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 9

post #121 of 160
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philosophe View Post
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.
Tax rates on hedge fund income need to go up. We are currently treating them preferrentially, and it makes no sense at all. Likewise VC income etc. I think raising rates on capital gains is terrible policy for a whole number of reasons, not the least of which being that it is an incredibly inefficient way to squeeze money out. Edit: I think a better policy for the latter would be to keep capital gains income tax free, and then to tax it at normal income rates as it is taken from investment accounts and used for expenses. That way we don't disrupt financial markets, and even make them more efficient, while we don't reward people for living off their investments.
post #122 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
Moral is, I suppose, truly the ability to pawn off your burdens and punish your enemies.

Sigged
post #123 of 160
It clearly doesn't matter what I post because the parts that agree with what you say go in one ear and out the other while the points that don't are amplified. The only reason I'm getting replied to is because nobody else is stupid enough to feed you two. You're like better looking and richer brick walls. The real argument is I don't see a system like this flying with the conservative crowd who would likely shriek at the increase in tax burdens. I've already addressed piob's point that a lot of businesses don't employ at the min. wage, so I'm not sure why he's trying to follow up on that one. You don't think this is going to get rejected by the vast majority of conservative voters?
Quote:
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
lol Thanks for this. You've both got it in your heads that I've got virtually opposing views to your own, which just isn't true. Though I'm sure thinking that makes arguing easier, doesn't it? You're so fucking bored that you're feeding me an "argument" when I really don't profess to have one. I raised concerns that, had I been another poster, would have gone largely ignored. I completely agree with much of what matt has posted on the subject. Do you think I'm posting aggressively or something?
post #124 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, 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.
Hmmm... how about farms? And eateries? And Construction jobs?
post #125 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
History is a ratchet, and the End is the Universal and Homogeonous State.

I don't know how I missed this the first time -- it is so utterly ahistorical as to beggar belief.

I am open to the MGI conceptually. I despair, however, of the likelihood of its implementation.
post #126 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
It clearly doesn't matter what I post because the parts that agree with what you say go in one ear and out the other while the points that don't are amplified. The only reason I'm getting replied to is because nobody else is stupid enough to feed you two. You're like better looking and richer brick walls. The real argument is I don't see a system like this flying with the conservative crowd who would likely shriek at the increase in tax burdens. I've already addressed piob's point that a lot of businesses don't employ at the min. wage, so I'm not sure why he's trying to follow up on that one. You don't think this is going to get rejected by the vast majority of conservative voters? lol Thanks for this. You've both got it in your heads that I've got virtually opposing views to your own, which just isn't true. Though I'm sure thinking that makes arguing easier, doesn't it? You're so fucking bored that you're feeding me an "argument" when I really don't profess to have one. I raised concerns that, had I been another poster, would have gone largely ignored. I completely agree with much of what matt has posted on the subject. Do you think I'm posting aggressively or something?
Funny that two of the biggest "conservatives" on the board, Matt and myself, are backers of MGI. I'm not sure, but I think Manton might not be totally against this (just really not sure). These really bothersome facts just keep getting in the way. You are not "agreeing" with anyone, really. You like the idea of MGI, thinking this is a liberal's utopia, but keep harping on business having an increased tax burden, business "exploiting" workers, business being able to pay under current minimum wage and telling us what conservatives are not going to accept. Again, it's puzzling.
post #127 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Funny that two of the biggest "conservatives" on the board, Matt and myself, are backers of MGI. I'm not sure, but I think Manton might not be totally against this (just really not sure). These really bothersome facts just keep getting in the way. You are not "agreeing" with anyone, really. You like the idea of MGI, thinking this is a liberal's utopia, but keep harping on business having an increased tax burden, business "exploiting" workers, business being able to pay under current minimum wage and telling us what conservatives are not going to accept. Again, it's puzzling.
Two educated conservatives does not a majority make. In fact, maybe I'm almost suspicious of the plan because you two are backing it. I shouldn't be because you're a smart, good-willed and pleasant person (not so much on this forum but I'm sure in real life you're a swell guy). Piob, what do I think of 3 day weekends, because I'm itching to get away again really soon. In fact... I'm just going to send you a list of things I'd like my opinion on and you can fill me in. kthx
post #128 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, 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.
I don't want to get inbetween the circle jerk you, Pio, and CB are having but I have to say that this reasoning is outside of my comprehension. Because it seriously sounds like you're saying that poor people have no problem making next to nothing but that the only reason we "help" them is because the rich feel bad about it? And I still don't understand what market rates have to do with any of this? The market has already shown that its more than happy to take the jobs and run with them to other countries that pay absolutely nothing. Is that what should happen here?
post #129 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post

And I still don't understand what market rates have to do with any of this? The market has already shown that its more than happy to take the jobs and run with them to other countries that pay absolutely nothing. Is that what should happen here?

Dude, do you think having a MW keeps jobs here?
post #130 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post
Dude, do you think having a MW keeps jobs here?
Absolutely not. Which, I think, argues for having one rather than not having one. If the companies were able to pay whatever they wanted, and the American workers didn't accept (which I seriously doubt they would), wouldn't they just take those jobs elsewhere?
post #131 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post
Absolutely not. Which, I think, argues for having one rather than not having one. If the companies were able to pay whatever they wanted, and the American workers didn't accept (which I seriously doubt they would), wouldn't they just take those jobs elsewhere?

I'm not following your logic. It seems that if a company is going take a job overseas, that is if it is the type of work that can be outsourced and there is a labor pool that can and will do the job for less, than a MW in the US won't do a thing to stop it.

For example if a company wants to pay $2 an hour and not a penny more and they can do so if they move operations to Mexico, how would being forced to pay $7.75 in the US make them keep the job here?
The company will just bounce south as indeed they have done.
post #132 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post
Dude, do you think having a MW keeps jobs here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post
Absolutely not. Which, I think, argues for having one rather than not having one. ?

The statement that you are making as logically deduced from these two statements is roughly: lets get rid of jobs.
post #133 of 160
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post
I don't want to get inbetween the circle jerk you, Pio, and CB are having but I have to say that this reasoning is outside of my comprehension. Because it seriously sounds like you're saying that poor people have no problem making next to nothing but that the only reason we "help" them is because the rich feel bad about it? And I still don't understand what market rates have to do with any of this? The market has already shown that its more than happy to take the jobs and run with them to other countries that pay absolutely nothing. Is that what should happen here?
Yes, we "help" the poor with minimum wage not because they can't make it, or because they won't work for less, but because society feels bad that they make so little. Is this even in dispute? Now, that wasn't why minimum wage originally came to be, that was because we wanted to keep northern white jobs from falling into southern black hands at a lower price, sort of like how a lot of people think the best way to "keep jobs at home" is to make goods manufactured elsewhere more expensive. As to the rest, what NorCal said.
post #134 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post
I'm not following your logic. It seems that if a company is going take a job overseas, that is if it is the type of work that can be outsourced and there is a labor pool that can and will do the job for less, than a MW in the US won't do a thing to stop it. For example if a company wants to pay $2 an hour and not a penny more and they can do so if they move operations to Mexico, how would being forced to pay $7.75 in the US make them keep the job here? The company will just bounce south as indeed they have done.
Could there be a risk of creating a race to the bottom? If companies could pay this $2 an hour here in the USA, what would prevent the averages in Mexico to go even lower to keep the outsourced jobs there? Lowering and lowering bottom wages in both countries over time. I realize that the concept of MGI might be able to compensate for this in terms of US workers livelihoods, but it also makes people even more dependent on the government. MGI would essentially be all they have to feed their families.
post #135 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post
Could there be a risk of creating a race to the bottom? If companies could pay this $2 an hour here in the USA, what would prevent the averages in Mexico to go even lower to keep the outsourced jobs there? Lowering and lowering bottom wages in both countries over time.

I realize that the concept of MGI might be able to compensate for this in terms of US workers livelihoods, but it also makes people even more dependent on the government. MGI would essentially be all they have to feed their families.

Yes, but again there already is. MI would not address every or even most issues that face the world. What I like best about it is the simplicity and ease of administration as well as the fact that with MI you can do away with each and every other program and yet have a better result for poor and tax payer alike. Food stamps suck, just shitcan the whole program and give people some cash instead.
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?