Monday, June 4, 2012
Thinking Outside the Wage
Those on the left love the minimum wage and always seem to want to raise it. Those on the right quite frequently feel the exact opposite (some even going as far as to want to abolish it). Might I propose to my colleagues a compromise of sorts. Yes, we do away with the minimum wage, completely. But then we replace it with a form of negative income tax, possibly along the lines of what Milton Friedman first suggested. That way we a) allow the market to set the true value of labor and b) are still able to care for those citizens less fortunate. We already have a form of it in the Earned Income Tax Credit and, if we simply reinforced it and provided it in the form of monthly stipends (as opposed to it simply coming in one lump sum), it would more than likely be sufficient............................................................................................Yes, I understand that there perhaps could be a downside to it. Some employers may in fact be temped to low-ball workers thinking that the government will pick up the slack. But the fact that most U.S. workers already make well in excess of the current minimum wage makes me think that this factor probably wouldn't be much of an issue. Hell, if anything, it will probably help to employ our younger workers at a much faster clip; their entry into the labor force not having as much of a barrier to it, etc. (the current black male teenage unemployment rate currently hovering around 50%).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Just how many people in the U.S.make $7.25 per hour? Migrant workers dont count.
Are you willing to increase taxes to pay for this program? And who do you tax? The businesses who directly benefit or the people who do not directly benefit? In the end, aren't you just changing the pocket from which the money comes?
Has anyone noticed Obama has'nt gone anywhere near this Wisconsin dust up? Might be a telling tale tomorrow.
I should'nt be saying this,but as the years have gone by I find myself liking Bill Clinton.Its interesting that Obama wont go near Wisconsin and perhaps the party does'nt want him there,but they've sent Bill Clinton twice in a week.....either Bill has a lady friend in Kenosha or the DNC feels Clinton has more clout.
As far back as I can remember,I always wanted to be a gangster.
I was going to get my teeth whitened,but I said fuck it I'll get a tan instead.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 3.6 million people make the minimum wage or less. That comes out to about 5% of all hourly earners and 3% of all workers. Nearly 50% of these people are 24 and under and have little or no experience. And it also must be pointed out that a lot of these service related positions also earn tips.
Jerry, as you know, I'm in favor of raising the top rates back to 40% and I'm also in favor of cutting defense spending. I really think that we can prioritize our way to getting this done.
Come on Will..."a monthly stipend?" Is that another form of welfare? Do you actually think flipping a burger is worth more then $7.50 an hour? You were correct about letting the market set the wages.
Why must the government get involved and tinker with salaries? The minimum wage law is a favorite of the dems.If only they realized any increase is passed on to the consumer.
Having the federal government subsidize hourly wages is a foolish idea.
Will,in your opinion how much per year should the person manning the fry station make....10,000....20,0000...30,0000....maybe 100,000?
Will,do you really think we should take money from...say a person with a graduate degree working for Lockheed/Martin and give it to a burger flipper or the guy manning the fry station....come on you're a lot smarter then that.
It's actually a conservative idea (the negative income tax), Russ - Milton Friedman.
Its welfare in different clothes.
I believe...and always will to let the market rule.If you can do it better and cheaper then the other guy....you win.
Let the market set the wages...if the job is worth 10 bucks an hour,it makes 10.
For christ sake Will,49.5% of the population pay zero income tax today....so lets give them a monthly stipend also.
Russ, would it help if I were to say that I was exempting wd from this benefit (not to mention dependents; kids working while living with their parents, etc.). Seriously, though, it would actually only go to a very small part of the population; maybe 1%.
Will,I'm all for helping the helpless....but,I also feel, F**k the clueless.
You said 1% of the countries population makes minimum or less.
You would want to establish a new department in D.C. to nanny 1% of the population...does'nt make a lot of sense Will.
Rusty,
We already have a department to "nanny 1% of the population" It is called the IRS.
Will: That way we... allow the market to set the true value of labor.
The market can't and wouldn't set the "true" value of labor. The market seeks to pay labor as far under it's true value as possible. This is a plan for the third-world-ization of the US (except for the negative income tax bit). The wealthy elites would absolutely LOVE to do away with the minimum wage... more money for them.
Will: ...would it help if I were to say that I was exempting wd from this benefit...
God, what a dick.
You're not kidding WD...Will would want to deprive you of more free stuff....that just aint right...you earned those freebies...well,lets not use the word earn....lets say society owe's it to you...yea,thats it we owe it to you.
No, not me personally Rusty, but otherwise I agree with what you wrote... when the wealthy elites refuse to pay fair wages I do think they should be forced to pay into government redistribution programs. It is owed.
Yes, some will abuse the system, and I'm not in favor of that, but it pales in comparison to the amount the plutocrats are stealing from the workers by underpaying them.
You hit that nail right on the head WD.
The minimum wage should at least be $20 an hour,nothing less.The hell with the damn Apple's,Microsoft's,Wal Marts,Costco's and their ilk.These pricks have no business making anything over 1% profits...in fact it should be zero...break even at best.That poor SOB in the Mickey D's drive in window should be knocking down no less then 50 grand a year.Shit...the guy at home playing PS3 16 hours a day should get a government grant of about 20,000.Yep,lets stop these Pluto's in their tracks.
Ole Rusty agree's with you 100% WD.
Rusty: Wisconsin's working people have spoken.
dmarks,I was impressed at the outcome in Wisconsin because the turnout was so high,almost 70%.That high a turnout usually bodes well for the dem,but not in this case.
I think the people of Wisconsin were just tired of this re-call B.S.,the union thuggery and realized Walkers programs are indeed working.
Rusty: I've also noticed that union membership has plummeted in Wisconsin recently, due to Walker's initiative on protecting workers' rights to decide whether or not to join.
This fits in with what I have said all along, based on evidence from union votes: between 1/3 and 2/3 of union members in "closed shop" states don't even want to be in the union, and if their rights are restored, they will flee the unions.
I think this also makes the unions into accountable, legitimate organizations that actually have to work for the interest of their members, instead of just relax on the hammock of forced dues.
Watch the dem and union spin today.It will be very telling.
The candidate that spends the most usually wins. Wanker outspent Barrett 8 to 1. This tells me that Wanker and the Kochs bought the election.
Also, exit polls revealed that 53 percent of those voting plan on casting their ballot for Obama in the presidential election... meaning there was some overlap between those voting for Wanker and those planning on voting for Obama.
My "arrogance" tells me that these people are idiots.
dmarks: Wisconsin's working people have spoken.
Yesterday was a dark day for Wisconsin's working people. Massive campaign ad spending by the plutocrats tricked WI's workers into voting against their own interests.
dmarks: That high a turnout usually bodes well for the dems, but not in this case.
You just admitted that the majority of working people vote Democratic. This is true. Democrats represent working people and the Republicans represent the wealthy.
Unfortunately the fascist Citizens United decision allowed the Repubs to buy the election. Wanker's policies will continue to destroy jobs and weaken Wisconsin's economy. Wisconsin's working people have screwed themselves.
dmarks: How odd that someone would say it is stealing from someone to refuse to give them a handout.
I agree, that would be odd if I had said it... but I did not. I said it was stealing when the wealthy elites refuse to pay fair wages.
Rusty: So here we have it. Some will "spin" against Walker's strong victory and blame it on the fact that the government didn't control political speech enough.
Democrats won control of the WI state senate, which means they can stop Wanker's fascist agenda. So, while Wanker retained his governorship (by buying it with outside plutocrat money), the working people of WI have at least this.
dmarks: I side with the people.
You side with the plutocrats... by your own admission.
dmarks: This decision restores our First Amendment rights to speak out on political issues.
"Our" rights? So you're one of the plutocrats? The Citizens United decision had to do with the "rights" of the plutocrats to buy our elections, that's all.
dmarks: Because the way it works, if someone refuses to offer fair wages, no one will work for them.
It doesn't work that way. Desperate people will accept any job they can get, even if it is one that underpays them. The only other choice is to starve to death.
dmarks muzzily said: Where did I admit this?
You said high turnout favors Democrats.
WD said: "So, while Wanker retained his governorship (by buying it with outside plutocrat money)"
WD is blowing shit out of his mouth. He has yet to refer to one cent being spent to buying an election.
"The Citizens United decision had to do with the "rights" of the plutocrats to buy our elections, that's all."
Actually, check out the actual decision. In it, a few Americans decided to get together and make a film critical of a US senator. They ran afoul of a law that made it a crime to speak out on political issues.
It had nothing to do with "plutocrats". You really need to read more, you know?
dmarks: WD is blowing shit out of his mouth. He has yet to refer to one cent being spent to buying an election.
That's disgusting dmarks. What a potty mouth. I pointed to the fact that Wanker outspent Barrett Eight to one!! A large portion of this money was spent by outside groups on anti-Barrett ads. The fascist Citizens United decision made this possible (election buying). dmarks simply denying it does not change this fact.
dmarks: check out the actual decision.
I did check it out. It allows the plutocrats to buy our elections.
It had nothing to do with "plutocrats". You really need to read more, you know?
Actually it did. You really need to read more.
Damn,the folks at MSNBC are spinning the Wisconsin election as if it were a dem victory.
There a creepy little guy named Wolffe over there...he looks like the type who would have tried to peek into the girls locker room in high school and he's spinning so fast its making me dizzy.
dmarks: So? I'd like to see evidence of buying an election. Did any of this money go to pay for anyone's vote?
Yes. It was spent on ads that lied about Barrett (negative things about him that weren't true) and lies about Wanker (positive things about him that weren't true).
dmarks: There is nothing in it about election-buying. You must have it confused with another.
I'm not confused in the least... but clearly you are, because it is in there. It's in the dissent, which YOU clearly haven't read.
Justice Stevens: "[the Court's ruling] threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution... A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold".
dmarks: I shouldn't stoop down to your level.
I'd be surprised if you rose up to my level and stopped lying.
Russ, 3% of the workforce makes the minimum wage. Half of those people are kids living at home. Another quarter of it are probably second wage earners. Another eighth are probably retirees and the disabled. All told we're probably talking about 3 or 4 tenths of 1%.......And what a paranoiac idiot wd is. Doesn't this fellow know that one of the biggest engines of the economy is small business and it's them who could potentially be helped by this. And, really, how frigging good is that minimum wage when we currently have close to 50% of the black male teens in this country unemployed? I mean, seriously?
And I don't think that wd understands the meaning of the term, value, in an economic sense. Value is set by the law of supply and demand and not by some oracle of compassionate reasoning working out of the DMV/post office.......And only 3% of the frigging people even make the minimum wage and a large chunk of them are young people. Duh!
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the problem conservatives have with the minimum wage is not the number of people who get paid it, but the fact that it set a base from which all other wages are based off of. Raise the minimum wage and a lot more people will get salary increases than just those earning minimum wage.
And what the libs dont understand Jerry is that raising the minimum wage is essentially a tax.....its a direct pass through to the consumer.
Rusty,
Using that logic, all businesses expenses are taxes which are passes through to the consumer.
Rusty: And what the libs don't understand Jerry is that raising the minimum wage is essentially a tax... its a direct pass through to the consumer.
We don't realize this because it's false.
The free market sets prices. Prices can't be raised beyond what people are willing to pay. Sometimes cost increases can be directly passed on to the consumer. Often businesses have to cut costs elsewhere. The CEO could take a pay cut, the profit margin could decrease, or the shareholders could get a lower dividend.
Rusty's argument shows that the Conservative perspective always comes from a place of pure greed. He thinks some workers should be underpaid just so the he can buy goods at artificially low prices.
Costs get passed on to the consumers ALL THE TIME and, yes, for the most part , we're willing to pay it. Gas goes up, we keep on buying it. The cost of a cup of coffee goes up we keep on buying it. And this ridiculous notion that only rich people benefit from profits and dividends is false. The bottom 90% have 40-45% of pension and whole life insurance wealth.
And it isn't just Rusty who benefits from these "artificially low prices" (he just got done saying that the free market sets prices). A lot of poor and working class people benefit from them, too.
Post a Comment