• 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!

Federal minimum wage rate.

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
281
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Federal minimum wage rate.
I'm a proponent of the federal minimum wage be increased12.5% annually until it achieves no less than 125% of February 1968 cost price indexed value. Thereafter the monitored minimum rate should annually (when necessary), be modified to retain that purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm a proponent of more robots in fast food joints.
 
Federal minimum wage rate.
I'm a proponent of the federal minimum wage be increased12.5% annually until it achieves no less than 125% of February 1968 cost price indexed value. Thereafter the monitored minimum rate should annually (when necessary), be modified to retain that purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn

give me a number

what does that equate to right now
 
Federal minimum wage rate.
I'm a proponent of the federal minimum wage be increased12.5% annually until it achieves no less than 125% of February 1968 cost price indexed value. Thereafter the monitored minimum rate should annually (when necessary), be modified to retain that purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn

I favor indexing the federal MW for CPI inflation (much like is now done with Social Security retirement benefits) but not also using the historic (inflation adjusted) highest MW level (from 1968) as the base level - I favor using the 1939 MW value as that basis which would make the federal MW about $9.15/hour now.

As an alternative, more in line with your more generous proposal, the hourly federal MW could be set such that its full-time equivalent (based on a 40 hour workweek) is equal to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for a three person household for each US state/territory (since variations in the FPL exist by state/territory) - that would result in a MW of $10.25/hour in most states. Of course, that does not preclude any US state/territory from establishing a higher MW value for employers within their jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the federal minimum wage debate is we have no good way out of the problem we have created with the minimum wage as it stands now. The current federal minimum wage is set at $7.25 per hour, and has been since 2009. Before then it was set at another fixed amount for a longer period of time.

The pro to linking federal minimum wage to CPI (consumer price index) is the idea of ensuring even the lowest income quintile participates well in the economy, which should be beneficial to a stable aggregate demand and velocity of money. Small increases over time tend to have less impact to labor supply and demand curves than large jumps as well (still there but far less pronounced.) Moderate rises can work on the assumption of dealing with international labor competition.

The negative is no fixed labor costs over a duration of time as applied to products and services in that same economy equates to investment unknowns, and that tends to harm expectations of knowing labor rate (usually the highest cost involved) when it comes to supply and demand for a product or service (and expansion within a market.) Also just about every distortion to labor supply and demand ends up with less paid labor for that product or service in the long term. Advancements, automation, producing more with less labor is a normal expectation now. We have seen this with unions competing with international labor, and we have seen this with certain sectors of our market impacted by higher labor rates because of minimum wage increases (namely large chain retail, fast food, and some aspects of lower cost production.) The last negative is cost of living standards is not uniform across the US, $15 per hour (just as an example) has wildly different spending capabilities when comparing say San Francisco, CA to Birmingham, AL to rural Blur Ridge, GA (again all examples.)

If you linked federal minimum wage to something more like a combination of CPI and productivity you would see it somewhere in the $10 to $13 per hour range.

If you linked federal minimum wage to CPI alone and considering that just about everything in the basket is purchased then you would see it somewhere in the $21 to $23 per hour range.

The debate is always the same, what is compromised to get to those points and stay there based on these factors? (Economists tend to vary a good bit on impact to those very people who work at or just over minimum wage.)
 
Federal minimum wage rate.
I'm a proponent of the federal minimum wage be increased12.5% annually until it achieves no less than 125% of February 1968 cost price indexed value. Thereafter the monitored minimum rate should annually (when necessary), be modified to retain that purchasing power.
Respectfully, Supposn

I am for the federal government perhaps establishing a low minimum wage to prevent unethical employers from engaging in phony apprentice programs etc. and thereby utilizing what amounts to slave labor. It is appropriate at the federal level because often employers are working in more than one state and it would be difficult for the states to police that.

Otherwise let the free market set what labor is worth. Those worth more than minimum wage will find ways to earn more than minimum wage. And the hard core unemployed will have infinitely more opportunity to get a foot in the door and be able to develop a work ethic, acquire experience, earn references and ability to earn more.

Few employers are going to hire the person who won't be able to produce sufficiently to cover his/her own wages, benefits, and additional costs to the employer for longer than a brief training period. So the hard core unemployed are pretty much shut out of the wage market in a high minimum wage situation.

Few people who actually work for their paycheck stay at minimum wage for long.
 
The problem with the federal minimum wage debate is we have no good way out of the problem we have created with the minimum wage as it stands now. The current federal minimum wage is set at $7.25 per hour, and has been since 2009. Before then it was set at another fixed amount for a longer period of time.

The pro to linking federal minimum wage to CPI (consumer price index) is the idea of ensuring even the lowest income quintile participates well in the economy, which should be beneficial to a stable aggregate demand and velocity of money. Small increases over time tend to have less impact to labor supply and demand curves than large jumps as well (still there but far less pronounced.) Moderate rises can work on the assumption of dealing with international labor competition.

The negative is no fixed labor costs over a duration of time as applied to products and services in that same economy equates to investment unknowns, and that tends to harm expectations of knowing labor rate (usually the highest cost involved) when it comes to supply and demand for a product or service (and expansion within a market.) Also just about every distortion to labor supply and demand ends up with less paid labor for that product or service in the long term. Advancements, automation, producing more with less labor is a normal expectation now. We have seen this with unions competing with international labor, and we have seen this with certain sectors of our market impacted by higher labor rates because of minimum wage increases (namely large chain retail, fast food, and some aspects of lower cost production.) The last negative is cost of living standards is not uniform across the US, $15 per hour (just as an example) has wildly different spending capabilities when comparing say San Francisco, CA to Birmingham, AL to rural Blur Ridge, GA (again all examples.)

If you linked federal minimum wage to something more like a combination of CPI and productivity you would see it somewhere in the $10 to $13 per hour range.

If you linked federal minimum wage to CPI alone and considering that just about everything in the basket is purchased then you would see it somewhere in the $21 to $23 per hour range.

The debate is always the same, what is compromised to get to those points and stay there based on these factors? (Economists tend to vary a good bit on impact to those very people who work at or just over minimum wage.)

Your point about regional variations in the cost of living is valid, yet those regions have boundaries which may present a problem. Employers near those regional boundaries must pay the higher wage or face the probability of a labor shortage due to those seeking employment nearby where they are guaranteed a higher starting wage.
 
I am for the federal government perhaps establishing a low minimum wage to prevent unethical employers from engaging in phony apprentice programs etc. and thereby utilizing what amounts to slave labor. It is appropriate at the federal level because often employers are working in more than one state and it would be difficult for the states to police that.

There are better, more direct ways to eliminate those loopholes. If you don't like unpaid/low wage apprentice programs, just legislate rules that eliminate the problem.

Otherwise let the free market set what labor is worth. Those worth more than minimum wage will find ways to earn more than minimum wage. And the hard core unemployed will have infinitely more opportunity to get a foot in the door and be able to develop a work ethic, acquire experience, earn references and ability to earn more.

Labor is never compensated "what they are worth." Labor is compensated according to the demand for labor. The price of corn isn't "what it's worth," the price of corn varies with the supply and demand for corn. If there is lots of excess corn, then prices will go down. And if there is lots of excess labor, then, in a free market, wages will fall, too. Just like healthcare, wages are one of those things that needs some government intervention.

Few employers are going to hire the person who won't be able to produce sufficiently to cover his/her own wages, benefits, and additional costs to the employer for longer than a brief training period. So the hard core unemployed are pretty much shut out of the wage market in a high minimum wage situation.

What an employee produces for the company merely sets the ceiling of his possible compensation, not the floor.
 
The problem with the federal minimum wage debate is we have no good way out of the problem we have created with the minimum wage as it stands now. The current federal minimum wage is set at $7.25 per hour, and has been since 2009. Before then it was set at another fixed amount for a longer period of time.

The pro to linking federal minimum wage to CPI (consumer price index) is the idea of ensuring even the lowest income quintile participates well in the economy, which should be beneficial to a stable aggregate demand and velocity of money. Small increases over time tend to have less impact to labor supply and demand curves than large jumps as well (still there but far less pronounced.) Moderate rises can work on the assumption of dealing with international labor competition.

The negative is no fixed labor costs over a duration of time as applied to products and services in that same economy equates to investment unknowns, and that tends to harm expectations of knowing labor rate (usually the highest cost involved) when it comes to supply and demand for a product or service (and expansion within a market.) Also just about every distortion to labor supply and demand ends up with less paid labor for that product or service in the long term. Advancements, automation, producing more with less labor is a normal expectation now. We have seen this with unions competing with international labor, and we have seen this with certain sectors of our market impacted by higher labor rates because of minimum wage increases (namely large chain retail, fast food, and some aspects of lower cost production.) The last negative is cost of living standards is not uniform across the US, $15 per hour (just as an example) has wildly different spending capabilities when comparing say San Francisco, CA to Birmingham, AL to rural Blur Ridge, GA (again all examples.)

If you linked federal minimum wage to something more like a combination of CPI and productivity you would see it somewhere in the $10 to $13 per hour range.

If you linked federal minimum wage to CPI alone and considering that just about everything in the basket is purchased then you would see it somewhere in the $21 to $23 per hour range.

The debate is always the same, what is compromised to get to those points and stay there based on these factors? (Economists tend to vary a good bit on impact to those very people who work at or just over minimum wage.)

IMO linking minimum wage to anything other than what labor is worth to an employer is going to do more harm than good. Make the minimum so high that the employer is unable to produce a reasonable profit and/or it just isn't worth the considerable risks, problem solving, and effort to run a business, and he will close down and go to work for wages himself. Why would I want all the truly significant headaches running my own business if I can earn almost as much or more without those headaches working for somebody else?

If enough small businesses do that you start flooding the market with laid off people who will work for pretty much whatever they can get. This eliminates a lot of entry level positions or non essential positions and therefore opportunity for the hardcore unemployed. And any time there is a buyer's market for labor, it depresses wages and opportunity for a whole bunch of people to aspire to earn more.
 
IMO linking minimum wage to anything other than what labor is worth to an employer is going to do more harm than good. Make the minimum so high that the employer is unable to produce a reasonable profit and/or it just isn't worth the considerable risks, problem solving, and effort to run a business, and he will close down and go to work for wages himself. Why would I want all the truly significant headaches running my own business if I can earn almost as much or more without those headaches working for somebody else?

If enough small businesses do that you start flooding the market with laid off people who will work for pretty much whatever they can get. This eliminates a lot of entry level positions or non essential positions and therefore opportunity for the hardcore unemployed. And any time there is a buyer's market for labor, it dilutes wages and opportunity for a whole bunch of people to aspire to earn more.

How is a low minimum wage going to help a buyer's market for labor? Who is helped if the clearing price for labor is, say, $3/hour?

If you want a free market solution to low wages, it's not going to happen on its own. Automation and cheap foreign labor will keep labor costs down. What is necessary is a true tight labor market at all levels of compensation, and a shift from the vast income inequality we have been living with for the past 40 years.

To me, the best solution is a federal job guarantee, coupled with universal healthcare and a beefed-up pension/SS system. The public sector is capable of supplying the needed jobs. And a healthy social safety net will obviate the need for much higher wages.

The whole system we have now is in place specifically to keep wages low and profits high. It's not going to fix itself because it's not designed to fix itself, it's designed to keep the rich rich.
 
There are better, more direct ways to eliminate those loopholes. If you don't like unpaid/low wage apprentice programs, just legislate rules that eliminate the problem.



Labor is never compensated "what they are worth." Labor is compensated according to the demand for labor. The price of corn isn't "what it's worth," the price of corn varies with the supply and demand for corn. If there is lots of excess corn, then prices will go down. And if there is lots of excess labor, then, in a free market, wages will fall, too. Just like healthcare, wages are one of those things that needs some government intervention.



What an employee produces for the company merely sets the ceiling of his possible compensation, not the floor.

Labor is compensated for the value they are to the employer. The employer will pay as much as s/he has to in order to keep a valuable employee. And the more scarce valuable employees are, the more they are worth on the labor market. But when it becomes too expensive to hire people and still make a profit, then something has to give. And that will almost always be fewer jobs and less opportunity to work.

The janitor may earn minimum wage and be happy to do so in hopes he will get a shot at the higher paid assembly line or whatever. If there is no opportunity for upward mobility, just having a job makes him more attractive to another employer who will/can pay better. But the janitor's value is in doing work that frees up higher paid employees to do profit generating work. Force the employer to pay too much to that janitor and the employer may decide it is more profitable to eliminate the janitor position and add those responsibilities to the other workers.
 
I favor indexing the federal MW for CPI inflation (much like is now done with Social Security retirement benefits) but not also using the historic (inflation adjusted) highest MW level (from 1968) as the base level - I favor using the 1939 MW value as that basis which would make the federal MW about $9.15/hour now.

As an alternative, more in line with your more generous proposal, the hourly federal MW could be set such that its full-time equivalent (based on a 40 hour workweek) is equal to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for a three person household for each US state/territory (since variations in the FPL exist by state/territory) - that would result in a MW of $10.25/hour in most states. Of course, that does not preclude any US state/territory from establishing a higher MW value for employers within their jurisdiction.

I find it amusing that trump fans are touting an increase in wages without noting that that uptick is almost certainly the result of a bunch of significant increases in minimum wages in various states.

Iirc 22 million got 20-30-40% raises, which should account for the 1% wage increase over the "just barely keeping up with inflation" rates of increase we've seen for the last forty years.
 
How is a low minimum wage going to help a buyer's market for labor? Who is helped if the clearing price for labor is, say, $3/hour?

If you want a free market solution to low wages, it's not going to happen on its own. Automation and cheap foreign labor will keep labor costs down. What is necessary is a true tight labor market at all levels of compensation, and a shift from the vast income inequality we have been living with for the past 40 years.

To me, the best solution is a federal job guarantee, coupled with universal healthcare and a beefed-up pension/SS system. The public sector is capable of supplying the needed jobs. And a healthy social safety net will obviate the need for much higher wages.

The whole system we have now is in place specifically to keep wages low and profits high. It's not going to fix itself because it's not designed to fix itself, it's designed to keep the rich rich.

The wise employer hires the best people s/he can get to produce maximum profit for the business. S/he will pay as much as s/he has to in order to keep the people who are producing maximum profits for the business. Nobody worth more than minimum wage stays at minimum wage for long. Because my husband was transferred so often, I was the one to start over each time and sometimes took minimum wage jobs to get a foot in the door. I either was promoted quickly to better paying positions or used a job as a stepping stone to a better one elsewhere.

Only a little over 2% of American employees are paid the federal minimum wage, most of those are working temporary or part time jobs on purpose and/or will be given raises within a relatively short period of time.
 
Labor is compensated for the value they are to the employer.

If I assemble 100 widgets/day, and the unemployed laborer is also capable of assembling 100 widgets/day, my employer is going to pay me the minimum wage, and no more. It doesn't matter if his profit from those widgets is $5 or $5000.

The employer will pay as much as s/he has to in order to keep a valuable employee. And the more scarce valuable employees are, the more they are worth on the labor market. But when it becomes too expensive to hire people and still make a profit, then something has to give. And that will almost always be fewer jobs and less opportunity to work.

Yes, good employees are worth a premium. But when you are talking about the great bulk of unskilled labor, that premium is either small or nonexistent. Like I said before, an employee's "worth" to his employer merely sets the ceiling of his compensation. Employers make their decisions based on profits.

The janitor may earn minimum wage and be happy to do so in hopes he will get a shot at the higher paid assembly line or whatever. If there is no opportunity for upward mobility, just having a job makes him more attractive to another employer who will/can pay better. But the janitor's value is in doing work that frees up higher paid employees to do profit generating work. Force the employer to pay too much to that janitor and the employer may decide it is more profitable to eliminate the janitor position and add those responsibilities to the other workers.

That is a very nice bedtime story about job mobility, but it has little to do with the real world. There is a long line of unemployed people willing to push a broom, even for minimum wage. Your assumptions are all based on the idea that everybody gets what they deserve, and those who are unemployed are only unemployed because they are lazier than the guy who has a job. The reality is more complicated. There are not enough jobs to go around, and labor is not as mobile as a bushel of corn. They are tied down by leases, lack of transportation, tied to present health insurance, etc.
 
The wise employer hires the best people s/he can get to produce maximum profit for the business. S/he will pay as much as s/he has to in order to keep the people who are producing maximum profits for the business. Nobody worth more than minimum wage stays at minimum wage for long. Because my husband was transferred so often, I was the one to start over each time and sometimes took minimum wage jobs to get a foot in the door. I either was promoted quickly to better paying positions or used a job as a stepping stone to a better one elsewhere.

Only a little over 2% of American employees are paid the federal minimum wage, most of those are working temporary or part time jobs on purpose and/or will be given raises within a relatively short period of time.

This begs the question - Why do you work at all? Why is it necessary for both adults in a household to earn enough money to get by? That wasn't always the case. When spouses entered the workforce, it merely increased the pool of available labor - which helps to keep wages down.

Try thinking of five things that our (mostly conservative) government has done in the past 50 years or so that improves the lot of labor. Then think of what has been done to improve the lot of ownership (who never needed the help in the first place).
 
If I assemble 100 widgets/day, and the unemployed laborer is also capable of assembling 100 widgets/day, my employer is going to pay me the minimum wage, and no more. It doesn't matter if his profit from those widgets is $5 or $5000.



Yes, good employees are worth a premium. But when you are talking about the great bulk of unskilled labor, that premium is either small or nonexistent. Like I said before, an employee's "worth" to his employer merely sets the ceiling of his compensation. Employers make their decisions based on profits.



That is a very nice bedtime story about job mobility, but it has little to do with the real world. There is a long line of unemployed people willing to push a broom, even for minimum wage. Your assumptions are all based on the idea that everybody gets what they deserve, and those who are unemployed are only unemployed because they are lazier than the guy who has a job. The reality is more complicated. There are not enough jobs to go around, and labor is not as mobile as a bushel of corn. They are tied down by leases, lack of transportation, tied to present health insurance, etc.

I live in the real world. I have been an employee. And I have been an employer. You are unlikely to convince me my argument on this is off the mark.

Right now there are more job openings than there are qualified people to fill them. It is definitely a seller's market for labor and as a result wages and personal wealth are rising at a rate we haven't seen for some time.

I have never seen it as anybody's responsibility for my income/quality of life other than my own. I very much appreciate opportunity given to me to earn and improve both. But I have always understood that such opportunity comes with personal responsibility to be worth what I receive.

Yes the employee making widgets might be paid minimum wage forever if there are hundreds of people capable of making those widgets and who would like to have that job doing so. And a lot of folks like that do just enough to keep from being fired. But the guy who puts in the effort to be productive and valuable to the employer is the one most likely to be promoted and improve his circumstances. If there is no opportunity to improve his circumstances, that employee is also the most likely to be looking for better jobs elsewhere. The smart employer will pay what he has to in order to keep that employee while still making a reasonable profit.
 
I live in the real world. I have been an employee. And I have been an employer. You are unlikely to convince me my argument on this is off the mark.

Right now there are more job openings than there are qualified people to fill them. It is definitely a seller's market for labor and as a result wages and personal wealth at all levels at a rate we haven't seen for some time.

I have never seen it as anybody's responsibility for my income/quality of life other than my own. I very much appreciate opportunity given to me to earn and improve both. But I have always understood that such opportunity comes with personal responsibility to be worth what I receive.

Yes the employee making widgets might be paid minimum wage forever if there are hundreds of people capable of making those widgets and who would like to have that job doing so. And a lot of folks like that do just enough to keep from being fired. But the guy who puts in the effort to be productive and valuable to the employer is the one most likely to be promoted and improve his circumstances. If there is no opportunity to improve his circumstances, that employee is also the most likely to be looking for better jobs elsewhere. The smart employer will pay what he has to in order to keep that employee while still making a reasonable profit.

Again, you are basing your argument on a bunch of rosy assumptions. Minimum/low wage workers don't have the opportunity to move around looking for better jobs. They have to be close by. He needs the time to look and interview. He may need the availability of public transportation. Your husband made the main income, freeing you up to look around - in a car, I'm assuming. He could make rent while you took the time to look for better jobs. You had health insurance in between jobs.

The reality for people who aren't so blessed is that they hang onto their low-paying jobs for as long as they can, until circumstance interferes. Sickness, a broken car they can't afford to repair, divorce, eviction - these are the things that poor people have to deal with, and they very often cost them their jobs. It's not just a matter of climbing the ladder for most.
 
This begs the question - Why do you work at all? Why is it necessary for both adults in a household to earn enough money to get by? That wasn't always the case. When spouses entered the workforce, it merely increased the pool of available labor - which helps to keep wages down.

Try thinking of five things that our (mostly conservative) government has done in the past 50 years or so that improves the lot of labor. Then think of what has been done to improve the lot of ownership (who never needed the help in the first place).

The current government has produced a tax code and has eliminated enough unnecessary regulation to encourage free enterprise to bring home working and venture capital and to put sidelined working and venture capital back to work. That has created an economy in which pretty much all who want to work are able to do so. THAT is what government is supposed to do. It has promoted a free private economy that offers much more opportunity for the people to improve their own circumstances. It has produced a seller's market for labor.

That is all the federal government is constitutionally authorized to do. Or should do.
 
If I assemble 100 widgets/day, and the unemployed laborer is also capable of assembling 100 widgets/day, my employer is going to pay me the minimum wage, and no more. It doesn't matter if his profit from those widgets is $5 or $5000.



Yes, good employees are worth a premium. But when you are talking about the great bulk of unskilled labor, that premium is either small or nonexistent. Like I said before, an employee's "worth" to his employer merely sets the ceiling of his compensation. Employers make their decisions based on profits.



That is a very nice bedtime story about job mobility, but it has little to do with the real world. There is a long line of unemployed people willing to push a broom, even for minimum wage. Your assumptions are all based on the idea that everybody gets what they deserve, and those who are unemployed are only unemployed because they are lazier than the guy who has a job. The reality is more complicated. There are not enough jobs to go around, and labor is not as mobile as a bushel of corn. They are tied down by leases, lack of transportation, tied to present health insurance, etc.

And as controversial as it is to say it, inherent ability is also a factor. No amount of study nor effort will ever make some a creative or an engineer type, or management. Yet the things they can do need doing. And are therefore "worthy". Worthy of a living wage and worthy of respect.

Status heads only look down the ladder to see if anybody is catching up. Their primary focus is on those they need to take out to get higher. This is expensive, which is why just as the world filled up our wealthy decided what all the jobs like the above were worth and agreed to never pay more. That way, they have more money to compete with foreigners who enjoy a desperate workforce.
 
As the minimum wage goes up, does the salary of the ones making more than minimum wage go up as well? If not, one could say you are devaluing your higher paid workers.

example: entry level worker is making $10/hr. Shift manager is making $15/hr.
entry level worker wages are raised to $15/hr. What should the shift manager be making?
 
Again, you are basing your argument on a bunch of rosy assumptions. Minimum/low wage workers don't have the opportunity to move around looking for better jobs. They have to be close by. He needs the time to look and interview. He may need the availability of public transportation. Your husband made the main income, freeing you up to look around - in a car, I'm assuming. He could make rent while you took the time to look for better jobs. You had health insurance in between jobs.

The reality for people who aren't so blessed is that they hang onto their low-paying jobs for as long as they can, until circumstance interferes. Sickness, a broken car they can't afford to repair, divorce, eviction - these are the things that poor people have to deal with, and they very often cost them their jobs. It's not just a matter of climbing the ladder for most.

I'm sorry but I see the responsibility for our own welfare as being our personal responsibility. Once we give government the authority and power to determine what welfare the people must have, a few will benefit, most will be hindered in their ability to pursue their own dreams, and our liberties will be severely curtailed. In the end all but the most elite--those selected by the elite--will benefit. Everybody else loses.

I will go with my point of view as the one most beneficial for all. I cannot accept the socialist, even communist and totalitarian agendas of the Progressive as anything a free people can embrace.
 
If I assemble 100 widgets/day, and the unemployed laborer is also capable of assembling 100 widgets/day, my employer is going to pay me the minimum wage, and no more. It doesn't matter if his profit from those widgets is $5 or $5000.



Yes, good employees are worth a premium. But when you are talking about the great bulk of unskilled labor, that premium is either small or nonexistent. Like I said before, an employee's "worth" to his employer merely sets the ceiling of his compensation. Employers make their decisions based on profits.



That is a very nice bedtime story about job mobility, but it has little to do with the real world. There is a long line of unemployed people willing to push a broom, even for minimum wage. Your assumptions are all based on the idea that everybody gets what they deserve, and those who are unemployed are only unemployed because they are lazier than the guy who has a job. The reality is more complicated. There are not enough jobs to go around, and labor is not as mobile as a bushel of corn. They are tied down by leases, lack of transportation, tied to present health insurance, etc.

we are at 3.5% unemployment

we are as close to FULL employment as it gets

there are thousands of jobs going unfilled right now because employers LIKE ME cant find a person with the skills he needs

but skills is still the key....the more you have the easier it is to find employment....and the more you will earn

same as always....supply and demand controls the market
 
This begs the question - Why do you work at all? Why is it necessary for both adults in a household to earn enough money to get by? That wasn't always the case. When spouses entered the workforce, it merely increased the pool of available labor - which helps to keep wages down.

Try thinking of five things that our (mostly conservative) government has done in the past 50 years or so that improves the lot of labor. Then think of what has been done to improve the lot of ownership (who never needed the help in the first place).

people dont have to have both working...they choose that to have a BETTER quality of life

they want the nicer house, nicer cars, better education for their kids....

my wife didnt work....we made it on one paycheck....it can be done

not easy and the earner has to be a GOOD earner, but it can be done
 
The current government has produced a tax code and has eliminated enough unnecessary regulation to encourage free enterprise to bring home working and venture capital and to put sidelined working and venture capital back to work. That has created an economy in which pretty much all who want to work are able to do so. THAT is what government is supposed to do. It has promoted a free private economy that offers much more opportunity for the people to improve their own circumstances. It has produced a seller's market for labor.

That is all the federal government is constitutionally authorized to do. Or should do.

The government is constitutionally authorized to work for the welfare of the people. It is not designed to benefit businesses, then delegate the people's welfare to the business sector. Which, unfortunately, is exactly what Republicans have been pushing for for decades.

Healthcare - left largely up to market forces. Which is why our healthcare stinks, and millions are left without coverage.

Pensions - left largely up to market forces. Which is why so many retirees end up in poverty.

Environment - protections have been eroded to benefit businesses, which is why pollution is a problem and global warming is still a huge threat.

You are still buying into the fairy tale that, if we just leave them alone even more, Big Business will save the day.
 
people dont have to have both working...they choose that to have a BETTER quality of life

they want the nicer house, nicer cars, better education for their kids....

my wife didnt work....we made it on one paycheck....it can be done

not easy and the earner has to be a GOOD earner, but it can be done

It used to be that people were paid enough, even in low-skill jobs, to buy homes, cars, and raise a family. LOTS of the labor force was in a pretty good place, not just middle management on up. It can still be done, but it's uncommon. And that is a problem. It's a problem for the whole economy, because demand suffers for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom