Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, when healthcare accounts for 20% of the GDP I'd like you to try and claim it's not a huge part.

Huge tariffs don't work. Your own companies inevitably take it up the tailpipe as the other side imposes tariffs on your crap. In the end protectionist tariffs do nothing but hurt everyone.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What (grad?) degree are you going for Shuma?

It's a different degree, not a grad. I'll fish around for a grad degree if I can't get good employment (60k+) out of my current degree. Right now I'm attending for New Media, it's an omni major but I'm focusing on graphic design and special effects. My first degree was an AS in applied graphic design (websites, print design, magazine layout, etc). If I go for a grad degree I'll probably attempt to get a prospective company to pay for it. Most of my knowledge of economics and politics comes from a simple obsessive interest (I also follow tech and videogame news like it's some sort of job). There was a time when I wanted to work in tech news, and it's still something I have to follow up on. I would also not mind working in a campaign for someone and getting my political feet wet.

Keep up the good work then Shuma

OT on the OT on the OT: AS equals Associate of Science? If so, then respect and I understand the path.

Tyrr wrote:Huge tariffs don't work. Your own companies inevitably take it up the tailpipe as the other side imposes tariffs on your crap. In the end protectionist tariffs do nothing but hurt everyone.

Don't forget that you're raising prices for consumers in the process.

Tyyr wrote:Well, when healthcare accounts for 20% of the GDP I'd like you to try and claim it's not a huge part.

It is a large part. But, if I take off my shoes, I think that means that...carry the 1.... 80% of the GDP isn't health care. That's like a 4-1 ratio. Yes, health care is a large part. It's not the only part. Some of it is interrelated parts. People are living longer, have more health care in later life, but retirement ages haven't drastically increased. So, retirees are a bigger burden on the pension system and the health care system. But, there's lots of other reasons that the federal government is in trouble. Something about not balancing their checkbook for too long, and both the Rep and Dems are to blame for that. But, after WW2, the US got out a larger deficient (relative to the GDP), so it can be done.

dietrich wrote: But, after WW2, the US got out a larger deficient (relative to the GDP), so it can be done.

Yeah like during the 90's? When the govt actually had a budget surplus.

GG

It isn't as simple as cutting corporate taxes either. The US effective federal tax rate is 5th in the developed world and, according to some sources, lower than China's. Taking into account state corporate taxes, we move up to second; behind Japan and slightly ahead of Germany. However, tax revenue accounts for 2.2% of GDP, lower than the OECD average of 3.4%; thanks primarily to the many loopholes in the corporate tax code.

Far more important to US economic health is the individual income tax, which accounts for 45% of US federal revenue.

Tyyr wrote:Well, when healthcare accounts for 20% of the GDP I'd like you to try and claim it's not a huge part.

Huge tariffs don't work. Your own companies inevitably take it up the tailpipe as the other side imposes tariffs on your crap. In the end protectionist tariffs do nothing but hurt everyone.

20% is one fifth, thats not what I would call huge. A fraction, yes but not huge, like the majority. Lets say they were going to begin universal healthcare in the US tomorrow, where is the money gonna come from? How is creating jobs for doctors and nurses, who take years to train, and require a fairly large wage compared to other professions, going to help the economy? Why is it so nonsenseical to concetrate on creating jobs that require little training and less pay? For the same cost of employing a few hundred doctors you could employ thousands of factory or sawmill workers etc. We need to start making and selling something.

ShumaGorath wrote:They pay indonesian workers a dollar a week.

YOU CAN'T LOWER TAXES THAT fething MUCH THE FACTORIES AREN'T COMING BACK.

If thats the case then we're boned. What are people who have no education outside of highschool supposed to do? Mc Donalds can only employ so many people.

Norwulf wrote:We need to start making and selling something.

We could subsidize production in order to keep people employed, but that's counter-productive over the long run when practiced on a large scale. Otherwise, we're talking about cutting minimum wage, reducing or eliminating employer side payroll taxes, and cutting the personal income tax in order to encourage investment and consumer spending. That last one also comes with budget cuts to the military and entitlements, which in turn creates certain, hopefully small, issues with unemployment.

dogma wrote:

Norwulf wrote:We need to start making and selling something.

We could subsidize production in order to keep people employed, but that's counter-productive over the long run when practiced on a large scale. Otherwise, we're talking about cutting minimum wage, reducing or eliminating employer side payroll taxes, and cutting the personal income tax in order to encourage investment and consumer spending. That last one also comes with budget cuts to the military and entitlements, which in turn creates certain, hopefully small, issues with unemployment.

I really, really wish they would lower minimum wage in my state, and mind you I make minimum wage. My profession is fething dishwasher fer christ's sake. They raised it here in washington a little while ago and it just makes it harder to get a job and get a raise. I may not have all the answers, but I wish they could take some small steps like lowering minimum wage, cutting down on social programs, lowering taxes on small businesses etc. I havent had insurance in 3 years and I'm totally fine with that, if it keeps tax payers above the poverty line thats cool.

If minimum wage is lowered, what exactly is stopping businesses from just pocketing the money, or building new stores, with absolutely no decrease in cost of goods? It seems like a concession that will only serve to hurt our society at large. I can definitely imagine employers being happy about all of that extra money paying for their new car though.

Company makes more money, then builds more stores that their employees cannot afford to actually buy anything from.

As to draconian measures, just to compete with china, that seems to have been addressed already. I can't imagine that being anything but a terrible decision.

Wrexasaur wrote:If minimum wage is lowered, what exactly is stopping businesses from just pocketing the money, or building new stores, with absolutely no decrease in cost of goods? It seems like a concession that will only serve to hurt our society at large. I can definitely imagine employers being happy about all of that extra money paying for their new car though.

Well economic theory goes that when something like minimum wage is lowered, business owners are more likely to hire more workers, thus lowering the unemployment rate. It is just good business sense to invest more money into your own business, that way it is able to profit more. And if they do pocket the money who cares? Its their business, they should be able to benefit from it as much as possible.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well economic theory goes that when something like minimum wage is lowered, business owners are more likely to hire more workers, thus lowering the unemployment rate.

While simultaneously making a very large number of Americans scrape by on what little money their job can provide. Unless the cost of goods is also lowered across the board, at least to a sensible degree, this appears to be little more than a burden on the lower class. At some point, people will get fed up, and you are bound to find yourself back at square one. More social support from the government than we have ever seen before. People who can't afford to eat, are not going to make for very good employees.

It is just good business sense to invest more money into your own business, that way it is able to profit more. And if they do pocket the money who cares? Its their business, they should be able to benefit from it as much as possible.

Lowering minimum wage, without stopping employers from taking that money and sticking it right in their pocket, is no less than a direct subsidy from their employees. The current minimum wage in my area, is hardly enough (barely enough, due to government programs that attempt to fill in the gaps) to live on as it is.

Wrexasaur wrote:While simultaneously making a very large number of Americans scrape by on what little money their job can provide. Unless the cost of goods is also lowered across the board, at least to a sensible degree, this appears to be little more than a burden on the lower class. At some point, people will get fed up, and you are bound to find yourself back at square one. More social support from the government than we have ever seen before. People who can't afford to eat, are not going to make for very good employees.

While there is a large percentage of Americans at the moment who are underemployed that is generally not the case. The vast majority of minimum wage workers during a normal economy is high school and college students. I think the Department of Labor put it at some 80% a few years back. It really isn't that many people who depend on minimum wage for their livelihood. Besides a $1 raise really isn't going make that much of a difference in terms of their income level.

Wrexasaur wrote:Lowering minimum wage, without stopping employers from taking that money and sticking it right in their pocket, is no less than a direct subsidy from their employees. The current minimum wage in my area, is hardly enough (barely enough, due to government programs that attempt to fill in the gaps) to live on as it is.

Its the nature of the system man. Better jobs usually mean more money, but you can't expect for everyone to make $100,000 a year, it just isn't feasible. Besides, don't you live in like San Fran? That is easily one of the most expensive areas to live in the country, so of course minimum wage won't exactly cut it.

JEB_Stuart wrote:While there is a large percentage of Americans at the moment who are underemployed that is generally not the case. The vast majority of minimum wage workers during a normal economy is high school and college students. I think the Department of Labor put it at some 80% a few years back. It really isn't that many people who depend on minimum wage for their livelihood. Besides a $1 raise really isn't going make that much of a difference in terms of their income level.

How many people are currently on minimum wage? I'll take a bit of time to find the info as well. It would seem to me that many College/High school students are taking that work to support their families income. Either way, a large amount of people that completely rely on having that minimum wage (without cuts), will be hurt by such actions. Give and take I suppose, but I am not sure I could see far past that more jobs at a lower wage, is not necessarily good for anyone but business.

Its the nature of the system man. Better jobs usually mean more money, but you can't expect for everyone to make $100,000 a year, it just isn't feasible. Besides, don't you live in like San Fran? That is easily one of the most expensive areas to live in the country, so of course minimum wage won't exactly cut it.

That is part of the problem though. A universal drop of minimum wage, will effect many states differently. If it were to be a state by state basis, I could see various reasons how it could work. I suppose that Norwulf suggested that for his state specifically, but overall it sounded like a pretty generalized statement overall.

Yes... I can totally hear over the internet.

Note:
JEB... NorCal has, like, infected you with slang.

Wages are the price of labor, and are based on supply and demand. Whether or not wages will fall without minimum wage depends on the conditions of the labor market; however, the more minimum wage law is propping up wages the more of a surplus of labor (unemployment) is created. The employers can't simply "pocket the difference", as any firm that does so will become less competitive (by giving themselves a shortage of labor).

I don't much like minimum wage law. It's distortionary; it's like a tax levied on businesses, to help the poor, but then only levied on businesses that already do the most to help the poor. It disincentives investment in creating jobs that employ the lower class; they need job opportunities more than anyone. Trade creates wealth, and minimum wage is a restriction on what the poor may trade. It doesn't force anyone to accept the offer.

I think if something is to be done to alleviate poverty, some sort of program that transfers wealth from the rich to the poor would be better than a program that transfers wealth from whoever does business with the poor to the poor.

Norwulf wrote:Now I'm not an expert or anything so bear with me here, I think I have a wild idea. Maybe, to help with this economy issue we should like produce products and build stuff and then sell it to other countries.

The US produces around $2.5 trillion in manufactured goods each year, more than anyone else.

You know, make and export goods, and make things easier for American businesses, like lowering their taxes. Nah, thats just too wild.

There is little to nothing linking the general tax level to employment or productivity. Specific taxes can affect economic activity on a micro level, but we're talking about the economy as a whole. Short term, the only means of stimulating the economy as a whole is direct spending, which was undertaken, albeit with significant opposition from the Republicans.

Your right shuma, we should instead raise taxes and give every body healthcare, so junkies can get those nasty absesses takin care of, and if we put a bunch of money into healthcare we'll have more doctors and stuff right? That'll fix it.

Are you saying the only people without insurance are junkies? Reality would disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well economic theory goes that when something like minimum wage is lowered, business owners are more likely to hire more workers, thus lowering the unemployment rate.

Not really, as that would assume elastic demand and supply, which are not often present in the labour market. There are productivity studies completed on these issues constantly by all national governments that can establish fairly conclusively what the effect on employment will be, I tried reading a few and my eyeball popped out of my skull… it’s really dense stuff. At the most basic level they look at a range

I don’t know how much those studies impact minimum wage levels in the US. I know they’re taken pretty much verbatim in Australia (politicians trot out the usual lines about free markets and the other side argues for fair markets and afterall the points scoring has been done they all quietly go about following the recommendation of the study) but I do know that US minimum wages are ludicrously low. Dropping them further is unlikely to impact employment as I just cannot believe there’s a significant number of positions out there that aren’t worth filling at $5.15 an hour that might be worth filling at $4 an hour. But I can tell you that trying to get by on around $200 a week is impossible, let alone $160.

I mean, you look at the average overhead costs of providing necessary infrastructure and supervision of a job, and it comes it at least $5 an hour, so arguing that the $5 an employee gets is too much is just odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Here is my question on the matter, it's always been cheaper to have 3rd world countries fab your stuff. But why is it only in the last 20 years or so that it has blown up? And I'm not talking about software and IT/helpline stuff that's obviously because of the upgraded telecommunications and internet. But I'm talking about classic manufacturing like wood working, textiles, basic electronics.

Something has changed....


GG

Globalisation has allowed for more complex international production chains. It is a lot easier to put capital into a new electronics plant in Burma than it was thirty years ago.

More than that, though, the skill level across the world has grown markedly. Electronics and the manufacture of consumer goods used to be a high skill activity, it was done in the West despite our high salaries because no-one else was capable of doing it. But now most countries are capable of building and managing a plant that can produce such goods.

The trick to the whole issue is that all of that is actually a good thing. I understand it doesn’t feel like it during poor economic times, but the only way to sustain the standard of living we’re used to in the West is to focus on high skilled work – doing what the developing world cannot and charging a premium for it - R&D, high level manufacture (aircraft and the like), financial services – these are industries that are driven by technical expertise, not low wage levels.

Through trade we can get low skilled nations to do the low paying work, while a significant portion of our populations can move into high paying industries.

If thats the case then we're boned. What are people who have no education outside of highschool supposed to do? Mc Donalds can only employ so many people.

Increase job training for highly technical fields and encourage upper level education by providing better aid to applying students. The factories aren't coming back and we aren't a production economy. We are a service and technology economy that is too stupid to realize it. We should capitalize on what we have (more colleges than the rest of the world combined) and stop trying to breathe life into a dead body.

Wrexasaur wrote:How many people are currently on minimum wage? I'll take a bit of time to find the info as well. It would seem to me that many College/High school students are taking that work to support their families income. Either way, a large amount of people that completely rely on having that minimum wage (without cuts), will be hurt by such actions. Give and take I suppose, but I am not sure I could see far past that more jobs at a lower wage, is not necessarily good for anyone but business.

The most recent I could dig up so quickly was this report from the Department of Labor. Here is just a small excerpt:

According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2005, 75.6 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 60.1 percent of all wage and salary workers.1 Of those paid by the hour, 479,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Another 1.4 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 1.9 million workers with wages at or below the minimum made up 2.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers. Tables 1 - 10 present data on a wide array of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics for hourly-paid workers earning at or below the Federal minimum wage.

Wrexasaur wrote:Note: JEB... NorCal has, like, infected you with slang.

Heinous lies!!!

sebster wrote:I know they’re taken pretty much verbatim in Australia (politicians trot out the usual lines about free markets and the other side argues for fair markets and afterall the points scoring has been done they all quietly go about following the recommendation of the study) but I do know that US minimum wages are ludicrously low. Dropping them further is unlikely to impact employment as I just cannot believe there’s a significant number of positions out there that aren’t worth filling at $5.15 an hour that might be worth filling at $4 an hour. But I can tell you that trying to get by on around $200 a week is impossible, let alone $160.

Minimum wage would be ludicrously low, if there were no government programs that artificially subsidized the businesses that follow those guidelines. Food stamps, Medicaid, Social security, all of these combined provide a relatively livable situation overall. Note, livable is not my idea of positive. In this economy, I can only begin to imagine how hard it is for families with several children to support.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The most recent I could dig up so quickly was this report from the Department of Labor. Here is just a small excerpt: ... *insert above text here*

BLS wrote:Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19. Among employed teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 3 percent.

50% (?) is a high number isn't it. Maybe I am being 3 beers goggle eyed stupid, but the site doesn't seem to want to provide detailed information beyond the difficult to understand, written statistics. I can't find anything better right now, so I will have to take this at face value.

Being from 2006, I can safely say that the job market has changed noticeably since then, though how that affects these numbers, I really couldn't say.

Sticking to the bullets handed to me, 1 million people are likely to oppose this. I could align the planets, and gather all of these people together... then... this isn't going to work, is it?

Wrexasaur wrote:Minimum wage would be ludicrously low, if there were no government programs that artificially subsidized the businesses that follow those guidelines. Food stamps, Medicaid, Social security, all of these combined provide a relatively livable situation overall. Note, livable is not my idea of positive. In this economy, I can only begin to imagine how hard it is for families with several children to support.

It's more like $14 an hour here, which is about $12.50 USD. Even then you can access rent support, child allowances, and a whole host of other programs... and it's still tough. I can't even begin to understand how someone could get by $5.15 an hour.

sebster wrote:I can't even begin to understand how someone could get by $5.15 an hour.

Without assistance programs, relatives, illicit income, or wealth most people can't. At least not for very long.

dogma wrote:Without assistance programs, relatives, illicit income, or wealth most people can't. At least not for very long.

Yeah, but like I said above in Australia we have all manner of programs, although I didn't consider folk getting help from family. A lot of minimum wage workers ar kids as well, so they'd live at home and that'd help. And people could work double jobs, or shift work 50+ hours...

It's still, well, I can't believe anyone would talk about lowering it.

sebster wrote:It's more like $14 an hour here, which is about $12.50 USD. Even then you can access rent support, child allowances, and a whole host of other programs... and it's still tough. I can't even begin to understand how someone could get by $5.15 an hour.

In California, minimum wage is 8.75/hr. In the many areas throughout the state, this is nowhere near enough to actually live on. You can do it, but that will be due to government assistance for the most part. When rent is 750$ a month, bills/food are well beyond 500$, and anything in between eating the rest of a meager living, my bootstraps are no longer within reach.

Actually... I think someone just stole my bootstraps... hmmm...

It's still, well, I can't believe anyone would talk about lowering it.

It is perplexing to me as well, especially hearing it from someone (Norwulf), who is currently in such a situation.

3-4 years ago, I could find work with my wits, and experience, using that income to share a house with 2-3 people. Now, my options are a hair above being trapped in my parent's house. 500$ studios are hard to find, and apartments dwell solidly within the range of 700-1000 dollars. This is basic stuff, full bedroom, bath, and kitchen. Nothing fancy there, and it is odd to me that aspiring to such a meager goal, is seemingly out of my means.

sebster wrote:It's more like $14 an hour here, which is about $12.50 USD. Even then you can access rent support, child allowances, and a whole host of other programs... and it's still tough. I can't even begin to understand how someone could get by $5.15 an hour.

They don't anymore, minimum wage is $7.50. Besides, only 2.5% of the population actually earns minimum wage, and half of that is college and high school students. We are talking incredibly small amounts of people much less people who need it to survive. Minimum wage is just another talking point, just like saying that small businesses are the economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:In California, minimum wage is 8.75/hr. In the many areas throughout the state, this is nowhere near enough to actually live on. You can do it, but that will be due to government assistance for the most part. When rent is 750$ a month, bills/food are well beyond 500$, and anything in between eating the rest of a meager living, my bootstraps are no longer within reach.

No its $8/hr. Trust me I know...

I make decent money for what I do $10 an hour it is higher than min wage but I would be homeless if I was not renting from my mother a two bed apartment here runs about $750-$850. I make just over 1k a month and still can not afford health care on my own. The policy my company put out would take one whole check of mine that is crazy. Lower min wage when I am living check to check no thanks I am as conservative as they come and I will vote republican till I die. I will sit here with a stick with a nail in it if any one tries to lower it. rant over

sebster wrote:
It's still, well, I can't believe anyone would talk about lowering it.

Not many people do, not seriously anyway, as it doesn't have a huge impact on the economy. About the best that can be said of lowering the minimum wage is that it might extend employment to those who are currently unemployed. However, because those people would still be receiving government assistance, or simply not living independent lifestyles, the potential reduction in unemployment would be of minimal importance. Obviously I say 'potential' because there is no guarantee that there exists a great deal of demand for unskilled labor.

Its irrelevant. You just higher illegal aliens and pay them lower. Plus they work harder, much harder. I'd rather hire an illegal alien who put massive effort into getiting here and is highly motivated to make money vs. a high school mouth breather.

Our neighbor is a contractor. He never hires "local" vs. "illegal" for just that reason.

They don't anymore, minimum wage is $7.50. Besides, only 2.5% of the population actually earns minimum wage, and half of that is college and high school students. We are talking incredibly small amounts of people much less people who need it to survive. Minimum wage is just another talking point, just like saying that small businesses are the economy.

Every minimum wage job I've ever had stopped being minimum wage after a raise gained by not quitting after two months. The raise was usually about a quarter, then the raises stopped. I'm not that up on employment statistics, but what are the number of jobs that start at minimum wage as opposed to the number of workers currently earning it? It looks bad for a business when it pays minimum wage across the board but 7.75 isn't really any better than 7.50.

@Shuma: I don't know, but if they have that information it will be in the Department of Labor's study. I posted the link in this thread. If you want to go through it, be my guest, but I didn't see in my quick read-through any relevant data to your question.

JEB_Stuart wrote:No its $8/hr. Trust me I know...

Oops, my mistake. It looks like minimum wage varies quite a bit if the information I have looked at is correct.

Looks like San Fran has a substantially higher minimum wage @ 9.79/hr., apparently. Considering the actual cost of living in that particular city (which I do not), it is better than I thought, but still rough. Not too sure whether other cities in the Bay area have their own minimum wage.

http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=411

Here is some more interesting information about all of this.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/minwage/

Shuma wrote:It looks bad for a business when it pays minimum wage across the board but 7.75 isn't really any better than 7.50.

The last retail job I had, my first raise was something like 23 cents. The corporate office, had a strange policy of 50 cent raises, split into two different time periods. So your first raise was less than a quarter, my boss thought it would be funny to give me a full quarter. I still wonder if she caught the look of rage that I shot at her. Never got that second part either, not that it really would have mattered.

I don't work retail anymore...