The debate "We shouldn't raise the minimum wage" was started by
May 14, 2016, 11:41 am.
37 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 40 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
mohasan posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 7 arguments, Nemiroff posted 14 arguments, Daffa8799 posted 1 argument, PoliticsAsUsual posted 1 argument, GamerHistorian posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
mohasan, enro, carocupit, Bodaciouslady16, a123, moneybagboyz123, josh_rocks, Nm1995, rob5998, xaveragexjoesx, Austin7779, DemonLlama, Bman192837465, AzelG and 23 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, historybuff, ADrunkenRobot, Daffa8799, PoliticsAsUsual, joey, GamerHistorian, NameWasTakn and 32 visitors disagree.
As minimum wage is what makes America, corporate and company based system with trickle down economics, even though with bernie sander who is a great candidate for office, the only thing is the people who are in power can just do this decision,
Ceo Of McDonald's: "Hey Ron, instead of paying that 15 dollar wage shouldn't we just hire robots instead since you dont have to pay them, oh how about we replace the grill workers, the assistant manager with a faq in a giant electronic board."
Owner of McDonalds: "We have the money so go do it."
This probably isnt the first time anyone owning a company has ever thought that if i have a robot i dont have to pay it, i just i have to keep maintenance. But what maintenance workers are needed to fix those darn things that mess up your order if you click the wrong thing right.
As this would bring revenue to people who do maintenance on computers, or tv. They cant be replaced because that would be too much
The thing is the people who have missed out on that education and want to try again at something that'll make more money. Money brings food, moneys brings water, most importantly money brings tax. It wont be the minimum wage people who have to pay for no no no. It will be people who are trying to keep the boat steady for themselves as such the middle class
But Gamer what if the middle class is struggling they dont have to pay since their struggling right.
If a bunch of lower middle class families have to pay taxes their going to be against the poorer family since they dont want to fall in have to struggle.
But Gamer what if tax the rich even more than what they usually get taxed for? And what if we make the tax loop hole free?
Well heres the problem.
By doing this you are only causing rich people to avoid taxs even further and even try to defend there position on how and why they got there, and im not talking about people like donald trump and people who have millions dollars that make jail look like a 5 years old time out in the corner.
Basically if you give power lets say to the poor class right. Socialism will rule with an iron fist, guess you the iron fist will wrapped around; Rich, Very Rich, Politicians, High Middle Class, Basic Middle Class(If Refusal on Not supporting the right to raise the people in a way). Those are the people who will get over powered.
Now I know i went off topic and that minimum wage is a problem, and it should faced as a American problem,not as a poor,rich, or middle problem
unless you mean a landlord who owns an entire zipcode... which is very extreme. and even then, the raise will be triggered and people can still choose to live elsewhere for that money.
I'm sure a final formula would be rather complex and consider many factors and issues. but that sounds like a good idea.
so you raise your prices at a more rapid pace than the surrounding competition and your lots remain vacant?
then you lower your rates and wait for the market to naturally grow.
Consider this: you are the landlord of an somewhat affordable housing unit. You are the base of the income, and wages are close to you. With this in mind, you know that people are being paid in relation to you. You have two options: either keep prices stagnant and use price as an indication, or you could take the initiative and raise your prices at a more rapid pace.
what do you mean precisely.
your view declared rent would rise due to some scheme to take advantage of the law. the problem with that is that the landlord already makes rent as high as he can get. making it hire due to the law will not get the landlord any benefit, only empty apartments. it will take time before the increased wages start to add up. it's not instant.
in my view the rent will go up due to natural market forces and either prosperity of the residents (which is a good thing) or gentrification (which has nothing to do with any rent formula).
in good times cities and people prosper and land/rent goes up naturally. unless the prosperity isn't shared, that is a good thing. your abusing the law scenario is illogical and makes no sense. the wages take time to catch up and the landlord will end up with empty apartments and 0 income.
"A higher rent would mean more income for the landlords since they could get more profit."
isn't that always a case? landlords always have an incentive to get as high a rent as possible.
the only way rent can go higher is if the value of the area goes up. and either the residents increase in wealth, or wealthier residents decide to move in.
One of the solutions was to link minimum wage to rent; a union of which benefits the sellers intensely since such regulation would by itself arbitrarily tie wages to housing and therefore a change in rent would change income. A higher rent would mean more income for the landlords since they could get more profit.
the city is where the jobs are... sure rent is cheap in rural west virginia, but cheap rent is useless if there are no jobs and your making nothing.
cities are where the majority of low wage work is.
and your roommate idea is great if you a bachelor, not a family of 4.
why would landlords raise rent in order to raise the wages of others? they aren't the ones working minimum wage... and they are risking having empty apartments and 0 income. I don't understand the connection. there is too much competition in real estate.
And that there is a sytemic problem; to live outside of one's means is to suffer. There is no reason to live in the city where housing is expensive. Even so, if it were a necessity, any wise individual must and will find a roommate to share costs.
I found issue with balancing wage to rent. If rent goes us, so does wage, so why would any profit driven industry not raise their rent in expectation of a forced minimum wage?
because of a free market. if I want to rent all my rooms I need to make have a good price. if jack up prices then people will look for cheaper places. it's called competition.
as for why it's necessary I'll use Vancouver as an example. the housing prices in Vancouver have been rising for years. they have gotten to the point that no one working a regular job can afford to buy inside the city. if you make less than $50,000 a year you have to live miles outside the city if you want to be able to live. the run away housing market has crushed all but the very rich. or forced them further and further outside the city. that isn't healthy for a society. no one can afford to work lower end jobs in the city any more.
If minimum wage is tied to rent, why wouldnt you enter into a cycle of raging rent, seeing wage increase, and so forth.
how do you drive rent up artificially?
if rent is in demand, there is a ton of competition, and it still soars!
if you got the right spot, you don't need to do anything! if you got the wrong one, you probably are still trying everything.
who isn't trying to drive their rent up now? lol. I don't get your statement.
I know 15 is easy and the slogan is catchy, but real life is complex. maybe that's why we are divided. cause we don't really want to think about the complex issues, we got our own problems.
but if we fix this shit right, government and the economy will function and our lives will be better!
let's stop being hostile about our issues and just lay your concerns on the table and we can address them all sensibly. and let's question some of our dogma (politics only please) as well.
Then you could drive rent up and make a killing.
a flat 15 minimum wage would be ridiculous nation wide. we need to stop that.
That would ruin many rural communities, and yet still be to low in the cities where most of the minimum wage jobs are.... defeating it's purpose.
it needs to be variable.
that's why I said it should be relative wage tied to local rent.
average lowest rent within certain travel distance determines the minimum wage so that rent = about 33% of your pay max. on a full time job. with some extra variables to make sure that lowest rent isn't extremely limited.
If you are making minimum wage, why would you choose to live in high expense areas? This is compounded by the fact that you should on dire need find roommates.
can you please cite this study?
Minimum wage has been shown to create positive effects with small negatives. 1991 economic study shows raising minimum wage could endorse and create more employment and push the consumer demand. Just like the mainstream Keynesian said "Wage growth leads to consumption growth and create inflation that would create new employments and more economic outputs"
yes, unfortunately that is the reality many people face. 30% would be the ideal, and minimum wage is the best short term path to achieving it.
in some big cities 50% of your pay is the cheapest, and at that you'll still subject your children to likely a life of chronic asthma which is rampant in poor areas from mold and having huge commercial highways and areas spewing deseil into the air, like the ironbound area in new jersey. just check out the rent there on google. 1300 for a 2 bedroom!!!
all your Republican economic slogans are cute and catchy, and they do make logical sense when you think about them a little, but reality is a lot less accommodating and a lot more complex.
if you are getting paid very little then housing takes up a huge portion of your income. there isn't always a cheaper option available.
Why is your rent 50%? Many financial advisers recommend 30%. There's likely a cheaper area around. It may be in a neighborhood people say are "bad" but it's affordable. If housing is 50% of your income you're living above your means.
when rent is 50% of your income, and you still have food and health care to go.... what the hell is your definition of comfortable?
low wage work is available mostly in high rent cities. without government assistance you would see hungry or homeless people in many of parts of the US. so the options are make the companies pay their workers a living wage, or make the taxpayers subsidize these highly profitable corporations. or turn the US into a 3rd world country with extreme poverty.
You are mistaken of you think any one in western civilizations experience extreme poverty. It's not central Africa. Most people who have financial issues live way above there means. It's not hard to save money you may not get all of the latest and greatest things but, people can still live comfortably.
but since state governments aren't covering it. depending on the political views of a particular state they might refuse to increase their minimum wage. the ability to earn enough money to live is the kind of issue that affects all Americans. it isn't an issue that only affects some states. I don't agree that all states need the same minimum wage, but I think there has to be a federal mandate to ensure local politics doesn't for people into extreme poverty.
Federal Law states minimum wage is $7.25 set in 2009 and hasn't been changed. However, I know California just passed a law making state minimum wage $15 an hour (New York gets it in 2018), D.C. has a minimum wage of $10.50, many wealthy states have a higher minimum wage then the federal minimum wage. Many of the poorer states are near the federal minimum wage though, but their cost of living is lower. I don't think the federal government needs to intervene since state level governments are covering it.
we no longer have extreme poverty, why do you believe poverty cannot be eliminated?
and even if true, crime cannot be completely eliminated, should we give up on trying to fight crime as well?
That is true to a certain extent.
The point i desire to make is that poverty is a part of society that cant be removed
best measure I can point to in America is how much you earn vs rent where your job is.
the value of money changes, these 2 variables are far more important.
Where does poverty end though?
it would increase the cost of production, but this is a cost that needs to be increased. it's not like every other cost doesn't go up, for the company as well as for its workers...
if costs keep rising and wages remain stagnant, the economy will also break.
But nonetheless supply would be hindered
Minimum wage decreases supply if in a perfect world, hours would stay the same. It would increase costs of production
what will happen if you set the minimum at 1 million is the economy will break, Noone will get paid, everything will stop. the money just doesn't exist.
inflation is not related to cost.
it is related to the total amount of money in the system. minimum wage does not affect that.
I don't agree with a million dollars being narrow-minded. Where does it end? When does cost-push inflation end?
if you set it to a physical standard, your economy would only grow as fast as you acquire precious things. it'll be a great limitation and I'm not sure if it'll work unless the whole world adopts it.
Why don't we fix the currency problem brought by the Federal Reserve? The minimum wage is an argument brought up every four or so years. In 1964 the last time money was backed by precious metals, the minimum wage was $1.25. Five quarters in 1964 equaled to $17 in today's money. It's not a minimum wage problem it's the government printing paper that's not backed by precious metals.
the "if you payed everyone a million dollars" example is a very narrow way of looking at it. that would only work if the government also printed endless money.
an economy grows, more money enters the pool. that money should be spread proportionetly, amongst everyone involved. the owners should definitely get most, but the workers should also benefit somewhat from the companies growth.
yet incomes have been stagnant for decades, while the owners (not the innovators or hard workers, but the investors) have grown along with our economy leaving, and most of us, behind.
conveniently this occurred around the time of "trickle down economics" and the tax cuts that were inspired by it. the minimum wage is just a way to rebalance that scale.
what will happen if we do nothing, allow costs to rise, and leave wages stagnant?
what will happen when 80 or 90% of the people are living paycheck to paycheck, many on welfare or starving depending on the party in office. will we even have an economy?
that is why the minimum wage should be tied to inflation. so that the wealthy can't use it as a tool to keep the poor in poverty.
Yes there would be no hyperinflation, but the question i pose is this: would they be lifted out of poverty, or would poverty rise to them?
except we aren't taking a million dollars, we are talking 15. the cost of labor is only part of the cost of things. so while yes the cost of things would likely rise a bit, the market is designed to absorb changes like that. there would likely be some inflation. but there is absolutely no reason to think it would result in hyper inflation.
I meant to address the cycle brought by hyperinflation. Suppose everyone had a million dollar salary. Everyone knows this is the new base for salary, and business would too. In order to capitalize on this and frankly not lose money, they would increase price in order to meet the new baseline of poverty.
I guess summed up, why would i sell a watch for 20 dollars to millionaires if it costs more to make it and i know they have money to pay me.
why would paying workers more money cause a problem with money lending? the German hyper inflation was largely based on the massive reparations payments they were being forced to make. minimum wages would not affect the government in any similar way.
It snowballs as nobody would lend money since it would be unprofitable. A great example is Germany after WW1
it would not cause hyper inflation. there is evidence that raising the minimum wage has very little effect if inflation since the market trends to balance itself.
however doubling minimum wage would likely cause some inflation, but not hyperinflation as you stated. hyper inflation usually is a result governments printing large amounts of money and devaluing their own currency. increasing the minimum wage wouldn't cause that.
also if we continuously raise the minimum wage wouldn't a knock on effect of that be hyperinflation
the difference between certain rural parts of california, and the large urban cities is far greater than the difference between cities in the two states, or their respective urban communities. we share far more that we dont.
especially when it comes to min wage, cities, no matter the state, will need higher wages then rural neighborhoods. California or Texas.
and I didn't say cities. I said federal. I just said it shouldn't be flat but relative to the average *lowest* rent within a certain travel distance, nation wide.
there are some issues that should be handled locally. but pretty much every issue I've seen you post about is, and should be, a national one. most people who push for the power of the various states want to be able to hide behind their state laws to do things which are outdated, immoral, or just stupid.
-Wouldn't it be very chaotic for the minimum wages to be decided by cities?
-I am obsessed with the states because every state has different demographics, and different beliefs. For example, Texas and California. They have very different beliefs and economies. I just do not think that all issues are a one-size fits all thing. Some should be and some shouldn't.
I'm not sure what the obsession with states is all about. just about every state has at least 1 major metropolis with skyrocketing rent, and rural farm land with negligible rent and nonexistent jobs.
new York has new York city where 15 will still be difficult to make ends meet, and it has northern areas where you'll live like a king on 15. It doesn't matter if it's mandated from the Fed or the state, a flat min wage is stupid.
a federally mandated wage can easily be based on an equation tieing it to the average among the available rent within a certain travel distance, and just like that a variable, sensible living wage is established nation wide.
-It depends. All states have different costs of living. It would be better to create better education for their to be better jobs for the future, with better wages.
-Donald Trump brought up a good point. All states have different costs of living. Therefore, it might be better to have higher minimum wages in states like New York that costs a lot more to live in and have a lower minimum wage in states like Wyoming that do not cost alot to live in.
-It all really depends to be honest. I my opinion, it would be best to create better jobs with better education to rise wages and let the states decide on their minimum wage because it is not a one size fits all issue.