the "working poor" off government programs......again I'm not saying this is the right answer.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 04:40 PM
The skill set hasn't changed one damn bit since the 60s.

It's changed light years. Where were Cisco networking certificates in 1960?


Now days exec pay is taken from the common man by board rooms buddies, government under the table deals and pure and simple bullshit.


angelatc affirms above that there is indeed government induced corporate cronyism. This is a different issue from a vast demographic of Americans failing to update their job skills.


You're telling me that the proper demand for the most highly skilled CEO in the world should be double the record powerball and more then all the wealth Michael Jordan amassed? PER YEAR!!!!!

I don't believe angelatc used the "should" word. I think what angelatc was saying is that, in the pervasive corporate cronyism environment of the U.S., a talented and well-connected CEO might literally cause the revenues of a given company to increase by far, far more than the salary paid to them by the board of directors. In other words, if the market rate for a brilliant person who is well connected to government is $500 million per year and that person can increase your profits by $600 million per year, it's something the board of directors will certainly do. And, yes, this can easily exceed Michael Jordan's current wealth, given consumer's preferences and disposable income, and their demand, or lack thereof, for an ethical form of government.

malkusm
03-18-2013, 04:47 PM
Production has two inputs - labor and capital. It is a misnomer to assert that gains in productivity are due completely to the increased productivity of labor. In fact, I think it's a highly flawed argument when you consider how capital-intensive our economy has become. Productivity is increasingly capital-based, from the machines that have replaced assembly-line workers to the infrastructure that supports the internet and information systems, telecommunications, and so forth. Contrast this with the industrial revolution, which mostly revolved around the advent of the factory and its rapid acceleration of labor value.

Insofar as the productivity value of labor has increased over the past 30-40 years, it has mostly come in the form of increased knowledge, data, and information. Very little has been done in most industries and markets to increase the value of labor. Where labor has become markedly more productive (such as agriculture), you can thank the government for taxing and regulating the ever-loving crap out of it. Anecdotally, it seems to me that the areas where labor value should have increased the most in the last half century have been precisely the areas where the government has been the most involved.

amy31416
03-18-2013, 04:48 PM
Well....it would kick all the "working poor" off government programs......again I'm not saying this is the right answer.

Thank god, we'll have more money for war, foreign aid and Michelle Bachmann wouldn't be able to gripe about that 50% that don't pay taxes.

James Madison
03-18-2013, 04:53 PM
And workers should get a 5 day weekend.

Give me an 8 day weekend, and you've got yourself a deal!

anaconda
03-18-2013, 05:01 PM
Again complete BS. There is no CEO out there that has it any rougher then their comparable counterparts did in the 60s.

The real wage for workers increases with their productivity increases. So, if you give a worker a computer and they are willing to learn UNIX, C++, networking, etc., they can be enormously productive and command a very high wage. CEO's, too, have the tools at their disposal to be more productive in 2012 than in 1963. Many of these are information related tools which require deep understanding and creativity in applying to business situations. I'm not sure where people get the idea that CEO's do nothing.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 05:06 PM
Thats so bullshit that even you can't possibly believe what you typed. The skill set hasn't changed one damn bit since the 60s. The rat race might be a different course but the rats still race. Now days exec pay is taken from the common man by board rooms buddies, government under the table deals and pure and simple bullshit. Heck I drove by the powerball billboard today it was for $220 million or some big number like that. Its record is somewhere in the middle of the $300m's. Micheal Jordan over the course of his carreer plus his ongoing endorsment deals has been able to amass a fortune of $460M.

You're telling me that the proper demand for the most highly skilled CEO in the world should be double the record powerball and more then all the wealth Michael Jordan amassed? PER YEAR!!!!!

Indeed I am, although it's really none of your business how much somebody else makes. If you want to start a company and pay a CEO less than that, then you go right ahead.

But if you think that the working man will make more money if the CEO makes less, you're horribly mistaken. Executive pay is taken from the common man? Socialist bullshit. That money never belonged to the worker. Their labor is for hire, nothing more.

Go look at the profits those corporations are making, and tell me they're not also up significantly since the 60's. Corporations are much bigger now, too. A CEO back in the 60's probably had 4 - 5000 people under him. Now it's not uncommon for them to have 10 times that amount.

It takes less people though - when I first started accounting, there was a person whose only function was write checks. That's basically it. People brought the invoices up, already approved and totaled up. She did nothing but cut the checks, find a manager to sign the big ones, and mail them. Then the company bought a computer. In a decade, the company quadrupled in size, but my department stayed at the same staff level. One guy managed all that change - taking a company from the 60's to the 90's was a huge feat, and the only bullshit is that you think that running a company today is exactly the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

This class warfare bullshit has no place in a free market. I can't believe this is coming from Ron Paul Forums and not The Daily Kos.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 05:11 PM
Well....it would kick all the "working poor" off government programs......again I'm not saying this is the right answer.

No it would not. It reduce supply of everything that people would buy, which would drive prices up, which would lessen demand, which would result in higher unemployment.

At that point wages should start to fall to correct the problem, but thanks to the idiots who think minimum wages help poor people, it can't. So prices stay high, and people stay unemployed until inflation corrects the over payments by devaluing the dollars.


Is this your first day here or what?

malkusm
03-18-2013, 05:11 PM
The real wage for workers increases with their productivity increases. ... CEO's, too, have the tools at their disposal to be more productive in 2012 than in 1963. Many of these are information related tools which require deep understanding and creativity in applying to business situations.


This class warfare bullshit has no place in a free market. I can't believe this is coming from Ron Paul Forums and not The Daily Kos.

+rep all around

anaconda
03-18-2013, 05:13 PM
It is a misnomer to assert that gains in productivity are due completely to the increased productivity of labor.


Capital increases the productivity of the labor that uses it and is added until the diminishing marginal product becomes less than the cost of that capital. The labor must have the skills to operate it, however. And herein lies our national problem. We have an increasingly poor segment that cannot effectively use the ever evolving and improving capital.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 05:19 PM
And another factor that's being ignored is buying power. Back in the 50's and 60's, a television cost 6 months worth of wages. People made and mended their own clothing to save money.

Today, I can drive around on garbage day and pick up working electronics off the curb. A new TV costs about a week's worth of wages.

Household spending on food, housing, utilities, etc. has fallen from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 32% today. (http://www.aei.org/article/the-myth-of-a-stagnant-middle-class/)

That whole article ^ is desperately in need of reading, it seems. Here's another excerpt designed to make some liberal heads explode:
A favorite progressive trope is that the middle class has stagnated economically since the 1970s. This trope is wrong.

malkusm
03-18-2013, 05:19 PM
Capital increases the productivity of the labor that uses it and is added until the diminishing marginal product becomes less than the cost of that capital. The labor must have the skills to operate it, however. And herein lies our national problem. We have an increasingly poor segment that cannot effectively use the ever evolving and improving capital.

I completely agree. I was alluding to the fact that some of the productivity gains caused by capital must be reinvested into capital, since the value of capital depreciates overtime (systems must be maintained). Overhead also goes up - companies didn't have to worry about what their internet bill was in 1970. But yes, the labor productivity that can be achieved by using this new capital can only be obtained if labor is able to use it. Unfortunately from my experience, a lot of those qualified individuals are from overseas, these days.

Edited to add: Note, none of this changes what the value of a fry cook at McDonalds should be. I'm sure their equipment has been modernized, but their productivity is largely unaffected. So, the minimum wage is really a very bad proxy for labor productivity - the more reasonable question is, have average wages increased at the rate of productivity? Largely the answer is yes. The distribution of that wealth is growing more disparaged, for some legitimate reasons and other illegitimate. But none of this should lead a person to conclude that the minimum wage is the solution.

Deborah K
03-18-2013, 05:21 PM
Go back and read my posts. None of them has said raising the minimum wage is the correct answer. All of them say that Warren is pointing to the EXACT undermining problems that we are. She uses minimum wage to illustrate the devaluation of our currency, Ron Paul used precious metals.

T

I wasn't trying to imply that you agreed with her. I was implying that it doesn't matter that she recognizes there is a discrepency between the cost of living and wages, because her solution is the wrong one - utterly.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 05:34 PM
Note, none of this changes what the value of a fry cook at McDonalds should be. I'm sure their equipment has been modernized, but their productivity is largely unaffected.

You make an interesting point. I am going to guess that the average McDonald's restaurant is pumping out way more product per unit time than in the 1960's, and that the workers' productivity has exploded. If this is the case, it is likely due to capital improvements used directly by the minimum wage staff (better designs, drive-thoughs, wireless headsets, computerized point of sale, fryers that use less energy, etc.etc.). Yet (and you may have alluded to this) the prerequisite skill set may not have changed much, if at all. I suspect that a good minimum wage worker is capable of being quickly trained in the efficient use of this new capital, and the ease of use is probably a significant design issue. This would be a departure from capital that is enormously complicated to use.

Danan
03-18-2013, 05:47 PM
Warren is touching on an important point here. There has been a historic breakdown in the share of income earned by labor vs. capital. The reason for this is the neo-feudal corporatism that has taken hold in this country by controlling the banks, media, and government.

I don't trust Warren but she shouldn't be slammed when she's doing something right. What indeed happened to the earning power of a man's labor, and why? This question leads to profound and uncomfortable truths about our monetary system and related government policies.

The real question is not so much, "why has capital income grown and labor income stagnated?" but rather, "why aren't more people becoming capital owners?" And the answer to that question is because of government.

Even without government interventions the share of labor income would have likely gone down (in relative terms) as automation continues. That wouldn't be a huge problem though, since more and more people would become capitalists.

Also, the whole paradigm is a wrong one. Aggregate income is not a ready-baked cake with capitalism or the government wielding the knife of income distribution. It is simply the aggregate of individual incomes, each of which could be higher or lower without the government.

Anti Federalist
03-18-2013, 05:49 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nmg4GB9.jpg

Warren, Obama and McCain. 3 of a kind.

Ah to be a kid growing up the 70s again.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 06:03 PM
...

PaulConventionWV
03-18-2013, 06:17 PM
Great question. It's like she is trying to make the free market argument for us.

It's really quite uncanny. Does she even know that she's making a strong argument AGAINST minimum wage?

PaulConventionWV
03-18-2013, 06:18 PM
I think the other $14.75 is in her bank account somewhere.

I guarantee you it's a lot more than fourteen dollars and seventy five cents.

mport1
03-18-2013, 06:40 PM
Elizabeth Warren is one of the scariest people in government. The fact that she was ever even considered a viable candidate is frightening.

Chester Copperpot
03-18-2013, 06:57 PM
in 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.

If we just left the money system based on silver as it was back then and left the minimum wage at $1.25/hr in silver money that would translate to well over $22/hr in todays inflated money

jbauer
03-18-2013, 06:58 PM
It is my business to question what the employees of a fortune 500 company are doing. If we truley lived in a freemarket place then it wouldn't. But we don't. Those companies with their quasi government lobist organizations that ensure their meal ticket gets deducted out of my tax dollars and out of the future dollars of my children. Those same companies flocked to the government in 08 & 09 asking for my tax dollars to bail their asses out.

The profits of companies are up from the 60's....gee no friking kidding. Tell me something that hasn't skyrocketed since the 60's.....except nominal wage. Again, I'm not advocating for increasing the minimum wage and haven't through my comments. You say that the CEO had 4-5k people and now has 40-50k people. Great, good for them. Thats a great argument for them making 10x the salary then they did in the 60s not 500x.

I know I'm quite alone here and frankly don't care but no one has been able to explain to me why its ok for Ron Paul to run around bitching that a mercery dime still buys a gallon of gas as an example of how our monetary system if f'ed up but how its not ok for Mrs Warren to make the exact same argument only substituting sliver for minimum wage. Its the same problem caused by the same people that is damaging our country.

Those that can't see this hypocrisy are only kidding themselves. So take your "class warfare" and stick it because we don't live in a free market. Not even remotely close.


Indeed I am, although it's really none of your business how much somebody else makes. If you want to start a company and pay a CEO less than that, then you go right ahead.

But if you think that the working man will make more money if the CEO makes less, you're horribly mistaken. Executive pay is taken from the common man? Socialist bullshit. That money never belonged to the worker. Their labor is for hire, nothing more.

Go look at the profits those corporations are making, and tell me they're not also up significantly since the 60's. Corporations are much bigger now, too. A CEO back in the 60's probably had 4 - 5000 people under him. Now it's not uncommon for them to have 10 times that amount.

It takes less people though - when I first started accounting, there was a person whose only function was write checks. That's basically it. People brought the invoices up, already approved and totaled up. She did nothing but cut the checks, find a manager to sign the big ones, and mail them. Then the company bought a computer. In a decade, the company quadrupled in size, but my department stayed at the same staff level. One guy managed all that change - taking a company from the 60's to the 90's was a huge feat, and the only bullshit is that you think that running a company today is exactly the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

This class warfare bullshit has no place in a free market. I can't believe this is coming from Ron Paul Forums and not The Daily Kos.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 06:59 PM
in 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.

If we just left the money system based on silver as it was back then and left the minimum wage at $1.25/hr in silver money that would translate to well over $22/hr in todays inflated money

Tried explaining that earlier at about page 6 or so. No one seems to be able to see the hypocrisy.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 07:08 PM
They provide credit at exorbitant rates to people who clearly cannot and will not ever pay. They loan out monies they do not have. [another issue] Then they rely on their 'too big to fail, too big to prosecute' crony government sponsored bullshit to remain afloat after confiscating things of actual value and investing in actual worth. No, I am not joking. I hate usurers, I hate banksters. I despise those who create wealth from 'the flick of a pen.' [those who actually steal the value of what you've worked for, by said 'flick of the pen' or entry into a computer]

Perhaps that falls back to your previous post of socialist politicians being in bed with them.


The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents - men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest - stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.- Lysander Spooner

And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived.- Lysander Spooner

That about sums up my feelings.
Okay, Cutlerzz, what is 'ignorant' about my post? If I am mistaken about something, I do not mind being corrected... but as I see it, I'm not. You simply neg repping me and not clarifying or correcting me is kind of selfish, don't ya think? I know human nature is to hold knowledge close as to be able to hold it over someone's head, or to be able to feel a sense of superiority, but please, enlighten me. I would be indebted to you. The Rothschilds own next week's check. I might be able to spare some change though.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 07:08 PM
in 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.

If we just left the money system based on silver as it was back then and left the minimum wage at $1.25/hr in silver money that would translate to well over $22/hr in todays inflated money

What deeply concerns me is the real wage (i.e. purchasing power) not so much (in this context) the nominal wage or the price level. The problem is that the real wage has stagnated for many in our country who have been unable to acquire job skills with a higher market wage.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 07:10 PM
in 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.

If we just left the money system based on silver as it was back then and left the minimum wage at $1.25/hr in silver money that would translate to well over $22/hr in todays inflated money
Yes. And if we did that, the prices of everyday things wouldn't require us to make 22 dollars an hour to afford. Ron Paul made my day when he pulled out the mercury dime during the debate.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 07:12 PM
Tell me something that hasn't skyrocketed since the 60's.....except nominal wage.

Is it possible that you mean the "real" wage here? Nominal wages increase with the price level

jbauer
03-18-2013, 07:15 PM
Heck throw in the under 30 crowd. How many are walking around with degrees working at Wendys. Wage stagnation is and should be one of the things talked about because it is the root problem of almost ALL of our problems. Average American household income adjusted for inflation is just slightly up since the 80s but over the same time we went from a 1 earner household to a 2 earner household.

That should be alarming to everyone here. Somebody is screwing the pooch.


What deeply concerns me is the real wage (i.e. purchasing power) not so much (in this context) the nominal wage or the price level. The problem is that the real wage has stagnated for many in our country who have been unable to acquire job skills with a higher market wage.

jbauer
03-18-2013, 07:15 PM
Is it possible that you mean the "real" wage here? Nominal wages increase with the price level

yup sorry, typing fast.

BAllen
03-18-2013, 07:27 PM
And I would agree that it should. When the value of an average man's labor goes below the cost of living the nation becomes a slow-motion death camp - it breaks through the fundamental bottom line that makes it worth it for the average person to prefer civilization to barbarism.

That is only because we don't have a free market in other areas of the economy like housing, farming, and healthcare. Taxes and regulations make those things much higher priced. THAT is the problem.

Danan
03-18-2013, 07:27 PM
I know I'm quite alone here and frankly don't care but no one has been able to explain to me why its ok for Ron Paul to run around bitching that a mercery dime still buys a gallon of gas as an example of how our monetary system if f'ed up but how its not ok for Mrs Warren to make the exact same argument only substituting sliver for minimum wage.


The former is caused by monetery policy entirely, while the latter has multiple causes, many of which are free market forces, like automation, globalization, etc., but also other government causes that have nothing to do with the Federal Reserve System, like subsities, regulations, tariffs. The Fed has only indirect influence on real wages, since those are adjusted for inflation.

Also, government interventions in the free market have way more negative influence on the low wage of low skilled labor, than they have on the wages of CEOs. Those seem to be largely a product of market forces.

Also, as I stated before, the fact that real income of capital owners grows, while labor income grows more slowly (or even stagnates) is not very surprising and it's not even a huge problem. The problem is that most people don't manage to become capitalists, which should be the ideal. And the reason for that is obviously for a large part government intervention in the economy.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 07:30 PM
no one has been able to explain to me why its ok for Ron Paul to run around bitching that a mercery dime still buys a gallon of gas as an example of how our monetary system if f'ed up but how its not ok for Mrs Warren to make the exact same argument only substituting sliver for minimum wage.

This is a topic that I thought Ron Paul always did a very poor job of explaining. Ron would always talk about how the money has lost it's value, but he never would mention that the very same inflation that inflates the currency also inflates peoples' wages. Ron occasionally tried to explain his argument but I think it was lost on most voters: namely that the inflationary effect of printing money is significantly more costly to the bulk of Americans as opposed to the "early recipients" of the newly created money, because it takes many months for the newly created money to fully exert its inflationary effect throughout the macroeconomy and by that time the money has long since been spent by (as Ron would say) "the people that get to use the money first." Ron Paul's other concern with monetary inflation was for people on fixed incomes such as perhaps some retirees.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 07:31 PM
Tried explaining that earlier at about page 6 or so. No one seems to be able to see the hypocrisy.


There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about it. People get paid better, different benefits, the dollar buys more now than it did then, and with women and immigrants flooding the workforce, there are far more workers competing for less American jobs.

You're perpetrating a myth.

Danan
03-18-2013, 07:32 PM
Heck throw in the under 30 crowd. How many are walking around with degrees working at Wendys. Wage stagnation is and should be one of the things talked about because it is the root problem of almost ALL of our problems. Average American household income adjusted for inflation is just slightly up since the 80s but over the same time we went from a 1 earner household to a 2 earner household.

That should be alarming to everyone here. Somebody is screwing the pooch.

You are still talking about the same income per wage hour as in the 80s. I agree that's a bad sign, that we couldn't progress from then on, but it's not like the 80s were the worst time in human history. I'm fully aware of the reasons why we see this unfortunate outcome (mainly monetary policy, but also to a large part regulations, etc.)

With equal real wages a single earner houshold in the 80s would have half the material wealth like a two earner household today. If you don't believe that, than your real problem is not stagnating real wages.

parocks
03-18-2013, 07:32 PM
No it would not. It reduce supply of everything that people would buy, which would drive prices up, which would lessen demand, which would result in higher unemployment.

At that point wages should start to fall to correct the problem, but thanks to the idiots who think minimum wages help poor people, it can't. So prices stay high, and people stay unemployed until inflation corrects the over payments by devaluing the dollars.


Is this your first day here or what?

Unless we don't live in a pure free-market economy. And we don't live in free-market economy.

A raise in the minimum wage would be inflationary, no question. But not that much. Most people don't make minimum wage,
the price of the stuff won't go up by that much. $22/hr is of course way off base. But, we do have a minimum wage, raising the minimum wage is not more government at all. Same government, different $. I can't see the political benefit of the "poor people aren't poor enough" argument.

We're Ron Paul supporters here. Ron Paul's contribution is to point out that increases in the money supply are what causes inflation, not increases in the minimum wage.

Also, extra $ in the hands of minimum wage workers should result in an increase in demand, which should keep unemployment at bay.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 07:33 PM
Heck throw in the under 30 crowd. How many are walking around with degrees working at Wendys. Wage stagnation is and should be one of the things talked about because it is the root problem of almost ALL of our problems. Average American household income adjusted for inflation is just slightly up since the 80s but over the same time we went from a 1 earner household to a 2 earner household.

That should be alarming to everyone here. Somebody is screwing the pooch.

The wage has stagnated because a large segment has no valuable job skills. And a PhD. in Russian Literature is not the best skill set for programming a database application for Oracle.

Danan
03-18-2013, 07:35 PM
This is a topic that I thought Ron Paul always did a very poor job of explaining. Ron would always talk about how the money has lost it's value, but he never would mention that the very same inflation that inflates the currency also inflates peoples' wages. Ron occasionally tried to explain his argument but I think it was lost on most voters: namely that the inflationary effect of printing money is significantly more costly to the bulk of Americans as opposed to the "early recipients" of the newly created money, because it takes many months for the newly created money to fully exert its inflationary effect throughout the macroeconomy and by that time the money has long since been spent by (as Ron would say) "the people that get to use it first." Ron Paul's other concern with monetary inflation was for people on fixed incomes such as perhaps some retirees.

I don't know about that, tbh. Rational expectations theory makes quite a good argument that this, at least in this very general form, would only work once. As soon as workers expect the price level to rise at a specific rate (and are right about their expectations) they would generally negate the effect of higher prices at the end of the year by demanding higher wages today to compensate for that.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by jbauer http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=4931492#post4931492)no one has been able to explain to me why its ok for Ron Paul to run around bitching that a mercery dime still buys a gallon of gas as an example of how our monetary system if f'ed up but how its not ok for Mrs Warren to make the exact same argument only substituting sliver for minimum wage.

Because the government doesn't set the value of the silver, and it has no legitimate business setting the minimum wage.

I'm not sure how old you are, but in the mid-90's, wages started skyrocketing. Fast food places were paying almost double the minimum wage, offering health insurance, signing bonuses, paid vacations.....I was absolutely sure that the prices were going to start rising so fast that 90% of those places would go out of business.

Instead, immigrants flooded in and retired people returned to the work force. If you want to blame anybody for stealing "your" money, that's who you should be blaming. Those other low skilled bastards.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 07:40 PM
With equal real wages a single earner houshold in the 80s would have half the material wealth like a two earner household today. If you don't believe that, than your real problem is not stagnating real wages.

I thought "equal real wages" were, by definition, "equal purchasing power." Classically speaking, a real wage needn't be expressed in money, it can be an amount of physical output.

Danan
03-18-2013, 07:41 PM
Unless we don't live in a pure free-market economy. And we don't live in free-market economy.

A raise in the minimum wage would be inflationary, no question. But not that much. Most people don't make minimum wage,
the price of the stuff won't go up by that much. $22/hr is of course way off base. But, we do have a minimum wage, raising the minimum wage is not more government at all. Same government, different $. I can't see the political benefit of the "poor people aren't poor enough" argument.

It won't be inflationary (at least in the longer term). With constant production, only an increase in the money supply increases the price level. The only effect of an increase in the minimum wage is that those (or at least many of them) who earn the minimum wage now are going to be unemployed. The minimum wage is just a barrier of entry, not a floor that can be raised for those standing on it.


Also, extra $ in the hands of minimum wage workers should result in an increase in demand, which should keep unemployment at bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Danan
03-18-2013, 07:43 PM
I thought "equal real wages" were, by definition, "equal purchasing power." Classically speaking, a real wage needn't be expressed in money, it can be an amount of physical output.

Yeah, he was saying (or implying) that in the 80s there were single earners, while today two people are needed for the same real income. My argument is that if you have two income earners with the same real wage as one earner, you have twice the real income. Or to put it differently, if it is in fact true that there are now two income earners in contrast to only one in the 80s, it is not to stay at the same real income, but because people seemingly want twice as much stuff.

anaconda
03-18-2013, 07:44 PM
I don't know about that, tbh. Rational expectations theory makes quite a good argument that this, at least in this very general form, would only work once. As soon as workers expect the price level to rise at a specific rate (and are right about their expectations) they would generally negate the effect of higher prices at the end of the year by demanding higher wages today to compensate for that.

Yes. I never felt fully comfortable with Dr. Paul's reasoning on this. I forget what the empirical data says about rational expectations...I think the theory would predict stronger adjustments to household spending and savings decisions than what we actually observe.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 07:51 PM
Yes. And if we did that, the prices of everyday things wouldn't require us to make 22 dollars an hour to afford. Ron Paul made my day when he pulled out the mercury dime during the debate.


That's where you're wrong. Adjusted for inflation, almost everything costs less now than it did then. Not to mention that you guys who can't imagine life without a minimum wage probably never lived in a world without video games and color tv. Forget about computers and cell phones.

When I wanted to call my grandmother in the ame state, the family would only let me talk for a few minutes because long distance was expensive. Now I can call her and talk to her for as long as I want, because I pay $20 a month flat rate.

http://www.aei.org/article/the-myth-of-a-stagnant-middle-class/


Third and most important, the average hourly wage is held down by the great increase of women and immigrants into the workforce over the past three decades. Precisely because the U.S. economy was flexible and strong, it created millions of jobs for the influx of many often lesser-skilled workers who sought employment during these years.

Since almost all lesser-skilled workers entering the workforce in any given year are paid wages lower than the average, the measured statistic, "average hourly wage," remained stagnant over the years—even while the real wages of actual flesh-and-blood workers employed in any given year rose over time as they gained more experience and skills.



Americans are also much better able to enjoy their longer lives. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, spending by households on many of modern life's "basics"—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today.


Today, air travel for many Americans is as routine as bus travel was during the disco era, thanks to a 50% decline in the real price of airfares since 1980.


Today, the quantities and qualities of what ordinary Americans consume are closer to that of rich Americans than they were in decades past. Consider the electronic products that every middle-class teenager can now afford—iPhones, iPads, iPods and laptop computers. They aren't much inferior to the electronic gadgets now used by the top 1% of American income earners, and often they are exactly the same.


Despite assertions by progressives who complain about stagnant wages, inequality and the (always) disappearing middle class, middle-class Americans have more buying power than ever before. They live longer lives and have much greater access to the services and consumer products bought by billionaires.

So freaking cry me a river.

Danan
03-18-2013, 07:52 PM
Because the government doesn't set the value of the silver, and it has no legitimate business setting the minimum wage.

I'm not sure how old you are, but in the mid-90's, wages started skyrocketing. Fast food places were paying almost double the minimum wage, offering health insurance, signing bonuses, paid vacations.....I was absolutely sure that the prices were going to start rising so fast that 90% of those places would go out of business.

Instead, immigrants flooded in and retired people returned to the work force. If you want to blame anybody for stealing "your" money, that's who you should be blaming. Those other low skilled bastards.

Since those incoming people also demand equal to their wages (after all, that's why they work), the number of workers shouldn't change the real wage. If anything it should go up because of more specialization.

The only way incoming labor force with a low skill set could effectively lower the real wage of the old low-skill segment, was if these incoming people would demand unproportionally much high-skilled labor. So if Mexican immigrants are really deep into computer programms, experimental physics equipment and going to the opera, that would make sense.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 07:54 PM
Yeah, he was saying (or implying) that in the 80s there were single earners, while today two people are needed for the same real income. My argument is that if you have two income earners with the same real wage as one earner, you have twice the real income. Or to put it differently, if it is in fact true that there are now two income earners in contrast to only one in the 80s, it is not to stay at the same real income, but because people seemingly want twice as much stuff.


So you're saying twice as many people are now competing for the jobs, but then agreeing with the assertion that wage aren't rising because of a bankster plot?

Danan
03-18-2013, 07:57 PM
Yes. I never felt fully comfortable with Dr. Paul's reasoning on this. I forget what the empirical data says about rational expectations...I don't think it's significantly influential enough to seamlessly adjust the nominal wage. But I'm getting past my pay grade here! I've been pretty much relying on Econ 1A & 1B in this thread!

I believe the effect that the artificial interest rate has on the capital and labor composition is the more important monetary cause for lower wages.

It is true that those who get the new money first benefit from it, imho. But most employers aren't first in the line of the Fed.

TheGrinch
03-18-2013, 07:59 PM
I love when people advocate for minimum wage. It lets me know immediately that they have no clue what they're talking about....


I know a very liberal economist who even agrees that raising the minimum wage only hurts the disadvantaged (making less while gaining marketable skills is better than making none with no marketable skills).

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:01 PM
Since those incoming people also demand equal to their wages (after all, that's why they work), the number of workers shouldn't change the real wage. If anything it should go up because of more specialization.

It doesn't change the average wage, because wages aren't stagnant over the course of a lifetime. As the worker aquires skills and experience, his wages will indeed rise, but the younger workers under him still have to start out making less.

Workers who enter the workforce with specialized skills indeed make more money.
Third and most important (http://www.aei.org/article/the-myth-of-a-stagnant-middle-class/), the average hourly wage is held down by the great increase of women and immigrants into the workforce over the past three decades. Precisely because the U.S. economy was flexible and strong, it created millions of jobs for the influx of many often lesser-skilled workers who sought employment during these years.




The only way incoming labor force with a low skill set could effectively lower the real wage of the old low-skill segment, was if these incoming people would demand unproportionally much high-skilled labor. So if Mexican immigrants are really deep into computer programms, experimental physics equipment and going to the opera, that would make sense.

No, because the only way that wages legitimately rise is through a the demand / scarcity function. If there is a shortage of unskilled workers, then business has to either raise wages, or increase the supply. Immigration and the women's movement kept wages from rising.

PaulConventionWV
03-18-2013, 08:03 PM
It is my business to question what the employees of a fortune 500 company are doing. If we truley lived in a freemarket place then it wouldn't. But we don't. Those companies with their quasi government lobist organizations that ensure their meal ticket gets deducted out of my tax dollars and out of the future dollars of my children. Those same companies flocked to the government in 08 & 09 asking for my tax dollars to bail their asses out.

The profits of companies are up from the 60's....gee no friking kidding. Tell me something that hasn't skyrocketed since the 60's.....except nominal wage. Again, I'm not advocating for increasing the minimum wage and haven't through my comments. You say that the CEO had 4-5k people and now has 40-50k people. Great, good for them. Thats a great argument for them making 10x the salary then they did in the 60s not 500x.

I know I'm quite alone here and frankly don't care but no one has been able to explain to me why its ok for Ron Paul to run around bitching that a mercery dime still buys a gallon of gas as an example of how our monetary system if f'ed up but how its not ok for Mrs Warren to make the exact same argument only substituting sliver for minimum wage. Its the same problem caused by the same people that is damaging our country.

Those that can't see this hypocrisy are only kidding themselves. So take your "class warfare" and stick it because we don't live in a free market. Not even remotely close.

The difference is clear. Ron Paul is advocating sound money. Warren is advocating a higher minimum wage. Which one do you agree with? Even if that wasn't her point, I don't think she's exactly a libertarian, so forgive me if I question her dedication to sound money.

misean
03-18-2013, 08:03 PM
Unless we don't live in a pure free-market economy. And we don't live in free-market economy.

A raise in the minimum wage would be inflationary, no question. But not that much. Most people don't make minimum wage,
the price of the stuff won't go up by that much. $22/hr is of course way off base. But, we do have a minimum wage, raising the minimum wage is not more government at all. Same government, different $. I can't see the political benefit of the "poor people aren't poor enough" argument.

We're Ron Paul supporters here. Ron Paul's contribution is to point out that increases in the money supply are what causes inflation, not increases in the minimum wage.

Also, extra $ in the hands of minimum wage workers should result in an increase in demand, which should keep unemployment at bay.

The best way to think of it is in terms of productivity. Will higher labor costs result in more or less efficient production? The answer of course is less efficient. You will have a combination of higher costs of goods for consumers and/or lower profits. Lower profits means less capital reinvestment, which perpetuates lower productivity.

Raising the minimum wage by a small amount isn't going to effect employment much because so few people are on the minimum wage. Minimum wage laws in general affect teenagers. Teenage unemployment is over 30 percent and black teenage unemployment is over 50 percent. Forcing the minimum wage up to $9 like Obama proposes is just going to price the kid in Detroit who went to a lousy school and is from a single parent home, out of the labor market. That in turn has unseen costs down the road.

And that last part about increasing demand is pure Keynes. All unemployment is voluntary in a free market, so there is no keeping unemployment at bay. Demand doesn't drive an economy. Entrepreneurs figuring out how to produce a good at a price that people are willing to pay that satisfies their needs drives the economy. Those entrepreneurs are then able to hire more people. In other words, production is the driver.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:03 PM
I love when people advocate for minimum wage. It lets me know immediately that they have no clue what they're talking about....


I know a very liberal economist who even agrees that raising the minimum wage only hurts the disadvantaged (making less while gaining marketable skills is better than making none with no marketable skills).


Yep. When the economy is booming, the real minimum wage is usually much higher than the government mandate. When the bust occurs, the minimum wage is a price floor, which creates a surplus.

Danan
03-18-2013, 08:04 PM
So you're saying twice as many people are now competing for the jobs, but then agreeing with the assertion that wage aren't rising because of a bankster plot?

I'm a little confused right now tbh. It's quite late here. ;)

I'm not saying that twice as many people are competing for jobs. His assertion was that today twice as many people per family need to go to work. However he didn't deny that real wages are stagnating. If real wages in the 80s and today are the same and if twice as many people per family are earning this same wage, than they simply have twice the income. I'm not saying that any of those assumptions are true, but I didn't make them.

I do believe that without public monetary policy (or policy in general) people today would be better off and would have higher real wages. And also that banks lobby for policies that are not beneficial to most taxpayers. That being said, I give all blame to the politicians who are getting bribed and are actually enacting those policies.

The number of people in an economy does not affect the wage rate negatively, generally speaking.

Does that answer your questions?

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 08:06 PM
That's where you're wrong. Adjusted for inflation, almost everything costs less now than it did then. Not to mention that you guys who can't imagine life without a minimum wage probably never lived in a world without video games and color tv. Forget about computers and cell phones.

When I wanted to call my grandmother in the ame state, the family would only let me talk for a few minutes because long distance was expensive. Now I can call her and talk to her for as long as I want, because I pay $20 a month flat rate.

http://www.aei.org/article/the-myth-of-a-stagnant-middle-class/
So freaking cry me a river.
How much was gas on a relative scale? [I understand the fickle nature of gas prices with regards to what country we want to harrass or buy from] How much was necessities? A gallon of milk, for example, as compared to now? The prices went down for televisions because the parts needed to make them became more easily produced as well as the processes to make them. That doesn't mean that the dollar hasn't lost purchasing power. It isn't that I'm asking for sympathy. I'm asking for you to understand. The days of single income families are over.

Now I'm reasonable and would like to hear other explanations, but so far what I hear is that they are 'printing' billions if not trillions for foreign banks and our own ridiculous expenditures while no one gives two shits if I can eat for the week. Do not tell me how much better off I am than other generations. A lot of bullshit came about in yours if I'm not mistaken. [I'm not trying to be rude] We need to fix this for the future generation. As I'm obviously working for pennies and getting dicked out of any liberty I thought I had.

alucard13mmfmj
03-18-2013, 08:07 PM
Sure. We can raise it to 22/hr. But then a loaf of bread would be 10 dollars and a burger would be 20 bucks.

PaulConventionWV
03-18-2013, 08:13 PM
Unless we don't live in a pure free-market economy. And we don't live in free-market economy.

A raise in the minimum wage would be inflationary, no question. But not that much. Most people don't make minimum wage,
the price of the stuff won't go up by that much. $22/hr is of course way off base. But, we do have a minimum wage, raising the minimum wage is not more government at all. Same government, different $. I can't see the political benefit of the "poor people aren't poor enough" argument.

We're Ron Paul supporters here. Ron Paul's contribution is to point out that increases in the money supply are what causes inflation, not increases in the minimum wage.

Also, extra $ in the hands of minimum wage workers should result in an increase in demand, which should keep unemployment at bay.

The minimum wage can influence inflation, too. You don't have to be a Keynesian to believe this. It's just a side effect of the market we now live in, which is not a free one. If the minimum waged was raised to $22/hr, you can bet your ass that prices would go up for everything. The economy would go haywire. Now, if we're talking about $9/hr, then maybe it wouldn't affect YOU that much, but places where minimum wage is common would be hit hard, such as fast food and grocery stores. Prices would most certainly go up and more people would be out of work.

Also, an increase in demand for work doesn't necessarily curtail unemployment. No matter how much some people want work, businesses won't be willing to hire them for $9/hr. You really should try to educate yourself before making assumptions that you can't back up.

Danan
03-18-2013, 08:15 PM
It doesn't change the average wage, because wages aren't stagnant over the course of a lifetime. As the worker aquires skills and experience, his wages will indeed rise, but the younger workers under him still have to start out making less.

Workers who enter the workforce with specialized skills indeed make more money.

No, because the only way that wages legitimately rise is through a the demand / scarcity function. If there is a shortage of unskilled workers, then business has to either raise wages, or increase the supply. Immigration and the women's movement kept wages from rising.

The problem is that you only focus on one side of the equation. Yes, more workers in one segment will cause the supply curve of labor to shift. But these people are going to spend their money. And if we assume that they spend it in the same proportion as the rest of their work segment, they won't change wage rates, because the demand curve of labor will shift proportionally.

Only if they demand/consume very different products would the wage rates across segments change.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:17 PM
How much was gas on a relative scale? [I understand the fickle nature of gas prices with regards to what country we want to harrass or buy from] How much was necessities? A gallon of milk, for example, as compared to now? The prices went down for televisions because the parts needed to make them became more easily produced as well as the processes to make them. That doesn't mean that the dollar hasn't lost purchasing power. It isn't that I'm asking for sympathy. I'm asking for you to understand. The days of single income families are over.

Well, you're talking to a woman who quit a lucrative position to be a stay-home Mom so you're going to have a tough time convincing me that the days of single income families are over.

There's no doubt that the government has effed up the market, but in that prosperous era I mentioned above, lots of women I worked with quit to stay home, because wages were rising significantly enough to allow them to stay at home.

And again, measuring everything by the hours it takes to earn it, everything is cheaper now than it was then. I'm busy, so I'm not going to do your homework, but go look it up. In the 60's, a person had to work for an hour to afford a loaf of bread. Now most of us can earn one in 10 minutes.

As a share of household spending, the US has the most affordable food in world (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/chart-of-the-day-as-a-share-of-household-spending-the-us-has-the-most-affordable-food-in-world/)







Now I'm reasonable and would like to hear other explanations, but so far what I hear is that they are 'printing' billions if not trillions for foreign banks and our own ridiculous expenditures while no one gives two shits if I can eat for the week. Do not tell me how much better off I am than other generations. A lot of bullshit came about in yours if I'm not mistaken. [I'm not trying to be rude] We need to fix this for the future generation. As I'm obviously working for pennies and getting dicked out of any liberty I thought I had.

I think the only thing you get dicked out of was an education.

Danan
03-18-2013, 08:21 PM
How much was gas on a relative scale? [I understand the fickle nature of gas prices with regards to what country we want to harrass or buy from] How much was necessities? A gallon of milk, for example, as compared to now? The prices went down for televisions because the parts needed to make them became more easily produced as well as the processes to make them. That doesn't mean that the dollar hasn't lost purchasing power. It isn't that I'm asking for sympathy. I'm asking for you to understand. The days of single income families are over.

Now I'm reasonable and would like to hear other explanations, but so far what I hear is that they are 'printing' billions if not trillions for foreign banks and our own ridiculous expenditures while no one gives two shits if I can eat for the week. Do not tell me how much better off I am than other generations. A lot of bullshit came about in yours if I'm not mistaken. [I'm not trying to be rude] We need to fix this for the future generation. As I'm obviously working for pennies and getting dicked out of any liberty I thought I had.

If we assume that real wages are indeed stagnant, then the material wealth of the general laborer is the same today as it was in the 80s. Given how much technology advanced that is really tragic. But nevertheless, given that this is true, purchasing power for one hour of labor is roughly the same.

If someone wants to tackle these statistics I'm not opposed to that. But I believe it's useful to make clear what we are talking about. We can't complain about stagnating real wages and then in the next sentence state that everything's more (or less) expensive today (in real terms).

BAllen
03-18-2013, 08:23 PM
No, because the only way that wages legitimately rise is through a the demand / scarcity function. If there is a shortage of unskilled workers, then business has to either raise wages, or increase the supply. Immigration and the women's movement kept wages from rising.

Right!
Mexicans have dramatically cut wages in the building industry. Skilled carpenters make much less now because of it. Add to that the exodus of higher paying factory jobs, whose former workers now make less in the retail market (if at all), and draw a check from the government. Have housing and food prices dropped to adjust? Nope! Taxes, regulations, and zoning keep them high. Some things are cheaper, such as electronics, but not the largest expenses of housing, and healthcare, gasoline, car expense, etc.
The market has made adjustments for everyday items you'll find in dollar stores, and thrift shops, despite our monetary system. I found a 100 ct. box of tea bags for $1. 6 roll bathroom tissue for $1. 3 pack paper towels for $1.50. What happens if people quit paying for name brands? They would have to drop their prices to compete. The market will adjust, if it's allowed to. As more people shop thrift stores, mfrs. will have to drop their prices of new products to compete. So, all that money they thought they were saving by moving overseas won't be there. The monetary system isn't the problem.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:24 PM
The problem is that you only focus on one side of the equation. Yes, more workers in one segment will cause the supply curve of labor to shift. But these people are going to spend their money. And if we assume that they spend it in the same proportion as the rest of their work segment, they won't change wage rates, because the demand curve of labor will shift proportionally.

Only if they demand/consume very different products would the wage rates across segments change.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but what I'm saying couldn't be any simpler. A higher supply of laborers means lower wages.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:28 PM
If we assume that real wages are indeed stagnant, then the material wealth of the general laborer is the same today as it was in the 80s. Given how much technology advanced that is really tragic. But nevertheless, given that this is true, purchasing power for one hour of labor is roughly the same.

If someone wants to tackle these statistics I'm not opposed to that. But I believe it's useful to make clear what we are talking about. We can't complain about stagnating real wages and then in the next sentence state that everything's more (or less) expensive today (in real terms).

To clarify, I'm saying that
The average hourly wage in real dollars has remained largely unchanged from at least 1964—when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started reporting it. (http://www.aei.org/article/the-myth-of-a-stagnant-middle-class/) - that this "stagnating wage" hysteria is just noise from the left.

JorgeStevenson
03-18-2013, 08:31 PM
I think when people talk about wages over time they tend to only talk about dollar amounts, rather than what those dollars actually buy. Think of all the things that literally cost NOTHING in 2013 -

- Pandora, grooveshark, etc. (free on-demand streaming of virtually any song you could want)
- Free encyclopedias (wikipedia)
- Free classes (youtube, MIT & Harvard, Khan Academy)
- Free games (iPad, facebook, World of Warcraft)
- Free books (amazon)
- Free TV shows (youtube, network websites)

The average person making minimum wage in 2013 is so much better off than the dude making minimum wage in 1968. Sure the guy in 1968 was paying half for gas, food, and electricity. But did he have a cellphone that could make free calls via wi-fi to anyone in the world (Skype)? Could he carry his entire music collection in his pocket, all of which he "acquired" for free? Could he get the latest news from around the world, including news on niche topics, all on his cell phone or ipod for free over wifi?

When you just throw up the numbers, sure, it looks like a real sob story. But it's a tough sell, to me, to say that the average worker is worse off now than they were long ago.

TheGrinch
03-18-2013, 08:33 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about, but what I'm saying couldn't be any simpler. A higher supply of laborers means lower wages.

Yep, what so many people neglect is why its such a small percentage of jobs are minimum wage. Competition will dictate at what wage that can attract an employee that's worth what they're paying. Sad for us that this shit economy means they can find a good employee less (according to inflation), but that's how a market works. Labor is a market, where what you're willing to work for matters just as much as what they're willing to pay.

Danan
03-18-2013, 08:33 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about, but what I'm saying couldn't be any simpler. A higher supply of laborers means lower wages.

No it doesn't. A higher supply of labor shifts the labor supply curve to the right. More people engaging in productive activity also means more demand for goods and services. This causes the demand curve for labor to shift to the right, too. For the same amount, on an aggregate level. The result is a greater amount of labor hours for the same wage rate.

If those people were slaves who are not allowed to consume than what you say might be true. If they are subject to the same free market forces like everybody else, they would soon be employed at a wage roughly matching their marginal productivity. Since we said they are in the same labor segment like other people (namely low skilled), they will work for the same wage rate, at least after a short period of time.

Or else all of economics is wrong.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:34 PM
If we assume that real wages are indeed stagnant, then the material wealth of the general laborer is the same today as it was in the 80s. Given how much technology advanced that is really tragic. But nevertheless, given that this is true, purchasing power for one hour of labor is roughly the same.

If someone wants to tackle these statistics I'm not opposed to that. But I believe it's useful to make clear what we are talking about. We can't complain about stagnating real wages and then in the next sentence state that everything's more (or less) expensive today (in real terms).


http://www.optimist123.com/.a/6a00d83451c0c869e2010536849242970c-pi


Not only did we earn more than enough real income to pay for the real goods and services we bought in most years since 1929 (in spite of the dollar's depreciation), we also earned about 5 times more real income (and bought 5 times more real stuff) in 2007 than in 1929. Our standard of living didn't get worse, it got a lot better! http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2008/12/purchasing-power-propaganda.html

Note that the mid-90's era I referred to is reflected in this chart, too. If the government hadn't allowed millions and millions of low skilled workers to enter the country, this chart would look much different.

In the meantime, I think it looks like the social security bubble is the most likely culprit.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 08:34 PM
Well, you're talking to a woman who quit a lucrative position to be a stay-home Mom so you're going to have a tough time convincing me that the days of single income families are over.
That is good to hear. The thing is that the majority of Americans cannot. I didn't want as a child. But there wasn't any extras and every week was a new week. The money never did go far enough. [this was a single worker household]



There's no doubt that the government has effed up the market, but in that prosperous era I mentioned above, lots of women I worked with quit to stay home, because wages were rising significantly enough to allow them to stay at home.

And again, measuring everything by the hours it takes to earn it, everything is cheaper now than it was then. I'm busy, so I'm not going to do your homework, but go look it up. In the 60's, a person had to work for an hour to afford a loaf of bread. Now most of us can earn one in 10 minutes.

The problem with measuring things by the hours it takes to earn it is that the processes have advanced. It is cheaper to buy with machinery, GMOs, hormones etc. [the governement subsidies are another subject] What did gas cost? What did a home cost? What did a car cost? Inflation is rampant. I really don't know if I buy into the 20 dollars then buys the same as now. My 20 dollars last year didn't buy the same as now.



I think the only thing you get dicked out of was an education.
I'm not sure if that is intentionally an insult but I am actually one of the more educated I've come across. I [I]seek to learn everything and learn dozens of new things daily. As a '90s baby I will tell you that by the time I am of any considerable age I will be 100 times more well versed than I am now.

In case it wasn't some snide, short-handed, bitchy remark, yeah, public education sux.

TheGrinch
03-18-2013, 08:35 PM
We also have a consumption based economy, so its not really in their interests either to pay slave wages (and even then, someone would be willibg to pay more for better workers, and competition will inevitably work its magic)

BAllen
03-18-2013, 08:40 PM
We also have a consumption based economy, so its not really in their interests either to pay slave wages (and even then, someone would be willibg to pay more for better workers, and competition will inevitably work its magic)

They don't think that far ahead, and they rig prices with regulations. They're short sighted. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you export jobs and import labor, there will be less revenue for the government, and less people buying houses at the rigged rates. But they were too short sighted to see that, or didn't care. When incomes dropped, they forced bad loans, which resulted in foreclosures, then bailouts.

Danan
03-18-2013, 08:41 PM
To clarify, I'm saying that - that this "stagnating wage" hysteria is just noise from the left.

I agree with you to some extend. But there is some truth in that wages should have risen, as productivity has risen. Not because I say so, but because wages would have risen, had the government not been meddling in the economy. Or at least it would have been easier for people to become capital owners, whose income increased dramatically.

But the left usually uses it to point out how "morally wrong" the free market is, were only capitalists get richer on the "costs" of the worker. They are actually implying the labor theory of value when arguing that way, whether they know that or not. And that's just completely wrong, I agree with you.

People aren't morally entitled to earn more as productivity increases just because Karl Marx said so. Paying your employee a market wage is not exploitation.

They would, however, more than likely be much wealthier without the government intervening in the economy and that's worth pointing out.

otherone
03-18-2013, 08:44 PM
I'm not sure how old you are, but in the mid-90's, wages started skyrocketing. Fast food places were paying almost double the minimum wage, offering health insurance, signing bonuses, paid vacations.....I was absolutely sure that the prices were going to start rising so fast that 90% of those places would go out of business.

Instead, immigrants flooded in and retired people returned to the work force. If you want to blame anybody for stealing "your" money, that's who you should be blaming. Those other low skilled bastards.

It was NAFTA followed by our trade agreements with Asia that effed us over. Instead of "opening foreign markets" it gutted our manufacturing base. Decent skilled workers were forced to work at lower wages because industry packed up and moved abroad. Suddenly McDonalds and WalMarx no longer had to offer anything above minimum wage to find employees. The minimum wage became government-mandated price fixing.

TheGrinch
03-18-2013, 08:46 PM
They don't think that far ahead, and they rig prices with regulations. They're short sighted. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you export jobs and import labor, there will be less revenue for the government, and less people buying houses at the rigged rates. But they were too short sighted to see that, or didn't care. When incomes dropped, they forced bad loans, which resulted in foreclosures, then bailouts.

Yes, regulations like minimum wage that actually help maintain the status quo (it hurts small businesses disproportionately because they need to be able to get what they're paying their employees. They can easily be priced out because they can't be as efficient or able to rely on technology instead like the volume dealers. You're only placing them at a bigger disadvantage to not be able to pay less if the work is only worth less pay)

Anyways, I thought this was a conversation about ending shortsighted regulations in favor of a free market, not discussing the way some game the system through regulations like this.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:47 PM
I agree with you to some extend. But there is some truth in that wages should have risen, as productivity has risen.

They have in most of the skilled labor sectors. It's just the entry level workers who aren't making $22 an hour that are complaining. But as the work force grows, the unskilled, low paid base grows the most. In America, it's just a phase that people go through. You don't make a career out of minimum wage jobs - you move up the ladder, and one of the recently graduated high school kids takes your place.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:47 PM
It was NAFTA followed by our trade agreements with Asia that effed us over. Instead of "opening foreign markets" it gutted our manufacturing base. Decent skilled workers were forced to work at lower wages because industry packed up and moved abroad. Suddenly McDonalds and WalMarx no longer had to offer anything above minimum wage to find employees. The minimum wage became government-mandated price fixing.

You spelled Walmart wrong, and they pay above minimum wage. Because being a cashier or a burger flipper isn't really a long term career choice, those were the jobs that always traditionally paid minimum wages....even when it was Mom & Pop places paying minimum wage (With no benefits, either.) They are entry level, no-skill required jobs.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 08:48 PM
If we assume that real wages are indeed stagnant, then the material wealth of the general laborer is the same today as it was in the 80s. Given how much technology advanced that is really tragic. But nevertheless, given that this is true, purchasing power for one hour of labor is roughly the same.

If someone wants to tackle these statistics I'm not opposed to that. But I believe it's useful to make clear what we are talking about. We can't complain about stagnating real wages and then in the next sentence state that everything's more (or less) expensive today (in real terms).
The technologies and processes for making certain products have advanced. I am not sure how much a transistor cost to make in the '70s. I am sure that it is more, relatively, than it costs now, though. Add in machine labor and I could see why the relative prices remain about the same.

The value of your dollar goes down, and the processes of making what you wish to buy become cheaper, faster etc. They level off, more or less. I've noticed food being sold at the same price but with a smaller bag. Rather, the bag is the same size, but the amount of food is less. Twenty dollars today would not buy me as much as it would five years ago. And I am old enough to remember $1.25 gas.

Danan
03-18-2013, 08:53 PM
It was NAFTA followed by our trade agreements with Asia that effed us over. Instead of "opening foreign markets" it gutted our manufacturing base. Decent skilled workers were forced to work at lower wages because industry packed up and moved abroad. Suddenly McDonalds and WalMarx no longer had to offer anything above minimum wage to find employees. The minimum wage became government-mandated price fixing.

Normally that wouldn't be a huge problem. For every product people in the US import there has to be an export of equal price eventually. The reason why it's not quite that way with the US is that many countries around the world seem to believe that the US $ is not only a means to aquire goods essentially, but a product in and of itself that is worth having. They have little intention to trade them in for actual goods.

That being said, they are essentially just shipping you free stuff. It's a difficult claim to make that getting free stuff is that damaging. Yes, some of the jobs previously producing what is now being shipped in for free are going to go extinct. But these people can now provide the next urgent wants of others.

So there might be some transitionary damage to some people, but overall, and certainly over a longer period, that's actually a good thing. Unless other countries suddenly stop to demand dollars and want to trade in their money for actual goods when there is only a huge service industry that they can't use from abroad... but until then...

anaconda
03-18-2013, 08:53 PM
I'm not sure how old you are, but in the mid-90's, wages started skyrocketing. Fast food places were paying almost double the minimum wage, offering health insurance, signing bonuses, paid vacations.....I was absolutely sure that the prices were going to start rising so fast that 90% of those places would go out of business.

Instead, immigrants flooded in and retired people returned to the work force. If you want to blame anybody for stealing "your" money, that's who you should be blaming. Those other low skilled bastards.

Something like a revved up dot com boom causing a massive surge in demand for IT products and everything else in the economy (including fast food) will push up the real wage, with the resultant hiring of increasingly less productive workers willing to enter the work force in response to the higher real wage. Optimistic expectations for the future might also further push the demand function into a speculative bubble. Low skilled immigrants would simply provide the additional labor needed for Burger King to meet the demands of the IT workers and others. If you are implying that price increases of goods caused retired people to return to the labor force it seems that it would be more due to the stampede for IT investment spending, as opposed to an unskilled immigrant agreeing to fill a vacancy at Burger King. Plus, a retiree's portfolio would presumably benefit in these conditions.

otherone
03-18-2013, 08:54 PM
You spelled Walmart wrong, and they pay above minimum wage.

Misspelling aside, wasn't NAFTA mid-nineties? What effect did that have on the job market? You were around then, right?

angelatc
03-18-2013, 08:54 PM
Normally that wouldn't be a huge problem. For every product people in the US import there has to be an export of equal price eventually. The reason why it's not quite that way with the US is that many countries around the world seem to believe that the US $ is not only a means to aquire goods essentially, but a product in and of itself that is worth having. They have little intention to trade them in for actual goods.

That being said, they are essentially just shipping you free stuff. It's a difficult claim to make that getting free stuff is that damaging. Yes, some of the jobs previously producing what is now being shipped in for free are going to go extinct. But these people can now provide the next urgent wants of others.

So there might be some transitionary damage to some people, but overall, and certainly over a longer period, that's actually a good thing. Unless other countries suddenly stop to demand dollars and want to trade in their money for actual goods when there is only a huge service industry that they can't use from abroad... but until then...


It's hard to argue that cheap prices are bad for consumers, that's for sure.

Danan
03-18-2013, 08:56 PM
The technologies and processes for making certain products have advanced. I am not sure how much a transistor cost to make in the '70s. I am sure that it is more, relatively, than it costs now, though. Add in machine labor and I could see why the relative prices remain about the same.

The value of your dollar goes down, and the processes of making what you wish to buy become cheaper, faster etc. They level off, more or less. I've noticed food being sold at the same price but with a smaller bag. Rather, the bag is the same size, but the amount of food is less. Twenty dollars today would not buy me as much as it would five years ago. And I am old enough to remember $1.25 gas.

I'm not saying there was no inflation. I'm talking about prices in terms of labor hours. Real wages don't take nominal terms into account. It's what could one hour of labor buy you in point x and what in point y. The claim is that it has been stagnant. And that takes into account changes in the quality/composition/packaging of products. I don't know if that claim is true, though.

TheGrinch
03-18-2013, 08:57 PM
The technologies and processes for making certain products have advanced. I am not sure how much a transistor cost to make in the '70s. I am sure that it is more, relatively, than it costs now, though. Add in machine labor and I could see why the relative prices remain about the same.

The value of your dollar goes down, and the processes of making what you wish to buy become cheaper, faster etc. They level off, more or less. I've noticed food being sold at the same price but with a smaller bag. Rather, the bag is the same size, but the amount of food is less. Twenty dollars today would not buy me as much as it would five years ago. And I am old enough to remember $1.25 gas.
I turned 16 in 1998, and that summer it got down to 79¢ a gallon. I filled my little civic up for 8 bucks. Just unfathomable after recently paying $70 for only twice the gas. PProbably one of the few sectors I wouldn't mind regulation is in oil speculation, because it only exacerbates the problem. Should not publicly traded IMO, but I'd happily concede that for a truly free economy.

JorgeStevenson
03-18-2013, 08:58 PM
The value of your dollar goes down, and the processes of making what you wish to buy become cheaper, faster etc. They level off, more or less. I've noticed food being sold at the same price but with a smaller bag. Rather, the bag is the same size, but the amount of food is less. Twenty dollars today would not buy me as much as it would five years ago. And I am old enough to remember $1.25 gas.

But the $4 gas today comes with low cost GPS on your cellphone, free google maps, social networking apps that allow you to skip high-traffic areas, the ability to bring your entire music collection with you while you drive, the ability to order your take-out while you wait at a stop light, the ability to listen to Ron Paul on-demand while you drive via youtube etc. Isn't it rather rudimentary to compare prices from two different eras, look at the lower one, and automatically say it must be better? It would cost billions of dollars to do in the $1.25 gas era what you can do today for just $4.

otherone
03-18-2013, 09:05 PM
Normally that wouldn't be a huge problem. For every product people in the US import there has to be an export of equal price eventually.

Manufacturing has plummeted in the West (and Japan)in the last 15 years. Pardon my naivete, but you can't offset a 44 billion trade deficit with cheeseburgers.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 09:06 PM
Something like a revved up dot com boom would cause a massive surge in demand for IT products and everything else in the economy (including fast food), and push up the real wage. This would cause the hiring of increasingly less productive workers willing to enter the work force in response to the higher real wage. Optimistic expectations for the future might also further push the demand function into a speculative bubble. Low skilled immigrants would simply provide the labor needed for Burger King to meet the demands of the IT workers and others. If you are implying that price increases of goods caused retired people to return to the labor force it seems that it would be more due to the stampede for IT investment spending, as opposed to an unskilled immigrant agreeing to fill a vacancy at Burger King. Plus, a retiree's portfolio would presumably benefit in these conditions.

No I was implying that wages rose high enough to make the return to the workforce attractive.

Prices didn't rise all that much, because the labor flooded the market quickly enough to keep labor prices down. As for meeting demand, I think I would have preferred the alternative - $10 Big Macs, with BK and Hardees just folding under the pressures.

Danan
03-18-2013, 09:06 PM
But the $4 gas today comes with low cost GPS on your cellphone, free google maps, social networking apps that allow you to skip high-traffic areas, the ability to bring your entire music collection with you while you drive, the ability to order your take-out while you wait at a stop light, the ability to listen to Ron Paul on-demand while you drive via youtube etc. Isn't it rather rudimentary to compare prices from two different eras, look at the lower one, and automatically say it must be better? It would cost billions of dollars to do in the $1.25 gas era what you can do today for just $4.

True, comparisons between two periods in time are always inherently flawed. There is no real scientific basis for that. That being said, those statistics can still be quite insightful if you know how to interprete them.

angelatc
03-18-2013, 09:09 PM
Misspelling aside, wasn't NAFTA mid-nineties? What effect did that have on the job market? You were around then, right?


Sure, and manufacturing capital went to where it would get the greatest return. Low wages, less environmental controls, no unions - jobs went offshore. those 10% annual raises we were getting stopped.

Danan
03-18-2013, 09:11 PM
Manufacturing has plummeted in the West (and Japan)in the last 15 years. Pardon my naivete, but you can't offset a 44 billion trade deficit with cheeseburgers.

Why would you want to offset a trade deficit? Normally the other side would want to offset their surplus. But if they don't want to, all the better for you. As I said, unless foreigners stop sending free stuff and the US can't offset those missing goods quickly enough because resources need time to reallocate, there is no damage done by a trade deficit. If you could be 100% sure that there would always be an ever growing trade deficit, that would be the best case scenario.

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 09:13 PM
But the $4 gas today comes with low cost GPS on your cellphone, free google maps, social networking apps that allow you to skip high-traffic areas, the ability to bring your entire music collection with you while you drive, the ability to order your take-out while you wait at a stop light, the ability to listen to Ron Paul on-demand while you drive via youtube etc. Isn't it rather rudimentary to compare prices from two different eras, look at the lower one, and automatically say it must be better? It would cost billions of dollars to do in the $1.25 gas era what you can do today for just $4.
Gas prices do not have anything to do with the other, such as the GPS that Google provides, for example. [largely] Quite honestly I'd prefer a cell phone that doesn't give up information warrantlessly and doesn't track my every move. It's kind of creepy. I wish I could opt out and just pay reasonable prices at the pump. [not that I even 'can' drive- those assholes] I like my cars 'stupid.' I like my phones 'dumb.' And I really am skeptical of the advantages of being advertised to on a second by second basis. I've mentioned that I wish I did grow up before '1984' and that much is true. The generation ahead of me is going to be conditioned to that nonsense. [not that there aren't plenty of good features of it]

otherone
03-18-2013, 09:18 PM
Why would you want to offset a trade deficit? Normally the other side would want to offset their surplus. But if they don't want to, all the better for you. As I said, unless foreigners stop sending free stuff and the US can't offset those missing goods quickly enough because resources need time to reallocate, there is no damage done by a trade deficit. If you could be 100% sure that there would always be an ever growing trade deficit, that would be the best case scenario.

So it's ok that we've become almost a completely service-based economy since 1975, and have replaced decent paying manufacturing jobs with low paying service jobs? Why does everyone complain about things like outsourcing, then? We don't want to be a producer of goods?

anaconda
03-18-2013, 09:20 PM
No I was implying that wages rose high enough to make the return to the workforce attractive.

Prices didn't rise all that much, because the labor flooded the market quickly enough to keep labor prices down. As for meeting demand, I think I would have preferred the alternative - $10 Big Macs, with BK and Hardees just folding under the pressures.

Ah! Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood you. Yet, I'm still not quite clear how "low skilled" workers "stole" anyone's money?

Brian4Liberty
03-18-2013, 09:31 PM
http://i.imgur.com/nmg4GB9.jpg

Warren, Obama and McCain. 3 of a kind.

Matt Lauer can suck it.

parocks
03-18-2013, 09:32 PM
The minimum wage can influence inflation, too. You don't have to be a Keynesian to believe this. It's just a side effect of the market we now live in, which is not a free one. If the minimum waged was raised to $22/hr, you can bet your ass that prices would go up for everything. The economy would go haywire. Now, if we're talking about $9/hr, then maybe it wouldn't affect YOU that much, but places where minimum wage is common would be hit hard, such as fast food and grocery stores. Prices would most certainly go up and more people would be out of work.

Also, an increase in demand for work doesn't necessarily curtail unemployment. No matter how much some people want work, businesses won't be willing to hire them for $9/hr. You really should try to educate yourself before making assumptions that you can't back up.

Yes, raising the minimum wage is inflationary. But I don't think much. The minimum wage goes up periodically, and I don't remember hearing much about those nasty negative effects of the minimum wage hikes.

The McDonalds dollar menu still exists. We're talking pennies here. The inflationary effects are very minor even in fast food and grocery.

There is nothing at all interesting, novel, particularly Ron Paulish about opposing a hike in the minimum wage. It's just says "I don't care about poor people". I'm not talking about $22/hr either. More like $8.50? 9? A $22/hr minimum wage at any foreseeable time would wreck the economy. The minimum wage was $3.35 30 years ago when gas was less than a dollar, houses and college tuition was 4 times cheaper.

Yes, raising the minimum wage is inflationary. But not compared to the increases in the money supply. Pointing out the inflationary nature of increasing the money supply is what Ron Paul does. Pointing out that wage increases cause inflation is something Mitt Romney would do. Yes, it's true, but it's going "off message". And Mitt Romney is saying "boy, I'm glad I don't have to talk about the minimum wage - the Libertarians are doing it. See, that's what the Libertarians want." Wise to back away from that message.

BAllen
03-18-2013, 09:43 PM
Yes, regulations like minimum wage that actually help maintain the status quo (it hurts small businesses disproportionately because they need to be able to get what they're paying their employees. They can easily be priced out because they can't be as efficient or able to rely on technology instead like the volume dealers. You're only placing them at a bigger disadvantage to not be able to pay less if the work is only worth less pay)

Anyways, I thought this was a conversation about ending shortsighted regulations in favor of a free market, not discussing the way some game the system through regulations like this.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying I'm in favor of minimum wage. What I'm pointing out is that there are repercussions to these actions. If wages are cut, it also cuts the number of available home buyers. So, unless the free market is allowed to compensate for the lower wages, they have no one to sell the houses to at the higher rates. So, what happens to the real estate companies? They are desperate to sell their high priced homes, so they expand the pool of borrowers to include high risk people, which results in a higher percentage of defaults. Regulations take many houses off the market for sale or rent. I can't count the number of empty houses I've seen. Ask the owner why he doesn't rent it to help pay his taxes (which is nothing but government owned land. don't pay they confiscate it). The cost to meet the codes is too expensive. So, they let it sit and rot. You don't get something for nothing. Logically, with lower incomes, we would need a smaller government. Have they responded in kind? Nope! Done just the opposite, even though they've passed these bad trade deals, and huge immigration numbers. Cause and effect.

Dianne
03-18-2013, 09:57 PM
Don't know guys... In 1984 I as a female was making $24,000. per year ... and bitching about it ... As a Human Resource Manager, for a large insurance agency (for which Prescott Bush was on the Board) I would hire male college graduates like Dean Smith's son for twice what I was making.... with no experience.

Now I make nothing, and my husband earns less then I did in 1984. So..................... I didn't go wrong ... worked for 44 years ... why am I broke?

bolil
03-18-2013, 10:06 PM
Don't know guys... In 1984 I as a female was making $24,000. per year ... and bitching about it ... As a Human Resource Manager, for a large insurance agency (for which Prescott Bush was on the Board) I would hire male college graduates like Dean Smith's son for twice what I was making.... with no experience.

Now I make nothing, and my husband earns less then I did in 1984. So..................... I didn't go wrong ... worked for 44 years ... why am I broke?

Only you know that. I mean, it sounds like you are asking people to enrage you. I am 24, I am no Einstein but I am no idiot, why can't I find a job with more promise than flipping burgers, roofing houses, or sticking my hands in other peoples fecal matter infused drains...?

kcchiefs6465
03-18-2013, 10:29 PM
You can further ask oneself why you were led to believe that your $100,000 education would somehow mean you make as much a year. I know the basic reasons as being government intervention in schooling as well as elsewhere, and the government printing enough money as to lose billions. They 'lose' trillions. They literally have lost billions. You could further ask why no one gives a fuck. Is it because them themselves are in a position where the first effects of inflation are merely trivial? I do not know. Them losing billions, with the majority of the American people ready and willing to expand their budget makes me fucking sick. I feel like I was born into a damn twilight zone. The fuck is wrong with my generation, and what the fuck was wrong with your generation? Or should we just chalk it up as propagandist bullshit while we try to correct this problem? And I believe we mostly agree on what the problem is, and what needs to be done to correct it.

COpatriot
03-18-2013, 10:33 PM
What a fucking numbnuts.