Why do people want a $15.00 minimum wage

This sounds strangely familiar . Something like you didnt build that. I dont think that guy cares for capitalism either

 

Well you certainly proved his point

 

You are arguing with fence posts.

.

 

How pathetic.
Why not aspire to create your own wealth?

 

Simple you refuse to tell us whats wrong with 40 bucks an hr min wage

 

in this pathetic "recovery" thanks to burgeoining Obama regulations and policies, the super majority of jobs are service industry jobs which historically were for teenagers or retirees. Now that we have people with college degrees only getting jobs at Subway etc, Democrats will push for a min wage increase rather than address the real issue of why Democrat policies don't allow good paying jobs to be created.

 

This is a funny post coming from the guy that told me that I need to apologize to the makers of electricity for the waste of their efforts. Especially since I paid for not only the electricity I used here, but the donor badge indicates that I paid in part of the electricity I used at the site as well. The communist, on the other hand, does not feel obligated to contribute. Ironic right?

But I've had enough fun on this thread. It's time for a serious post. Not that the absurdity didn't serve it's purpose. After all, it did get someone from the minimum wage increase side to admit that changing the scale of a measuring device does not change the value that the device measures. You can't change someone's height by making a foot longer or shorter. You can't make someone skinnier or fatter by changing the weight of a pound, and you certainly can't make someone smarter by adding points to the IQ.

Proponents of a minimum wage increase have conflated the term "wage" with the amount of money required to sustain a lifestyle they consider basic. That is the flaw in their logic. Wage is not this. Wage is strictly compensation for the value that a worker produces. Therefor wage is an instrument just like a ruler, a scale, or a measuring cup. You can't change the scale of the wage to change the value that the wage represents. Doing so is just as stupid as changing rulers to make people taller, or changing scales to make people less fat.

The consequences for this wage / lifestyle fallacy are directly observed by those that are subjected to it (namely people who earn minimum wage and people who purchase services provided by minimum wage earners) But these consequences also expand indirectly through the market as people adjust to the new scale of value measurement.

On top of that are the consequences to the people who don't want,need or are not able to produce the adjusted minimum amount of value the new minimum wage creates. That is to say, the proof that wage is not directly tied to lifestyle is in the people who don't work for that purpose. Not everyone is working to support a family of three on their own. The very mathematics of that statement preclude the conclusion that everyone needs to. If 1 person is supporting three, then three can work for supplement to the lifestyle, or experience, or God forbid, pleasure. Yet mandated changes to the wage reduce the ability to make those kinds of choices, and that's not a good thing for the household economy...

 

This is wrong and has been known to be wrong for over 200 years, ever since the discovery of the LAW OF RENT. More accurately, wage is compensation for the value that a worker produces AFTER the land monopolist has taken everything he can, leaving labor just enough to survive, so it can come back to work tomorrow.

Landowners do not contribute anything to production, they add no ($0) value, yet we have created a system (capitalism) where the landowners have a place at the feed troff. By allowing the land monopolist a place at the feed troff the linkage between productivity and wages is completely broken; worker productivity can rise with no corresponding rise in wages, because the rise in production is appropriated by the land monopolist.

As land scarcity increases the landowners can push labor and capital further and further to the side, giving them less and less of the wealth (value) which they alone produce. To the degree that raising the minimum wage allows labor and capital to push back against the land monopolist, reducing his unearned take of the feed troff, that rise in wage allows labor to keep more of the value which labor creates, by reducing the amount the land monopolist can appropriate to himself.

 

Then production should be possible without them, yet it is not.

 

Production took place for thousands and thousands of years before landowners ever existed. Nature provided the land for free. The only reason production is not possible without landowners – now – is because our arbitrary legal system of land tenure prevents it. In other words, landowners do not make production possible, they are simply empowered by the legal system to stop production unless their rent demands are satisfied. If landowners didn't exist, what would stop workers from freely using the land that nature provided? Nothing!

 

I agree, on top of having college degree's and only being able to get a job at subway, they also come out of college with substantial debt. Their loans are paid for by tax payers. Instead of utilizing the technology we have, we keep paying college's for education. To me a college is just another business, they don't care about your education, they just want your money. With modern technologies it would seem that we could get an education on our televisions and computers. Instead of using tax dollars for loans, we use it for paying teacher's, for education on our televisions/computers. Like a video conference. What do you think about this?

 

Nonsense.

Teams of laborers don't spontaneously coalesce in the forest and begin production of clothes. Production requires resources and management. Laborers need a factory with machinery that's powered by energy in a heated and well lit environment, and raw materials to combine into some new product. The landowner's contribution is his interest in the development, maintenance, and preservation of the land he owns.

Even when a group owns and manages the land, there's still a landowner who decides how that land will and should be used.

Just ask any Nevada cattle rancher about public land use...

 

If the minimum wage is raised, especially under a economy on the brink, you will see what I'm talking about.

 

there is no shame in being a tradesman or even making sub sandwiches

Many trades jobs can be lucrative because there is a skill involved and the market has demand. The average person cannot or will not run electric wire in a 100 degree attic or in a crawl space, or know how.

Many don't know how to fix a furnace or even where to get parts, to install fences, pave roads and driveways etc etc etc

If you like food service and can open your own sub or pizza shop then that's awesome

over the road truckers make OK money


those who choose to get a college degree do so of their own free will and should pay for it.

I often wonder why given that schools have our kids for 13 YEARS!!!!!!!..........why we continue to hear that they aren't educated or prepared

13 years isn't enough?????

 

I never claimed there is anything wrong with it.
Simply you refuse to accept your claim that min wage and raising it kills the economy and jobs. I proved your claim wrong. Deal with it.
You made a claim, I proved your claim wrong. Now you want to change the discussion.

Start another thread.

 

I just wanted to return to this, because I'm quite sure that the people who hold these types of views NEVER conform to them in practice themselves.

Geofree:

1. If you were to sell your home for greater than the cost of production of the home, would you return that surplus to the people who built your home as that would affect the value of their labor, or would you keep it yourself as a return on your own investment, labor, and ownership of the home?

2. Would you purchase a used vehicle for the full new sticker price or did the ownership and use of that vehicle have an effect on its value that would cause you to want to pay a different sum?

3. Do you not understand how the answer to these two questions demolishes your claim that ownership contributes nothing to value?

 

Do you even understand why jobs have left the country?
If so, please give the exact D policy that caused it.

 

Your whole premise is flawed and wasn't worthy of a real discussion.
Over time, in an inflationary world, no matter how tiny inflation may have been, if wages don't rise at the same level, then the purchasing power of stagnant wages declines.
All the min wage does is bring the low end of the scale closer in line to where inflation has brought product prices.
So you BS about weight and height and changing the measurement device is pure balogna.

 

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
When Reagan took office we were in a big economic downturn.
Yet he raised the min wage.

 

I guess you take this literally
[video=youtube;wxiMrvDbq3s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s[/video]

What would stop someone from taking over the field they planted for some other use? Heck its not their land. This land was made for you and me.

 

And then what happens? You're talking about a system that has the ability to self correct. The market has shown repeatedly that it can handle an expansion and a contraction without price fixing.

Rather than trying to readjust the measurement of value...why not let the value simply re-adjust on it's own? What makes you the person to pick the winners and losers?

 

Not if you live in the real world. There is a lot of technology that requires advanced education in order to work in that field.
Then we have the rest of the world and their education and skill level set, we need to be able to compete and work with them. So we need to be at their skill and knowledge level.
Sure, not to work in fast food. But people don't go to college hoping to land that fry cook job.

 

So than 100 dollar minimum wage would be even better and why stop there. You seem to think raising it means nothing. Again we have enough money to make everyone a millionaire so why not spread the wealth. Chances are within a decade or so the same people who were rich would be rich again and those who were poor will again be poor with exceptions of course. Most would think why work if I have a million bucks.

 

Because there are more and more people not being able to buy just the necessities. Or it was that way just a few years ago.
Yes, the markets can correct, but there can be a whole lot of pain in the process.
Having some basic floors, will avoid the 1930s from re-occurring. It just did in 2007-2013.

 

Why go to college if you can make 15 an hour at 16 flipping burgers ?