Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Makes Case for $22-an-hour Minimum Wage.

72 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Kurb' timestamp='1363742473' post='2168210']
Because CEO's are shitheads ?
[/quote]

but you're ok with that because ~*~the infallible market~*~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Kurb' timestamp='1363742473' post='2168210']


Because CEO's are shitheads ?
[/quote]

Because the government, federal reserve and basic age distribution dumb luck has created a climate where it's advantageous and even necessary for CEOs be shitheads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

it's the government's fault that wages have failed to rise alongside productivity and corporate profits? did the mean ol' government force businesses to practice shareholder value maximization too? to leverage benefits and the threat of unemployment against employees in order to suppress wages?

unless you mean it's because the government has yet to intervene on behalf of those who aren't being fairly compensated for their work, i'm going to need you to show your work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

well I mean when I say "create a climate that makes it advantageous" for our corporate overlords to do exactly what is the most profitable for them, that totes means that the government forced the poor widdle corporations to run laughing all the way to the bank.

First let's not forget that government's most recent implementation of a 'rising tide lifts all ships' policy (ironically such as the one posted in the OP) was to artificially store liquidity in the housing market to disastrous ends (and windfall profits to banks and wall street in general).

The ensuing recession has offered no shortage of opportunity for the corporation to rape the common man.

The job market is [url="http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/topic/79248-38-million-of-33-million-jobs-created-since-2009-went-to-people-aged-55/"]flooded with overqualified geriatric worker[/url]s wiling to work for a fraction of their worth. Thanks to near zero interest rates, they'll take any money they can get for their highly developed skills. And they do. Meanwhile, younger workers in the heart of what would be the skill-developing portion of their careers are missing out and will never be as competitive as their older peers.

Meanwhile the [url="http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/topic/74867-the-racket-of-higher-education-continues-to-unravel/"]government is enslaving the young working class[/url] all the while making it harder for them to break free of their chains.

This in turn has [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html"]caused a baby bust[/url] that is further narrowing the middle class and decreasing working class opportunities.

I'm sure I missed a few other hundred ways that the government is oppressing the young and working class.

But hey, it's probably just those greedy old CEOs that are just stealing from us, because they're evil and s[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]h[/font]it and there's no larger forces at work here.

Let's just agree that the federal government is largely comprised of rich people that are interested In getting richer to varying degrees, while still maintaining just enough public goodwill to get re-elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Raise the wage of a cashier to $22/HR and he/she will be replaced by a touch screen terminal by the end of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Jase' timestamp='1363753518' post='2168410']
well I mean when I say "create a climate that makes it advantageous" for our corporate overlords to do exactly what is the most profitable for them, that totes means that the government forced the poor widdle corporations to run laughing all the way to the bank.

First let's not forget that government's most recent implementation of a 'rising tide lifts all ships' policy (ironically such as the one posted in the OP) was to artificially store liquidity in the housing market to disastrous ends (and windfall profits to banks and wall street in general).

The ensuing recession has offered no shortage of opportunity for the corporation to rape the common man.

The job market is [url="http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/topic/79248-38-million-of-33-million-jobs-created-since-2009-went-to-people-aged-55/"]flooded with overqualified geriatric worker[/url]s wiling to work for a fraction of their worth. Thanks to near zero interest rates, they'll take any money they can get for their highly developed skills. And they do. Meanwhile, younger workers in the heart of what would be the skill-developing portion of their careers are missing out and will never be as competitive as their older peers.

Meanwhile the [url="http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/topic/74867-the-racket-of-higher-education-continues-to-unravel/"]government is enslaving the young working class[/url] all the while making it harder for them to break free of their chains.

This in turn has [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html"]caused a baby bust[/url] that is further narrowing the middle class and decreasing working class opportunities.

I'm sure I missed a few other hundred ways that the government is oppressing the young and working class.

But hey, it's probably just those greedy old CEOs that are just stealing from us, because they're evil and s[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]h[/font]it and there's no larger forces at work here.

Let's just agree that the federal government is largely comprised of rich people that are interested In getting richer to varying degrees, while still maintaining just enough public goodwill to get re-elected.
[/quote]


i don't see the relationship between a higher minimum wage and the housing bubble

or the direct responsibility of government itself WRT the housing crisis. i understand that the recession was driven by government deregulation and rampant speculation thanks to libertarian darling and all around moron alan greenspan but he didn't literally force the banks to gamble on their own "time bomb mortgages". am i misreading your intent or are you arguing in favor of increased regulation? if so, ignore what i just said because i agree

i am not willing to write off the bullshit "management" perpetuated by the corporate elites as solely being some sort of government-facilitated market failure. corporations have been doing extremely dumb poo for quite a while now (see: earlier reference to shareholder value maximization) and, say, the elimination of student loan debt isn't really going to change that (short of shifting to a universal education type deal). CEOs aren't all evil; some of them are just incredibly dumb. but fug that doesn't matter golden parachutes for everyone, which leads me to what i believe to be the implication of panthro's question: the wealth doesn't actually trickle down, and people aren't actually paid what they're worth, so market intervention is necessary. if you're a tremendous fug up working an entry level job, you're fuged. if you're a tremendous fug up heading a bank, you're going to be given millions on your way out the door (if you even lose your job). that's not the government's fault unless, again, you're faulting the government for its failure to intervene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Delhommey' timestamp='1363754672' post='2168417']
Raise the wage of a cashier to $22/HR and he/she will be replaced by a touch screen terminal by the end of the week.
[/quote]

there's an interesting argument that as workers are replaced by machines and productivity continues to rise that society would be best served to shift away from the idea that nearly everyone must work a 40 hour work week to not be dirt poor; that if society shares productivity gains achieved by automated processes, people can attain a higher quality of life while working less and less (and paying more attention to market social benefit curves rather than econ 101 supply and demand stuff). the trade-off here is that 1% types would have to settle for being really, really rich instead of really, really, really rich.

naturally here and now replacing a cashier with a machine is a bad thing for everyone but the store's owner, but there exists the possibility that it may some day be considered beneficial for all involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I believe one of the reasons we went with moving manufacturing to cheaper labor overseas rather than automating it, was because Wall St was scared out of their wits by the possibilty of a post scarcity economy.

Should we continue without major disruption on the path we're on (probability: who the hell knows), the idea of a basic guaranteed wage for all citizens becomes more and more of the proper option. Of course then immigration limits would become a major issue, depending on what level you set the wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I cannot wait to have a job like "Thunderdome maintenence tech" in 2015!! Yay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Jase' timestamp='1363749606' post='2168375']

Because the government, federal reserve and basic age distribution dumb luck has created a climate where it's advantageous and even necessary for CEOs be shitheads.
[/quote]
[quote name='Jase' timestamp='1363753518' post='2168410']
well I mean when I say "create a climate that makes it advantageous" for our corporate overlords to do exactly what is the most profitable for them, that totes means that the government forced the poor widdle corporations to run laughing all the way to the bank.

First let's not forget that government's most recent implementation of a 'rising tide lifts all ships' policy (ironically such as the one posted in the OP) was to artificially store liquidity in the housing market to disastrous ends (and windfall profits to banks and wall street in general).

The ensuing recession has offered no shortage of opportunity for the corporation to rape the common man.

The job market is [url="http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/topic/79248-38-million-of-33-million-jobs-created-since-2009-went-to-people-aged-55/"]flooded with overqualified geriatric worker[/url]s wiling to work for a fraction of their worth. Thanks to near zero interest rates, they'll take any money they can get for their highly developed skills. And they do. Meanwhile, younger workers in the heart of what would be the skill-developing portion of their careers are missing out and will never be as competitive as their older peers.

Meanwhile the [url="http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/topic/74867-the-racket-of-higher-education-continues-to-unravel/"]government is enslaving the young working class[/url] all the while making it harder for them to break free of their chains.

This in turn has [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html"]caused a baby bust[/url] that is further narrowing the middle class and decreasing working class opportunities.

I'm sure I missed a few other hundred ways that the government is oppressing the young and working class.

But hey, it's probably just those greedy old CEOs that are just stealing from us, because they're evil and s[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]h[/font]it and there's no larger forces at work here.

Let's just agree that the federal government is largely comprised of rich people that are interested In getting richer to varying degrees, while still maintaining just enough public goodwill to get re-elected.
[/quote]

BOOM

[img]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/049/f/7/gif_sonic_pinkie_boom_by_the_lexus_guy789-d4q6zgv.gif[/img]

Jase for Prez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Jase' timestamp='1363753518' post='2168410']
The job market is [url="http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/topic/79248-38-million-of-33-million-jobs-created-since-2009-went-to-people-aged-55/"]flooded with overqualified geriatric worker[/url]s wiling to work for a fraction of their worth. Thanks to near zero interest rates, they'll take any money they can get for their highly developed skills. And they do. Meanwhile, younger workers in the heart of what would be the skill-developing portion of their careers are missing out and will never be as competitive as their older peers.

[/quote]

This is an example of you finding an opinion piece using snap shot statistics in a small period of time, and running with the opinion's explanation of data even though the explanation isn't true or is a half truth.

During recessions with stagnant job growth and a large increase in unemployment, older workers with work experience tend to find work easier than those without experience as employers were looking people that could increase production immediately instead of investing money in training of younger workers.

Keep in mind that older workers have [b][i]almost always had the lowest unemployment rate [/i][/b]so this isn't some new phenomenon brought on by the Fed:

[b][i][img]http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/summary_10_04/older_workers_chart1.png[/img][/i][/b]

Notice than that during every recession the gap in unemployment that arises between 25-54 and the 55+ ages. The number runs in very similar pattern, but during the times right after the recessions the 25-54 sees a much bigger spike in unemployment than the 55+. You see that in the gap increase between the red and gray lines get a bit wider during recessions and immediate recovery.

Now if you look here you will see that since 1993 there has been a steady increase in the 55+ demographic in the workforce.

[img]http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/summary_10_04/older_workers_chart2.png[/img]

What happened in the 90's that made 55 years of steady decrease in the 55+ workforce change into a steady increase over the last 20 years? It wasn't government or the Fed, it was a decision by the [i][b]employer's[/b][/i] to replace defined–benefit retirement plans with defined-contribution retirement plans, allowing employers to shift more responsibility for retirement income to the employee that really gained steam in the 90's. There are other factors as well, but that is more than a coincidence.

So the fact that older workers are always more employed than other workers, along with the fact that unemployment for older workers doubled during the recession, the 55+ workforce is larger than anytime in history, and the fact that there are limited jobs because of the recession it is very understandable and not anything conspiratorial that older workers are getting a high percentage of the jobs available.

Having said that the 55+ work force is polarizing because, although many of the new jobs were filled by them, that demographic still has the longest long term unemployment

[quote]

Although the rate of unemployment among older workers is lower than that for their younger counterparts, older persons who do become unemployed spend more time searching for work. In February 2010, workers aged 55 years and older had an average duration of joblessness of 35.5 weeks (not seasonally adjusted), compared with 23.3 weeks for those aged 16 to 24 years and 30.3 weeks for those aged 25 to 54 years.

The longer duration of unemployment among older workers also is reflected in a higher proportion of the unemployed who have been jobless for extended periods. For example, nearly half (49.1 percent) of older jobseekers had been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer in February 2010, compared with 28.5 percent of workers aged 16 to 24 years and 41.3 percent of workers aged 25 to 54 years

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/summary_10_04/older_workers.htm
[/quote]

[quote name='Jase' timestamp='1363753518' post='2168410']
Meanwhile the [url="http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards/topic/74867-the-racket-of-higher-education-continues-to-unravel/"]government is enslaving the young working class[/url] all the while making it harder for them to break free of their chains.[/quote]

You linked to your thread about how college was a farce.

I find that hard to believe. During the worst part of the recession (07-09) here was the employment percentage changes by education level:


[quote]
[b]Total Change: -4.7%[/b]
[b]No High School Diploma: -7.5%[/b]
[b]High School Diploma Only: -6.8%[/b]
[b]Some College (including associates degrees): -4.3%[/b]
[b]Bachelor's Degree or higher: [color=#ff0000]+.4%[/color][/b]

[url="http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/10/01/Engemann.pdf"]http://research.stlo...01/Engemann.pdf[/url]
[/quote]

So during the recession, employment actually rose for those with a college education while all other levels were crushed.

So people with a college education actually saw slight job growth during the recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

raising minimum wage is like dipping a bucket in the deep end of the pool and pouring it the shallow end to make it deeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

While I may disagree with Teeray on the causation/correlation, he does more homework than most in the tbox. Pie to teeray given.

The question I have is WHY are people over 55 wanting (needing) to continue employment?
They are expecting to [u]live longer[/u] and to continue the [u]lifestyle [/u]we've become accustom, gotta have[u] 2-incomes[/u]. I doubt that curves gonna bend/trend down for a long time.

How do you fund your retirement:
Pensions (if any)
savings (with 0% interest, good luck with that)
investments (probably lost a decade of time with the tech bubble crash and housing/banking bubble). If over 50 you cannot afford to lose principle. You run out of time to recover.
Retirement savings - took a hit (see above) or not funded enough
SS - do you start drawing early or do you wait it out to get bigger bucks.
Family/children - I could never send my parents off to a retirement home, but that's me.

So does the current economic enviroment, make it inviting for those nearly retirement age to leave the job market? IMHO, I don't think so.

---not sure how this discussion on min wage reached the 55 and over workers.----

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i already solved this a few pages back.

a populist move does not a solid economist make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

$22 per hour would put a lot of people on unemployment.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

$22 per hour...there would be bread/cheese lines because costs of food would skyrocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='g5jamz' timestamp='1363918326' post='2171104']
$22 per hour...there would be bread/cheese lines because costs of food would skyrocket.
[/quote]

Yes, because everyone knows that when the minimum wage is raised, it causes people to eat more and food production to decrease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thatlookseasy' timestamp='1363918844' post='2171129']

Yes, because everyone knows that when the minimum wage is raised, it causes people to eat more and food production to decrease
[/quote]

When minimum wage is increased...costs to bring goods and services to customers go up.

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yeah, price of food goes up. Why are there lines again? I didnt realize there would be a food shortage, does a minimum wage increase cause famines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thatlookseasy' timestamp='1363935170' post='2171427']
Yeah, price of food goes up. Why are there lines again? I didnt realize there would be a food shortage, does a minimum wage increase cause famines?
[/quote]

I'm sorry...let me put it in 21st century terms. EBT cards will be handed out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[b] Oracle CEO buys a Hawaiian island[/b]

http://money.msn.com/investing/latest.aspx?post=b143b08f-4b07-405e-8e98-404a9a22716c

Will there be breads lines for buying islands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

raising it up to 22 would put alot of people in a higher tax bracket. More revenues for the feds, yeah!!!! if they were serious they would drop income tax for low wage earners. that way you're not FORCING employers to shell out more money, and be giving a break to those earners. Evaluate who makes min wage in this country. start with restaraunts. Food prices already going up, plus the threat of obamacare. Higher taxes on profits and all the insurances the employer has to carry for compensation and unemployment,ect.Even a dollar increase to the wage would put these businesses on their end. $22.00 minimum wage? Hell, why not 40 or 60?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites