Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

I'd say legislating wage creep, outsourcing to countries with lower minimum wage, loss of competitiveness internationally, pushing economic sectors to rely on illegal immigrants and the resulting unemployment of citizens to be "living in misery". And as for freedom, telling people they can't work unless they're worth $8.50 an hour isn't my definition of it. I hate to repeat the phrase, but the minimum wage and other bits of legislative do-gooding trades freedom for security and gives the poor neither.

Yes, of course. The solution to making our labor competitive with the Third World is obviously to pay them Third World wages. 

[Eugenitor]

unless they're worth $8.50 an hour

And as we all know, their lives, labor, and time just aren't worth $17,500 a year!

[Nikov]

I'd say legislating wage creep, outsourcing to countries with lower minimum wage, loss of competitiveness internationally, pushing economic sectors to rely on illegal immigrants and the resulting unemployment of citizens to be "living in misery". And as for freedom, telling people they can't work unless they're worth $8.50 an hour isn't my definition of it. I hate to repeat the phrase, but the minimum wage and other bits of legislative do-gooding trades freedom for security and gives the poor neither.

Time and time again it's been shown enough companies will exploit people as much as possible that oversight is required unless we end up with an effect slave labour workforce. (ignoring the fact that we have more slavery now anyway than we had in any other point in history).

That oversight is the role of labor unions and safety regulations, not wage controls. And I dare say its not being proven to be the case. If companies always exploited people, everyone would be offered minimum wage. But because skills and experience are valued in the labor market (at least a free labor market and why unions must be kept voluntary for the worker) companies actively compete to pay more when the worker is in demand. An example of this working very well to the worker's advantage is Henry Ford's employees, who were paid far above the usual wage because Ford knew well paid workers wanted to keep their job in his plant and would work harder to keep it.

Eugenitor, that's Marxist tripe and you know it. The value of a life can't be measured but the value of a man-hour can. Making emotional appeals in a discussion of economics is as relevant as asking if the paint in the Mona Lisa is enviromentally friendly. It has nothing to do with the art, just as emotional please have nothing to do with the dismal science.

RedKing, educated English-speaking and technically adept workers are worth far to an American company that needs those skills than all the child labor in China, so that's a false dilemma.

[Eugenitor]

Listening to all of you miserable plebes complain about your low wages is quite tiresome. You're asking me to make an allowance that I'm not in a position to grant. Can't be done, you see.

Why yes, I will have another cigar, Jeeves.

Now! As I was saying, we can't afford to listen to your emotional appeals. Economically, it isn't really relevant whether or not your children's shoes fit, or you can afford to drive a car- oh learn to walk, man!- we simply can't afford to pay you that kind of money.

What, all this? Fruits of my labor, old fellow. I rightfully earned it.

Err.. what are that hammer and sickle doing in your hands...?

[Nikov]

unless they're worth $8.50 an hour

And as we all know, their lives, labor, and time just aren't worth $17,500 a year!

I leave the table bare of nothing but crumpled napkins and unwashed dishes, and if one of those lackeys has the temerity to ask where their tip is, I say "Here's a tip: Find a better job!"

Does it bother you to be such an enormous hypocrite? Even your Monopoly Man stereotype treats human beings with more respect than you do.

[RedKing]

RedKing, educated English-speaking and technically adept workers are worth far to an American company that needs those skills than all the child labor in China, so that's a false dilemma.

It's a false dilemma for certain sectors. But not for manufacturing, broadly speaking. Or certain types of service sector jobs where customer interaction is minimal and physical location is irelevant (records processing, for instance). And these same sorts of jobs tend to be low or negative "value-added" jobs. The service sector jobs are particularly tempting to offshore because they're rarely "value-added" jobs. That is, they don't directly contribute to revenue--they don't make or sell a product, but are instead support for the overall business model. They're considered overhead. Customer support is a great example. Providing support for your products is seen as a net loss of money, but not providing it could lose you customers in the long run. But because it doesn't actively generate revenue, it's a liability and one of the prime areas for pricks with newly minted MBAs to come in and 'save the company money' by sending those jobs to Bangalore.

Don't give me that crap about companies valueing skilled workers. Most large companies treat their workers as interchangeable parts that can be replaced as needed. The days of "The Company" taking care of you and giving you a gold watch and a nice pension when you retire are long gone. Now you're more liable to get the axe when a couple years shy of retirement, to save the company from being on the hook for your whole pension. If you even have a pension. More often, you have a 401(k) which thanks to the rampant mismanagement and greed on Wall Street (laissez-faire capitalism at its finest), is worth a fraction of what it was a few years ago.

And now you want to take away the price floor on the labor market, during a period of near-record unemployment? I guess in your Ayn Rand fantasy-world, those desperate unemployed rubes would throw themselves at all the new $1.50/hr jobs that would spring up, and the Captains of Industry would stride boldly forward with the surge of cheap domestic labor at their disposal.

But in the real world, very few people are going to work for less than the current minimum wage, other than illegal immigrants. At a certain point, the costs associated with working (dependent care, lunches, travel to and from work, wardrobe/uniforms, etc.) dictate a logical minimum wage, even if you take unemployment benefits and/or welfare out of the picture.

[Nikov]

I know for a fact that the customer service sector is migrating back to the US, specifically because of the reasons I already laid out.

Yes, the pension plan days are over. Federal or private. Personal responsibility for one's finances need to become part of the culture again.

Take away the price floor? I'd call it the employability sub-basement, and answer YES PLEASE. The labor market would adjust wages and businesses will adjust prices to what it should be within a few months and we'll be able to get the economic engine moving again with people returning to productivity. Its a damned sight better than extending unemployment benefits to two years.

Oh hey look, your last paragraph admits your third was a non-issue. Cool beans.

[mainiac]

People talking about how hard minimum wage laws are on the workers and how hard social security is on the young are extra compassionate because they are so rarely members of the affect groups.

Fun fact: the non-shithole parts of the US are the most liberal.  (Well, with the exception of Texas with it's wonderful economy built on liberal cities.)  When you talk about how conservative ideas bring prosperity, you are talking a load of shit.

How about the conservative scum stops letting us stop subsidizing your schools, medicare and social security then you get back to us on how important it is to be free to stand on your own two legs.

[Nikov]

California and New York are both wonderfully liberal and hopelessly broke. As I've quoted before, socialism works so long as there's someone to pay for it.

[ed boy]

You measure the wealth of a country by how much the poorest people earn, not the richest.

No. That is one measure of the wealth of a country. It is by no means the only one, nor it is by any means the best one.

[Aqizzar]

California and New York are both wonderfully liberal and hopelessly broke. As I've quoted before, socialism works so long as there's someone to pay for it.

Hmm... Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and plenty of other states are hopelessly broke.  Heck, pretty much all of them are.

[Il Palazzo]

California and New York are both wonderfully liberal and hopelessly broke. As I've quoted before, socialism works so long as there's someone to pay for it.

Hmm... Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and plenty of other states are hopelessly broke.  Heck, pretty much all of them are.

See what the minimum wage did to your country? Repent!

[RedKing]

I know for a fact that the customer service sector is migrating back to the US, specifically because of the reasons I already laid out.

Really? Because the last half-dozen times I've had to call support (both internally and as an external customer), that wasn't Kansas I was talking to. At HP, our payroll support line goes to Mexico, our technical support line goes to India, and I believe my org unit's HR support line goes to somewhere in eastern Europe. I know for a fact that IBM shipped the vast bulk of their internal desks to Brazil and Mumbai. External desks may be slowly trickling back, but corporate internal desks for the Fortune 500 are overwhelmingly offshored now, because hey...what are the employees going to do about it? F**k 'em if they don't like it.

Yes, the pension plan days are over. Federal or private. Personal responsibility for one's finances need to become part of the culture again.

Because taking a job with a blue-chip thirty years ago BECAUSE they promised a good pension and actually expecting them to live up to their word was totally irresponsible.  By the same logic, investing my money with a bank is irresponsible because the bank could always sink my money into subprime mortgages and then collapse.

Take away the price floor? I'd call it the employability sub-basement, and answer YES PLEASE. The labor market would adjust wages and businesses will adjust prices to what it should be within a few months and we'll be able to get the economic engine moving again with people returning to productivity. Its a damned sight better than extending unemployment benefits to two years.


Oh hey look, your last paragraph admits your third was a non-issue. Cool beans.

No, my last paragraph was pointing out that your "price shock" scenario of rapid deflation in wages and prices WON'T WORK. Not to mention the havoc it would wreak on the fiscal system. Hey, you had a $80,000 student loan to pay off? Guess what? Now instead of paying it off in 10-15 years, you'll die owing money. Now, it's a goldmine for anybody who is actually debt-free and laden with liquid cash. $50,000 in the bank suddenly goes a lot farther if all wages and prices take a steep plummet. Gee, which class of society tends to have a lot of cash reserves and which class tends to have a lot of debt relative to income?

You need a time machine so you can go live in the 1920's with Vanderbilt and Carnegie.

[mainiac]

California and New York are both wonderfully liberal and hopelessly broke. As I've quoted before, socialism works so long as there's someone to pay for it.

New York isn't and California is because they've been subsidizing your social security, medicare, welfare, medicaid and education...

Libertarianism works so long as there's someone else to pay for it.

Edit:  Texas had a nearly 20 billion dollar deficit last year, despite receiving more then half it's expenses from the federal teat.  That's 20 billion in deficit on 70 billion in state revenues, a lot of which comes from all that oil money.  What a model example of fiscal responsibility!

[Shades]

How about we just go with "things works so long as there's someone to pay for it"