The minimum wage should be lowered not raised.
Make sure to read the full article...in PDF form.
You know, I realized something while reading this article: Let's suppose that this raising of the minimum wage thing is not a progressive attempt to increase everyone's worth nor to cash in on getting more taxes and regulating businesses more and more.
In a down market, a highly skilled and temperamented worker will have no choice but to work a minimum wage job or two...this will leave the younger less experienced worker at a disadvantage...not just disadvantaged but outright disempowered from learning an important life long lesson: How to produce and create value in the work place, how to behave in that work place and learn work place work ethics. Sometimes these are hard learned lessons but once they are learned that young person will apply these lessons over their working life, whether they work for someone else or for themselves, not to mention learning how to be fiscally responsible among a host of other life lessons. In short, these young folks, having these experience will likely never have to depend upon pappa and momma government.
Now, raising the minimum wage would force this to happen, also forcing small and low wage skill businesses to look for alternatives in order to stay in business and to stay competitive. But...what does this do to the older more experienced worker? Wouldn't this disempower them also...in spite of the higher wage offer, even if it was close to that persons previous wage. We are forgetting the importance of, responsibility and satisfaction,; never mind having to work doing menial tasks, which would have to be boring as hell; wouldn't this play a role in that persons self worth?, his ability to provide for himself and family and even with the most humble person with family understanding, isn't this the biggest downer a man or women might experience. Might they, in an effort and even justifiably so, try to recoup some of that lost income from the very government that created this situation in the first place? Even if they have always been self supporting their whole life up to this point? It happens.
We might be tempted to say these individuals are weak and can't compete...but how many of us that haven't had the benefit of a skill set that can be applied to many occupations could effectively deal with this situation.
Those of us that have these widely marketable skill sets or even hobbies that could turn a buck are the lucky ones...we had those life long lessons at an early age...but what of those that came after us?
What I'm asking here is: Could this be the progressive reason and plan to get us all, young and old to be more dependent on government and perhaps to break our spirit in some respect?
You know, I realized something while reading this article: Let's suppose that this raising of the minimum wage thing is not a progressive attempt to increase everyone's worth nor to cash in on getting more taxes and regulating businesses more and more.
In a down market, a highly skilled and temperamented worker will have no choice but to work a minimum wage job or two...this will leave the younger less experienced worker at a disadvantage...not just disadvantaged but outright disempowered from learning an important life long lesson: How to produce and create value in the work place, how to behave in that work place and learn work place work ethics. Sometimes these are hard learned lessons but once they are learned that young person will apply these lessons over their working life, whether they work for someone else or for themselves, not to mention learning how to be fiscally responsible among a host of other life lessons. In short, these young folks, having these experience will likely never have to depend upon pappa and momma government.
Now, raising the minimum wage would force this to happen, also forcing small and low wage skill businesses to look for alternatives in order to stay in business and to stay competitive. But...what does this do to the older more experienced worker? Wouldn't this disempower them also...in spite of the higher wage offer, even if it was close to that persons previous wage. We are forgetting the importance of, responsibility and satisfaction,; never mind having to work doing menial tasks, which would have to be boring as hell; wouldn't this play a role in that persons self worth?, his ability to provide for himself and family and even with the most humble person with family understanding, isn't this the biggest downer a man or women might experience. Might they, in an effort and even justifiably so, try to recoup some of that lost income from the very government that created this situation in the first place? Even if they have always been self supporting their whole life up to this point? It happens.
We might be tempted to say these individuals are weak and can't compete...but how many of us that haven't had the benefit of a skill set that can be applied to many occupations could effectively deal with this situation.
Those of us that have these widely marketable skill sets or even hobbies that could turn a buck are the lucky ones...we had those life long lessons at an early age...but what of those that came after us?
What I'm asking here is: Could this be the progressive reason and plan to get us all, young and old to be more dependent on government and perhaps to break our spirit in some respect?
Paragraphs are there for a reason.
Great points!
Cheers,
iSank
Agree, Let every business determine it's minimum wage offer...The free market will work it out.
But, to the point...do you think it was purposed to disempower both young and old? or just a consequence.
What was the role of unions and the party they own in pushing to keep unemployment higher among certain groups?
In our case the debt repudiation is the COLA adjustment for unfunded retirements primarily military, current retirements and the elderly
the comment on empowering the middle class by lowering taxes is countered by the added taxes of other types primarily the Pelosi VAT plan all paid for with after tax devalued dollars.
technical term is Cycle of Economic Repression. The last one wasn't a recession but a repression. Government vs citizens.
For sure another go round is in the picture as the increase in debt to 20 trillion which should occure prior to January 20th has to be paid for somehow. Are you ready for another hosing?
Even the us constitution didn't protect the rights of the Indians right from the start and certainly doesn't protect our rights now. How can we get a group of honey badger humans to change their nature?
I concur. I remember reading about the argument over the language. It was done so as to make it more palatable to the slave owners of the time. It was an unfortunate necessity as they saw it, due to the nature of the times they lived in.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Back then Slave Trade had been banned but the Northerners kept the trade going and the South kept being customers. Like much of the events leading to Sumter most of it was economic,trade, tariffs in nature.
After the war ended Lincoln offered immediate amnesty to the south and an immediate part in the government (back to the 3/5ths rule) which would have put the south in control again. This went through three changes under Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant ending up with a near century of Jim Crow and Black Laws.
The Democrats north and south supported those laws and were anti civil rights. the Republicans forgot to follow through after the 15th. Wilson to some extent and Roosevelt to some extent did not and LBJ did the Civil rights act of 1966-67 but openly said that ought to keep them in line and went back to being a leader of an anti civil rights party. Clinton made some speeches and got a lot of credit but did nothing especially ha ha where sexism was concerned.
Throughout all of this the federal government incrementally gained more and more power but hat started with the 11th and 12th in Jefferson's administration. the 14th if memory serves gave the feds the big initial boost.
If you look at a map of federal lands you see the results. Great Plains largely settled by a wave of new immigrants the western third is still fiefdom of the federal government. which brings us back to property rights. What did exist was not protected but further weakened. Now a title only means the responsibility to pay property tax and be liable. Nothing else.
What those moves did and you are right they were acting clever is open the gate for progressivism from 1898 to this very day.
I'll refer you to the Constitution studies program of Hillsdale which is no charge and Ledbetters series on The Forgotten history of the USA.
It's all economics and one part fit another part including minimum wage which is based on treating labor as somethinig different than business with different rights and different powers but it IS all supply and demand including the demand for low cost illegal aliens.
I recall one book which had Ford and others deciding what level of education for the masses and it was 8th grade for the workers, Secondary for the technicians and University for the ruling class. The levels went up but the qualitiy of education went down so a McGuffeys reader and it's contemporaries will contain quiz material far beyond most high school and a great deal of todays college/university students. Another form of inflation devaluation and repudiation. They only say they are providing education but are not doing so in a realistic manner.
You can't change anything when you are powerless.
1. Stop Enabling
2. Take Control
3. Make Changes.
I see no real effort to get beyond #1. so I'll add this
4. Learn how to whine quietly.
What once cost 5 cents now costs 5 dollars or more.
suggestion...i participated in debate in high school (just had my 50th reunion) and judged at my kid's high school debates...the key to winning was defining the terms of the debate...moved your probability over 90% chance of winning...
i do not use the word "progressive"...it has a positive or vague emotional connotation ...instead i use...fascist totalitarian...labels them immediately with a negative connotation and they have to fight to get back to neutral...
also, we started out as a "republic" and were moved to a "democracy" on the way to a totalitarian oligarchy which is just a hop, skip, and a jump away...
I say $50. I'd like to be guaranteed $50. Let's see what we're really made of!
https://youtu.be/ca8Z__o52sk
Today we have a surplus of un/low skilled labor, thus wages are kept low. However, a mandatory minimum wage Rob's capital from business paying the lowest producers more than they are worth. This causes this extra cost to be passed on on the products, actual items and services to cost more, driving inflation.
Even the most complex device has many low skill produced parts.
Those that "think" they will get ahead with a rise in minimum wage find they do not. The only ones that get any advantage to the increase are
1; Government. They gain votes, and with inflation, tax revenues. They can simply inflate their Wa yu out of debt.
2; Foreign competitors. The costs of production go up here, let's their products become more valuable. This allows them higher pricing with no improvement of their own, or, to under cut the prices of the "not so smart" countries that have increased their labor costs with artificial costs.
The big question is why can't "we the people" see that while wages here have been stagnant, we are still increasing our labor force by both increasing the number of people we bring in (green cards , immigration) and our lax boarder enforce (Dream Act, DACA, refugees, etc).
Anyone with any understanding of economics, knows that you will not increase the price of anything by increasing the supply of said same thing. Especially when supply is already larger than demand.
What a concept.
employers will pay better wages for potentially better employees. I say potential because an employer does not really know if a new employee is good until they start working. Then the employer has sound reason to pay a better wage. also, if the employee recognizes they are doing a good job they can or will ask for greater wages. The employer at this point will be willing to pay it. so end the minimum wage.
I can think of some other should happens that will never happen either.
Making all laws Constitutional would be one.
If you take the black or, as I also call it, the "parralel" market; one can compete with the bigger, "safeguarded" industries and take an important, leading place. Go to China and see how many Niike, Adddidas, etc counterfits are going on that produce the same or sometimes even higher quality products. Of course their workers don´t have equal conditions or wages, and that is truly something that human rights comes to worry about.
Personally I believe the minimum wage is an easy way for a government to set a higher quality of life for its citizens, and that´s not a bad thing. But no system is perfect, and there´s always someone to fall through the cracks. Especially nowadays, in this highly golbalized era. Yet I will say this; if a worker is well kept, in good conditions, that will most probably be a more efficient worker. There are always exceptions, and regulation cannot be so strict as to leave the best worker out of a job due to different issues, whatever they may be. It´s just an opinion. I believe in the minimum wage, yes. And I stand by the fact that it has to be a decent one as well. But there are objections of course, and they are all reasonable. Raising it can put some out of business, or workers out on the street. It´s complex, no doubt about it. The world is not a fair place.
Bank America being a prime example and grinds into oblivion other concerns such as the banks that were forced to give loans to deadbeats and then had the value of the foreclosed repossessed properties artificially depressed in that value.
Each of the parts works in turn like the cogs and gears and teeth in any machine. Grinds you up and spits you out. The new version will probably add a tiny sliver of a tax cut with a huge accumulated VAT bill at the cash register.
After all every machine benefits from technological advances.
But it does explain Nancy Pelosillyni.
AND, I think that the mystique of taking drugs would be less if it wasnt illegal and cool. Being able to buy them at walmart just isnt rebellious enough to attract teenagers who want to take a stand against authority.