CorruptUser wrote:And the majority of those are ex cons. It's hard to feel sorry for them. I mean, we should; if they want to turn their life around and make something of themselves, yeah let them so they don't go back to crime. Really , the problem is that if a company hires an ex con and the ex con does something, the company is liable because they "knew" about the "history". Probably should change the laws to protect businesses from that sort of shit. I mean it's one thing if you hire a convicted pedophile to run a daycare, but it's another if the guy you hired at McD's had been in a fight a decade ago and he assaults a particularly cruel customer. But hard to feel sorry for them.
*shrug* I have nothing against rehabilitating ex cons. But sadly, minimum wage isn't really a good means of addressing that. A *huge* part of the problem is that they simply won't be hired to begin with, high minimum wage or low. As you say, liability is an issue, and addressing that is one potential option.
As for minimum wage employees, yes, that is overwelmingly not their sole income. They also trend very young. Even nowadays, minimum wage as a career is not anything like a normal career trajectory. "living wage" talk does frequently mis-represent the issue.
Thesh wrote:Yes, it can all be done under the guise of "well, we just want to help corporate profits" but what we see as a whole is that a handful of very rich people who have no need for more money are using political connections to further their wealth at the expense of everyone else; there is no explanation for this other than that they are pushing for these policies because they desire more *power* not because they have need for the money.
Much of the rest of the world feels the same way about the US. We are so wealthy in comparison to them, how could we want more?
Well, we do. We always want more. There are people who will, in all seriousness, complain about barely scraping by on a salary of a million dollars. They want more. They have plans for what they will do when they get more. Despite inhabiting a different social strata than you or I, wealth means something very similar to them as it does to us. They still want it for it's own sake. "need" is an incredibly subjective word sometimes.
ucim wrote: People are paid what the job is worth, not what the person is worth.
Worth being defined as what people are paid. Meaningless statement. Change economic policies and all of a sudden the job is worth more. If they are focusing their economy on their people, then they have more goods and services available for their people and thus can pay more making the jobs worth more.
Ah, you believe a centrally controlled economy produces more goods and services. Citation, please.
ucim wrote:[Translation: it's my ox that's getting gored this time.
Translation: The great capitalism God decreed that wages should be X amount, so fuck everyone who is getting screwed by the policies.
You misunderstand. Your dislike of capitalism is not what is being criticized here. The hilarious disconnect between your concern over those getting screwed by low wages here, and people getting screwed by low wages elsewhere is what is being criticized. Self interest is a much more reasonable explanation of this behavior, as your ideology is not consistent.
CorruptUser wrote:Heh, Ayn Rand had a really long speech in Atlas Shrugged about this sort of thing. Paraphrasing. "We all looked at the business owner and saw his mansion and limousine, and decided we deserved to take it from him. What we ignored were the millions of other people who looked at us and our homes and decided they deserved our iceboxes."
That's the second Ayn Rand quote I've seen today that was strangely excellent. The other was regarding the barbarism of slavery. It's...unsettling. I view her philosophies as often simplistic, and her fiction as kinda wooden, but sometimes there are excellent quotes.
Of course, Chairman Mao had some excellent quotes as well.
The hope is that the rise in wages in paid for by reduced manager wages. I wouldn't mind that too much; virtually no employee is worth 8 figures. What we really need is a ban on corporate incest; you should not be on the board of companies where your board members work. But idk how to write that law without screwing over innocent people.
Of course an employee can be worth 8 figures. If not hiring him would be more costly, then obviously, he's worth it. The calculus is the same as for any other employee or wage. It's simply a difficult level to obtain, not an impossible one.
Thesh wrote:1) the inflation bogieman - if wages across all sectors increase with productivity, prices in low productivity sectors go up, prices in competitive sectors that grow productivity above average see prices decrease, and prices everywhere else remain unchanged. Yes, there is some inflation, but overall since all wages go up everyone sees a net benefit. This is what has been happening for as long as productivity has grown and no one felt the pain before. In fact, we even have a 2% inflation target regardless of what wages do.
This misrepresents what inflation is, and why we have that target. It is NOT because inflation is good, and thus, more is better. Inflation has a cost.
The target is simply set at 2% because deflation also has a cost...a particularly painful one, and fiscal policy is not perfectly precise. So, it's safer to err on the side of inflation. Ideally, you'd want a perfectly stable economy without deflation or inflation, but real world considerations mean this is impractical.
This does NOT mean that adding inflation is fine, and will have no impact.