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 7

post #91 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post
b/c even a crap job would equal more money than no job at all. And b/c people want to work, by and large. Also if the McCrap job had such a low wage that no one would work for it they would.....be forced to raise the wage! Market forces for the win!
See I don't necessarily think this is the case. Even if the job had a decently low wage why would you slave away at it when you could stay at home and make a little bit less? Just using the example you posted earlier:
Quote:
20 k would be too high. And it would be the your income plus MI minus your income/2. So if you made 5k and the min was 20k your bonus would be 20k minus 5k equals 15k divded by 2 equals your gov. doll of 7.5k added to your earned money of 5k equals 12.5k total. A person not working at all would be 0 plus 20k divided by 2 whcih equals 10k whcih would be your total income. So even working very little would still beat not working at all. And I don't think you would make getting a MI contingent on working at all. Right now SSI, welfare, foodstamps, ect. ect. are not.
Frankly, I'm pretty positive most people would rather sit at home and do jack shit all day than slave away mopping an Arby's restroom for 2.5k extra per year.
post #92 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post
See I don't necessarily think this is the case. Even if the job had a decently low wage why would you slave away at it when you could stay at home and make a little bit less? Just using the example you posted earlier:



Frankly, I'm pretty positive most people would rather sit at home and do jack shit all day than slave away mopping an Arby's restroom for 2.5k extra per year.

You miss the point. If that was indeed the case Arby's would be forced to raise their pay.
Basically there is a magic amount that will get people off their ass. Let that number be determined by Arby's and its potential employees.
All MI does is make sure that we keep people from dying of poverty in the richest nation on earth.

As it stands now working a MW job does not provide much if any more income than the dole does and yet people will still work.
I think it is fashionable to assume every poor person is lazy, stupid, and hates to work. This is not really the case. People want to work, they really do. It's a fundamental source of pride and identity in this country. Part of the problem with the current welfare system is that it penalizes people for working. A lot of people are actually better off not working at all than working a little bit.
post #93 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
Piob brings the lol

Canadians just do not appreciate Socratic method. To wit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
1) Why not let people sit at home and watch soaps, if that's what they want?

2) Why 1:1 dollar? Why not some formula that encourages work that is > 1:1?

3) Why should certain, labour intensive sectors bear the brunt of an artificial floor?

I guess this certainly does not constitute an intelligent contribution to the conversation in your eyes?

Also, as usual, your fixation on anti-business has your thinking back-asswards:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
Anyway, what age would this kick in? Would people with children get more? Is this income taxable?

This would obviously require higher tax rates, which we would pass on to business because they're the ones benefiting from (significantly?) lowering wages for their laborers. I'm not sure the right would be ok with this.

Why would wages be lower? Why do people currently work minimum wage jobs, by and large? Survival? Would this impetus not be removed with an MI system? How do you think removing this impetus would impact wages at the bottom of the wage scale?

As I said, I'm sad to see peopel are so predictable in their biases. Full circle.
post #94 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Canadians just do not appreciate Socratic method. To wit: I guess this certainly does not constitute an intelligent contribution to the conversation in your eyes? Also, as usual, your fixation on anti-business has your thinking back-asswards: Why would wages be lower? Why do people currently work minimum wage jobs, by and large? Survival? Would this impetus not be removed with an MI system? How do you think removing this impetus would impact wages at the bottom of the wage scale? As I said, I'm sad to see peopel are so predictable in their biases. Full circle.
I generally skim over your posts because they're usually insulting or snarky. Anyway, I'm not anti-business. My father runs a small business that managed to feed our family and pay for nice things. I'm tossing in a perspective, no matter how consistent or predictable, to the question of MI. I said I wasn't against it, but am wondering that this isn't just a way to subsidize cheap labor. I've asked this question and the answer has been silent, so I'm assuming that it's just being avoided. 1. If they're a single parent who had to choose between a shitty sub-min. wage job or two or spending the time raising his or her children, I'd say stay home. I've seen what happens when a working poor parent has to work two jobs to put food on the table for a few kids and it's not pretty. Just an example that I'm sure would have a solution. 2. Abolish "artificial bottom wage" in favor of another artificial mechanism? I'm all for this part of the equation, but I'm not sure others would be or how it would be decided. You're giving "artificial" a negative connotation when I don't think it deserves one in this context. 3. Because those jobs suck and industry would pay $0 if it had the opportunity. Wages won't go up or stay the same if min. wage is abolished just because of 'market forces'. I'm not willing to subsidize businesses if they're not willing to pay a decent wage for labor-intensive jobs. Piob you're a smart person. Thanks for your questions. SoCal- 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.
post #95 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
1. If they're a single parent who had to choose between a shitty sub-min. wage job or two or spending the time raising his or her children, I'd say stay home. I've seen what happens when a working poor parent has to work two jobs to put food on the table for a few kids and it's not pretty. Just an example that I'm sure would have a solution.

Would society not benefit from the mother staying home and being a good mother? Would the chances of those two kids growing up to be contributing members of society not increase with a parent able to have the time to parent to the best of their ability?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
3. Because those jobs suck and industry would pay $0 if it had the opportunity. Wages won't go up or stay the same if min. wage is abolished just because of 'market forces'. I'm not willing to subsidize businesses if they're not willing to pay a decent wage for labor-intensive jobs.

This is a meme of the left that is immune to fact or reason. Even in this horrible economy, I have one position in my entire organization that pays minimum wage, that of dishwasher. I have to pay even the folks in the laundry about a buck over federal minimum to get decent candidates. This is top of mind at the momemt as budget season just came and went.
post #96 of 160
Guaranteed income sounds like a great idea. Just give every poor person $20,000 on January 1, and let their ingenuity and industriousness shine.
post #97 of 160
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambo View Post
This is a good thread. Thanks for bumping it. I read back through and I noticed GDL was the only person to advocate both the Minimum Wage and Minimum Income at the same time. Can somebody shoot this down for me? Otherwise, as JM stated above, what would the incentive be to actually take a crap job that paid little when you knew you were going to get the cash anyway?
The problem with that is that it doesn't solve anything. The idea is to do away with the inefficiencies caused by minimum wage laws and to put the burden of society's wants (for people working to at least be paid a minimum amount) on society itself. Keeping both would solve nothing and be an administrative nightmare.
post #98 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
This is a meme of the left that is immune to fact or reason. Even in this horrible economy, I have one position in my entire organization that pays minimum wage, that of dishwasher. I have to pay even the folks in the laundry about a buck over federal minimum to get decent candidates. This is top of mind at the momemt as budget season just came and went.

What type of organization is it? Do you have a lot of positions that would typically earn around MW? Not trying to pick an argument with you here, just want to gain some context to your statement above.

I'm fairly certain most national fastfood chains pay MW and would pay less if they were allowed. It depends on the company, job and type of candidate they usually hire.
post #99 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post
What type of organization is it? Do you have a lot of positions that would typically earn around MW? Not trying to pick an argument with you here, just want to gain some context to your statement above.

I'm fairly certain most national fastfood chains pay MW and would pay less if they were allowed. It depends on the company, job and type of candidate they usually hire.

You are missing the point. Of course every organization would pay less than minimum wage for every single position if "they were allowed." Market forces will not "allow" this. Do you think I would not like to pay minimum wage for janitors, house keepers, laundry, etc? I woud love to however I can't pay minimum wage and fill those positions with good employees. These are non/low skilled, labour intensive jobs, perfect fodder for what you would think would be MW jobs. They are not, as my local demand for labour is such that minimum wage is an ineffective price floor.

People on the left fixate so badly on MW, as if it's actually meaningful for the vast bulk of the US public.
post #100 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
You are missing the point. Of course every organization would pay less than minimum wage for every single position if "they were allowed." Market forces will not "allow" this. Do you think I would not like to pay minimum wage for janitors, house keepers, laundry, etc? I woud love to however I can't pay minimum wage and fill those positions with good employees. These are non/low skilled, labour intensive jobs, perfect fodder for what you would think would be MW jobs. They are not, as my local demand for labour is such that minimum wage is an ineffective price floor.

People on the left fixate so badly on MW, as if it's actually meaningful for the vast bulk of the US public.

Well then it depends on the company. It's good that your organization chooses to try and find good employees and does so by paying above MW. Not all do. I think fast food is the perfect example. Most of these large chains (please note, I did not say all) pay MW and could care less the quality of the employee who flips the burgers and makes fries as long as they show up to work and don't cause trouble.

Anyways, as I said, I was not trying to start a debate with you. Was just curious what type of organization you are in based on your comment above.
post #101 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post
Well then it depends on the company. It's good that your organization chooses to try and find good employees and does so by paying above MW. Not all do. I think fast food is the perfect example. Most of these large chains (please note, I did not say all) pay MW and could care less the quality of the employee who flips the burgers and makes fries as long as they show up to work and don't cause trouble.

Anyways, as I said, I was not trying to start a debate with you. Was just curious what type of organization you are in based on your comment above.

What would be wrong with paying less than MW if you wanted shitty employees? I just can't understand your fixation. I mean, I know it is part of the entire basket of beliefs commonly held by people with your paradigm, but I don't understand it.
post #102 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
What would be wrong with paying less than MW if you wanted shitty employees? I just can't understand your fixation. I mean, I know it is part of the entire basket of beliefs commonly held by people with your paradigm, but I don't understand it.

Pio, I am going to ask of you what you have of me in the past. Do not lump my whole belief system into a single paradigm. Yes, if I had to label myself I would say "Progressive," but my beliefs are more nuanced then you seem to believe.

I am intrigued by the concept of MGI being presented here. I'm just trying to fully understand how it would work and what the pros and cons would be is the United States put it into practice.
post #103 of 160
I am sympathetic to the idea of MGI. Isn't the US moving partly in this direction via the earn income tax credit?

My major concern about MGI, though, is that an enormous number of children would be dependent on adult recipients to spend the money reasonably. Obviously, given the ways of converting food stamps into cash, this is a concern now, but I would be more supportive of MGI if we had more (and more creative) mechanisms to assure the health and other needs of children. It is all too easy to imagine even more money going into booze, gambling, etc., and less money going toward food.

Much as we're all suspicious of the nanny state and support individual freedoms to act, the reality is that many adults are totally incapable of acting responsibly toward their children. I think that any reasonable social policy has to account for this fact.
post #104 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRouse View Post
Most of these large chains (please note, I did not say all) pay MW and could care less the quality of the employee who flips the burgers and makes fries as long as they show up to work and don't cause trouble.

Keep in mind that in many jobs this is what it means to be a good employee. Often it is a fight to even find someone who will show up at work most days.
post #105 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Would society not benefit from the mother staying home and being a good mother? Would the chances of those two kids growing up to be contributing members of society not increase with a parent able to have the time to parent to the best of their ability?



This is a meme of the left that is immune to fact or reason. Even in this horrible economy, I have one position in my entire organization that pays minimum wage, that of dishwasher. I have to pay even the folks in the laundry about a buck over federal minimum to get decent candidates. This is top of mind at the momemt as budget season just came and went.

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.
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?