American Wages, the Minimum Wage and Income Brackets

If you can't rationalize the difference between $15/hour in Mayberry compared to SF then just say so instead of attacking me??

MW has nothing to do with crime?

Who said the states decide? And today cities absolutely do decide MW and most of them set MW well above the federal level so obviously it is working.

Lastly, you can never eliminate those who function on the bottom rungs! If you greatly increase MW then all other wages will proportionately increase over time which MEANS there are no gains. And since nothing is free, to greatly increase wages with no increase in productivity is going to create problems...

 

This is where you are dead wrong!

Increasing the MW puts more money into peoples' pockets, which means (especially at the MW-level) that they spend it. The economy is enhanced and, yes, without too much inflation. Yes again, the selfish (like you) may have to pay a bit more for some items.

We can indeed diminish the "bottom rungs" by making sure that they escape the penury of the present less than $10/hour income. But, we can't do much to make them any smarter.

We can only hope their kids, with the ability to go into postsecondary-education get jobs and need not live any longer below the Poverty Threshold.

The reason America can be so sluggish economically is in fact due in part to the MW. People below the Poverty Threshold (earning $25K a year) can only meet the basic requirements of an existence. They remain in the hellish-world of a low-income lifestyle and they die there ...

 

So you 'think' when all wages are adjusted proportionately, due to increasing MW from $7.25/hour to $15/hour, that there 'will be' gains for those on the bottom rungs?

You think you can create all this new spending and resulting inflation will be 'low'?

More of your asinine personal attacks that I'm selfish? You know absolutely nothing about me?

You should study 'bell curve' and then figure out how you can eliminate the lowest quintiles? You seem to believe you can create an economic society in which everyone is middle and upper class that is void of wage disparities?

You also think you can simply force greater costs onto the private sector without providing increased productivity?

 

Why do people not develop the skills that would reward them with something more than minimum wage?

 

Like a perpetual motion machine.
Yay!

 

Never said that - and no I don't think that wages should be set. In a market-economy, wages are - like most else - determined by Supply&Demand. (Taxes, however, are at the discretion of the government.)

What is not determined is Wealth, because that depends upon Income that is allowed to aggregate to the highest due to extraordinarily low Taxation in the US..

Which is the how&why the US has such unacceptable Income Disparity ...

 

Why don't people just learn skills so that they can have good jobs and don't have to live on minimum wage? If you are a burger flipper at Wendy's for your whole life, you aren't ever going to have a good quality of life.

 

inflation happens anyway. wages must beat inflation. go ahead and automate, my good Capitalists.

 

If the bottom is not going to get richer what do you care what others accumulate? Jealous much?

 

A "good-job" needs advanced-skills that must be taught. We are exiting the Industrial Age and entering the Information Age. Shop-floor work started exiting the US for China in the 1990s - almost 30 years ago. Industry employs barely 13% of the total., down 2.5% in ten-years - and trending further downward.

What's left in manufacturing as a well-paid job? Shop-floors with sophisticated robotic machines needing software specialists - and they have to be trained.

Barely 45% of high-school seniors graduating are going on to post-secondary education. Why only 45%? Because, in the US, it is too damn expensive for rest (55%).

In Europe, a post-secondary education is almost free of charge. Tuition fees are as little as $900 a year (in euros). America can spend more than half the Discretionary Budget (totaling $1.24T) on the DoD, but can't help the states offer low-cost post-secondary education.

Shall we debate about getting our priorities wrong ... ?

 

It is definitely true that higher education is far too unaffordable in the US. But part of the problem is the government. The government already pays for a lot of tuition in public colleges and hands out a lot of student aid and scholarships. But the cost of college keeps skyrocketing and administrative costs keeps increasing. In addition, you end up taking a lot of classes that aren't very relevant to your field of study, things that you could just learn on your own, from high school, or on the job. These fluff classes results in not enough technical skill in graduates and years added to graduation. In addition, so many students graduate with non-technical majors that don't get good jobs, and end up costing tax-payers a lot of money.

I'd make sure that the free money the government gives colleges and students only apply to in-demand majors and only for courses that are directly related to those majors. Also, more of that money will be focused on trade schools, apprenticeships, and boot camps, but these will have to be accredited before receiving any government money. The scholarships will only be for in-demand majors that we have labor shortages for, and will help balance out the workforce toward high-skill labor.

I'd also provide unlimited student loans that are zero interest and paid off as a percent of future salary. These loans could pay for tuition, books, living expenses, and transportation. People could borrow knowing that interest isn't going to ruin them financially and there are no deadlines for paying. They will only borrow for careers and schools that they believe is worth the borrowing since it will be deducted from their salaries. They will also pick more cost-effective colleges and avoid those with a lot of extra costs.

 

I could make the same remark for here in Europe. But, the cost of post-secondary education remains relatively constant. (And still much, much less than the US.)

Education is a state thing, and the DoD is "national". It's always been that way - but I don't understand why.

Both are key to the country's overall well-being. So, why should not Education be subsidized by the government? We could assure ALL CHILDREN take primary and secondary education for free, whilst tertiary-education is also very low-cost (about $1000 à year in euros) but supported by both state and federal subsidies ...

 

European colleges are cheaper but they are also aren't as high quality because they don't have as much funding. They also tend to be a lot more laid back. Both American and European colleges suffer from the problem that they don't adequately train students for the technical jobs in the future and Europe is well behind the US in the tech industry and business in general. I think focusing on practical education that helps people get real well paying jobs quickly is the key.

 

.....That must be learned. It is your responsibility to learn them

 

So, why dont you come cut my lawn if you want my money?

 

Bollocks!

The same stoopidity that prevails in the US occurs here! Somehow "money buys EVERYTHING including competent teachers"!

Teaching-competence is ingrained and - for the most part - is not only knowledge but patience. Especially amongst the younger set. But, even college can be upsetting for some who have not yet found their "calling". Post-secondary education should help them do that as well. Whether one learns a skill or a highly complex atomic theory takes brains, which have to be trained, tutored and incited.

Not everybody makes for a "good teacher". And not just anybody - it takes real talent ...

Your remarks above are highly mistaken and show that you have no understanding of either scientific or engineering development.

You don't even know that the first elements of the Internet were devised at the CERN in Geneva by Tim Berners-Lee who worked there in the 1980s. I met Tim there at the time, because he needed a large computer to stock alphabetically and access quickly all the words of the mountain of research documentation. Search on words is at the heart of any "look-up" system (which is also the heart of the Internet and Google).Tim was establishing a means to share the information amongst member atomic-research agencies.

Tim inevitably wanted to put the service on a large computer-network and the only one that existed at the time was with the US Army. So, he went to the US and (along with others interested in creating a large accessible data-base of research information) mounted the "look-up" service for research documentation. It was on the only real computer-network among nuclear research-agencies that existed at the time. And was called "ARPANet" for Advanced Research Projects Agency Network.

That event was also the birth of the Internet that eventually derived.

Tim eventually left the CERN (except as a privileged visitor) and went to the US to help perfect the nascent "Internet". Tim - a Brit - has since been knighted "Sir Tim" by the Queen. He is still in the US, as director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) located at MIT.

Your remark above is soooo wrong - focusing on ANY INTELLIGENT SUBJECT is necessary for societies to advance. And, so far, all that we can show for our "Intelligence Education" are nuclear bombs and the occasional threat of a nuclear war ... !

 

we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause. why don't gun lovers muster until we have no security problems.

 

Awe shucks, you want other people's money, but dont want to give anything in return. Does eating, crapping and breeding entitled you to other peoples stuff?

 

doesn't seem that way to me. the right wing wants the right to keep and bear Arms without the Obligation. they just like to blame the Poor for being "moochers".

 

We're talking about healthcare.
Do you or do you not wish to pay the same annual cost for healthcare as the guy who makes 10x your income? Yes or no? It's a very simple question

 

why whine about Taxes, right wingers; we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. or, the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

You implied that we can greatly increase MW, which will eventually increase all other hourly wages, and even though you say this will increase spending, you then say it won't create much inflation, and somehow in your economic future we will only have middle and upper class people? You also ignore my comments about the bell curve? You ignore that perhaps 75 million American workers earn $17/hour or less, and that when you force MW to $15/hour or whatever arbitrary number, you will need to increase these wages as well. And now you're injecting wealth which has little to do with hourly wages? And you ignore that it's impossible to not have income disparity...

 

One of your problems is you believe everything is a conspiracy when in fact there are no conspiracies regarding wages and MW and inflation. Wages don't need to 'beat inflation'...there are no rules for this...matching inflation is a nice thing but not guaranteed. Automation primarily happens when there are problems with labor...if you force the cost of labor higher without increasing productivity...you are essentially justifying the need for more automation. Capitalism has worked just fine...

 

higher paid labor pays more in Taxes and creates more in Demand; look at the Bright Side.

 

i agree to disagree. simply having the Expense of Government means Governance for the welfare General. otherwise, whence Any need for Regulation, at all.