• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

What is crazy is how the capitalist system is what made this country the worlds only superpower with the largest economy but lots of people love to talk about how it doesnt work. kind of strange dont you think
 
LaMidRighter said:
No, I am saying that I need more labor for efficiency, but will settle for inefficiency to make a profit .
Click to expand...

Yet another example of how the system doesn't work. You have to accept ineffciency to be viable.

LaMidRighter said:
Please enlighten me with some actual economic fact instead of your opinion.
Click to expand...


You have admitted yourself that some businesses can't function unless they pay charity wages. In some cases that's not true, as fatcat bosses walk away with big bonuses while people below slog away for next to nothing under the threat of "it's piss poor wages or no job at all" In the case of businesses who really will go bust if they don't pay poverty wages, that is a symptom of a system that doesn't work. You are basically saying that there will always have to be people in poverty on crap wages in order for this system to be propped up - that to me is failure. You want proof that capitalism doesn't work? Look around you at the current crisis. How many honest hard-working people in your country lost their homes? "The market will regulate itself" they told us - look at the **** they've landed us in.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
What is crazy is how the capitalist system is what made this country the worlds only superpower with the largest economy but lots of people love to talk about how it doesnt work. kind of strange dont you think
Click to expand...

Only superpower? China is overtaking you.
Imperialist superpower with years of arrogance in foreign policy behind it. Great achievement!

World's largest economy, with how many in poverty? How many of your citizens have no jobs and no health coverage? Yet you've got the means to lift these people out of poverty. It's your system that doesn't work.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Yet another example of how the system doesn't work. You have to accept ineficiency to be viable.
Click to expand...
You're not exactly getting this are you, I can run at maximum efficiency and survive, but am not taking a cut in my profits for a person to be employed as a screwdriver operator, so the person remains unemployed and someone else has to do more work. I could lighten that person's burden but it's my idea, my ass on the line, and mine to fail alone, so I am so sorry that maybe I want some return on that, as is my right in a capitalist economy.




You have admitted yourself that some businesses can't function unless they pay charity wages.
Click to expand...
That you are seeing this is speaking volumes about you, businesses have to see a return that is worth the prices paid, anything less is viable, but not preferable.
In some cases that's not true, as fatcat bosses walk away with big bonuses while people below slog away for next to nothing under the threat of "it's piss poor wages or no job at all" In the case of businesses who really will go bust if they don't pay poverty wages, that is a symptom of a system that doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Again, overly emotional crap with no facts to back it up.
You are basically saying that there will always have to be people in poverty on crap wages in order for this system to be propped up - that to me is failure.
Click to expand...
It's not system failure, it's personal failure, which the system accounts for, so it works, if you want to better your situation, if you are content to live at low wages and not try harder, your problem.......ALONE.
You want prrof that capitalism doesn't work? Look around you at the current crisis.
Click to expand...
It's not capitalism, try again, it's a socialist/capitalist hybrid and the capitalist part isn't what is failing.
Look around you at the current crisis. How many honest hard-working people in your country lost their homes? "The market will regulate itself" they told us - look at the **** they've landed us in.
Click to expand...
:rofl Your economic ignorance is showing, at what part of this economy was the market left alone, TARP 1, the Stimulus package, talk of a third spending bill, or FANNIE MAE/FREDDY MAC?
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
You're not exactly getting this are you, I can run at maximum efficiency and survive, but am not taking a cut in my profits for a person to be employed as a screwdriver operator, so the person remains unemployed and someone else has to do more work. I could lighten that person's burden but it's my idea, my ass on the line, and mine to fail alone, so I am so sorry that maybe I want some return on that, as is my right in a capitalist economy.
Click to expand...
The choice is, as you put it, that either you take somebody on at a decent wage and your failing business gets into even more trouble, or somebody remains unemployed. A system in failure.


LaMidRighter said:
That you are seeing this is speaking volumes about you, businesses have to see a return that is worth the prices paid, anything less is viable, but not preferable. Again, overly emotional crap with no facts to back it up. It's not system failure, it's personal failure, which the system accounts for, so it works, if you want to better your situation, if you are content to live at low wages and not try harder, your problem.......ALONE. It's not capitalism, try again, it's a socialist/capitalist hybrid and the capitalist part isn't what is failing. :rofl Your economic ignorance is showing, at what part of this economy was the market left alone, TARP 1, the Stimulus package, talk of a third spending bill, or FANNIE MAE/FREDDY MAC?
Click to expand...

Very few people choose to work for low wages. It is often all that is available to them. There is no socialist/capitalist hybrid in your country. Most United Statesians wouldn't recognise socialism if it slapped them in the face. For years people have been told there's no money for health care, no money to lift people out of poverty, and then woopy-doo, the money's suddenly there to prop up banks which floundered because of greed, lack of control and a system which is essentially flawed.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
The choice is, as you put it, that either you take somebody on at a decent wage and your failing business gets into even more trouble, or somebody remains unemployed. A system in failure.
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow. You really don't get it do you, or you are trying to be insulting, either way, you aren't looking any better for this argument. Let me slow it down for you, extra expenses aren't in a businesses best interest when they aren't at their correct values, so they must be shed, or else a business will underperform. Let me simplify it for you further, I am not paying more than someone is worth, because that would be a stupid decision, if you think it's that easy, go start your own business, since you think you are an economic guru of some sort.




Very few people choose to work for low wages. It is often all that is available to them. There is no socialist/capitalist hybrid in your country. Most United Statesians wouldn't recognise socialism if it slapped them in the face. For years people have been told there's no money for health care, no money to lift people out of poverty, and then woopy-doo, the money's suddenly there to prop up banks which floundered because of greed, lack of control and a system which is essentially flawed.
Click to expand...
I bolded where I stopped reading, you choose your desired wages when the contract is signed, the end.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I bolded where I stopped reading, you choose your desired wages when the contract is signed, the end.
Click to expand...


You live in a community where the only employer of unskilled labour is some large supermarket. You cannot drive to a neighbouring community for work because you cannot afford a car. Public transport is quasi-inexistant. You can't move town because you either can't afford it or you have local commitments (sick relatives, whatever). Of course you sign a contract for a low wage because the other option is unemployment and even worse poverty. That doesn't make the situation just.

Admitting that you haven't read posts you're responding to doesn't exactly up your credibility hon.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
1. Children are our future. Civilized societies recognise this and give a helping hand to those who have children, their upkeep being very expensive indeed. It's called solidarity. I am childless by choice and I happily pay my taxes towards the child allowances my reproducing fellow citizens receive.
Click to expand...

Some children, not all.
Consider that all the things that have been done to alleviate poverty haven't reduced the amount of poor or the future criminal behavior of their children.

With that said poverty is subjective and you can't end poverty with a minimum wage.

Urethra Franklin said:
2. The alternative to inadequate pay for many is unemployment and even worse poverty.
Click to expand...

Unemployment by choice not for the lack of jobs.
If you choose not to work you can only play yourself for being unemployed and poor.

Urethra Franklin said:
3. I have the greatest respect for one of the cleaners where I work. She is about 50 and has always been a cleaner. She takes great pride in her work and does it very well, always with a smile. She didn't want ot need to study to become an astro-physicist. She does deserve enough money to live on. Thankfully she does her thankless job because somebody has to and we'd be stuffed if we couldn't fill her post.
Click to expand...

She is getting paid for her cleaning, that is all the thanks she needs unless your just trying to be polite.
She deserves the amount of money that her and her employer agreed upon.
If she doesn't study to become anything more than a cleaner she will suffer the consequences of her apathy.

Jobs like hers will eventually be eliminated by automation and technological development.
That is what I'm studying for, to eliminate inefficient labor and replace it with efficient automation.

Urethra Franklin said:
4. But not to obscene differences. Keep the differential reasonable.
Click to expand...

Who decides what is obscene?
Labor relies on supply and demand as everything else does.

If you cap pay for people in high demand fields they will no longer do those things and instead do less for the same amount, in effect you'll create a shortage for those fields.

A good example of this is UHC and doctors.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
You live in a community where the only employer of unskilled labour is some large supermarket. n.
Click to expand...

Ok in this fanciful scenario lets force the sputtering supermarket to pay double wages.

A. They go broke
B. Now everyone in the area is on the government cheeseline.


Gee thanks socialism. You really helped.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
You live in a community where the only employer of unskilled labour is some large supermarket. You cannot drive to a neighbouring community for work because you cannot afford a car. Public transport is quasi-inexistant. You can't move town because you either can't afford it or you have local commitments (sick relatives, whatever). Of course you sign a contract for a low wage because the other option is unemployment and even worse poverty. That doesn't make the situation just.

Admitting that you haven't read posts you're responding to doesn't exactly up your credibility hon.
Click to expand...
What's to read, it started with an uncredible opinion, so I figured it wasn't worth my time and full of emotional "what ifs" much like the above. Again, how is it my problem.......as the risk taker of the business.......to provide YOU with an arbitrary value based, MANDATED, minimum that your labor is NOT worth.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Don't know how you get to this particular conclusion. Capitalism is based on economic law, supply and demand, this does not exclude labor. When government mandates labors minimal value by social law it essentially invalidates the advantages of free market capitalism by assigning a value that is not in reality what some labor is worth.
Real world example here: I am contemplating starting a drum company in my home state and would love to make a superior product at a less than custom cost, and would love to have a team of people to drill-paint-and assemble the sets, assembling of the sets is the easist part, employee takes a screwdriver, puts the lug assembly into it's pre-drilled place, and screws it in. Is THAT worth 7/hr? No, it isn't as I can do about 10-20 myself without paying anything extra, sorry high school kid who wanted a fun job, I don't need you for what your value is assessed at, At worst I'll have a paint department and assign full assemblage duties to the driller, he will get less sets built in an hour by far, but, I only have to pay one employee past minimum wage and I am still saving money from an overpaid screwdriver jockey.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to build musical drums or storage drums?
(A bit off topic but just curious.)
 
It is a start! Everyone in this country that holds a job should be paid a living wage and the min. wage needs to be like $10 an hour:)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Some children, not all.
Consider that all the things that have been done to alleviate poverty haven't reduced the amount of poor or the future criminal behavior of their children.

With that said poverty is subjective and you can't end poverty with a minimum wage.

.
Click to expand...

Poverty is not subjective. It has sociolgical definitions (absolute and relative - look it up in any basic 14 year old's sociology text book). The poverty line is in many countries decided by certain economic measures.

Many of the measures you trash indeed have lifted people out of poverty. For example, the introduction of the minimum wage in the UK: Minimum wage puts Britain on top to combat worker poverty | Money | The Guardian

Harry Guerrilla said:
Unemployment by choice not for the lack of jobs.
If you choose not to work you can only play yourself for being unemployed and poor. .
Click to expand...

Most unemplyed don't choose unemployment. Many low paid workers would be better off on state benefits yet they choose to work.


Harry Guerrilla said:
She is getting paid for her cleaning, that is all the thanks she needs unless your just trying to be polite.
She deserves the amount of money that her and her employer agreed upon.
If she doesn't study to become anything more than a cleaner she will suffer the consequences of her apathy..
Click to expand...

If you live in a country where further education isn't free and you're on a poverty wage,, if you have children to bring up, a sick relative to care for, or if you're simply not too bright academically, then not studying in later life is hardly "apathy" - your comment is trite.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Jobs like hers will eventually be eliminated by automation and technological development.
That is what I'm studying for, to eliminate inefficient labor and replace it with efficient automation...
Click to expand...

And when the robot malfunctions, or can't clean around the hospital bed because there's a cardiac arrest going on, somebody like her will be called in to do the job she was better at anyway.


Harry Guerrilla said:
Who decides what is obscene? ...
Click to expand...

That is subjective
Harry Guerrilla said:
Labor relies on supply and demand as everything else does. ...
Click to expand...

It does in your capitalist system, hence its failure.
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you cap pay for people in high demand fields they will no longer do those things and instead do less for the same amount, in effect you'll create a shortage for those fields.

A good example of this is UHC and doctors.
Click to expand...

No that's not a good example. The two countries which consistenly top WHO league tables for their health systems and health care outcomes are two countries with socialised medicine and universal health care (France and Sweden). You happen to be talking to a doctor in a socialised medical system, who like many of her colleagues, doesn't flee to the US or to private practice for mega bucks because she believes in the state system, finds it to be excellent and feels adequately remunerated for what she does. Bad example.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Poverty is not subjective. It has sociolgical definitions (absolute and relative - look it up in any basic 14 year old's sociology text book). The poverty line is in many countries decided by certain economic measures.
Click to expand...
Poverty not only is subjective, it's also relative, a poor person in the U.S. is infinitely better off than the majority of the world's "middle class". Not having a Cadillac or cable T.V. does not make one poor, and the "poverty level" is such that the U.S. government assigned it's own monetrary level to "poverty wages", once again, what's better, making some money or no money?




Most unemplyed don't choose unemployment. Many low paid workers would be better off on state benefits yet they choose to work.
Click to expand...
Got numbers?




If you live in a country where further education isn't free and you're on a poverty wage,, if you have children to bring up, a sick relative to care for, or if you're simply not too bright academically, then not studying in later life is hardly "apathy" - your comment is trite.
Click to expand...
He's right on, there are scholarships for those who want to learn, there are programs to help people streamline their finances, and people of trades who may not be book smart typically make 50-70k a year, well above the "poverty" level. So yes, it does take apathy to remain in poverty.



And when the robot malfunctions, or can't clean around the hospital bed because there's a cardiac arrest going on, somebody like her will be called in to do the job she was better at anyway.
Click to expand...
Machines don't make mistakes, but they do break, which is why many people have a parts supply and techs on call.............You were saying?




That is subjective
Click to expand...
Economics aren't subjective, the laws governing the application are.


It does in your capitalist system, hence its failure.
Click to expand...
You didn't explain to me how it failed yet, especially after I pointed a few things out, do you really want to keep going here without a shred of fact?
Click to expand...
 
akyron said:
Ok in this fanciful scenario lets force the sputtering supermarket to pay double wages.

A. They go broke
B. Now everyone in the area is on the government cheeseline.


Gee thanks socialism. You really helped.
Click to expand...


Not double wages, decent wages.
Most supermarkets can afford it. Look at their profits.
You have been fooled into thinking low wages are essential to the functioning of capitalism. If that is true, then the system has failed.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Poverty is not subjective. It has sociolgical definitions (absolute and relative - look it up in any basic 14 year old's sociology text book). The poverty line is in many countries decided by certain economic measures.

Many of the measures you trash indeed have lifted people out of poverty. For example, the introduction of the minimum wage in the UK: Minimum wage puts Britain on top to combat worker poverty | Money | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Poverty is subjective, unless you are defining poverty as not being able to provide yourself with food, water and shelter.

If you can provide all of those things with the wages you are earning, you are not impoverished.

Urethra Franklin said:
Most unemplyed don't choose unemployment. Many low paid workers would be better off on state benefits yet they choose to work.
Click to expand...

Then why entice them to remain stagnant with state benefits?


Urethra Franklin said:
If you live in a country where further education isn't free and you're on a poverty wage,, if you have children to bring up, a sick relative to care for, or if you're simply not too bright academically, then not studying in later life is hardly "apathy" - your comment is trite.
Click to expand...

A book at the library is free or you could own it if you buy it.

You don't have to be academically bright to get an education.
There are plenty of places looking for welders, machinists, mechanics etc.
All requiring a basic education and on the job training.

It is apathy, if you whine about being poor but do nothing to get out of it.
The only person you can blame is yourself.

Urethra Franklin said:
And when the robot malfunctions, or can't clean around the hospital bed because there's a cardiac arrest going on, somebody like her will be called in to do the job she was better at anyway.
Click to expand...

Automation is superior to humans because automated machines are consistent with their quality and productivity.

Humans are not and those no skill fields are slowly being phased out.

Urethra Franklin said:
That is subjective


It does in your capitalist system, hence its failure.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is how nature designed things to work.
It is a dance of cooperative and competitive behaviors in plants, animals, atoms, everything.

It is a massive failure that everyone misses this.

Urethra Franklin said:
No that's not a good example. The two countries which consistenly top WHO league tables for their health systems and health care outcomes are two countries with socialised medicine and universal health care (France and Sweden). You happen to be talking to a doctor in a socialised medical system, who like many of her colleagues, doesn't flee to the US or to private practice for mega bucks because she believes in the state system, finds it to be excellent and feels adequately remunerated for what she does. Bad example.
Click to expand...

WHO health care statistics have already been shown to use subjective measurements when deciding which systems have higher overall efficiency of care.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of the state systems in Europe are moving portions back to the private market.

You feel adequately paid, others do not. Pay, poverty et all are subjective.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Not double wages, decent wages.
Click to expand...
By who's definition and what data? Bring something.
Most supermarkets can afford it. Look at their profits.
Click to expand...
http://www.fmi.org/docs/facts_figs/CompetitionandProfit.pdf You lose.
You have been fooled into thinking low wages are essential to the functioning of capitalism. If that is true, then the system has failed.
Click to expand...
You are being completely dishonest here, in fact, no one has said low wages are essential to capitalism, only that anything in which it's outlay exceeds it's value is a bad investment, this includes labor. That you aren't representing the argument correctly tells me you are either not understanding this conversation or are lying.
Urethra Franklin said:
I think that's called burying your head in the sand. You ignore what's uncomfortable to you. I'm not really surprised.
Click to expand...
HAH! I'm ignoring the irrelevent, you're bringing emotion, economics deal in fact, I'm actually ashamed that I am giving you more attention that your value demands.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Poverty not only is subjective, it's also relative, a poor person in the U.S. is infinitely better off than the majority of the world's "middle class". Not having a Cadillac or cable T.V. does not make one poor, and the "poverty level" is such that the U.S. government assigned it's own monetrary level to "poverty wages", once again, what's better, making some money or no money?
Click to expand...
Yes, I already mentioned absolute and relativepoverty.
You really should read posts before responding to them.


LaMidRighter said:
Got numbers?
Click to expand...

The most obvious study that springs to mind just like that is Perkins' Coventry Study. No I don't have figures to reel off instantly but I do have personal experience of seeing people work who would have been better off on benefits. In my work I have seen peiople's health destroyed by the humiliation that is unemployment. Very few people choose that.
Do YOU have the numbers to disprove me?


LaMidRighter said:
He's right on, there are scholarships for those who want to learn, there are programs to help people streamline their finances, and people of trades who may not be book smart typically make 50-70k a year, well above the "poverty" level. So yes, it does take apathy to remain in poverty.
Click to expand...

The average cleaning lady doesn't get a scholarship just like that, and even if she did, family comittments or low academic ability may prevent her from studying. You speak of a minority.

LaMidRighter said:
Machines don't make mistakes, but they do break, which is why many people have a parts supply and techs on call.............You were saying?
Click to expand...

Anything computerised can be mis-programmed. Your on-call techies couldn't stop that cardiac arrest happening at cleaning time.


LaMidRighter said:
Economics aren't subjective, the laws governing the application are.
Click to expand...

Yes, so......

LaMidRighter said:
You didn't explain to me how it failed yet, especially after I pointed a few things out, do you really want to keep going here without a shred of fact?
Click to expand...

It failed because at your own admission, people are condemned to poverty through a choice of charity wages or unemployment. Such a system is in failure in my opinion and yes, that is subjective.
 
Urethra Franklin said:
Yes, I already mentioned absolute and relativepoverty.
You really should read posts before responding to them.
Click to expand...
No, you haven't, you've been rambling on about living wages and poverty, I have not seen one sentence from you making a concrete assertion that the minimum wage needs to be increased because of the absolute line, in fact, if anything the only problem MWer's have here is lack of hours, not the pay rate itself. What's next, telling a company they have to guarantee minimum hours?




The most obvious study that springs to mind just like that is Perkins' Coventry Study. No I don't have figures to reel off instantly but I do have personal experience of seeing people work who would have been better off on benefits. In my work I have seen peiople's health destroyed by the humiliation that is unemployment. Very few people choose that.
Do YOU have the numbers to disprove me?
Click to expand...
I can't dispute anything without some kind of data, it doesn't work that way, all I'm getting is emotion. Now, if you want the numbers for economic damage, be careful what you ask for.




The average cleaning lady doesn't get a scholarship just like that, and even if she did, family comittments or low academic ability may prevent her from studying. You speak of a minority.
Click to expand...
Bad move, the average cleaning lady in my city started a mobile maids company and is now extremely well off, Jani-King is one of the biggest franchises in the United States and it is run by people of all education levels, plenty of people with limited skill sets create their own opportunities by doing what others won't, and guess what, it happens cause they want more for themselves, again, it boils down to what you demand for yourself, not some arbitrary standard of a "minimum lifestyle".



Anything computerised can be mis-programmed. Your on-call techies couldn't stop that cardiac arrest happening at cleaning time.
Click to expand...
Right, if a computer is mis-programmed a tech is fired and there is a new job created right there, I don't even know where the hell you're going with the second point.




Yes, so......
Click to expand...
So you would entrust people with no economic knowledge but a desire for cheap votes to determine business interests, rather than the owners themselves who actually know what's going on.


It failed because at your own admission, people are condemned to poverty through a choice of charity wages or unemployment. Such a system is in failure in my opinion and yes, that is subjective.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE] You keep repeating "it failed", but can't even explain this......seriously, you couldn't be anymore wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom