[quote]Jlabs wrote:
There is still slavery but not in the historical context of which you are thinking of. There are sex slaves, sweat shops, and migrant workers which I would say nears slavery because they get paid below market value and have little to no rights in North America.[/quote]
Could it be that the migrant workers are actually getting paid market value but their are shit-tons of people getting paid over market value because of an inflated minimum wage?? Betcha didn’t think about that. [/quote]
What’s an inflated minimum wage, $13 an hour?
Would $7.25 to $9.00 an hour be better, a wage that one can’t remain alive on without government assistance or food and housing provided by someone else?
[/quote]
It’s going to depend on where you live. What is market wages for a position in NYC is different than East NoWhere Idaho.
I could move to NYC, get the same position I have now and get anywhere from a 30-60% pay increase just walking in th door. However, my cost of living will also skyrocket too.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
What’s an inflated minimum wage, $13 an hour? [/quote]
Minimum wage, due to it’s very nature, is an inflated wage.
My father in law and I argue about this. He is of the impassioned opinion that anyone who is willing to work is owed a “living wage”. He loosely implies that this wage might be around $15/hr. From an emotional standpoint it’s not hard to get behind the idea that if a person works, he should be able to afford a basic standard of living for his family.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that if the government were to impose a $15/hr minimum wage on corporations who employ minimum wage labourers we would only see an initial increase in the standard of living for people in that earning bracket. Does anybody really think it would being before the corporations would increase the cost of basic goods and services to regain their lost profitability? The minimum wage earners would soon be right back where they are in terms of buying power while those of us who have managed to elevate our market value above the minimum would find our buying power eroded (until we, in turn, begin to charge more for our goods and service).
[quote]batman730 wrote:
From an emotional standpoint it’s not hard to get behind the idea that if a person works, he should be able to afford a basic standard of living for his family.[/quote]
Sure, and these same people think a smart phone, internet access, a Honda Civic and a 48" flat screen are “basic human rights”.
It’s a frustrating conversation because most people can’t pull their head out of their ass and think, rather than feel their way through a subject.
Yes, an increase in wages that is NOT the result of increase in value added creates inflation. This is economics 101.
However, again, economic understanding takes thought, not feeling. And as evidenced in this thread by the assertion that people making less than what a person deems “fair” for labor is now the “new slavery”, people don’t actually think enough to come to the conclusion you’ve outlined quite well here.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
What’s an inflated minimum wage, $13 an hour? [/quote]
Minimum wage, due to it’s very nature, is an inflated wage.
My father in law and I argue about this. He is of the impassioned opinion that anyone who is willing to work is owed a “living wage”. He loosely implies that this wage might be around $15/hr. From an emotional standpoint it’s not hard to get behind the idea that if a person works, he should be able to afford a basic standard of living for his family.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that if the government were to impose a $15/hr minimum wage on corporations who employ minimum wage labourers we would only see an initial increase in the standard of living for people in that earning bracket. Does anybody really think it would being before the corporations would increase the cost of basic goods and services to regain their lost profitability? The minimum wage earners would soon be right back where they are in terms of buying power while those of us who have managed to elevate our market value above the minimum would find our buying power eroded (until we, in turn, begin to charge more for our goods and service).
[/quote]
Also, just to add to this, minimum wage is intended to help the poor in this country. But what it really does (in addition to the above) is increase unemployment among the same population it’s supposed to be helping. When companies have to pay more for jobs than they are worth, they simply get by with employing less of those people and spending more money to automate more jobs.
Also entry level wages ($7-15/hr) were never meant to be living wages. They are a starting point. The employee needs to develop his skills and move up the chain and build a career, the same way the rest of successful people do. If all you want to do is go to work, do some menial job and go home, don’t expect to ever earn a livable wage.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
What’s an inflated minimum wage, $13 an hour? [/quote]
Minimum wage, due to it’s very nature, is an inflated wage.
My father in law and I argue about this. He is of the impassioned opinion that anyone who is willing to work is owed a “living wage”. He loosely implies that this wage might be around $15/hr. From an emotional standpoint it’s not hard to get behind the idea that if a person works, he should be able to afford a basic standard of living for his family.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that if the government were to impose a $15/hr minimum wage on corporations who employ minimum wage labourers we would only see an initial increase in the standard of living for people in that earning bracket. Does anybody really think it would being before the corporations would increase the cost of basic goods and services to regain their lost profitability? The minimum wage earners would soon be right back where they are in terms of buying power while those of us who have managed to elevate our market value above the minimum would find our buying power eroded (until we, in turn, begin to charge more for our goods and service).
[/quote]
Also, just to add to this, minimum wage is intended to help the poor in this country. But what it really does (in addition to the above) is increase unemployment among the same population it’s supposed to be helping. When companies have to pay more for jobs than they are worth, they simply get by with employing less of those people and spending more money to automate more jobs.
Also entry level wages ($7-15/hr) were never meant to be living wages. They are a starting point. The employee needs to develop his skills and move up the chain and build a career, the same way the rest of successful people do. If all you want to do is go to work, do some menial job and go home, don’t expect to ever earn a livable wage.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
From an emotional standpoint it’s not hard to get behind the idea that if a person works, he should be able to afford a basic standard of living for his family.[/quote]
Sure, and these same people think a smart phone, internet access, a Honda Civic and a 48" flat screen are “basic human rights”.
It’s a frustrating conversation because most people can’t pull their head out of their ass and think, rather than feel their way through a subject.
Yes, an increase in wages that is NOT the result of increase in value added creates inflation. This is economics 101.
However, again, economic understanding takes thought, not feeling. And as evidenced in this thread by the assertion that people making less than what a person deems “fair” for labor is now the “new slavery”, people don’t actually think enough to come to the conclusion you’ve outlined quite well here.
[/quote]
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
What’s an inflated minimum wage, $13 an hour? [/quote]
Minimum wage, due to it’s very nature, is an inflated wage.
My father in law and I argue about this. He is of the impassioned opinion that anyone who is willing to work is owed a “living wage”. He loosely implies that this wage might be around $15/hr. From an emotional standpoint it’s not hard to get behind the idea that if a person works, he should be able to afford a basic standard of living for his family.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that if the government were to impose a $15/hr minimum wage on corporations who employ minimum wage labourers we would only see an initial increase in the standard of living for people in that earning bracket. Does anybody really think it would being before the corporations would increase the cost of basic goods and services to regain their lost profitability? The minimum wage earners would soon be right back where they are in terms of buying power while those of us who have managed to elevate our market value above the minimum would find our buying power eroded (until we, in turn, begin to charge more for our goods and service).
[/quote]
Unfortunately I don’t think people think stuff like this through.
Also entry level wages ($7-15/hr) were never meant to be living wages. They are a starting point. The employee needs to develop his skills and move up the chain and build a career, the same way the rest of successful people do. If all you want to do is go to work, do some menial job and go home, don’t expect to ever earn a livable wage.
[/quote]
OMG. How dare you!
You’re not allowed to think this way… This is America, where we task the government with handing you everything you could ever need, just like Europe.
People shouldn’t have to strive for better, self improve and therefore raise the tide. It isn’t like a rising tide lifts all boats. People should be able to choose to do what their dreams tell them to, and we should force the rest of the world to value their dreams at a price that allows them to buy an iPad and Yankee’s tickets.
I would like to add that anyone who thinks there aren’t slaves in the US or other developed countries is wrong.
People from poorer areas of the world get promised jobs in the US so they come willingly, then when they arrive their “boss” confiscates their passports and withholds their pay.
This isn’t just sex slavery, do a quick google search and you’ll find a lot of examples.
[quote]The Ox Man wrote:
I would like to add that anyone who thinks there aren’t slaves in the US or other developed countries is wrong.
People from poorer areas of the world get promised jobs in the US so they come willingly, then when they arrive their “boss” confiscates their passports and withholds their pay.
This isn’t just sex slavery, do a quick google search and you’ll find a lot of examples.[/quote]
lol
Right…
Like anyone with a passport couldn’t just make two phone calls IF this actually happened.
[quote]The Ox Man wrote:
I would like to add that anyone who thinks there aren’t slaves in the US or other developed countries is wrong.
People from poorer areas of the world get promised jobs in the US so they come willingly, then when they arrive their “boss” confiscates their passports and withholds their pay.
This isn’t just sex slavery, do a quick google search and you’ll find a lot of examples.[/quote]
lol
Right…
Like anyone with a passport couldn’t just make two phone calls IF this actually happened.
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I saw my wife’s nephew at Thanksgiving. This kid (age 33…) gets bigger and bigger every time I see him. His parents always coddled him and he was always a soft fat kid. He’s some sort of vegetarian, his 2 food groups are dairy and carbs. So far his health is okay. I’m surprised his parents don’t try to influence him to take better care of himself, as they are health nuts who equate being skinny with being in good health.
I got a neighbor down the block, younger than me by a few years. This guy is tall and is about 375 lbs. He has a spotty employment record, which is partly due to his appearance, plus he smokes cigarettes and cigars… he basically stinks. His wife is a saint, she does everything around the house. When it snows, she’s out shoveling while he watches TV inside. I tried to get him to join a gym, he says yeah, yeah and that’s it.
Both these people have all the tools around them to eat better and get in a better state of health, yet they ignore it. How many people over the age of 60 to 70 do you see that are morbidly obese… none really.[/quote]
Not sure if this was in reference to something someone wrote on here, but it does partly echoed what I mentioned earlier.
IMO there’s a duality within people who have health/weight issues. For Some they’re even able to realize how bad it is. Yet, still can not pull themselves out of the hole…almost like a form of addiction. (and then there’s the whole-society pushes people into that direction-, debate)
Also I see plenty of people in my area over the age of 60 who are overweight, boarder line obese.
Now, I happen to be one of those people who believe that “access to information” is pretty much a basic human right – but given that libraries exist and internet access at [most] libraries is free… it’s a moot point.
This whole automation thing bothers me though. With automation, we – as in, the human race – are able to generate more value with less effort, which legitimately decreases the cost of production and makes things more affordable from a cost standpoint. (That’s not to say that pricing is in line with costs though.) And I think that’s great, and I’m all for that aspect of it. The more we automate, the more value we’re able to generate given the same resources, both physical and temporal.
But then you have the other side of it, the being “automated out of a job” part. We’re able to generate more value, but that value is less accessible to the average person. Instead of “the rich” getting richer by employing more people, they’re able to do it employing fewer, further concentrating the wealth.
The closer we get to a technological reality where “the robots do all the work, so humans can play and enjoy life”, the number of people who can enjoy that reality gets smaller and smaller.
It’s been bothering me for several years. I once redesigned some business processes that enabled a company to increase annual revenue 12-fold, with 1/3rd the workforce… which is great, in a value-generation sense. It also meant over 300 people got laid off because they were no longer needed. The guilt I’ve felt from that has shaped the kinds of work I’ve done since then.
I really don’t have a solution for how to use automation to benefit society as a whole.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
kind of surprised that the senior members of this site are, what seems to be, in agreement that there’s no such thing as slavery in the US anymore. [/quote]
I would gander to say that there is some, how much and in what location I would not want to “guess”. I doubt anyone here is naive enough to believe there is none.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
kind of surprised that the senior members of this site are, what seems to be, in agreement that there’s no such thing as slavery in the US anymore. [/quote]
Next you’ll be surprised the sky is blue on a sunny day.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
kind of surprised that the senior members of this site are, what seems to be, in agreement that there’s no such thing as slavery in the US anymore. [/quote]
I would gander to say that there is some, how much and in what location I would not want to “guess”. I doubt anyone here is naive enough to believe there is none. [/quote]
Outside of the sex slave thing, the last time I read a headline “Person chained to desk and owned by Johnny Doe is set free” was a long, long time ago.
The democrats stopped treating people like that in the 1800’s and actually saw them as “people” when LBJ bribed them to.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
kind of surprised that the senior members of this site are, what seems to be, in agreement that there’s no such thing as slavery in the US anymore. [/quote]
I would gander to say that there is some, how much and in what location I would not want to “guess”. I doubt anyone here is naive enough to believe there is none. [/quote]
Outside of the sex slave thing, the last time I read a headline “Person chained to desk and owned by Johnny Doe is set free” was a long, long time ago.
The democrats stopped treating people like that in the 1800’s and actually saw them as “people” when LBJ bribed them to. [/quote]
Lol I was still leaning towards someone in the drug trade or gun selling whatever illicit type activities.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Now, I happen to be one of those people who believe that “access to information” is pretty much a basic human right – but given that libraries exist and internet access at [most] libraries is free… it’s a moot point.
This whole automation thing bothers me though. With automation, we – as in, the human race – are able to generate more value with less effort, which legitimately decreases the cost of production and makes things more affordable from a cost standpoint. (That’s not to say that pricing is in line with costs though.) And I think that’s great, and I’m all for that aspect of it. The more we automate, the more value we’re able to generate given the same resources, both physical and temporal.
But then you have the other side of it, the being “automated out of a job” part. We’re able to generate more value, but that value is less accessible to the average person. Instead of “the rich” getting richer by employing more people, they’re able to do it employing fewer, further concentrating the wealth.
The closer we get to a technological reality where “the robots do all the work, so humans can play and enjoy life”, the number of people who can enjoy that reality gets smaller and smaller.
It’s been bothering me for several years. I once redesigned some business processes that enabled a company to increase annual revenue 12-fold, with 1/3rd the workforce… which is great, in a value-generation sense. It also meant over 300 people got laid off because they were no longer needed. The guilt I’ve felt from that has shaped the kinds of work I’ve done since then.
I really don’t have a solution for how to use automation to benefit society as a whole.[/quote]
There isn’t a solution. People will adapt. People always adapt.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I really don’t have a solution for how to use automation to benefit society as a whole.[/quote]
There isn’t a solution. People will adapt. People always adapt. [/quote]
Well, I mean, the historical response has basically been an anti-technology or anti-intellectual movement of some kind.
We’re talking stuff like people destroying modern farming equipment so they can farm the land by hand and at least have a job. The cost of food increases significantly, but at least they can provide for their family now that they have a job.
Increased taxation to fund social programs isn’t a particularly good solution either.
I mean, if your job was automated away but you could maintain the same standard of living as before, that would be one thing. But that’s now how it is.