Economy Minimum wage should be $21.72 per hour according to Center for Economic and Policy Re

[ultramanhyata]

That's all good. I was writing more about the redistribution aspect of land being innately a positive. A forced redistribution quite often is not.

OG: Supports forced distribution of land. Protests forced redistribution of land.

Personally, I don't really believe in land. But I'm willing to contribute to the perpetuation of the illusion because it gives society something firm to stand on.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Not sure I agree with this. The author is saying that land reform can be neccesary for economic development becuase it puts a large segment of the population into a more efficient mode by giving them a stake in the economy and it provides the property rights to protect them. In that sense land is similar to education, it's not provided to mollify the poor but to create opportunity that benefits the entire economy.

Underlined: Yea, it benefits the economy... the same economy that they're still the masters of and out of which they still get the disproportionately biggest chunk.

Things like public education and the social-democratic measures of the New Deal were similar: they benefited the public greatly, but they were done with the purpose of being good for big business.

It's impossible to know what the intentions are but we can really see its consequences.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Underlined: Yea, it benefits the economy... the same economy that they're still the masters of and out of which they still get the disproportionately biggest chunk.

Things like public education and the social-democratic measures of the New Deal were similar: they benefited the public greatly, but they were done with the purpose of being good for big business.

It's impossible to know what the intentions are but we can really see its consequences.

Isn't the fact that the benefited the public greatly enough to make them good policy decisions? Also, note that inequality was sharply reduced in the aftermath of the New Deal. Inequality tarted rising steadily in 1969 and the increase really accelerated in the early 1980s.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Isn't the fact that the benefited the public greatly enough to make them good policy decisions? Also, note that inequality was sharply reduced in the aftermath of the New Deal. Inequality tarted rising steadily in 1969 and the increase really accelerated in the early 1980s.

Sure they were good and I support all its present-day equivalents that are being proposed and debated (increase of minimum wage, increased taxes for the super rich, college loan forgiveness, etc)

My point is that these don't change the overall structure. Power and decision-making is still concentrated in a few hands, even in countries where policies like these are commonplace like Scandinavia and northern Europe. It's just that often these policies increase quality of life so much that citizens don't ask for more because they're satisfied.

But to debate this point seriously is getting waaaaay ahead of ourselves. We're currently fighting like crazy just to increase the miserable minimum wage up a couple of bucks. To question the idea that bosses should exist at all is way too crazy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure they were good and I support all its present-day equivalents that are being proposed and debated (increase of minimum wage, increased taxes for the super rich, college loan forgiveness, etc)

My point is that these don't change the overall structure. Power and decision-making is still concentrated in a few hands, even in countries where policies like these are commonplace like Scandinavia and northern Europe. It's just that often these policies increase quality of life so much that citizens don't ask for more because they're satisfied.

I guess my point is that the overall structure needs to be changed if it is failing people, and if it is not, we can still look at improving it, but the level of desired change becomes smaller and the urgency is reduced. You don't want revolution for its own sake, right? You want it if you think it is going to lead to large improvements (large enough to justify the risk).

But to debate this point seriously is getting waaaaay ahead of ourselves. We're currently fighting like crazy just to increase the miserable minimum wage up a couple of bucks. To question the idea that bosses should exist at all is way too crazy.

Let's note, though, that not too long ago, the fight was defensive (to keep gains that had already been made). We've actually made progress--most notably with the ACA. There's also still the issue of defending those recent gains, but the attacks aren't very threatening.

IMO, the next big project for people who care about improving the lives of ordinary people is to work out a compromise with the right on how to deal with the next crisis (as the last one slowly, slowly fades into the background). The two big takeaways from the GFC should be A) there's very little appetite for reducing unemployment in the first world if it means potentially higher taxes on the rich down the road (that is, even if short-term tax cuts for the rich are part of the solution) and B) inflation is way too low in good times. Both problems are both caused by inequality (in the sense that the rich have a wildly disproportionate impact on policy decisions) and exacerbate it. Expanding democracy and working out more automatic policy changes in compromises are the solutions, I think.

 

[Landos]

Why not a million an hour, we can all ride our unicorns to work

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why not a million an hour, we can all ride our unicorns to work

This brainless response and a correction to it should just be stickied or something.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

The following is from a Canadian website. You'll notice this Fair Wage group is not asking for 1 million dollars and a unicorn.

http://www.canadianlabour.ca/action-center/municipality-matters/fair-wages-working-conditions

We live in a country where earnings are distributed very unequally, and many lower paid and insecurely employed workers, especially women, recent immigrants, Aboriginal people, and persons with disabilities, struggle to make ends meet.

One in three men and 40% of women hold jobs which are part-time or temporary, not full-time, permanent jobs. Almost one in four adult workers in Canada today is low paid, earning less than the amount needed to keep even a single person above the poverty line in a large urban centre. Wages for the bottom half of the workforce have barely matched inflation for the past quarter-century as increases in our national income have gone mainly to very high income groups.

Growing wage inequality is the root cause of many social problems which communities confront on a daily basis. Anti-poverty groups have identified low wages and insecure jobs as one of our nation’s key social and economic problems....


The labour movement is calling on all provinces to implement a minimum wage of at least $10 per hour, the minimum needed to keep a single worker working full-time for a full year above the poverty line. Municipalities can and should lend their support to campaigns calling for an increase in minimum wages and related improvements to provincial employment standards. They can do so by highlighting the causes of poverty in local communities and the experiences of working-poor people and families served by local social service agencies.

Where cities are directly responsible for income and other supports to working-poor families, they should highlight the cost savings and improvements in living standards which could be achieved by increasing minimum wages and income supports for lower income families (such as the Working Income Tax Benefit, Child Tax Credits, the GST credit, and similar provincial programs)....

The basic concept of a living wage is that wages should provide a sufficient income to meet basic needs. These ordinances have been the result of joint campaigns by community groups and labour organizations to raise the wages of the working poor.

Key goals of municipal campaigns have been to boost the push for higher minimum wages, to make sure that local wages reflect local living costs, especially the costs of housing, and to set wage standards for specific occupations to stop decent wages being undercut by low wage, low quality, fly-by-night contractors.

 

[Bay Area]

Why not a million an hour, we can all ride our unicorns to work

Lmao.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Why raise minimum wage when you could cut taxes for billionaires.

 

[Bay Area]

What you call billionaires, I call job creators.

 

[kpt018]

What you call billionaires, I call job creators.

Another stupid response (and I apologize if you were joking).

The economy is a complex system in which goods are produced or services are rendered in exchange for money. You picking a part of that system (investors or suppliers) and giving it credit for creating jobs and ignoring the other essential parts of that system.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I guess my point is that the overall structure needs to be changed if it is failing people, and if it is not, we can still look at improving it, but the level of desired change becomes smaller and the urgency is reduced. You don't want revolution for its own sake, right? You want it if you think it is going to lead to large improvements (large enough to justify the risk).

Well, I think the overall structure IS failing people. It's easy to see how in the US but even in the Scandinavian countries it's failing because they're still tied to the capitalist system that runs on cheap labor and exploitation.

Their wealth is still tied to financial systems that are based on SOMEONE getting screwed. They're still consuming resources (built in sweatshops overseas) at an unsustainable level, warming up the planet and raising sea levels that affect the poor countries most, among a bunch of other things.

Let's note, though, that not too long ago, the fight was defensive (to keep gains that had already been made). We've actually made progress--most notably with the ACA. There's also still the issue of defending those recent gains, but the attacks aren't very threatening.

IMO, the next big project for people who care about improving the lives of ordinary people is to work out a compromise with the right on how to deal with the next crisis (as the last one slowly, slowly fades into the background). The two big takeaways from the GFC should be A) there's very little appetite for reducing unemployment in the first world if it means potentially higher taxes on the rich down the road (that is, even if short-term tax cuts for the rich are part of the solution) and B) inflation is way too low in good times. Both problems are both caused by inequality (in the sense that the rich have a wildly disproportionate impact on policy decisions) and exacerbate it. Expanding democracy and working out more automatic policy changes in compromises are the solutions, I think.

Yeah, I think the overall trend is positive but it's going agonizingly slow. And the climate threat is VERY serious and, to me, is still vastly understated. You got lots of scientists saying it might be too late to do anything and lots of countries are still twiddling their thumbs (the US being one)

And I agree that expanding democracy is the solution. I just think that until you expand it completely (employee-owned and managed workplaces, popular control over all institutions) these problems will always arise.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The economy is a complex system in which goods are produced or services are rendered in exchange for money. You picking a part of that system (investors or suppliers) and giving it credit for creating jobs and ignoring the other essential parts of that system.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that if a capitalist had the option of increasing his profits either with or without hiring more workers, he would opt to do it by hiring more workers. His role as job creator is just too important to him.

 

[Gandhi]

Well, I think the overall structure IS failing people. It's easy to see how in the US but even in the Scandinavian countries it's failing because they're still tied to the capitalist system that runs on cheap labor and exploitation.

Their wealth is still tied to financial systems that are based on SOMEONE getting screwed. They're still consuming resources (built in sweatshops overseas) at an unsustainable level, warming up the planet and raising sea levels that affect the poor countries most, among a bunch of other things.





Yeah, I think the overall trend is positive but it's going agonizingly slow. And the climate threat is VERY serious and, to me, is still vastly understated. You got lots of scientists saying it might be too late to do anything and lots of countries are still twiddling their thumbs (the US being one)

And I agree that expanding democracy is the solution. I just think that until you expand it completely (employee-owned and managed workplaces, popular control over all institutions) these problems will always arise.

I guess that is where we disagree. Market based systems are the reason these more social systems can be afforded. The wealth generated is tickled down by force (taxation) which in turn also benefits the society. It has also reduced the absolute level of global poverty at a time when populations are exploding.

 

[kpt018]

I could be wrong but it seems to me that if a capitalist had the option of increasing his profits either with or without hiring more workers, he would opt to do it by hiring more workers. His role as job creator is just too important to him.

Do you have an example in mind?

I don't think you can generalize. I've worked with some companies that believe in "lean and mean" and some that staff for growth and everything in between. There are a million factors and it really varies situation to situation. It's always strategic, though.

My point to that poster was that wealthy business owners are not the only "job creators". Do they create jobs when there is no market (and potential profit)? Of course not. They do not create jobs out of the kindness of their hearts, it is for ROI. And for small business owners, it is to provide a living for themselves.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I guess that is where we disagree. Market based systems are the reason these more social systems can be afforded. The wealth generated is tickled down by force (taxation) which in turn also benefits the society. It has also reduced the absolute level of global poverty at a time when populations are exploding.

First, wealth is ALSO generated by force (ask the billions of farmers throughout the world that have been forced from the country into city factories), not just trickled down by it.

But yeah, the current system created lots of good things. Doesn't mean history is over and we can't improve on it. I mean, feudalism and slave societies created lots of good things as well, doesn't mean there weren't serious problems with it.

And it's VERY easy to point out the flaws in this system. It's not like we're nitpicking here. It's also very easy to start making serious reforms. Just give people what they want. Polls show people want the rich to be taxed more, public schools and other services to improve, militarization and invasions to stop, big corporations to play no role in politics, etc.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But yeah, the current system created lots of good things. Doesn't mean history is over and we can't improve on it. I mean, feudalism and slave societies created lots of good things as well, doesn't mean there weren't serious problems with it.

Feudalism and slave societies didn't produce steadily and sharply improving standards of living for the masses, though. Capitalism has.

And it's VERY easy to point out the flaws in this system. It's not like we're nitpicking here. It's also very easy to start making serious reforms. Just give people what they want. Polls show people want the rich to be taxed more, public schools and other services to improve, militarization and invasions to stop, big corporations to play no role in politics, etc.

I'd put full employment tops on the list, but now you're sounding like a liberal.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I'd put full employment tops on the list, but now you're sounding like a liberal.

Can you even define full employment (you in the 2nd person plural sense)? And how do you deal with what have historically been strong inflationary pressures from nearly full employment? I mean, you're talking about an economy where the demand for labor equals or outstrips the supply, which is going to drive up the price of labor and create pretty strong inflationary pressure.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Can you even define full employment (you in the 2nd person plural sense)? And how do you deal with what have historically been strong inflationary pressures from nearly full employment? I mean, you're talking about an economy where the demand for labor equals or outstrips the supply, which is going to drive up the price of labor and create pretty strong inflationary pressure.

Tying that all together, (following Friedman) I'd define full employment as the level that starts driving inflation up. That level should always be targeted.