Do you feel it's difficult to provide a modest middle class life today?

This won't wash. Even orthodox labour economics accepts that workers are not paid according to demand conditions (and that monopsonistic wage making power is the norm). It's also factual to note that low skilled equilibria analysis has rejected supply side argument. Working poverty is effectively coerced through neoliberal government policy. It's rent seeking phenomena enabled by wiping out labour bargaining power.

 

Deep thoughts...considering I'm in my 8th decade on this Earth I'm on very solid ground...

 

There is not an ounce of facts in your comments here? I live and work every single day in a business and with employees and I know first hand I have NO CHOICE but to pay whatever the labor market demands...this is a fact! IMO the wages I pay are too high but there is absolutely nothing I can do about it...

 

Actually notions such as monopsonistic competition are supported by the available empirical evidence. That is either through rejection of a market wage or by measuring underpayment directly.

As an employer myself, I know I had wage making power. Of course it's slightly different for me as I aim for innovative staff and therefore go with profit sharing. For those on poverty pay, we know that supply and demand predicts coercion in the labour market. Monopsony is indeed found to be even more important in apparently competitive industries, given these problems are generated through job search frictions which empower the employer.

 

How can you disagree that the employee makes 100% the decision to accept a job position and the associated compensation? I worked for 40 years prior to being a business owner and never once was I forced into an unacceptable job and/or compensation. When I accepted a job, I did so full knowing my compensation. When I required more in my job, including more compensation, it was 'my' job to make the request to the employer...if my request was denied then I found another job. Where in this scenario does an employer control how much I earn?

 

If the market worked according to standard supply and demand criteria, wages would reflect productivity criteria. They don't. Wage underpayment isnfpund to be the norm.

Setting a reservation wage, and then being prepared to ditch for a better paid job, is assumed in job search analysis. That analysis, mind you, finds that underpayment is a significant cause of working poverty.

 

yes and it's going to get harder, wages have not kept up with inflation

 

maybe they should be able to declare BK like Trump did with his businesses many times, maybe the ability to refinance the loans

bet the costs of schools would go down if that happened

 

And evidently from the photo you don't know the meaning of "shifting sands".

Enjoy it while it lasts ...

 

I didn't see the photo mentioned. Were you standing on a sand dune as another poster implied? Probably not, considering the source.

 

Typically its worse: wages haven't kept up with productivity. That distinction neatly describes how right wingers, crowing in favour of the market, are really only sheep baaing for economic rent for their masters.

 

I hope you are not proud of what happened. Because it happens to a LOT of youngsters who have had no introduction to the rudiments of a Social Democracy. (I suggest heartily that you look at that definition!)

Which is paramount in a country that "cares for its people". And does not expect the Insurance Industry to be Highly Competitive and therefore maintain the best possible prices. Which one big load of BS.

When a nation has developed oligpolized markets, they are dominated by a select handful of companies that - without any formal negotiation amongst them (which would be against the law) - settle into pricing agreements that are higher than need be had Real Competition existed.

Most of us in Europe, who have National Healthcare know it will be there WHEN WE NEED IT. And it will be at a price that highly affordable, because the state not only sets the prices but pays the cost.

Quite simply, National Health Care is like a Toll-highway, except the user pays the toll through income-taxation.

And if the European Union version of National Health Care has lead to a life-expectancy for its people that is 3 years longer than in the US - then think about it. (The reason is not "in the drinking water"!)

See here:


I live in France. I am pay half-the-cost that you are paying in the US. Why?

Because the state subventions HealthCare. And why? Because the French state need not spend nearly 50% of its Discretionary Spending on Military Expenditures (aka "the DoD")!

And why? Because National Healthcare as a preferential choice is what the French people wanted. In fact, the British as well and their National Health Service started much earlier - in the 1950s ... !

 

There is no possible scenario in which ALL WORKERS are going to be happy! Even if you increased the lowest paid workers wages by 50%, over a short period of time ALL OTHER wages will also increase accordingly...along with massive inflation. Therefore, forever and for always, workers compensation will be spread around the bell curve which demands that there will always be workers earning in the lowest quintiles and will forever as a group be left wanting. On an individual basis, those who desire more can put forth the effort to achieve more, while those who do nothing but complain and expect government/politics to solve their problems will never find solution...

 

It's the picture on all of my posts. Some people when they run out of things to say go after the picture...

 

Actually, I was referring to the post "And evidently from the photo you don't know the meaning of "shifting sands" in response to your claim "Deep thoughts...considering I'm in my 8th decade on this Earth I'm on very solid ground..." The picture on ALL your posts shows you NOT standing, so I thought there might be a photo I missed.
Try not to be offended by posts which are supportive.

 

I'm not offended??

 

Are you asking me?

 

Who suggested that was the case? However, you are ignoring that workers are not paid according to their worth. Crikey, even orthodox labour economics doesn't suggest otherwise!

But let's note that minimum wages do lead to real increases in income. Price effects are insignificvant.

To what extent does the hierarchy reflect efficiency criteria (i.e. division of labour) and to what extent does it reflect rent-seeking behaviour? The latter becomes an increased problem with 'free market economics', where government effectively coerces greater inequality and working poverty.

 

I suggested it...that all workers are not going to find equality or happiness.

Workers are paid according to their worth. I guess it depends on how one defines 'worth'. But each worker is competing for their place in the workforce and as such this results in workers being paid based on their worth...on what they can provide. Using your position, you can argue that someone doing hard manual labor in harsh conditions should be paid equal or more than a doctor working in an air-conditioned office?

Minimum wages and increasing minimum wages does not solve any problems. Someone earning minimum wage and getting a 5% increase won't see much change in their lives.

There's something for everyone in the marketplace. From highly skilled to lower skilled to business operators and each person chooses their place and is rewarded accordingly...

 

Neither economic theory or empirical evidence agrees with your assumption.

In orthodox economics the labour demand curve reflects marginal productivity criteria.

Depends on the importance of the compensating differential.

Never said it did. However, the fact that minimum wages increases real income without generating disemployment effects is not consistent with your position.

Rewarded accordingly? If hierarchy occurs independent of division of labour then artificial wage differentials exist.

 

What the hell does THAT mean?!?

That we should all shut up and be content with what we make as income?

Spoken like a true Replicant who used to run a business and now retired tans himself on a beach ... !

 

Most businesses today pay workers equal to their collective average worth, which can vary quite a lot from their individual worth to their employer.
Those who feel they are not being paid their worth should either be content that others are being paid more than their worth as a result of their being paid less than their worth, and if they can't accept that they are always at liberty to find an employer who will pay them more. But I wouldn't suggest quitting your job until such time a higher paying employer can be found.

 

An employer certainly evaluates the 'worth' of an employee or job position when creating compensation guidelines. A person qualified to file records in a typical business environment does not have the same 'worth' as the product designer. Each company places a 'value' or 'worth' on each employee and pays accordingly. Conversely, if we're talking about the 'records' department they will place more worth on the records filer than they will a product designer . Labor is an expensive component of business costs and my 'empirical evidence' tells me that every employee is compensated based on their worth to the company.

0-5% minimum wage increases will not greatly effect employment or inflation. But when you're talking about minimum wages becoming living wages, which require increases of 100-200% in the MW, this will definitely effect employment and inflation.

Again...each person decides what work they wish to do and how much compensation they receive. Generally whatever skills and education and other attributes a person can present for a job they will be paid accordingly. Whenever an employee wants more then it's quite simple; the employee must put forth whatever level of effort is necessary to have more 'worth' in the labor market...

 

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head demanding that person accept a job they do not desire or dislike the compensation. Each person makes 100% of the decisions in their lives! If we don't like our decisions then WE need to make better decisions...

 

Human resources will adopt artificial mechanisms (e.g. seniority pay). SMEs will take into account monopsony conditions. None lead to payment according to worth. You argue otherwise, despite the fact that even orthodox labour theory predicts the empirical results.

A living wage should impact on the labour market. It should eliminate the rent observed from low wage labour, thus significantly impacting on the structure of the labour markets. However, if workers receive the wage according to value, then supply & demand informs us that any minimum wage effect will either be inflationary or create disemployment. The evidence shows otherwise.

The idea that wage reflects effort is laughable. We see that, for example, with zero hour contracts (which can impose high levels of effort with minimal return, reflecting lack of labour power). The best you have is efficiency wage analysis (which finds a link between wage and effort levels).