I Cringe When I Hear The Term "living Wage."

[Aloysius]

I can't really understand how you think my position is fluid, but alrighty then.

[Pliny]

Things I would change if I could, to have an economic system that allowed for the greatest good for all (in the US):

 

1) Reduce the minimum wage to $0 so that nobody is unjustly forced out of work or prohibited by the state from entering into a voluntary agreement.

 

2) Eliminate all but the most essential government jobs.  The remaining government workers would have wages commensurate or less than private sector counterparts, and ideally these jobs would not be permanent, but seen more as a "step down" and a sacrifice in order to serve.  There would be no state-run pension plans for them.  They would contract privately and use their earnings as they see fit regarding retirement funds.

 

3) Take the education system out of the hands of the state and allow schools to compete in the free market.  Possibly allow for state run institutions for the mentally or physically disabled.

 

4) Allow for the formation of unions and trade organizations, but forbid them from shutting out competition. Plenty of people would work for less to make our cars and still earn a "living wage," but the union thugs have a monopoly, and we all pay dearly because of the privileged few.

 

5) Remove all tariffs from imported goods.  If someone in another country can makes something better and cheaper, that's great.  It frees labor in our country to do something else.

 

6) Abolish government subsidies and allow prices to find their own level.

 

7) End unemployment benefits as we know them.  It makes no sense to pay people to NOT work, and provides no incentive to look for other work.  I don't like the idea of the state being involved in personal matters, but as a compromise, I might be in favor of the state instead requiring that individuals build and keep an emergency fund, unless they can demonstrate they have the assets to support themselves in the event of unemployment.

 

8) End the Social Security system as a means of retirement income.  It's a sham as it is.  We pay into it, but we are paid off the backs of current workers when we retire, which is an unjust and ever increasing burden for them.  Instead, we put our own funds aside for retirement, and once again, as a compromise, I could see the state requiring individuals to do so.

 

9) The government would have no control of the banking system or the money supply.  Interest rates would find their own levels based on supply and demand.  Interference with interest rates causes distortions and disruptions in the market.

 

 

If the above were implemented, waste would be eliminated and production would be encouraged.  We would all be better off and almost everyone who needed a wage to support a family could have one.

 

The reason we don't have the above is because of the ignorance of the masses, but more than that, it is because of the larceny in the hearts of the masses.  Too many are driven by the idea of getting something for nothing, and at the ballot box they can vote to have resources shifted from others to themselves in the form of state benefits or unfairly high wages.  Of course it's very short sighted, at least on the part of the working masses, because mostly they are not getting what they think they are getting, and in the long run they are worse off.  (Jealousy and scapegoating play a role too.  "The rich" are vilified and some are motivated to knock them down a peg or two, or to get from them what the mistakenly think should be theirs).

 

I hope and pray that Catholic bishops will all one day inform themselves regarding free markets and trust in the freedom of men to make their own choices in their own best interests, and distrust the state, as the state too often acts in its own best interest regarding the economy. 

 

 

[4588686]

Things I would change if I could, to have an economic system that allowed for the greatest good for all (in the US):

 

1) Reduce the minimum wage to $0 so that nobody is unjustly forced out of work or prohibited by the state from entering into a voluntary agreement.

 

2) Eliminate all but the most essential government jobs.  The remaining government workers would have wages commensurate or less than private sector counterparts, and ideally these jobs would not be permanent, but seen more as a "step down" and a sacrifice in order to serve.  There would be no state-run pension plans for them.  They would contract privately and use their earnings as they see fit regarding retirement funds.

 

3) Take the education system out of the hands of the state and allow schools to compete in the free market.  Possibly allow for state run institutions for the mentally or physically disabled.

 

4) Allow for the formation of unions and trade organizations, but forbid them from shutting out competition. Plenty of people would work for less to make our cars and still earn a "living wage," but the union thugs have a monopoly, and we all pay dearly because of the privileged few.

 

5) Remove all tariffs from imported goods.  If someone in another country can makes something better and cheaper, that's great.  It frees labor in our country to do something else.

 

6) Abolish government subsidies and allow prices to find their own level.

 

7) End unemployment benefits as we know them.  It makes no sense to pay people to NOT work, and provides no incentive to look for other work.  I don't like the idea of the state being involved in personal matters, but as a compromise, I might be in favor of the state instead requiring that individuals build and keep an emergency fund, unless they can demonstrate they have the assets to support themselves in the event of unemployment.

 

8) End the Social Security system as a means of retirement income.  It's a sham as it is.  We pay into it, but we are paid off the backs of current workers when we retire, which is an unjust and ever increasing burden for them.  Instead, we put our own funds aside for retirement, and once again, as a compromise, I could see the state requiring individuals to do so.

 

9) The government would have no control of the banking system or the money supply.  Interest rates would find their own levels based on supply and demand.  Interference with interest rates causes distortions and disruptions in the market.

 

 

If the above were implemented, waste would be eliminated and production would be encouraged.  We would all be better off and almost everyone who needed a wage to support a family could have one.

 

The reason we don't have the above is because of the ignorance of the masses, but more than that, it is because of the larceny in the hearts of the masses.  Too many are driven by the idea of getting something for nothing, and at the ballot box they can vote to have resources shifted from others to themselves in the form of state benefits or unfairly high wages.  Of course it's very short sighted, at least on the part of the working masses, because mostly they are not getting what they think they are getting, and in the long run they are worse off.  (Jealousy and scapegoating play a role too.  "The rich" are vilified and some are motivated to knock them down a peg or two, or to get from them what the mistakenly think should be theirs).

 

I hope and pray that Catholic bishops will all one day inform themselves regarding free markets and trust in the freedom of men to make their own choices in their own best interests, and distrust the state, as the state too often acts in its own best interest regarding the economy. 

 

 

Why do you think that simply removing government regulations would result in an equilibrium in the labor market?  

 

I've broached this topic several times now and you've just avoided it.  

 

Yes, general equilibrium is likely a true fact of market systems, all things being equal (due to the current deficiencies in the mathematics used to support neo-classical economics and most game theory models it is a little ambiguous).  However that equilibrium occurs under idealized conditions in mathematical models.  You're making a huge leap in assuming that it is an actual fact of a labor market in a given social context.  

 

Government intervention is not the only factor that 'distorts' markets.  

Edited February 13, 2014 by Hasan

[Pliny]

Hasan, I got sidetracked by when I come back to this thread again I will try to respond to your specific questions.

[Lilllabettt]

2)   The remaining government workers would have wages commensurate or less than private sector counterparts, and ideally these jobs would not be permanent, but seen more as a "step down" and a sacrifice in order to serve. 

 

3) Take the education system out of the hands of the state and allow schools to compete in the free market.  Possibly allow for state run institutions for the mentally or physically disabled.

 

#2 is already a reality. If you know someone who actually works for the government and considers it a "step up" from the money and prestige they could hope to achieve in the private sector, that person is a born loser.

 

#3 is already happening. Ever wonder who came up with "common core?"

[NotreDame]

#2 is already a reality. If you know someone who actually works for the government and considers it a "step up" from the money and prestige they could hope to achieve in the private sector, that person is a born loser.

 

Your description of #2 is how it was traditionally, but that is apparently changing - at least at the federal level and at least according to the data:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/chart-day-federal-government-pay-vs-private-sector-pay

 

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/07/29/total-compensation-us-government-employees-vs-the-private-sector-n1651097/page/full

 

Edited February 14, 2014 by NotreDame

[Slappo]

#2 is already a reality. If you know someone who actually works for the government and considers it a "step up" from the money and prestige they could hope to achieve in the private sector, that person is a born loser.

#2 really depends on the sector of government, type of work being performed, and the location.

 

Governmental auditors are considered very prestigious in the accounting world, and actually receive much higher approval ratings on federal single audits (compliance audits of entities who receive over 500k in federal grants and aid). Depending on the location, the benefits package and pay scale of governmental auditors or accountants in general are very competitive.

 

You'll always be able to find higher paying jobs in the private sector than in government work as no governmental employee will ever make as much as the CFO of Wal-Mart for example, but that doesn't mean the median range of pay isn't competitive. Like I said though, it depends on location as well.

[Pliny]

Why do you think that simply removing government regulations would result in an equilibrium in the labor market?  

 

I've broached this topic several times now and you've just avoided it.  

 

Yes, general equilibrium is likely a true fact of market systems, all things being equal (due to the current deficiencies in the mathematics used to support neo-classical economics and most game theory models it is a little ambiguous).  However that equilibrium occurs under idealized conditions in mathematical models.  You're making a huge leap in assuming that it is an actual fact of a labor market in a given social context.  

 

Government intervention is not the only factor that 'distorts' markets.  

 

 

 

It's a fact that price controls cause shortages or surpluses.  A price control that puts a floor on wages in theory causes a surplus, which is evidenced in the reality of high levels of unskilled unemployed people.

 

Removing the minimum wage allows the entire potential workforce to enter the marketplace and bid for jobs.  Hence more production and more wealth for all, so that there is more purchasing power for all, and a trend toward less injustice.

 

What is the other factor that distorts the markets and why is it relevant?

 

 

[Pliny]

Your description of #2 is how it was traditionally, but that is apparently changing - at least at the federal level and at least according to the data:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/chart-day-federal-government-pay-vs-private-sector-pay

 

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/07/29/total-compensation-us-government-employees-vs-the-private-sector-n1651097/page/full

 

Besides the fact that with a streamlined government, some of these jobs might not even be necessary in either the government or the private sector. 

[Pliny]

You'll always be able to find higher paying jobs in the private sector than in government work as no governmental employee will ever make as much as the CFO of Wal-Mart for example, but that doesn't mean the median range of pay isn't competitive. Like I said though, it depends on location as well.

 

 

You'll always be able to find jobs that are higher paying, but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of bureaucrats who seek out government jobs because of pay and security and ridiculous pension plans.  Thank God for people like Governor Walker of Wisconsin, but he's just barely scratching the surface.

 

Rudi Juliani said that he had to budget for THREE police forces in NYC.  The present police force.  The one before that.  And the one before that one.  The government is very generous to government workers, hence reducing the purchasing power of those who are being fleeced, hence contributing to an "unjust" economic environment, that cannot be cured by employers.

 

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

I cringe every time I see someone has lengthened the life of this annoying thread by adding another post.                                                         

[Pliny]

Dude I don't poop in YOUR threads.

[NotreDame]

I cringe every time I see someone has lengthened the life of this annoying thread by adding another post.                                                         

 

Pot calling kettle black.

[Aloysius]

why should we give people living wages when they're just going to spend it on razors to unnecessarily shave their legs, anyway?

[reyb]

Things I would change if I could, to have an economic system that allowed for the greatest good for all (in the US):

 

1) Reduce the minimum wage to $0 so that nobody is unjustly forced out of work or prohibited by the state from entering into a voluntary agreement.

 

2) Eliminate all but the most essential government jobs.  The remaining government workers would have wages commensurate or less than private sector counterparts, and ideally these jobs would not be permanent, but seen more as a "step down" and a sacrifice in order to serve.  There would be no state-run pension plans for them.  They would contract privately and use their earnings as they see fit regarding retirement funds.

 

3) Take the education system out of the hands of the state and allow schools to compete in the free market.  Possibly allow for state run institutions for the mentally or physically disabled.

 

4) Allow for the formation of unions and trade organizations, but forbid them from shutting out competition. Plenty of people would work for less to make our cars and still earn a "living wage," but the union thugs have a monopoly, and we all pay dearly because of the privileged few.

 

5) Remove all tariffs from imported goods.  If someone in another country can makes something better and cheaper, that's great.  It frees labor in our country to do something else.

 

6) Abolish government subsidies and allow prices to find their own level.

 

7) End unemployment benefits as we know them.  It makes no sense to pay people to NOT work, and provides no incentive to look for other work.  I don't like the idea of the state being involved in personal matters, but as a compromise, I might be in favor of the state instead requiring that individuals build and keep an emergency fund, unless they can demonstrate they have the assets to support themselves in the event of unemployment.

 

8) End the Social Security system as a means of retirement income.  It's a sham as it is.  We pay into it, but we are paid off the backs of current workers when we retire, which is an unjust and ever increasing burden for them.  Instead, we put our own funds aside for retirement, and once again, as a compromise, I could see the state requiring individuals to do so.

 

9) The government would have no control of the banking system or the money supply.  Interest rates would find their own levels based on supply and demand.  Interference with interest rates causes distortions and disruptions in the market.

 

 

If the above were implemented, waste would be eliminated and production would be encouraged.  We would all be better off and almost everyone who needed a wage to support a family could have one.

 

The reason we don't have the above is because of the ignorance of the masses, but more than that, it is because of the larceny in the hearts of the masses.  Too many are driven by the idea of getting something for nothing, and at the ballot box they can vote to have resources shifted from others to themselves in the form of state benefits or unfairly high wages.  Of course it's very short sighted, at least on the part of the working masses, because mostly they are not getting what they think they are getting, and in the long run they are worse off.  (Jealousy and scapegoating play a role too.  "The rich" are vilified and some are motivated to knock them down a peg or two, or to get from them what the mistakenly think should be theirs).

 

I hope and pray that Catholic bishops will all one day inform themselves regarding free markets and trust in the freedom of men to make their own choices in their own best interests, and distrust the state, as the state too often acts in its own best interest regarding the economy. 

 

 

It seems you are not for the masses because your suggestions will end up favoring greedy businessmen.

 

Please come and live here in the Philippines since we are already doing your economic policies and then, compare the type of  ‘economic- democracy ‘ we have.  In my country, they (Businessman and Capitalist) have freedom in doing their businesses including their greediness since we have the following.

 

1. We have a 404.00 pesos minimum wage for 8 hrs of work per day ($1.13/hr).

 

2. Our government services in utility sector are already privatize (services on water, electric, gas and energy). They adopt privatization scheme after Marcos (since 1986) and thus, all government owned water utilities like MWSS (where I previously worked) was privatized,  all government owned electric producing plants maintained by NAPOCOR was privatized and government owned gas distributor named PETRON was privatized,  almost all of our hospitals are owned by private corporation, all of our transportation systems (Bus, Jeeps, Airlines, Ships, ….etc…etc) are owned by private sectors even our Light Train Transist (Mass Transport system in Metro Manila) are operated, managed and temporary owned by private sectors thru Build Operate Transfer Scheme.

 

3. Almost all of our universities and colleges are owned by private sector (with tax exception) .  All our telecommunication and communication network such as telephone and cellphone services, radio, tv, cable, internet….and others are privately owned businesses.

 

4. We have useless Labor Unions too. They can do almost nothing to uplift workers benefit into a ‘living wage’ . Some of them even join in our politics maybe because there is money in creating government policies and in giving importance to GDP’s (Gross Domestic Product). These GDP’s and LDP’s (Local Domestic Products) are actually shaped by private sectors that deal in government services. Thus, they have tax-exemption, government guarantees (to their profit and bank borrowings),… and many other government policies favoring them. Thus, they are called government ‘subsidiaries’ as if they owned government properties too.

 

5. We have tax exemption or tax holidays or whatever tax reducing benefit for businesses if they are for government services.

 

6. We do not have subsidies for farmers and  workers (government and private) and we do not have ‘benefits’ for unemployed persons (8-12% unemployment rate).

 

7. Our retirement benefit for retired (government and private) employees are not within minimum wage.

 

8. We pay 33% income tax.

 

Now, if you think ‘privatization’ and $0 minimum wage will help your brothers then, good. Of course, ‘Free Market’ is possible if your businessmen are honest and not greedy. But, our workers are in ‘dying wages’ because some of your businessmen are here. Thus most of our workers are dreaming to leave the Philippines to work in other country like yours because your government has guarantees for worker’s ‘living wages’.

 

I wish we have here ‘living wages’ like yours.

Edited February 17, 2014 by reyb

[Pliny]

  Of course, ‘Free Market’ is possible if your businessmen are honest and not greedy. 

 

 

Not "free" to the extent there are no basic laws.  Laws discourage theft.

 

Greed is an individual problem.  The free market can work fine if businessmen are greedy.  And let's not forget that anyone can be greedy.  It's not just for "the rich."

[reyb]

Not "free" to the extent there are no basic laws.  Laws discourage theft.

 

Greed is an individual problem.  The free market can work fine if businessmen are greedy.  And let's not forget that anyone can be greedy.  It's not just for "the rich."

How can you discourage them with your law if your law itself says $0 minimum wage? Now, if you really see better life to American workers with your propose economic policy then, go to streets and shout about it. Let them hear you loud and clear.

Edited February 18, 2014 by reyb

[Socrates]

I didn't have time to post when this topic was hot, but here's my $.02 (or $7.25, or $10.10, or whatever).

 

While I haven't read the entire thread, it seems there's a lot of unanswered questions?  What exactly is a "living wage"?  Who determines what a "living wage" is?   The government?  Should a "living wage" be the same as the minimum wage?  Is absolutely every worker in every single job entitled to a "living wage"?  If not, who determines which jobs do or don't need to be paid a "living wage"?

 

Raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" would in reality only contribute to increased inflation and unemployment, and do nothing real to fight poverty.  Producers paying minimum wage would increase the price of their products to absorb the cost of higher wages paid, or else they will lay off more workers to keep expenses down.

The cost of everything would rise, and soon the new minimum wage would in reality be worth no more than the old one.

 

If, as some are actually proposing, the law requires fast food workers to be paid at least $15.00/hr, the immediate effect would be that the price of fast food would rise dramatically to compensate for the higher wages, a lot of people would simply avoid eating fast food, or eat it a lost less, and there'd be a lot more burger joints going out of business, and a lot more unemployed teenagers.

 

Also, there's simply no way for the government to know how much every single business can afford to pay employees.  Some start-ups may actually be paying employees at a loss for the first year or so, before the company can actually turn a profit.

 

Raising the minimum wage is a band-aid "solution" which may help politicians win votes, but does nothing real to lessen poverty.

 

If the government could simply legislate wealth into existence, why not raise the minimum wage to $100.00/hr., and get rid of poverty forever?  Or better yet, simply write everyone, working or not, a check for $1,000,000.00 to spend as they please.  

Of course, it doesn't work like that in the real world.

[4588686]

 

If the government could simply legislate wealth into existence, why not raise the minimum wage to $100.00/hr., and get rid of poverty forever?  Or better yet, simply write everyone, working or not, a check for $1,000,000.00 to spend as they please.  

Of course, it doesn't work like that in the real world.

 

 

Maybe it's possible for a policy to be good when pursued in moderation but bad when taken to an extreme?  For example, creating roads is a positive thing, but paving the entire country with asphalt and turning the entire country into one massive, two lane road would probably be bad.  

 

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income/

[Pliny]

Maybe it's possible for a policy to be good when pursued in moderation but bad when taken to an extreme?  For example, creating roads is a positive thing, but paving the entire country with asphalt and turning the entire country into one massive, two lane road would probably be bad.  

 

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/hayek-enemy-of-social-justice-and-friend-of-a-universal-basic-income/

 

 

Roads are necessary and contribute to the good of all.  Price controls cause shortages or surpluses and are always a bad idea, unlike roads.  Bad analogy.