Minimum Wage Increase Impact/Effect
- Thread starter eyephone
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Religion is completely different from economy. People can choose to participate in religion of different types or not participate in it at all. It is a complete moral and personal choice. People are involved in the economy no matter what.
Also...many of the changes were made by a group of the population...sometimes a minority of the population. As Republicans love to say, 5 unelected judges decided that LGBT people should be treated equally. Brown v. Board of Education was the result of 9 unelected judges.
Even taking your argument, Preamble says:
Domestic Tranquility, Promote general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty are pretty broad terms.
You are making arguments from a document written more 200 years ago and ignoring all the history that has occurred since then.
Your comment about government is supposed "govern based on what the people want" is also inaccurate. We do not have a democracy, we have a republican government. We also have three branches of the government, each tasked with different duties and rights. If the will of the people is the only concern, you should just have the legislative branch.
That is certainly a valid point and something to be considered. New York and Oregon have a separation between rural and urban.
One argument is that higher wages for workers would buffer any rises in prices.
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article69520652.html
Of course...there is a balance to be had here. You can say the same about a corporation or any other entity. The flaw is that humans are involved.
A government with too little power is ineffectual and cannot serve to protect the interest of the people. See Articles of Confederation. Same with a government who refuses to act, i.e. Laissez Faire. Corporations are in control rather than the government.
I mean why do we have anti-trust legislation? We should just let companies and banks get as big as they want...no government regulations.
Governing is all about line drawing. You can label it arbitrary, but lines must be drawn through a democratic process. Even if you hate the idea of a minimum wage, you're drawing a line - a zero. You live in a democracy, and others draw the line much higher than zero.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, and the "free" market isn't perfect.
If I recall (I never liked US History or Government classes), that's how it was supposed to be but it was ineffective and you have to have checks and balances so they instituted the 3 branch system along with Congress, Senate etc etc.
I think the takeaway here is what you said, "the flaw is that humans are involved". You feel there should be more government oversight, but that will be flawed because of humans. I feel there should be more "people based" but that is flawed for the same reason.
However of the 2, one can be abused more and that's where it becomes an issue (see North Korea). In my opinion, that's where it's already an issue. Eyephone's example had it right, in California, the cost of living is not uniform, thus to enforce a uniform minimum wage does not make sense.
NK is totalitarian regime that is basically based upon the will of one person. Pointing to outliers is not exactly helpful.
The issue is motivation. Corporations are designed and created to make profit. They have a legal obligation to minimize costs and increase profits. You can say that the market has some moral corrective nature but overall, it doesn't. Most governments are looking out for the welfare of the country as a whole and of its citizens. Complete different motivations.
Increase wealth gap...dramatically undermine the rights of workers, especially those at the bottom of the scale.
Corporations can only profit if the products/services they provide are needed by society. If they do something that society doesn't like, they will go under, so in the end they actually have a motivation to do what is "good for the people".
Government doesn't have that level of scrutiny. Individuals may come and go as voters decide, but the machine remains. Taxes are paid, money is wasted, and laws are created, good or bad... and often from the influence of that greed you dislike (and yes, I will admit... lobbied by businesses). What motivation do they really have? Why do you think they can waste money so easily? Government doesn't have to worry about its existence like businesses do.
The other problem with government is there is no alternative. If I don't like a restaurant or some service, I (and everyone else) goes elsewhere and they close. But if the government puts something into place that I don't agree with (Obamacare) I have to pay for it regardless. Just like this IUSD tax that is more likely going to pass... bleh.
I ask this because in many areas of profession, there is no government enforced minimum wage yet it sets itself based on the market. Do lawyers have a minimum wage? How is that set?
Minimum wages do not affect skilled workers...only unskilled workers.
Yes...they provide a need for society but almost no one cares about how they get to that point. They just care about price and quality. Companies polluted for years and exploited workers for a long time and no one did anything. It was only because governments started imposing restrictions and create the possibility for unions that things changed. In fact, companies pollute foreign countries and exploit foreign workers but do most of the American buying public care? No.
You actually think that companies are not wasteful? Healthcare companies spend a ton of money on advertising rather than providing care...that's not wasteful? Medicare overhead costs are significantly lower than private insurance.
You do have a choice in government. You vote for them every one to four years. The fact that there is no change is not the fault of government, it's the fault o the voter. Voting participation rate is fraction of other countries and GOP legislators are trying to make it harder to vote. What choice do you have with the board/CEO of major corporations?
Um, yes, it is. You're drawing the line at "no minimum wage," which means employers are not obligated to pay employees any certain dollar amount - effectively, a zero minimum wage.
So do you really think that generally speaking, businesses are more wasteful than government? Do you work for the government? Because that seems really biased. People I know who work for the government admit how wasteful they are.
Boards and CEOs are changed more than you think, esp by publicly held companies.
Market forces can be much stronger than votes.
And back to minimum wage, if one of the reasons as you mentioned is to control the wealth gap, why isn't there a maximum wage?
And what defines an unskilled worker? Why should that be considered? These are all things that make a minimum wage so questionable. I think you missed my point, I truly believe that a fair minimum wage will be set by the businesses and workers. Will there be abuse? Sure, but you act like there is none now for under the table/cash/non-citizen workers.
Not saying FDA is great and they have failed too, just saying you do need government for certain things. I don't imagine without regulation, we'd have near the sanitation standards for our food (which still is far from perfect) or drugs (even clinical trials, etc before taking drugs).
I don't feel comfortable leaving the pure decision on companies whose primary goal is to generate revenue (and products we like) not to evaluate the repercussions of those items, etc. Government isn't smart enough nor build to capture all of it, but it is why around the medical industry you do place various controls, etc.
Irvinecommuter
New member
irvinehomeowner said:
Religion is completely different from economy. People can choose to participate in religion of different types or not participate in it at all. It is a complete moral and personal choice. People are involved in the economy no matter what.
Also...many of the changes were made by a group of the population...sometimes a minority of the population. As Republicans love to say, 5 unelected judges decided that LGBT people should be treated equally. Brown v. Board of Education was the result of 9 unelected judges.
Even taking your argument, Preamble says:
Domestic Tranquility, Promote general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty are pretty broad terms.
You are making arguments from a document written more 200 years ago and ignoring all the history that has occurred since then.
Your comment about government is supposed "govern based on what the people want" is also inaccurate. We do not have a democracy, we have a republican government. We also have three branches of the government, each tasked with different duties and rights. If the will of the people is the only concern, you should just have the legislative branch.
Irvinecommuter
New member
eyephone said:
That is certainly a valid point and something to be considered. New York and Oregon have a separation between rural and urban.
One argument is that higher wages for workers would buffer any rises in prices.
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article69520652.html
Government is only as good as the people running it. Governments with too much power always produces government agents who abuse that power. A government with limited power protects the people from abuse of power. A government with too much power is easily corrupted by powerful minorities who usurp government power to advance their own narrow interests.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Happiness said:
Of course...there is a balance to be had here. You can say the same about a corporation or any other entity. The flaw is that humans are involved.
A government with too little power is ineffectual and cannot serve to protect the interest of the people. See Articles of Confederation. Same with a government who refuses to act, i.e. Laissez Faire. Corporations are in control rather than the government.
I mean why do we have anti-trust legislation? We should just let companies and banks get as big as they want...no government regulations.
Perspective
Well-known member
Happiness said:
Governing is all about line drawing. You can label it arbitrary, but lines must be drawn through a democratic process. Even if you hate the idea of a minimum wage, you're drawing a line - a zero. You live in a democracy, and others draw the line much higher than zero.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, and the "free" market isn't perfect.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Maybe it would be better that way.Irvinecommuter said:
If I recall (I never liked US History or Government classes), that's how it was supposed to be but it was ineffective and you have to have checks and balances so they instituted the 3 branch system along with Congress, Senate etc etc.
I think the takeaway here is what you said, "the flaw is that humans are involved". You feel there should be more government oversight, but that will be flawed because of humans. I feel there should be more "people based" but that is flawed for the same reason.
However of the 2, one can be abused more and that's where it becomes an issue (see North Korea). In my opinion, that's where it's already an issue. Eyephone's example had it right, in California, the cost of living is not uniform, thus to enforce a uniform minimum wage does not make sense.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Here's a mental experiment:
What if we had no minimum wage? What would that do?
What if we had no minimum wage? What would that do?
Irvinecommuter
New member
irvinehomeowner said:
NK is totalitarian regime that is basically based upon the will of one person. Pointing to outliers is not exactly helpful.
The issue is motivation. Corporations are designed and created to make profit. They have a legal obligation to minimize costs and increase profits. You can say that the market has some moral corrective nature but overall, it doesn't. Most governments are looking out for the welfare of the country as a whole and of its citizens. Complete different motivations.
Irvinecommuter
New member
irvinehomeowner said:
Increase wealth gap...dramatically undermine the rights of workers, especially those at the bottom of the scale.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
As I said before, I think this is where you and I diverge. I understand that you think governments are like that, but in the end, it goes back to your "human" aspect.Irvinecommuter said:
Corporations can only profit if the products/services they provide are needed by society. If they do something that society doesn't like, they will go under, so in the end they actually have a motivation to do what is "good for the people".
Government doesn't have that level of scrutiny. Individuals may come and go as voters decide, but the machine remains. Taxes are paid, money is wasted, and laws are created, good or bad... and often from the influence of that greed you dislike (and yes, I will admit... lobbied by businesses). What motivation do they really have? Why do you think they can waste money so easily? Government doesn't have to worry about its existence like businesses do.
The other problem with government is there is no alternative. If I don't like a restaurant or some service, I (and everyone else) goes elsewhere and they close. But if the government puts something into place that I don't agree with (Obamacare) I have to pay for it regardless. Just like this IUSD tax that is more likely going to pass... bleh.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Rights of workers is not totally dependent on wage requirements.Irvinecommuter said:
I ask this because in many areas of profession, there is no government enforced minimum wage yet it sets itself based on the market. Do lawyers have a minimum wage? How is that set?
Irvinecommuter
New member
irvinehomeowner said:
Minimum wages do not affect skilled workers...only unskilled workers.
Irvinecommuter
New member
irvinehomeowner said:
Yes...they provide a need for society but almost no one cares about how they get to that point. They just care about price and quality. Companies polluted for years and exploited workers for a long time and no one did anything. It was only because governments started imposing restrictions and create the possibility for unions that things changed. In fact, companies pollute foreign countries and exploit foreign workers but do most of the American buying public care? No.
You actually think that companies are not wasteful? Healthcare companies spend a ton of money on advertising rather than providing care...that's not wasteful? Medicare overhead costs are significantly lower than private insurance.
You do have a choice in government. You vote for them every one to four years. The fact that there is no change is not the fault of government, it's the fault o the voter. Voting participation rate is fraction of other countries and GOP legislators are trying to make it harder to vote. What choice do you have with the board/CEO of major corporations?
Perspective
Well-known member
Happiness said:
Um, yes, it is. You're drawing the line at "no minimum wage," which means employers are not obligated to pay employees any certain dollar amount - effectively, a zero minimum wage.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
So that's what you think of the American public. Really? So with Foxconn, who was more concerned about those workers, corporation or government?Irvinecommuter said:
Did I say businesses are not wasteful? No, I said government is more wasteful and that's worse because it's taxpayer money... wages WE earned... not them.
So do you really think that generally speaking, businesses are more wasteful than government? Do you work for the government? Because that seems really biased. People I know who work for the government admit how wasteful they are.
I covered this already. Our vote only changes the people who hold office, the system remains, the taxes remains, and since you are so focused on things that are past their time... ineffective programs remain (Social Security).
Boards and CEOs are changed more than you think, esp by publicly held companies.
Market forces can be much stronger than votes.
And back to minimum wage, if one of the reasons as you mentioned is to control the wealth gap, why isn't there a maximum wage?
And what defines an unskilled worker? Why should that be considered? These are all things that make a minimum wage so questionable. I think you missed my point, I truly believe that a fair minimum wage will be set by the businesses and workers. Will there be abuse? Sure, but you act like there is none now for under the table/cash/non-citizen workers.
Hypothetical question, but what if a company sold a product that had ingredients that destroyed you (unbeknownst to you) and you. How are you the people supposed to determine that it isn't a good fit. Said company is raking massively off of you and you are just ignorant on your own. It might take 50 years before you realize how many people you killed because you didn't have an agency to protect you and ensure you had that understanding.irvinehomeowner said:
Not saying FDA is great and they have failed too, just saying you do need government for certain things. I don't imagine without regulation, we'd have near the sanitation standards for our food (which still is far from perfect) or drugs (even clinical trials, etc before taking drugs).
I don't feel comfortable leaving the pure decision on companies whose primary goal is to generate revenue (and products we like) not to evaluate the repercussions of those items, etc. Government isn't smart enough nor build to capture all of it, but it is why around the medical industry you do place various controls, etc.