or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Minimum wage or minimum guaranteed income?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Minimum wage or minimum guaranteed income? - Page 8

post #106 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
Did you even read the post that you replied to? My point was that a single parent should get more than the minimum income required for a single person- they should get more in order to support that family. A mother at home is better than the alternative.

Anyway, I'd like to see a show of hands of those who are for this plan but also for abolishing the workers right to organize. If people aren't legally guaranteed a set wage from a company, they should at least be able to collectively bargain for one.

One has nothing to do with the other. Why are you so fixated on unionization and non-market wages? It's fucking baffling.
post #107 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
SoCal-
Say my name motherfucker!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
I don't think Arby's would raise their pay. There are always people willing to do work for next to nothing. Immigrants and young people (teens), in my area, occupy the worst-paying jobs and are unlikely to be eligible for this program or know their rights.
So what? If they could in fact fill their positions at 2.50 an hr so what? The employer gets its work done and saves money that would reenter the economy through corporate taxes, the capitol gains tax on its investors, and income taxes on its higher paid workers not too mention sales taxes, local real estate taxes and so on. The jizz moppers would get theirs via MI. Society would pick up the tab but remember it is society that values jizz mopping and considers that the jizz mopper should be paid a certain amount. Society would also save a bundle by not having to administer all the various programs that hand out cash. I don't think you understand how much money is spent maintaining and gaming the SSI system. Illegals would be beaten with (repurposed) sticks and thrown from a bridge. It's the green way to do it and would not be an added cost at all. As for teens not knowing their rights, there would be no matter of having to assert them or even apply for MI. Every citizen would be per se eligible. And MI would not be alot, just enough to keep people out of grinding-die-on-the-streets-poverty. I do think this program would require some meaningful healthcare reform to work however. You are right that people with kids would require more MI. I would still support Unions.
post #108 of 160
Thread Starter 
Jesus Christ, cbrown.
post #109 of 160
There is a reasonable solution so that everyone gets fairly compensated.

What we need is a maximum income.

Set the maximum income to 250% of the lowest paid employee in a company.

Do you think this will motivate the CEO, CFO, and chairman to find ways to increase the income of everyone? YES IT WILL.

Read up on the income gap. http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...come-gap_N.htm

The problem is labor is viewed as a commodity. This is incompatible with a humane solution.
post #110 of 160
I still don't see how they aren't complimentary. The point of the minimum wage is so that people earn enough to get a decent income. The point of the minimum income is so people have enough to live on in case they can't work/get enough hours/unemployed/etc. Even if you set a minimum wage there is absolutely no guarantee that you'll earn enough money to live off of.
post #111 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
One has nothing to do with the other. Why are you so fixated on unionization and non-market wages? It's fucking baffling.
I've mentioned that I'm not against the system at least twice. The two are related. The free market fundies who are all about letting the forces work also seem to be the ones who are against unionization and high taxes. Well, if we're going to implement this system, it places a pretty high tax burden on business. This is a concept I don't see flying well, even with the decreased wages that will be paid (especially in businesses like piobs where there's really only one min. wager but will still see a marked increase in taxes). I honestly don't see the connect. I don't like the amoral nature of the open market and I don't like the idea that laborers could and probably would be exploited. I've got major issues with bloated unions and the protection of dogfuck employees, too. But we're not having that conversation right now and I don't feel the need to preface every post I make here because I'm worried matt and piob would misunderstand or immediately jump to a conclusion. And lol worthy- I'm not sure why you demonstrate such an emotional response to my political views but I'm a liberal, big deal, get over it- I don't put tin foil in the microwave or wear a helmet. If we find a safety net that is more efficient, humane and dignified, I'm all for it.
post #112 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
.

If we find a safety net that is more efficient, humane and dignified, I'm all for it.

And yet you've failed to mention a way in which this is less efficient, humane, or dignified.

Vague statements about workers being taken advantage of make no sense. All that matters to the average worker is the amount of the pay check, not who is writing it. So if they make 8 bucks an hour 40 hours a week = 320, or they make 2 bucks and hour 40 hours a week plus 240 MI = 320 there is nothing less humane about it. The only question is should the rest of society bear the cost or should MI be payed for by a special tax on business or some combination thereof.
post #113 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post
And yet you've failed to mention a way in which this is less efficient, humane, or dignified.

Vague statements about workers being taken advantage of make no sense. All that matters to the average worker is the amount of the pay check, not who is writing it. So if they make 8 bucks an hour 40 hours a week = 320, or they make 2 bucks and hour 40 hours a week plus 240 MI = 320 there is nothing less humane about it. The only question is should the rest of society bear the cost or should MI be payed for by a special tax on business or some combination thereof.

Because I'm not arguing against it. I'm bringing up concerns that are only really being partially addressed.
post #114 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
I've mentioned that I'm not against the system at least twice.

The two are related. The free market fundies who are all about letting the forces work also seem to be the ones who are against unionization and high taxes. Well, if we're going to implement this system, it places a pretty high tax burden on business. This is a concept I don't see flying well, even with the decreased wages that will be paid (especially in businesses like piobs where there's really only one min. wager but will still see a marked increase in taxes). I honestly don't see the connect.

I don't like the amoral nature of the open market and I don't like the idea that laborers could and probably would be exploited. I've got major issues with bloated unions and the protection of dogfuck employees, too. But we're not having that conversation right now and I don't feel the need to preface every post I make here because I'm worried matt and piob would misunderstand or immediately jump to a conclusion.


And lol worthy- I'm not sure why you demonstrate such an emotional response to my political views but I'm a liberal, big deal, get over it- I don't put tin foil in the microwave or wear a helmet.

If we find a safety net that is more efficient, humane and dignified, I'm all for it.

And we should substitute this with what? Oh, let me guess....

I also do not see why you totally ignore my logic as to why wages will likely not fall below minimum (in the vast majority of cases) and keep insisting they will, with no other logic than this is what will happen if MW is removed. Given how you seem to feel you have a whole set of a priori premises, no doubt substituting your morality in place of the market's amorality will be a far, far superior and efficient solution.

I think Matt said it best. Jesus Christ.
post #115 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
I also do not see why you totally ignore my logic as to why wages will likely not fall below minimum (in the vast majority of cases) and keep insisting they will, with no other logic than this is what will happen if MW is removed.

Open your eyes and look at the third world. American companies have no problems shutting down factories with good wages and moving them to places where labor is almost free. 60 hour work weeks to make just enough for food?
post #116 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
I've mentioned that I'm not against the system at least twice.

The two are related. The free market fundies who are all about letting the forces work also seem to be the ones who are against unionization and high taxes. Well, if we're going to implement this system, it places a pretty high tax burden on business. This is a concept I don't see flying well, even with the decreased wages that will be paid (especially in businesses like piobs where there's really only one min. wager but will still see a marked increase in taxes). I honestly don't see the connect.

I don't like the amoral nature of the open market and I don't like the idea that laborers could and probably would be exploited. I've got major issues with bloated unions and the protection of dogfuck employees, too. But we're not having that conversation right now and I don't feel the need to preface every post I make here because I'm worried matt and piob would misunderstand or immediately jump to a conclusion.


And lol worthy- I'm not sure why you demonstrate such an emotional response to my political views but I'm a liberal, big deal, get over it- I don't put tin foil in the microwave or wear a helmet.

If we find a safety net that is more efficient, humane and dignified, I'm all for it.

You understand.

The problem with bad employees is they are probably limited in IQ or ability or endurance. But they still need to eat and have a house. Is it a persons fault if they are limited by genetics? If the corporations do not cover this expense, then society will be force to pay and the expense will be greater.
post #117 of 160
Nvm. Trolls, feeding, etc.
post #118 of 160
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post
I still don't see how they aren't complimentary. The point of the minimum wage is so that people earn enough to get a decent income. The point of the minimum income is so people have enough to live on in case they can't work/get enough hours/unemployed/etc. Even if you set a minimum wage there is absolutely no guarantee that you'll earn enough money to live off of.
No, the point of either is that in an advanced society we have decided that we don't want to have people who have to live at too low a level. They are perfect substitutes for each other, depending on the math you use. The question is that if this is a position taken by the entire society, why should only certain members of it be forced to subsidize this position. In other words, why should a corner store owner be forced to pay rates above what the market would demand for stock boys so that hedge fund managers, who employ nobody at such a low rate, should be able to feel happy for living in a just society where nobody has too little. Likewise, most of the businesses who employ at minimum wage cater to low income people, so again you have the poor subsidizing the moral needs of the rich. This, of course, is where CBrown's "argument" falls apart. He seems to be fine with the morality of forcing the poor to subsidize the moral wants of the rich so long as corporations are held to bare for doing nothing wrong at all... employing people at market rate prices. He seems to feel that this ability to have his needs paid for by poor people and to have the ability to punish some faceless business demons is far superior to the idea that the taxpayer in general, contributing on a progressive basis, should support this want of society. Moral is, I suppose, truly the ability to pawn off your burdens and punish your enemies.
post #119 of 160
Too often, the bureaucracy and its pseudo-intellectual enablers in the think tanks willfully over-complicate social welfare policy. It's treated as rocket science but it's not.
post #120 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
No, the point of either is that in an advanced society we have decided that we don't want to have people who have to live at too low a level. They are perfect substitutes for each other, depending on the math you use. The question is that if this is a position taken by the entire society, why should only certain members of it be forced to subsidize this position. In other words, why should a corner store owner be forced to pay rates above what the market would demand for stock boys so that hedge fund managers, who employ nobody at such a low rate, should be able to feel happy for living in a just society where nobody has too little. Likewise, most of the businesses who employ at minimum wage cater to low income people, so again you have the poor subsidizing the moral needs of the rich.

This is a very important post.

I still have the worries I listed a few pages ago about whether handing over cash (and abolishing food stamps, etc) would be the best way to proceed, but I agree that GMI has advantages over minimum wage laws.

Of course we could just raise taxes on hedge fund and other investment income.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Minimum wage or minimum guaranteed income?