First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Minimum wages can only be maintained through draconian inflation control
17041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17
Minimum wages seem like something that could only be maintained through rigorous and even draconian measures to prevent, control, and reverse inflationary pressures on national currencies, whether they be lira or zorkmids.

When the value of the fiat financial fiction falls through inflation, it seems as if a 'minimum wage', a solid number, becomes less valuable as an indicator of viability.

Yet, it appears that inflation is exactly what economists desire, because it devalues their debts, another solid number. The less their money is worth, the less they actually need to pay back. They must be very excited when their currency collapses, because then all debts are void.
23970 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17
The value of a dollar used to be pretty stable so everyone had a solid idea what a good wage was. Now it changes every 10-20 years



We need the gold and silver standard back!
qwueri 
25278 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17

gornotck wrote:

Yet, it appears that inflation is exactly what economists desire, because it devalues their debts, another solid number. The less their money is worth, the less they actually need to pay back. They must be very excited when their currency collapses, because then all debts are void.


Unless the debt is tied to market rates or you're referring to interest rates, that makes zero sense. The net value of debt does not change with inflation, just the relative spending power of. That same inflation also affects the spending power of investments, and the amount of money needed to acquire a similar relative spending power.

At the point a debt becomes void due to currency collapse is the same point any previously acquired capital becomes worthless and acquiring new capital becomes fruitless. I'm not seeing how anyone would living in or otherwise connected with a monetary system would see currency collapse as a good thing unless they were exchanging currencies in anticipation of a collapse, and there's still a good chance the collapse would hurt any market they're exchanging with. Seems like a terrible decision for anyone that wanted to try it.
17041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17

Rujikin wrote:

The value of a dollar used to be pretty stable so everyone had a solid idea what a good wage was. Now it changes every 10-20 years



We need the gold and silver standard back!


The gold standard was good times, yes. So you think bimetallic standard? Do you think that would cause trouble between people who get paid in gold, and people who get paid in silver?
23970 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17

gornotck wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

The value of a dollar used to be pretty stable so everyone had a solid idea what a good wage was. Now it changes every 10-20 years



We need the gold and silver standard back!


The gold standard was good times, yes. So you think bimetallic standard? Do you think that would cause trouble between people who get paid in gold, and people who get paid in silver?


Diversification is a good thing. Prevents a change in one resource from wrecking havok on the economy. See Spain after they got the new worlds gold. It crashed their economy.
17041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17

Rujikin wrote:


Diversification is a good thing. Prevents a change in one resource from wrecking havok on the economy. See Spain after they got the new worlds gold. It crashed their economy.


Indeed, though I think the various problems endemic to Europe as a whole contributed, much less the series of wars that occurred around then. Wars tend to create inflation like nobody's business.

Another reason to strictly control currency valuations, really. Sadly, metallic standards will probably not be coming back for that same reason.
20786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/16/17

gornotck wrote:

Minimum wages seem like something that could only be maintained through rigorous and even draconian measures to prevent, control, and reverse inflationary pressures on national currencies, whether they be lira or zorkmids.


Ooh, Infocom reference. Respect.


Yet, it appears that inflation is exactly what economists desire


I'mma stop you right there.

Virtually every economist agrees that minimum wage is a Bad Thing.

Seriously, effectively anyone with graduate-level economics credentials will tell you the minimum wage needs to be abolished entirely because it's an interference with the free market that has no valid benefits.

We are all pretty much in favour of a guarantee that if we get a job, that job will pay us enough to live on. But minimum wage doesn't guarantee that we will get a job. Quite the opposite.

When you turn the lens around and look at the employer, minimum wage raises the cost of doing business. The fantasy in the heads of most politicians is that the employer will cry about it a little and pull that money out of his own pocket, but that is never what actually happens.

Instead, the employer reduces the workforce and increases prices, in some combination or other. So raising the minimum wage directly causes unemployment and inflation in the short term.

In the long term, these effects become invisible, because instead of companies terminating employees or raising prices to pay them... they simply never employ those people. Which means the minimum wage doesn't actually guarantee that you will be paid that minimum wage for your work. Instead, it guarantees that if your work is not worth the minimum wage, you cannot have a job.

But! Minimum wage isn't the disaster some people would try to tell you it is, because most jobs pay a lot more than minimum wage. If you're a hard worker who improves your skills, you should not be making minimum wage for more than a couple years.

Lazy fucks, however, tend to have a different experience. I personally will quit a job I hate and go get another one. Anyone who stays at their job and bitches about how much they hate it, on the other hand, is mostly just a lazy fuck who doesn't have the balls to leave. The better part of the American workforce works just enough not to be fired, so they can be paid just enough not to quit. If you want to be different, then, you know. Be different.
17041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17

cdarklock wrote:


gornotck wrote:

Minimum wages seem like something that could only be maintained through rigorous and even draconian measures to prevent, control, and reverse inflationary pressures on national currencies, whether they be lira or zorkmids.


Ooh, Infocom reference. Respect.


Yet, it appears that inflation is exactly what economists desire


I'mma stop you right there.

Virtually every economist agrees that minimum wage is a Bad Thing.

Seriously, effectively anyone with graduate-level economics credentials will tell you the minimum wage needs to be abolished entirely because it's an interference with the free market that has no valid benefits.

We are all pretty much in favour of a guarantee that if we get a job, that job will pay us enough to live on. But minimum wage doesn't guarantee that we will get a job. Quite the opposite.

When you turn the lens around and look at the employer, minimum wage raises the cost of doing business. The fantasy in the heads of most politicians is that the employer will cry about it a little and pull that money out of his own pocket, but that is never what actually happens.

Instead, the employer reduces the workforce and increases prices, in some combination or other. So raising the minimum wage directly causes unemployment and inflation in the short term.

In the long term, these effects become invisible, because instead of companies terminating employees or raising prices to pay them... they simply never employ those people. Which means the minimum wage doesn't actually guarantee that you will be paid that minimum wage for your work. Instead, it guarantees that if your work is not worth the minimum wage, you cannot have a job.

But! Minimum wage isn't the disaster some people would try to tell you it is, because most jobs pay a lot more than minimum wage. If you're a hard worker who improves your skills, you should not be making minimum wage for more than a couple years.

Lazy fucks, however, tend to have a different experience. I personally will quit a job I hate and go get another one. Anyone who stays at their job and bitches about how much they hate it, on the other hand, is mostly just a lazy fuck who doesn't have the balls to leave. The better part of the American workforce works just enough not to be fired, so they can be paid just enough not to quit. If you want to be different, then, you know. Be different.


Not everyone who stays in a job that they hate is staying because they are too lazy to change jobs. Saying that "most jobs" pay more than minimum wage also tends to take a national view of a local problem. Let's just say that, for a given locale and persona, there may be various factors of personal, economic, social, or educational criteria that could prevent someone from getting a "better job", even if that same person could have better success elsewhere.

I had heard that minimum wage, itself, hurts the economy, but much like the bowdlerized and somewhat exaggerated economist's statement, people generally think things that have bigger numbers are better at an inherent level. You probably would not be able to convince most people, without an economics or accountancy degree or educational experience, to agree that them getting paid 'more' is a bad thing. They won't connect their 'bigger' paycheck with the increase in costs.
16258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/15/17

cdarklock wrote:

Virtually every economist agrees that minimum wage is a Bad Thing..


Do you really believe that? Economists notoriously never agree on anything and the minimum wage is no exception. As with most things, there are pros and cons to increasing the minimum wage, but these things, first of all, aren't universal and, second of all, don't fall in such a way to show a clear outcome.

Just to prove my point, here is a list of over 600 economists who supported raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 back in 2014.

http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/16/17

cdarklock wrote:

I'mma stop you right there.

Virtually every economist agrees that minimum wage is a Bad Thing.

Seriously, effectively anyone with graduate-level economics credentials will tell you the minimum wage needs to be abolished entirely because it's an interference with the free market that has no valid benefits.

We are all pretty much in favour of a guarantee that if we get a job, that job will pay us enough to live on. But minimum wage doesn't guarantee that we will get a job. Quite the opposite.

When you turn the lens around and look at the employer, minimum wage raises the cost of doing business. The fantasy in the heads of most politicians is that the employer will cry about it a little and pull that money out of his own pocket, but that is never what actually happens.

Instead, the employer reduces the workforce and increases prices, in some combination or other. So raising the minimum wage directly causes unemployment and inflation in the short term.

In the long term, these effects become invisible, because instead of companies terminating employees or raising prices to pay them... they simply never employ those people. Which means the minimum wage doesn't actually guarantee that you will be paid that minimum wage for your work. Instead, it guarantees that if your work is not worth the minimum wage, you cannot have a job.

But! Minimum wage isn't the disaster some people would try to tell you it is, because most jobs pay a lot more than minimum wage. If you're a hard worker who improves your skills, you should not be making minimum wage for more than a couple years.

Lazy fucks, however, tend to have a different experience. I personally will quit a job I hate and go get another one. Anyone who stays at their job and bitches about how much they hate it, on the other hand, is mostly just a lazy fuck who doesn't have the balls to leave. The better part of the American workforce works just enough not to be fired, so they can be paid just enough not to quit. If you want to be different, then, you know. Be different.


Meh.... I disagree. In fact, if I had my way, I'd tie minimum wage to cost of living by per state, and possibly try to figure out a way to put a cap on what the highest wages a company can pay out at about 20x what the lowest paid worker earns for any company over 20 employees. From there, eliminating many of the deductions for businesses, and hell, for married couples and those lovely little deductions for having children. It would be absolutely HELLISH to adapt to something like this, but it would cause stability in the end. (tying min. wage to cost of living ensures that inflation cannot outpace wages. Tying it to state cost of living will, GENERALLY mean, HOPEFULLY, that you can accommodate for cost of living differences from say, Kansas and New Jersey, without having too many clusterfuckery issues going on)

capping highest wages based on lowest wages is nothing new, and 20x is quite generous. If the janitor makes an equivalent to 25K a year, the CEO could still be walking home with a cool half mil a year annual salary.

Simplifying a tax code means less ways to evade taxes. You can set rates either higher or lower, but simplification is better.

Also, if I'm going to tax the fuck out of anyone, it'll be those that make their money off of digital format intellectual rights. E-books. mp3's streaming services. I don't cotton much to people who toss a few bits of information over the intertubes and reap a fuckton of money for it. $20 for a pay per view movie is stupid (at one point, the Deadpool movie was cheaper to buy at walmart on blueray than stream ONCE over youtube or Amazon), paying $10 for an album is shit ((when a CD was probably about $14 and the artist still gets the same, but the digital format is, essentially free) or the same price for a book on an e-reader as a paperback (or in some cases, hardcover)

Same goes for "owning" a universally accepted file format (the information need to access the files) such as mp3 or pdf.

I'm not asking for straight out communism, and I respect that some benefits to getting ahead must be given to help encourage people to strive for more, but there's so many egregious yet allowable abuses out there.
20786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/16/17

gornotck wrote:

Not everyone who stays in a job that they hate is staying because they are too lazy to change jobs.


That would be why I said the literal opposite of that: LAZY PEOPLE STAY IN JOBS THEY HATE.

It's not a commutative statement. You can't turn it around and argue that it doesn't work in the opposite direction, because I never said it did.


Saying that "most jobs" pay more than minimum wage also tends to take a national view of a local problem.


That's because valid solutions disappear when focusing too closely on the problem. If you take a person who wants a better job but the closest such job is twenty miles farther away than the one they have, that is a problem with a valid solution of commuting slightly farther. But focus your search to a ten mile radius, and there is no solution, so they have no choice.

It's the same bullshit time and time again. "I've been looking for over a month, I went all over town and filled out a dozen applications, but most places just aren't hiring." So I point to the biggest building in town, look at the logo on it, go to their website... and they're hiring. Did you go there? Have you seen these positions? There are about thirty of them, and I see a few administration positions that anyone with a pulse could do.


I had heard that minimum wage, itself, hurts the economy


I wouldn't say it hurts the economy. But it demonstrably has no positive impact, and whatever negative impacts it may have are invisible in the long run. Every time we raise the minimum wage, it has a small negative impact which is rapidly swallowed up in the noise of other market changes.


sundin13 wrote:

Economists notoriously never agree on anything and the minimum wage is no exception.


The economic disagreement on minimum wage is about how inelastic the labour market is. None of them think minimum wage is a good thing, but all of them grudgingly accept that there is a minimum wage and we are not getting rid of it anytime soon.


serifsansserif wrote:

Meh.... I disagree. In fact, if I had my way, I'd tie minimum wage to cost of living by per state, and possibly try to figure out a way to put a cap on what the highest wages a company can pay out at about 20x what the lowest paid worker earns for any company over 20 employees. From there, eliminating many of the deductions for businesses, and hell, for married couples and those lovely little deductions for having children.


From an economic perspective, all of these ideas are objectively terrible. R. Buckminster Fuller kind of nailed it when he observed that it only takes a tiny few people who are very good at what they do to support the entire population, so we should just chuck this entire bullshit idea that everyone needs to earn a living. If you're a shitty worker who's unreliable and not too bright, you should just stay home, because someone smart and capable is out there working and you should stay out of their way.

When you go look at cultures that have no meaningful economy because they don't have much sense of ownership in the first place, you find that pretty much everyone likes to be useful and will work rather than be idle... so long as you don't try to make them work. And American culture very much tries to make everyone work. We could just stop. I mean, anyone smart and capable who's doing something important wants to keep doing it.
12015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Ontario
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/16/17

cdarklock wrote:


gornotck wrote:

Not everyone who stays in a job that they hate is staying because they are too lazy to change jobs.


That would be why I said the literal opposite of that: LAZY PEOPLE STAY IN JOBS THEY HATE.

It's not a commutative statement. You can't turn it around and argue that it doesn't work in the opposite direction, because I never said it did.


Saying that "most jobs" pay more than minimum wage also tends to take a national view of a local problem.


That's because valid solutions disappear when focusing too closely on the problem. If you take a person who wants a better job but the closest such job is twenty miles farther away than the one they have, that is a problem with a valid solution of commuting slightly farther. But focus your search to a ten mile radius, and there is no solution, so they have no choice.

It's the same bullshit time and time again. "I've been looking for over a month, I went all over town and filled out a dozen applications, but most places just aren't hiring." So I point to the biggest building in town, look at the logo on it, go to their website... and they're hiring. Did you go there? Have you seen these positions? There are about thirty of them, and I see a few administration positions that anyone with a pulse could do.


I had heard that minimum wage, itself, hurts the economy


I wouldn't say it hurts the economy. But it demonstrably has no positive impact, and whatever negative impacts it may have are invisible in the long run. Every time we raise the minimum wage, it has a small negative impact which is rapidly swallowed up in the noise of other market changes.


sundin13 wrote:

Economists notoriously never agree on anything and the minimum wage is no exception.


The economic disagreement on minimum wage is about how inelastic the labour market is. None of them think minimum wage is a good thing, but all of them grudgingly accept that there is a minimum wage and we are not getting rid of it anytime soon.


serifsansserif wrote:

Meh.... I disagree. In fact, if I had my way, I'd tie minimum wage to cost of living by per state, and possibly try to figure out a way to put a cap on what the highest wages a company can pay out at about 20x what the lowest paid worker earns for any company over 20 employees. From there, eliminating many of the deductions for businesses, and hell, for married couples and those lovely little deductions for having children.


From an economic perspective, all of these ideas are objectively terrible. R. Buckminster Fuller kind of nailed it when he observed that it only takes a tiny few people who are very good at what they do to support the entire population, so we should just chuck this entire bullshit idea that everyone needs to earn a living. If you're a shitty worker who's unreliable and not too bright, you should just stay home, because someone smart and capable is out there working and you should stay out of their way.

When you go look at cultures that have no meaningful economy because they don't have much sense of ownership in the first place, you find that pretty much everyone likes to be useful and will work rather than be idle... so long as you don't try to make them work. And American culture very much tries to make everyone work. We could just stop. I mean, anyone smart and capable who's doing something important wants to keep doing it.


The few can easily support the many but is that not the most Un-American thing possible? Why not just have wealth redistribution? no seriously, why not? We will call it the "don't cause crime" fund. If you don't want to work and just want to bullshit around all day, all you have to do is not commit crimes and you will get a pittance, enough to survive.

Denmark is calling it "guaranteed income". It is where no matter what you do, you get a minimum level of income. Do away with minimum wage (or at least cut it down) and just have that instead. A standard income is a really good way to alleviate the stress of staying at a job you hate or not being able to find work in your field for a time. Even if you are under-employed, you will still receive a certain amount to boost you back towards what your earnings were before hand. It would allow you to take lesser work without sacrificing your savings (at least all at once) just to stay afloat while you look for another job.

And before anyone cries about people abusing the system.. people will do that no matter what, its human nature (just as Mr. Donald Trump). Under regulated markets are abused to the benefit of billionaires while masses suffer. I don't believe in the "free market" is any more a thing as having more rich people somehow benefits the masses. Having more wealth in one spot only benefits the holder of that said people. When they have money, they can use it to leverage lawyers, law makers and create their own rules that go against the larger and arguably less wealthy population for further gains. This will create crime as people believe they are being repressed by unfair rules and feel swindled my mega corps and the like for profit. The greater social good is not based in profit.

And that is my hippy-dippy two cents.

Edit: On a side note, i have noticed that whenever a government tries to regulate a previously unregulated market, the businesses all cry foul and say they will be forced out of business but even if they did, someone would exploit the opening in the market and take over. Businesses will survive or reinvent themselves to suit the market or the laws governing them.
20786 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/16/17

Ghostxi wrote:
The few can easily support the many but is that not the most Un-American thing possible?


No. There are a whole lot more employees than there are employers, so the few-employers are already supporting the many-employees.


Denmark is calling it "guaranteed income". It is where no matter what you do, you get a minimum level of income. Do away with minimum wage (or at least cut it down) and just have that instead.


Bingo. If everyone has food, shelter, clothing, health care, and a little discretionary income they don't need a minimum wage. And these things are not terribly difficult or expensive to provide.

47839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/16/17
what language ya'll speakin
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Valhalla
Offline
Posted 6/15/17 , edited 6/16/17
^^^some type of alien tongue.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.