|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
You guys are missing my point. Minimum wage is kicking employers in the shins. Farmers try hiding the crutch of their workforce of illegal aliens, but then we take that away from them and wonder why they don't walk because they're still lame from having their legs beat.
No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs. There's profit to be made, but it's illegal to do so, so it's done under-the-table instead. Most people would rather try their luck at getting selected for a better job and accepting unemployment benefits in the meantime, than risking it by working for a rate lower than minimum wage. When working for a wage lower than the legal minimum is criminal, this is what you get.
And Simberto, you've assumed a lot about me without me even stating my political inclinations.
|
On December 30 2014 10:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:
You guys are missing my point. Minimum wage is kicking employers in the shins. Farmers try hiding the crutch of their workforce of illegal aliens, but then we take that away from them and wonder why they don't walk because they're still lame from having their legs beat.
No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs. There's profit to be made, but it's illegal to do so, so it's done under-the-table instead. Most people would rather try their luck at getting selected for a better job and accepting unemployment benefits in the meantime, than risking it by working for a rate lower than minimum wage. When working for a wage lower than the legal minimum is criminal, this is what you get.
And Simberto, you've assumed a lot about me without me even stating my political inclinations.
Not that I totally agree with you, but I see where you're going with this. You should add in the strange political calculus that voters will go crazy if food prices increase, so we perpetually demand that farmers produce more with less, with extra demands now that they show greater concern for the environment and pay workers more. And this comes decades after the government has turned a blind eye to the fact that the farming industry (among other services) has a backbone of cheap illegal immigrant labor.
It's possible that it is necessary because it seems that farmers do not treat their workers particularly well and pay them very low wages.
I think a lot of commenters are oversimplifying the issues drastically and missing or ignoring a lot of variables. To be fair, the original Fox article acted as though construction, restaurants, and hotels provided steady, year-round work and were not also seasonal industries, which is pig-ignorant.
|
On December 30 2014 09:31 Sub40APM wrote:http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/gops-no-3-house-member-sure-i-went-to-that-white-sup-1676155377/ laceydonohueShow nested quote +Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), a rising star in the national Republican Party, confirmed reports Monday on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront that he had presented at a 2002 white supremacist conference organized by KKK bigwig and ex-Republican legislator David Duke.
A spokeswoman for Scalise told the Washington Post this afternoon that the congressman had in fact attended the jamboree, where EURO president David Duke himself was an honored speaker, but that Scalise had no idea it was a white supremacist group to whom he was giving his anti-government spiel Well, I guess between choosing to be stupid or racist he went with stupid. So progress.
"I didn't know they/it/my actions could be seen as being/supporting/rationalizing racism" has been pretty standard since committing overtly racist acts stopped being PC.
His spokesperson basically came out and said he would of attended and spoke if he knew what it was anyway. As if he could of been successful in Louisiana if he didn't at least know who David Duke was and that he was basically hosting the vent.
Regardless of what he claims he was doing it was pretty clear that his rhetoric worked.
In a statement on Monday, Scalise spokeswoman Moira Smith said the lawmaker had spoken to "to hundreds of different groups with a broad range of viewpoints" during his career in public service.
In every case, he was building support for his policies, not the other way around. In 2002, he made himself available to anyone who wanted to hear his proposal to eliminate slush funds that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as well as his opposition to a proposed tax increase on middle-class families. He has never been affiliated with the abhorrent group in question. The hate-fueled ignorance and intolerance that group projects is in stark contradiction to what Mr. Scalise believes and practices as a father, a husband, and a devoted Catholic.
Something tells me when the Pope comes out in support of action on climate change his ignorance and devout Catholic faith won't be as convenient of a shield. From a stormfront member who posted about the event:
State Representative, Steve Scalise, discussed ways to oversee gross mismanagement of tax revenue or “slush funds” that have little or no accountability. Representative Scalise brought into sharp focus the dire circumstances pervasive in many important, under-funded needs of the community at the expense of graft within the Housing and Urban Development Fund, an apparent give-away to a selective group based on race.
Source
|
how can you become the "third ranking House Republican" while having connections to the KKK and stormfront members? Does the party not have a zero tolerance policy against such crap?
|
Yeah I think we can all agree a return to the yeoman farmers of days ago which would have an impact on food prices, instead of major agriculture subsidies who choose to hike commodity prices and still get a government check for not growing something.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic
"No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs"
no.
the pay is too low to fill their position. so lowing the pay would somehow fill these positions?
this is just silly
|
On December 30 2014 10:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:
You guys are missing my point. Minimum wage is kicking employers in the shins. Farmers try hiding the crutch of their workforce of illegal aliens, but then we take that away from them and wonder why they don't walk because they're still lame from having their legs beat.
No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs. There's profit to be made, but it's illegal to do so, so it's done under-the-table instead. Most people would rather try their luck at getting selected for a better job and accepting unemployment benefits in the meantime, than risking it by working for a rate lower than minimum wage. When working for a wage lower than the legal minimum is criminal, this is what you get.
And Simberto, you've assumed a lot about me without me even stating my political inclinations.
If you had a basic familiarity with the reams of economics studies on the minimum wage you would know that this isn't true.
It's a total fantasy that the reason people aren't working for less pay is because it's illegal. I have no idea where you even got this idea, but it's absurd on it's face.
I do not think you would work a job doing back-breaking labor for $6 an hour (which when taxed is more like $4.50 an hour). You would work an 8 hour day to collect a check of $36 bucks. You can't buy anything with that, unless you are living 12 to a house and eating rice and beans every day.
|
On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:
I do not think you would work a job doing back-breaking labor for $6 an hour (which when taxed is more like $4.50 an hour). You would work an 8 hour day to collect a check of $36 bucks. You can't buy anything with that, unless you are living 12 to a house and eating rice and beans every day.
Because it's better to wait to starve to death?... ('¬_¬)
On December 30 2014 11:23 oneofthem wrote:
for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic
"No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs"
no.
the pay is too low to fill their position. so lowing the pay would somehow fill these positions?
this is just silly
On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:\
It's a total fantasy that the reason people aren't working for less pay is because it's illegal. I have no idea where you even got this idea, but it's absurd on it's face.
You're both assuming high underemployment. If that's the case, then potential workers would prefer to sit around, not gain experience, and collect welfare until, again, they win the lottery and find a job.
If it's unemployment, then my case holds true: employers would offer more jobs and (I highly suspect) more individuals would choose to work them if we didn't have a law preferentially setting the lowest price of labor.
I got the idea when I thought about how silly a maximum wage would be. There's a reason no one discusses that; I contend it's the same that counters the minimum wage argument.
And instead of dismissing me from authority as some economic simpleton, do point me to these "reams" of evidence.
EDIT: I answered with my vocation out of courtesy of being asked and I could use it to support my argument. It's ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. I should've known it'd be twisted into a personal insult.
for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic
Perhaps the copper mine is not the right place to get a finger on the pulse of the American labor force.
C'mon, guys, really? I expected better....
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 30 2014 10:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:
You guys are missing my point. Minimum wage is kicking employers in the shins. Farmers try hiding the crutch of their workforce of illegal aliens, but then we take that away from them and wonder why they don't walk because they're still lame from having their legs beat.
No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs. There's profit to be made, but it's illegal to do so, so it's done under-the-table instead. Most people would rather try their luck at getting selected for a better job and accepting unemployment benefits in the meantime, than risking it by working for a rate lower than minimum wage. When working for a wage lower than the legal minimum is criminal, this is what you get.
And Simberto, you've assumed a lot about me without me even stating my political inclinations.
What in the world do you not understand about people not wanting to work these specific jobs for minimum wage? If these guys don't want to work these farm jobs for $9/hr WHY in the world would they work for $6/hr? You're making absolutely no sense.
|
You're both assuming high underemployment. If that's the case, then potential workers would prefer to sit around, not gain experience, and collect welfare until, again, they win the lottery and find a job.
I am really confused on what you are trying to say here?
|
On December 30 2014 15:10 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:
I do not think you would work a job doing back-breaking labor for $6 an hour (which when taxed is more like $4.50 an hour). You would work an 8 hour day to collect a check of $36 bucks. You can't buy anything with that, unless you are living 12 to a house and eating rice and beans every day. Because it's better to wait to starve to death?... ('¬_¬) Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 11:23 oneofthem wrote:
for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic
"No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs"
no.
the pay is too low to fill their position. so lowing the pay would somehow fill these positions?
this is just silly Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:\
It's a total fantasy that the reason people aren't working for less pay is because it's illegal. I have no idea where you even got this idea, but it's absurd on it's face. You're both assuming high underemployment. If that's the case, then potential workers would prefer to sit around, not gain experience, and collect welfare until, again, they win the lottery and find a job. If it's unemployment, then my case holds true: employers would offer more jobs and (I highly suspect) more individuals would choose to work them if we didn't have a law preferentially setting the lowest price of labor. I got the idea when I thought about how silly a maximum wage would be. There's a reason no one discusses that; I contend it's the same that counters the minimum wage argument. And instead of dismissing me from authority as some economic simpleton, do point me to these "reams" of evidence. EDIT: I answered with my vocation out of courtesy of being asked and I could use it to support my argument. It's ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. I should've known it'd be twisted into a personal insult. Show nested quote +Perhaps the copper mine is not the right place to get a finger on the pulse of the American labor force. C'mon, guys, really? I expected better....
Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.
Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.
Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.
Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.
Source: Department of Labor
Your intuitions are grossly in error. If people's only choices are to starve or work as a slave in a field (disregarding the token sub-minimum wage that is barely enough to keep a person in good enough health to continue working in the field for long) then something is fucked up. Rather than you coming to the conclusion that something is fucked up, you persist in this delusion that you would actually stoop to pick oranges for $4.50 an hour take home, 40 or 50 hours a week, for years.
Again you are making absurd claims that "if it wasn't illegal to pay people less, then people would be clamoring to take jobs for sub-minimum wages." There's literally no evidence for this, and the huge volume of illegal immigrants taking jobs that no one else would take is substantial evidence against it.
As for your "ridiculous" notion of a maximum wage, it is not actually that ridiculous, and was more than casually considered by FDR during the 30s, by instating a 100% tax on income earned over what would be roughly $400,000 per year in today's terms.
|
On December 30 2014 15:16 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 10:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:
You guys are missing my point. Minimum wage is kicking employers in the shins. Farmers try hiding the crutch of their workforce of illegal aliens, but then we take that away from them and wonder why they don't walk because they're still lame from having their legs beat.
No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs. There's profit to be made, but it's illegal to do so, so it's done under-the-table instead. Most people would rather try their luck at getting selected for a better job and accepting unemployment benefits in the meantime, than risking it by working for a rate lower than minimum wage. When working for a wage lower than the legal minimum is criminal, this is what you get.
And Simberto, you've assumed a lot about me without me even stating my political inclinations. What in the world do you not understand about people not wanting to work these specific jobs for minimum wage? If these guys don't want to work these farm jobs for $9/hr WHY in the world would they work for $6/hr? You're making absolutely no sense.
The problem I see with your statement is that you're saying "don't want" when the reality is "can not." Let's take the flip side of that argument: if someone who's skills can't command a $9/hr wage at a company, why would he or she suddenly become more viable to said company if the rate was increased to $12/hr?
I'll put it another way: if a seller won't sell you an item because by law it costs more than what you're able to pay, why would you suddenly have the capability to buy it if the price were artificially (much less arbitrarily) raised?
On December 30 2014 15:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +You're both assuming high underemployment. If that's the case, then potential workers would prefer to sit around, not gain experience, and collect welfare until, again, they win the lottery and find a job. I am really confused on what you are trying to say here?
If the jobs truly are there and there are people truly able to fulfill those positions, the only explanation I can come up with is that they would rather gamble their luck and wait for a better deal than take what they can and make something out of it. That's why I gave the example of my peers who refused good opportunities to work out in the boonies because they valued being close to civilization more than higher pay, better benefits, and more satisfying work.
On December 30 2014 16:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 15:10 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:
I do not think you would work a job doing back-breaking labor for $6 an hour (which when taxed is more like $4.50 an hour). You would work an 8 hour day to collect a check of $36 bucks. You can't buy anything with that, unless you are living 12 to a house and eating rice and beans every day. Because it's better to wait to starve to death?... ('¬_¬) On December 30 2014 11:23 oneofthem wrote:
for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic
"No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs"
no.
the pay is too low to fill their position. so lowing the pay would somehow fill these positions?
this is just silly On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:\
It's a total fantasy that the reason people aren't working for less pay is because it's illegal. I have no idea where you even got this idea, but it's absurd on it's face. You're both assuming high underemployment. If that's the case, then potential workers would prefer to sit around, not gain experience, and collect welfare until, again, they win the lottery and find a job. If it's unemployment, then my case holds true: employers would offer more jobs and (I highly suspect) more individuals would choose to work them if we didn't have a law preferentially setting the lowest price of labor. I got the idea when I thought about how silly a maximum wage would be. There's a reason no one discusses that; I contend it's the same that counters the minimum wage argument. And instead of dismissing me from authority as some economic simpleton, do point me to these "reams" of evidence. EDIT: I answered with my vocation out of courtesy of being asked and I could use it to support my argument. It's ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. I should've known it'd be twisted into a personal insult. for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic Perhaps the copper mine is not the right place to get a finger on the pulse of the American labor force. C'mon, guys, really? I expected better.... Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Source: Department of LaborYour intuitions are grossly in error. If people's only choices are to starve or work as a slave in a field (disregarding the token sub-minimum wage that is barely enough to keep a person in good enough health to continue working in the field for long) then something is fucked up. Rather than you coming to the conclusion that something is fucked up, you persist in this delusion that you would actually stoop to pick oranges for $4.50 an hour take home, 40 or 50 hours a week, for years. Again you are making absurd claims that "if it wasn't illegal to pay people less, then people would be clamoring to take jobs for sub-minimum wages." There's literally no evidence for this, and the huge volume of illegal immigrants taking jobs that no one else would take is substantial evidence against it. As for your "ridiculous" notion of a maximum wage, it is not actually that ridiculous, and was more than casually considered by FDR during the 30s, by instating a 100% tax on income earned over what would be roughly $400,000 per year in today's terms.
That link sends me to a page with no links to the studies that the "Mythbusters" draws upon.
Illegal immigrants have already broken one of our laws by default. Why wouldn't they break another by working here illegally, too? Why would law-abiding citizens suddenly change overnight and risk everything they've earned and owned to offer their abilities at an illegally-low rate? It would take extraordinary circumstances for that to occur; most folks prefer filling out a few dozen more applications then serving time for breaking the law. Current citizens cannot take those jobs because they're out-competed by their illegal alien competitors. Illegal immigrants can offer a lower price for their labor because, hey, they're not "really there."
"[Maximum wage] casually considered by FDR during the 30s." 80 years hasn't altered that sentiment? This is going to sound snarky and holier-than-thou, so I apologize in advance, 'cause I'm not intending that at all: I'd love to see that conversation happening somewhere. I can vaguely recall one time where a maximum wage was even mentioned when labor rates were discusses; every other instance was strictly about a minimum wage. I just don't see that happening, and I'm willing to bet it's because that's a losing argument. Anyone who suggests capping the advancement of another is going to be met with a big, "No, #%@$ you," from someone and surpassed. I just don't see it succeeding at all.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 30 2014 16:40 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 15:16 Souma wrote:On December 30 2014 10:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:
You guys are missing my point. Minimum wage is kicking employers in the shins. Farmers try hiding the crutch of their workforce of illegal aliens, but then we take that away from them and wonder why they don't walk because they're still lame from having their legs beat.
No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs. There's profit to be made, but it's illegal to do so, so it's done under-the-table instead. Most people would rather try their luck at getting selected for a better job and accepting unemployment benefits in the meantime, than risking it by working for a rate lower than minimum wage. When working for a wage lower than the legal minimum is criminal, this is what you get.
And Simberto, you've assumed a lot about me without me even stating my political inclinations. What in the world do you not understand about people not wanting to work these specific jobs for minimum wage? If these guys don't want to work these farm jobs for $9/hr WHY in the world would they work for $6/hr? You're making absolutely no sense. The problem I see with your statement is that you're saying "don't want" when the reality is "can not." Let's take the flip side of that argument: if someone who's skills can't command a $9/hr wage at a company, why would he or she suddenly become more viable to said company if the rate was increased to $12/hr? I'll put it another way: if a seller won't sell you an item because by law it costs more than what you're able to pay, why would you suddenly have the capability to buy it if the price were artificially (much less arbitrarily) raised?
You're STILL not understanding the situation. The reality is people are NOT working there for $9/hr, so WHY would they suddenly want to work there for LESS? The problem is not whether or not they are able to work there for less than $9/hr, the problem is that they're not willing to work there for $9/hr, let alone $6/hr. Is this really that difficult to understand? My brain hurts right now and I swear it's not because of the five beers I just drank.
|
On December 30 2014 16:49 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 16:40 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 30 2014 15:16 Souma wrote:On December 30 2014 10:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:
You guys are missing my point. Minimum wage is kicking employers in the shins. Farmers try hiding the crutch of their workforce of illegal aliens, but then we take that away from them and wonder why they don't walk because they're still lame from having their legs beat.
No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs. There's profit to be made, but it's illegal to do so, so it's done under-the-table instead. Most people would rather try their luck at getting selected for a better job and accepting unemployment benefits in the meantime, than risking it by working for a rate lower than minimum wage. When working for a wage lower than the legal minimum is criminal, this is what you get.
And Simberto, you've assumed a lot about me without me even stating my political inclinations. What in the world do you not understand about people not wanting to work these specific jobs for minimum wage? If these guys don't want to work these farm jobs for $9/hr WHY in the world would they work for $6/hr? You're making absolutely no sense. The problem I see with your statement is that you're saying "don't want" when the reality is "can not." Let's take the flip side of that argument: if someone who's skills can't command a $9/hr wage at a company, why would he or she suddenly become more viable to said company if the rate was increased to $12/hr? I'll put it another way: if a seller won't sell you an item because by law it costs more than what you're able to pay, why would you suddenly have the capability to buy it if the price were artificially (much less arbitrarily) raised? You're STILL not understanding the situation. The reality is people are NOT working there for $9/hr, so WHY would they suddenly want to work there for LESS? The problem is not whether or not they are able to work there for less than $9/hr, the problem is that they're not willing to work there for $9/hr, let alone $6/hr. Is this really that difficult to understand? My brain hurts right now and I swear it's not because of the five beers I just drank.
We're a pair of brick walls trying to bash our heads against each other. That's why, lol.
Let's bring it back to the original topic of the farmers saying they're unable to hire workers because the illegal aliens their business practices relied upon before can't. If you have $50/hr to spend on labor, you can either hire 5 workers at $10/hr, or 10 workers at $5/hr. It's low-skilled, manual labor. I'm pretty sure any intrinsic benefit in the first 5 workers does not confer a net addition of $5+/hr to the business. You're gonna get more work done with 10, complete more projects with 10, and create more wealth with 10.
If I'm an unskilled teen with few job prospects for a summer, my best option may very well be $5/hr mowing grass, trimming trees, and watering flowers. But if the minimum wage is $10/hr, that job doesn't exist for me. Because it's illegal according to the minimum wage. I'm being abused by the employer or something if I accept it. Even if I agree to it. Even if it's genuinely my best option.
American citizens can't work for $5/hr. I guarantee you there is work out there for people who offer their labor for $5/hr. But it's illegal to do so. So illegal aliens fill that void because employers and employees alike both still want to make money. And they will continue to do so until American citizens don't have to worry about breaking the law to work a $5/hr job. Which would put them ahead of illegal aliens strictly on the fact that there's no legal liability to hiring law-abiding citizens. That's my point.
|
That's not how it works in the real world. I linked you to the Department of Labor explaining that the overwhelming consensus by economists, the people who would be most apt to agree with your ruthless mathematical logic if it were correct, is that minimum wage laws have no discernible effect on labor. But you are undeterred. It just makes sense to you that this is how it is, reality be damned. If you actually thought about what people have been saying, people who know more than you about this topic, you might have thought that your investigation warranted some outside help. All you have to do is go to google. Here I did it for you:
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/166-08.pdf
http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/reports/FLSAPaperSeries.pdf
The funny thing is that I have seen you shit on the general forum in other threads but it turns out that you are one of the individuals who does the shitting with your stubborn ignorance. Everyone can read what you have been saying, trust me. We aren't misunderstanding you. You should go back and really try to engage with what people have been saying to you.
|
Illegal immigrants have already broken one of our laws by default. Why wouldn't they break another by working here illegally, too? Why would law-abiding citizens suddenly change overnight and risk everything they've earned and owned to offer their abilities at an illegally-low rate? It would take extraordinary circumstances for that to occur; most folks prefer filling out a few dozen more applications then serving time for breaking the law. Current citizens cannot take those jobs because they're out-competed by their illegal alien competitors. Illegal immigrants can offer a lower price for their labor because, hey, they're not "really there."
"[Maximum wage] casually considered by FDR during the 30s." 80 years hasn't altered that sentiment? This is going to sound snarky and holier-than-thou, so I apologize in advance, 'cause I'm not intending that at all: I'd love to see that conversation happening somewhere. I can vaguely recall one time where a maximum wage was even mentioned when labor rates were discusses; every other instance was strictly about a minimum wage. I just don't see that happening, and I'm willing to bet it's because that's a losing argument. Anyone who suggests capping the advancement of another is going to be met with a big, "No, #%@$ you," from someone and surpassed. I just don't see it succeeding at all.
Bolded for hilarity. Who in their right mind would work for $4.50 an hour doing, literally, back-breaking labor in the fields when they have "earned" enough to "own" things that they are afraid of losing? The people working in the fields don't have anything. They are wage slaves who work out of desperation. You can't own anything when you are making $32 a day in the United States. You can barely pay for food, and cannot pay for healthcare or enough living space.
|
Why would law-abiding citizens suddenly change overnight and risk everything they've earned and owned to offer their abilities at an illegally-low rate? It would take extraordinary circumstances for that to occur; most folks prefer filling out a few dozen more applications then serving time for breaking the law.
Does anyone go to jail for working or hiring people for less than minimum wage?
I couldn't find a statistic but in my googling I did stumble across this about people going to jail for going to work...
The racial prejudices among police is not just about young black males getting killed this is an example.
In the last four years Earl Sampson, 28, has been questioned by police 258 times(I found another site that said 181 interactions were recorded by police), searched more than 100 times, jailed 56 times, and arrested for trespassing 62 times. The majority of these citations occurred at his place of work, a Miami Gardens convenience store where the owner says police are racially profiling.
According to Saleh, it doesn't stop there.
In addition to video appearing to show Sampson being grabbed by an officer while taking out the trash and at another time searched against a wall, Saleh accuses them of searching throughout his store without a warrant.
"One officer asked me, 'Can I use the restroom?'" he said of one incident allegedly caught on camera. "He opened the restroom door ... he decided to go walk in coolers to commit a search."
After seeing the footage Saleh said he contacted the police and was told that there was no search warrant issued for his business's location.
Source
If that doesn't drive 'personal freedoms' conservative people that still tend to defend the police on racial issues nuts, I don't know what could.
There is a lawsuit pending with him and 10 other individuals but considering in 4 years they stopped the equivalent of about half of the population, clearly they weren't the only victims.
Source
In the summer of 2010, a young black man was stopped and questioned by police on the streets of Miami Gardens, Florida. According to the report filled out by the officer, he was “wearing gray sweatpants, a red hoodie and black gloves” giving the police “just cause” to question him. In the report, he was labeled a “suspicious person.”
He was an 11-year-old boy on his way to football practice.
A Fusion investigation has found that he was just one of 56,922 people who were stopped and questioned by Miami Gardens Police Department (MGPD) between 2008 and 2013. That’s the equivalent of more than half of the city’s population.
Not one of them was arrested.
Source
If those people still go to work, I don't think anyone is scared to work for less than minimum wage for fear of legal penalty.
|
On December 30 2014 17:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +Illegal immigrants have already broken one of our laws by default. Why wouldn't they break another by working here illegally, too? Why would law-abiding citizens suddenly change overnight and risk everything they've earned and owned to offer their abilities at an illegally-low rate? It would take extraordinary circumstances for that to occur; most folks prefer filling out a few dozen more applications then serving time for breaking the law. Current citizens cannot take those jobs because they're out-competed by their illegal alien competitors. Illegal immigrants can offer a lower price for their labor because, hey, they're not "really there."
"[Maximum wage] casually considered by FDR during the 30s." 80 years hasn't altered that sentiment? This is going to sound snarky and holier-than-thou, so I apologize in advance, 'cause I'm not intending that at all: I'd love to see that conversation happening somewhere. I can vaguely recall one time where a maximum wage was even mentioned when labor rates were discusses; every other instance was strictly about a minimum wage. I just don't see that happening, and I'm willing to bet it's because that's a losing argument. Anyone who suggests capping the advancement of another is going to be met with a big, "No, #%@$ you," from someone and surpassed. I just don't see it succeeding at all. Bolded for hilarity. Who in their right mind would work for $4.50 an hour doing, literally, back-breaking labor in the fields when they have "earned" enough to "own" things that they are afraid of losing? The people working in the fields don't have anything. They are wage slaves who work out of desperation. You can't own anything when you are making $32 a day in the United States. You can barely pay for food, and cannot pay for healthcare or enough living space.
"You have the choice to starve to death or work in the fields 8 hours a day for basically food and lodging" Sounds like a wonderful social system. Also utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
The jobs are there. The people don't WANT those jobs for minimum wage. Making those jobs more jobs for less money, what removing minimum wage might do, is not going to make people want them more.
You can interpret that however you want, Anax is probably of the opinion that that is because the US is basically a communist welfare state making people lazy, and once all social security is stripped away people will be happy for whatever shitty slavejob they can get for the absolute minimum amount of money needed to survive.
In a society where people have some basic decency and even people who are below middleclass are allowed to have some sort of fulfilling live beyond there job, the problem is simply that the job is too shitty for its pay. And once the slaveclass of illegal immigrants had another choice, they, like everyone else, also chose differently.
Decreasing minimum wage is not going to change that. Why would it. It makes no sense. Producing a new slaveclass that has absolutely no other choice than taking those jobs for whatever you pay them just to survive might. You could achieve that by removing any semblance of social security, or have another group of people who simply can not legally work anywhere else. Problem: This is a) disgusting and b) would probably lead to a lot of these peoples becoming criminals instead.
The reasonable solution is to simply pay MORE for the shitty jobs, with all the consequences like slightly imcreased food prices for the consumer in the end. Paying LESS for the shitty jobs is not gonna get you anyone who wants to do it. That is like saying "Ok, you don't want to eat that sandwich because the bread is slighly moldy? What if i take a big dump on it, do you want to eat it now?"
|
On December 30 2014 16:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2014 15:10 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:
I do not think you would work a job doing back-breaking labor for $6 an hour (which when taxed is more like $4.50 an hour). You would work an 8 hour day to collect a check of $36 bucks. You can't buy anything with that, unless you are living 12 to a house and eating rice and beans every day. Because it's better to wait to starve to death?... ('¬_¬) On December 30 2014 11:23 oneofthem wrote:
for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic
"No one is jumping onto those jobs for the same reason no one is publicly selling illegal drugs"
no.
the pay is too low to fill their position. so lowing the pay would somehow fill these positions?
this is just silly On December 30 2014 12:19 IgnE wrote:\
It's a total fantasy that the reason people aren't working for less pay is because it's illegal. I have no idea where you even got this idea, but it's absurd on it's face. You're both assuming high underemployment. If that's the case, then potential workers would prefer to sit around, not gain experience, and collect welfare until, again, they win the lottery and find a job. If it's unemployment, then my case holds true: employers would offer more jobs and (I highly suspect) more individuals would choose to work them if we didn't have a law preferentially setting the lowest price of labor. I got the idea when I thought about how silly a maximum wage would be. There's a reason no one discusses that; I contend it's the same that counters the minimum wage argument. And instead of dismissing me from authority as some economic simpleton, do point me to these "reams" of evidence. EDIT: I answered with my vocation out of courtesy of being asked and I could use it to support my argument. It's ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. I should've known it'd be twisted into a personal insult. for a geologist you have some serious issues with basic arithmetic Perhaps the copper mine is not the right place to get a finger on the pulse of the American labor force. C'mon, guys, really? I expected better.... Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Source: Department of LaborYour intuitions are grossly in error. If people's only choices are to starve or work as a slave in a field (disregarding the token sub-minimum wage that is barely enough to keep a person in good enough health to continue working in the field for long) then something is fucked up. Rather than you coming to the conclusion that something is fucked up, you persist in this delusion that you would actually stoop to pick oranges for $4.50 an hour take home, 40 or 50 hours a week, for years. Again you are making absurd claims that "if it wasn't illegal to pay people less, then people would be clamoring to take jobs for sub-minimum wages." There's literally no evidence for this, and the huge volume of illegal immigrants taking jobs that no one else would take is substantial evidence against it. As for your "ridiculous" notion of a maximum wage, it is not actually that ridiculous, and was more than casually considered by FDR during the 30s, by instating a 100% tax on income earned over what would be roughly $400,000 per year in today's terms.
Minimum causes unemployment when the wage is higher than the market-wage (sans interventions). If minimum wage didn't cause unemployment, why not raise the rate to 50$ a hour? Reductio Ad Absurdurm clearly demonstrates this would cause massive unemployment in low-wage rate sectors (notably service industries, non-skilled and low-skilled work, etc.). Not only this, but it would cause a shortage of workers with actual experience (contrary to popular belief, building ones resume does indeed increase ones expected wage). Now, we can quibble what the market-wage is, since we cannot know with the myriad of interventions, but we can look at the unemployment and employment rates in certain industries and sectors. You also have to take into account COL and other data. You can't at face say that a 7$ minimum wage is poverty. 7$ minimum wage would be middle class in many countries. It's a simpleton notion to 'just increase minimum wage' as an answer to poverty. If it was that easy, those doofus' called politicians could decree it so! That's not how an economy functions and grows. Rothbard gives a good explanation of how to increase standard of living through the Robinson Crusoe analogy.
If we want to tackle poverty, we need to address the fundamental problems of our economy. We can start by looking at the Federal Reserve and our increasing regulatory burdens. Sound money and protection of contractual rights will immensely help the poor and lower middle-class.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
pages of blah and you've yet to understand that their problem is a labor shortage. a wage decrease isn't going to fix that. this is hurting my head
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
