$15/hour min. wage?

[Matryoshka]

But the shareholder is letting the business use capital that belongs to the shareholder. The shareholder could do something else with this capital.

Receiving a return to capital encourages the shareholder to invest capital in the business--without it the business would not exist and the jobs for the workers wouldn't exist. Without this incentive, why would the shareholder invest his or her capital in the business?

That's how interest is supposed to work too, right? The bank lends me their capital, and I pay them interest for using it.

Conversely, I give my money to the bank, they pay me interest for the use of my capital. Except... wait. They don't anymore. Interest rates are near Zero, and virtually all banks now tack on 'fees' that easily total way more than whatever interest they pay me on the capital I have given them. So... we are now paying the banks for using our capital. How the heck are they getting away with this? Why is it okay for company shareholders to expect an obscene amount of profit from their investments where we are expected to actually get nothing and even pay for investing our capital? That goes for most mutual funds that are available to us too... the fees on them are often as much or more than even market-rate investments give in interest.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Matryoshka

[kiwik]

True, but childcare costs are already more than what many families can afford.

Here early childcare workers got pay parity with primary school teachers quite a while ago. The centres are also funded by government to a large extent to keep fees low and there are subsidies for low income families. The minimum wage is $15 something I think. I get above it but the minimum wage has increased as much as my wage has so I am not really better off. Despite arguments from businesses raising the minimum wage didn't cause the business to collapse and they didn't all go off shore.

 

But we still have families living in overcrowded conditions and skinmping on heating and food because even 2 full time minimum wage income aren't enough to live OK in Auckland and we have massive housing shortages especially in Auckland and Christchurch (post earthquake).

Edited December 3, 2016 by kiwik

[swellmomma]

How many of the people who think it's easy to work two jobs and go to school have actually done it in the last 10-15 years?  How many have even worked one job, taken care of children and tried to study?

 

It's not easy, sometimes it's damn near impossible.  And it always sucks.

 

Easy no, but I have been doing it for the last 3 years.  Working 1-3 jobs, doing 2 college programs online at night plus homeschooling my kids (this year only 1 but for the 2 years prior I was homeschooling all 4. 

 

Out here there is a plan from the gov't to increase the minimum wage to $15.  The thing that frustrates me is that after 28 years and a college diploma for my profession I only make $15.50 an hour, (current minimum wage is $12.20/hr) and I am the director of the center.  Local EMS personnel make roughly $18/hr etc. Of those multiple jobs I was working one was in a fast food place, there is no way that job is worth $15/hr.  I get that people want there to be a living wage, problem is most of the people I worked with were either high school students or extremely lazy adults.  I spent far too much time having to pick up their slack. Why should they make nearly the same wage as I do when I have a college education and 2 decades of experience? If they were to increase our wages to be commiserate with a higher minimum wage we will need to increase our childcare fees to parents.  So how does that help? Now they have a higher wage but also higher childcare costs, the same will happen with many smaller businesses. 

 

 

 

[swellmomma]

Childcare workers are grossly underpaid.

 

As a childcare worker I fully agree with this.  I have been in the field a long time.  When I first began getting paid (started as a volunteer) the going wage was $5.25/hr.  Thankfully it is more than that now, but given that to hold the position I do you need to have a 2 year college diploma, $15/hr is pittance (and more than most get paid in this field, like I posted above I get $15.50 as a director with 28 years experience and that 2 year diploma).  Not too many professions that require a college diploma that get paid the same as some 15 yr old burger flipper.

[Amy in NH]

From a rather selfish point of view--

 

It irks the crap out of me that people who do nothing more than stand at a cash register and take an order (thinking McD's, not waiters and such) will get paid the same as a preschool teacher who has a degree and spends extra hours planning, designing curricula and making materials, and conferencing with parents. I am not saying cashiers don't work hard--it is hard physically to stand there for hours and hard mentally to deal with people. But the jobs are not equal in my mind, and I do not think they should get paid basically the same amount.

 

I don't know what to do about that, frankly, just saying how I feel.

 

I don't believe people who get paid higher wages will necessarily pay more for things like child care, either.

You're right, that is a selfish point of view.

 

I don't see why it is okay for people who work a full time job to not afford basic necessities like shelter and utilities, food, clothing, and basic transportation and communication without government assistance. This low wage which puts huge profits into the pockets of families like the Waltons, other CEOs, and shareholders, who obviously aren't doing the work, amounts to tax dollars subsidizing the creation of the overlord 1% class. Those same welfare dollars which subsidize the low-paying corporate-wealth model are then spent at those same businesses (ie Wal-Mart), amounting to a double dip of those corporations into the taxpayer wallet. Add corporations-are-persons influence on the political system, and we'll continue in perpetuity. And because Congressional staffers were cut in the 1980s, issue-experts no longer advise politicians - it's all lobbyists * who actually write the bills! *

 

What a mess.

[Bootsie]

That's how interest is supposed to work too, right? The bank lends me their capital, and I pay them interest for using it.

Conversely, I give my money to the bank, they pay me interest for the use of my capital. Except... wait. They don't anymore. Interest rates are near Zero, and virtually all banks now tack on 'fees' that easily total way more than whatever interest they pay me on the capital I have given them. So... we are now paying the banks for using our capital. How the heck are they getting away with this? Why is it okay for company shareholders to expect an obscene amount of profit from their investments where we are expected to actually get nothing and even pay for investing our capital? That goes for most mutual funds that are available to us too... the fees on them are often as much or more than even market-rate investments give in interest.

Currently, banks have much more in deposits than they are lending out.  Depositors are getting zero--or near zero--because money isn't a scarce resource right now.

 

What would be considered an obscene amount of profit?  3%, 5%, 10%, 20%?  One reason stockholders get more return, on average, than people depositing money in a bank is that their money is not insured or guaranteed.  Most bank deposits carry FDIC insurance.   

[Amy in NH]

And what exactly are we supposed to do with all of the folks working service jobs who are replaced by robots? Let them starve in the streets?

 

I get when a professional might be irked at a service worker making as much as they do but let's face it there are not enough professional jobs for everyone let alone service sector jobs. And for folks saying that McD's jobs are not meant to be living wage jobs and teenage jobs, I disagree since there are only limited manufacturing jobs out (although FTR under Obama 850,000 manufacturing jobs were created) and service sector is a big part of the job market. So I guess I am saying is that we should not diss service workers and begrudge them living wages.

 

Oh and when robots do replace a lot of our jobs our country is going to have to figure out how to give a living wage benefit to those out of work unless we want to live in like Victorian times or something like that. Of course I don't see the right agreeing to that at all.

I completely agree.

 

As we go into our study of the Industrial Revolution, I was looking today for just the right Dickens read aloud. You know, the books with all the starving homeless children, workhouses, debtors prisons, and poor couples forceably divorced by the state. I ended up reading that the reason the Industrial Revolution and accompanying social problems started in the UK was because of the high cost of labor there in comparison to other places.

 

I can see us headed down the same path as more jobs are lost to automation with nothing to replace them. When do we get to the tipping point of "we" as a society having enough to sustain everyone without a 40 hour work week. When do we get rid of the hoarding greed and move toward a Star Trek vision of the future where we can all have enough just because we are valued and given dignity due purely to our sentience, and we can spend our time in pursuit of higher goals?

 

Valuing "life" sure has a funny meaning for some people.

[Matryoshka]

Currently, banks have much more in deposits than they are lending out.  Depositors are getting zero--or near zero--because money isn't a scarce resource right now.

 

What would be considered an obscene amount of profit?  3%, 5%, 10%, 20%?  One reason stockholders get more return, on average, than people depositing money in a bank is that their money is not insured or guaranteed.  Most bank deposits carry FDIC insurance.   

 

Most banks I'd still be better off putting my money in a mattress than in a savings account.  I make very sure to only use banks that don't charge me fees (this is usually smaller, local banks or credit unions).  These same banks, oddly, often offer better interest rates than the big banks with their hefty fees for every.single.thing.  I have no idea why anyone would bank with those big corporate banks.  They're just robbing you blind.  If the little guys can manage not to fee you to death, why can't they?  They've got tons of profit.  They got a big bail-out after ruining the economy and the lives of countless numbers of people.  But they can't pay you a measly interest rate on your savings without deducting it all plus more in fees?  Because 'money isn't scarce'?  It would be if everyone put their money in banks that weren't robber barons.  If you don't need my money, boys, I'm not giving it to you.

 

My bank charges no fees with a certain minimum.  No ATM fees (no only do they not charge me to use someone else's ATM, they even compensate my account for the fees the other bank charges me when I use someone else's ATM), no checking fees, no teller fees... no fees.  Why can't the kajillionaire banks offer that if my little local bank can?  Hint: Greedy bastards.

 

I have no idea why having money and throwing it about while golfing and jetting about is seen as so lofty and exalted that it requires this huge return on investment, where the little guy is not even supposed to expect a living wage or healthcare for an honest day's work.  If the guy throwing the money about were creating jobs that paid a living wage and gave healthcare, etc. - well, that may have some merit.  But the guys throwing the money about are sending the jobs overseas and stiffing the people who do work for them while flying around in jets and living in gilt penthouses and saying they need more tax cuts to 'create more jobs' buy more jets.    

[Amy in NH]

I can tell you another difference. The preschool teacher is likely buying books and materials out of her own pocket and paying for recertification classes. With the possible exception of a uniform shirt for a fast food job, usually you don't have those ongoing expenses.

 

No, teaching preschool isn't brain surgery. Not being a brain surgeon, I can't say which is harder. I can say that I find teaching preschool (which I love, BTW) more difficult than teaching pre-service early childhood teachers at the university level. And at the university level, I'm paid a lot more. And my students buy their own supplies.

 

FWIW, I would probably now have a hard time getting hired to teach ECED-I'm overqualified, even for most center director positions (and given that a center director is more business than teaching, I wouldn't want it anyway).

And teachers get to deduct those expenses on the front of their 1040.

[Bootsie]

Most banks I'd still be better off putting my money in a mattress than in a savings account.  I make very sure to only use banks that don't charge me fees (this is usually smaller, local banks or credit unions).  These same banks, oddly, often offer better interest rates than the big banks with their hefty fees for every.single.thing.  I have no idea why anyone would bank with those big corporate banks.  They're just robbing you blind.  If the little guys can manage not to fee you to death, why can't they?  They've got tons of profit.  They got a big bail-out after ruining the economy and the lives of countless numbers of people.  But they can't pay you a measly interest rate on your savings without deducting it all plus more in fees?  Because 'money isn't scarce'?  It would be if everyone put their money in banks that weren't robber barons.  If you don't need my money, boys, I'm not giving it to you.

Credit unions do not pay income taxes that banks do--this is a big cost saving to them.  For the most part, the larger banks do not want smaller accounts that cost them a higher percentage in paperwork and other costs.  It is just like one bakery specializes in selling its bread to grocery stores and restaurants rather than to individuals and another specializes in selling to individuals. 

[Guest]

I completely agree.

 

As we go into our study of the Industrial Revolution, I was looking today for just the right Dickens read aloud. You know, the books with all the starving homeless children, workhouses, debtors prisons, and poor couples forceably divorced by the state. I ended up reading that the reason the Industrial Revolution and accompanying social problems started in the UK was because of the high cost of labor there in comparison to other places.

 

I can see us headed down the same path as more jobs are lost to automation with nothing to replace them. When do we get to the tipping point of "we" as a society having enough to sustain everyone without a 40 hour work week. When do we get rid of the hoarding greed and move toward a Star Trek vision of the future where we can all have enough just because we are valued and given dignity due purely to our sentience, and we can spend our time in pursuit of higher goals?

 

Valuing "life" sure has a funny meaning for some people.

What you seem to be missing is that human nature doesn't respond to circumstances like Star Trek. People do not take just enough and live in peace and balance with others. Even in a homogenous and neighborly, same goal oriented group it was a massive failure to try and live that way, without personal gain and stake motivating behavior. Nobody works as hard to help another as they do to better themselves and when you disincentives the latter it harms the former.

 

A balance that allows men to work for themselves and disincentivizes povert by making it the least appealing, most difficult option compared to labor, and keeps the cost of goods well balanced with the pay for that labor while incentivizing business and economic growth and trade, seems to be the best sweet spot we can achieve on earth for personal happiness and flourishing with the least human suffering. But no system can change the hearts of men, only work with them and ease or punish the worst tendencies of the self. And no system can work equally well for every member - we need the one that causes the least overall harm for the most good and doesn't squelch the drive of the individual to better himself in the broadest sense possible.

 

Put another way - Star Trek will always be fiction because it ignores essential truths about what motivates and drives humans. A better way is something that acknowledges the strongest drives - personal security and happiness and betterment of the closest members of our personal tribe above those more removed - and plays to the strengths while tempering the weaknesses.

 

And no, a high and federal minimum wage doesn't do that best. A low or regionally adjusted minimum wage, safety and labor laws that protect people's interests while still allowing them to be employable in a cost effective manner, and as little artificial price fixing and taxation as possible to allow a fair market that is still free and lucrative has produced the best results in the last few centuries, if not human history. I think there are other changes that can be made to business and commerce as it currently stands in this country that will help lower skilled and lower wage workers better than raising the wage (and he unintended consequences that will result). It's certainly a topic for debate.

[Guest]

And if should go without saying, but no we don't hate poor people. But helping someone in a way that actually causes more harm for them isn't really help. So many proposals can do that when we don't think through the consequences in a realistic way. It's easy to assume the best case scenario and ignore the worst, especially when our intentions are good. But good intentions and good feelings do not necessarily equal good policy.

[creekland]

I don't have strong views on the various minimum wage propositions, bc I haven't researched them enough. I do have very strong views about thinking that everyone in this country has access to all that they need. I have very strong views about thinking that jobs and education and training are there for the taking, for everyone, and if you aren't making it then you must not be working hard enough. 

 

It's brutal out there for a lot of folks. No one is saying that lazy people don't exist, but don't make assumptions. Don't look at the tip of the iceberg, which is all you can see, and think that you know what lies underneath. Don't look at the wonderful things that surround you and think that they surround everyone. Don't think that because you worked hard and made it, then the people who don't make it must be at fault. Have some compassion. Realize that your world is not everyone's world. 

 

On top of what you've said, kids who grow up in poverty usually have many other issues they subconsciously worry about - things like safety and/or someone being there for them.  They're usually getting poor nutrition too.  Add those two together and their brains do not develop up to their potential.  Then throw them in school and let them see that they are "dumb" by mainstreaming them with normally developing kids who have no such fears.  What the brain learns is that there are two classes of people - those who "can do" and those who "can't."

 

This is overly simplified by a ton, but the results are kids who grow up literally NOT being able to take advantage of "all that is out there."  Their brains didn't get a chance to develop to their potential.  Current programs are working to try to combat this, but it's not as simple as Head Start or WIC (though those are worth keeping IMO as we figure out how to tweak more).  Parenting classes have helped.  There's still no easy answer though.  We have schools getting Fs.  We have areas with lack of jobs.  We have low wage jobs. 

 

Anyone saying people need to "just go out there and work" really has not seen what is out there that many have to grow up with (or how the human body works) and that's an understatement.

 

There are some who make it and all of us respect them tremendously, but that doesn't mean everyone can make it any more than everyone can become a great inventor like Steve Jobs just because someone tells us a template of how to do it.  

 

 

I know it's been said before, but different people define Millennial differently. I refuse to call myself one and I'm 34. I usually lump myself in Generation X. I can relate to part of this list: https://www.buzzfeed.com/leonoraepstein/signs-youre-stuck-between-gen-x-and-millennials?utm_term=.bybjGE6y6#.cyk8325o5 (I was using email in high school and not a typewriter).

 

I currently define myself as Over the Hill - esp when I think about how young most on this board are.  ;)

 

How many of the people who think it's easy to work two jobs and go to school have actually done it in the last 10-15 years?  How many have even worked one job, taken care of children and tried to study?

 

It's not easy, sometimes it's damn near impossible.  And it always sucks.

 

And how much care are the kids getting?  Some undoubtedly make the effort, but I suspect most park the kids in front of the TV or computer and call it good if they get meals.  This affects their development, and not in a good way.

[Ausmumof3]

What you seem to be missing is that human nature doesn't respond to circumstances like Star Trek. People do not take just enough and live in peace and balance with others. Even in a homogenous and neighborly, same goal oriented group it was a massive failure to try and live that way, without personal gain and stake motivating behavior. Nobody works as hard to help another as they do to better themselves and when you disincentives the latter it harms the former.

 

A balance that allows men to work for themselves and disincentivizes povert by making it the least appealing, most difficult option compared to labor, and keeps the cost of goods well balanced with the pay for that labor while incentivizing business and economic growth and trade, seems to be the best sweet spot we can achieve on earth for personal happiness and flourishing with the least human suffering. But no system can change the hearts of men, only work with them and ease or punish the worst tendencies of the self. And no system can work equally well for every member - we need the one that causes the least overall harm for the most good and doesn't squelch the drive of the individual to better himself in the broadest sense possible.

 

Put another way - Star Trek will always be fiction because it ignores essential truths about what motivates and drives humans. A better way is something that acknowledges the strongest drives - personal security and happiness and betterment of the closest members of our personal tribe above those more removed - and plays to the strengths while tempering the weaknesses.

 

And no, a high and federal minimum wage doesn't do that best. A low or regionally adjusted minimum wage, safety and labor laws that protect people's interests while still allowing them to be employable in a cost effective manner, and as little artificial price fixing and taxation as possible to allow a fair market that is still free and lucrative has produced the best results in the last few centuries, if not human history. I think there are other changes that can be made to business and commerce as it currently stands in this country that will help lower skilled and lower wage workers better than raising the wage (and he unintended consequences that will result). It's certainly a topic for debate.

I'm curious to know what changes can be made, that you think will be helpful.

 

I do agree that life communism seems to have run into the problem that there is a lack of motivation but I wonder if capitalism is running into its own problems now? Maybe there is another model to be discovered that works better.

[Bluegoat]

But the shareholder is letting the business use capital that belongs to the shareholder.  The shareholder could do something else with this capital.  

Receiving a return to capital encourages the shareholder to invest capital in the business--without it the business would not exist and the jobs for the workers wouldn't exist.  Without this incentive, why would the shareholder invest his or her capital in the business?

 

You do know that there were businesses in the world before there was such a thing as a shareholder, and people were employed.  People still needed things, and to make a living.  I don't see any reason that suddenly they would disappear. 

 

There might not be quite the same kind of large business investments and quickly moving economy - I'm not sure that would be a bad thing, overall.  As it exists now, our fast economy is working pretty quickly to destroy the environment.  People would all have to think a little harder about what they really needed.

 

However, I suppose shareholders could have a small sort of salary.  Given that they aren't doing anything else though, I can't see it being very large.  An owner-operator would be a different story, or a co-op type structure.

[Murphy101]

And how much care are the kids getting? Some undoubtedly make the effort, but I suspect most park the kids in front of the TV or computer and call it good if they get meals. This affects their development, and not in a good way.

This. No one should have to decide between their family and surviving financially, but our society is set up to not only insist on it, but that this people choose finance over family. Many families scrape by for years working so hard to get ahead only to find when they finally do, if they do, that their marriage is over or they don't have a relationship with their kids.

[creekland]

This. No one should have to decide between their family and surviving financially, but our society is set up to not only insist on it, but that this people choose finance over family. Many families scrape by for years working so hard to get ahead only to find when they finally do, if they do, that their marriage is over or they don't have a relationship with their kids.

 

And that would be why we opted to give up on the rat race roughly 20 years ago.  It wasn't providing the family life we wanted.

 

We're fortunate that hubby has a job where we could do that.  He could start his own business with mostly flexible hours that paid enough for what we want in life (esp since we don't have many wants aside from our travel and we're willing to keep that inexpensive).  I only work part time by choice - not for the pay (as Dawn mentioned long ago!).  I need my own life (from my job), but I also wanted a decent family life while my kids were growing up.  Part time choosing my own days to work (or not) gave me the best of both worlds - esp since I love the actual job.  Neither of our jobs are minimum wage.  I can't fathom exactly how people live on that TBH.  I can't imagine living on just my sub salary even if I worked every single school day and that's close to $75/day take home money (after taxes and state required retirement are pulled out).

 

Our kids have thanked us for what we chose to do growing up and how much time we spent doing things with them.  They've seen from their peers just how abnormal we were.  Two of them have promised us they'll help us in retirement if we run short of $$ due to not having saved enough by not working for more, more, more.

 

Not everyone can make such choices.  I wish more could.   I have tons of empathy for those earning low wages - at any job - and we do our best to help compensate when we can (via tips, etc).  When hubby hires an employee for a few of his jobs (contract work) he pays him $15 - $20/hour and has a minimum amount paid if it's a short job.  He usually uses a guy who has a tough time getting jobs due to mental/IQ issues, previous jail time, and not the greatest people skills.  He can still do the basic grunt work hubby needs help with (and does it well with no complaints) and we don't feel he's only worth minimum wage even though I'm sure he'd have been happy to get that.  No one can live on that IMO and no one deserves it due to job ability.  Hubby doesn't need the guy often, so we're not even close to his sole support, but it's so hard for the dude to find a "real" job that he has to do "pick up" things like this.

 

Life doesn't get its value by one's job.  There should be a factor in there that pays if one can do "whatever" job fits their ability well.

 

What I despise the most are all the bigwigs who feel they are worth millions because they have an "executive" position of some sort.  They're getting their millions off the backs of people who actually work.  Perhaps they should get more due to their expertise (this depends upon the person and position TBH), but that much more?

[Amy in NH]

But the shareholder is letting the business use capital that belongs to the shareholder. The shareholder could do something else with this capital.

Receiving a return to capital encourages the shareholder to invest capital in the business--without it the business would not exist and the jobs for the workers wouldn't exist. Without this incentive, why would the shareholder invest his or her capital in the business?

Why is a person sitting on a pile of capital in the first place?

What else would they do with it if this constant need for higher profit margins to pay shareholders disappeared? Should they be happy with the same level of returns in stock dividends they would have gotten if they put their money in a traditional bank account?

Perhaps they could invest for altruistic reasons rather than greed? But perhaps that's asking too much of some people... you know, to have a sense of morality.

[heartlikealion]

On top of what you've said, kids who grow up in poverty usually have many other issues they subconsciously worry about - things like safety and/or someone being there for them.  They're usually getting poor nutrition too.  Add those two together and their brains do not develop up to their potential.  Then throw them in school and let them see that they are "dumb" by mainstreaming them with normally developing kids who have no such fears.  What the brain learns is that there are two classes of people - those who "can do" and those who "can't."

 

This is overly simplified by a ton, but the results are kids who grow up literally NOT being able to take advantage of "all that is out there."  Their brains didn't get a chance to develop to their potential.  Current programs are working to try to combat this, but it's not as simple as Head Start or WIC (though those are worth keeping IMO as we figure out how to tweak more).  Parenting classes have helped.  There's still no easy answer though.  We have schools getting Fs.  We have areas with lack of jobs.  We have low wage jobs. 

 

Anyone saying people need to "just go out there and work" really has not seen what is out there that many have to grow up with (or how the human body works) and that's an understatement.

 

There are some who make it and all of us respect them tremendously, but that doesn't mean everyone can make it any more than everyone can become a great inventor like Steve Jobs just because someone tells us a template of how to do it.  

 

 

 

I currently define myself as Over the Hill - esp when I think about how young most on this board are.   ;)

 

 

And how much care are the kids getting?  Some undoubtedly make the effort, but I suspect most park the kids in front of the TV or computer and call it good if they get meals.  This affects their development, and not in a good way.

 

Not over the hill! I don't think of anyone here as old. My grandma is 101 and still feisty lol

[Guest]

Why is a person sitting on a pile of capital in the first place?

What else would they do with it if this constant need for higher profit margins to pay shareholders disappeared? Should they be happy with the same level of returns in stock dividends they would have gotten if they put their money in a traditional bank account?

Perhaps they could invest for altruistic reasons rather than greed? But perhaps that's asking too much of some people... you know, to have a sense of morality.

They are accumulating capital so they can do things they want in the future. Maybe that is opening their own business, or upgrading their housing, or purchasing the next vehicle. It could be in prep for medical bills or retirement.

[Murphy101]

Not over the hill! I don't think of anyone here as old. My grandma is 101 and still feisty lol

My mother died at 53.

 

So much of my life is colored by that even though we were not close and I was an adult with two kids at the time.

 

If I die at 53, would I think the rat race worth so much if the years I've had? Hell no.

[Guest]

My mother died at 53.

 

So much of my life is colored by that even though we were not close and I was an adult with two kids at the time.

 

If I die at 53, would I think the rat race worth so much if the years I've had? Hell no.

Same here. I took a lower standard of housing and a poorer area to live in so I could have time with my children. I lucked out and a fine physician whose parents invested in his education gave me the addl years I needed to outlive my parents. My children understand the tradeoff. What they cant understand is the poverty thinking that leads the community to not invest in the children of their hired workers.

[creekland]

My mother died at 53.

 

So much of my life is colored by that even though we were not close and I was an adult with two kids at the time.

 

If I die at 53, would I think the rat race worth so much if the years I've had? Hell no.

 

Just specifying that my like is due to your conclusion, not the fact that your mom died young.  For that, I'll offer  :grouphug: .

 

With my own health issues I'm not promising anyone I'll live to 53 (seems doubtful today 'cause today is a bad day - grr!), but my motto remains that I'd rather live and die young than grow into old age and have done absolutely nothing.

 

I usually use that to justify things like scuba diving (stuff some folks think is dangerous), but it's true for the decisions we made in our past about family time too.  Our kids were only with us for the blink of an eye (seems that way now that they are on their own).  We're so glad we took those years to enjoy them - to enjoy doing things with them - sharing our lives with them, all the hikes, all the board games, etc.  My guys have peers now who come from much wealthier families, yet those peers sometimes envy my guys for the actual life we've lived with them when they compare their pasts.

 

Money isn't everything, though Zig Ziglar's comment about it is true:

 

“Money isn’t the most important thing in life, but it’s reasonably close to oxygen on the ‘gotta have it’ scale.â€

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309132-money-isn-t-the-most-important-thing-in-life-but-it-s

 

That said, we don't breathe pure oxygen and I'm of the belief that we don't need millions of dollars to enjoy life.  We do, however, need a reasonable amount to keep functioning.

[Murphy101]

Same here. I took a lower standard of housing and a poorer area to live in so I could have time with my children. I lucked out and a fine physician whose parents invested in his education gave me the addl years I needed to outlive my parents. My children understand the tradeoff. What they cant understand is the poverty thinking that leads the community to not invest in the children of their hired workers.

That too. Every "spare" nickel we have goes to our kids education in hopes they won't have the hardships we had/have. But the economy is so much worse than when dh and I married in the early 90s, that we worry if it's possible given the steep incline of the uphill battle. We're doing it anyways tho bc even if we can't help them avoid financial ruin, we can help avoid helpless ignorance.

[katilac]

On top of what you've said, kids who grow up in poverty usually have many other issues 

 

Lots of good additional points in this post. 

 

The Irreducible Needs of Children is one book I recall offhand that addresses issues such as shifting caregivers, lack of security, and the affect these difficulties can actually have on the brain, long-term. The fact of the matter is that adults may well be capable of living through an insanely busy and stressful period of a few years in order to achieve a goal, with no permanent ill effects, but often not the children in the scenario.

 

The cognitive effects of stress and insecurity are very interesting. I know there is more up-to-date research than what's in the above book, but it's the first title that comes to mind.

[Bootsie]

You do know that there were businesses in the world before there was such a thing as a shareholder, and people were employed.  People still needed things, and to make a living.  I don't see any reason that suddenly they would disappear. 

 

There might not be quite the same kind of large business investments and quickly moving economy - I'm not sure that would be a bad thing, overall.  As it exists now, our fast economy is working pretty quickly to destroy the environment.  People would all have to think a little harder about what they really needed.

 

However, I suppose shareholders could have a small sort of salary.  Given that they aren't doing anything else though, I can't see it being very large.  An owner-operator would be a different story, or a co-op type structure.

Some people may have been employed before there was the corporate legal structure that we have today.  There were also many people who died of starvation, died from diseases (that today's corporations, supported by shareholders, have developed cures for), indentured servants, slaves, feudal systems, capital handed down through the generations to the oldest male in the family

 

One thing a corporate structure does, is it allows the original owner, who often has put in a massive amount of work, to get a return from that work and retire.   

[Bootsie]

Why is a person sitting on a pile of capital in the first place?

What else would they do with it if this constant need for higher profit margins to pay shareholders disappeared? Should they be happy with the same level of returns in stock dividends they would have gotten if they put their money in a traditional bank account?

Perhaps they could invest for altruistic reasons rather than greed? But perhaps that's asking too much of some people... you know, to have a sense of morality.

Capital is simply that I made money in Year 1 but I want to spend the benefits of my labor in Year 2 (when I retire, when my kid's are in college, etc.)  It is delaying present consumption.

Shareholders should not be happy with the same level of total returns that they would have received in a traditional bank account because they face more risk.  Average returns in stock dividends, however, is lower than the return on a traditional bank account. 

I don't see how making a decision to give up consumption today, purchasing capital, and then selling that capital when I want to retire is immoral.

[Paige]

What you seem to be missing is that human nature doesn't respond to circumstances like Star Trek. People do not take just enough and live in peace and balance with others. Even in a homogenous and neighborly, same goal oriented group it was a massive failure to try and live that way, without personal gain and stake motivating behavior. Nobody works as hard to help another as they do to better themselves and when you disincentives the latter it harms the former.

 

This is not entirely or even mostly true. Hunter-gatherer communities are known for their egalitarian and peaceful societies. We have current and historical evidence that societies can live peacefully, happily, and with relative equality among their members. The move from hunter-gatherer societies to more stationary, agrarian societies brought changes that allowed the groups to grow larger, but reduced individual health and happiness. What they had which allowed them to live so peacefully was abundant resources for their perceived needs, lots of free time, small emotionally and socially connected groups, and peaceful neighboring groups who lived similarly. It could be argued that humans have lived in egalitarian societies for longer than we have lived in other types of societies, and this is the aberration. 

 

I think if we dismiss the idea of a future egalitarian society, we lack imagination and hope. There's no reason to not shoot for the stars while living in reality. We can study egalitarian societies, find what makes them work, and try to replicate some of these things among our modern societies. The most important thing we need, IMO, to make this work would be the invention of something that would provide free and abundant energy. That's a huge hurdle but not theoretically impossible. We need to invest in energy research and build this idea into the imaginations of our children and grandchildren!

 

Other things we could do today would be to encourage policies that foster smaller, well connected communities and neighborhoods. We should work towards building up our neighbors locally and globally- when we help our neighbors, we help ourselves because desperate neighbors will threaten our group. But mostly, I think we need to open our minds to the possibility of something else and the possibility that perhaps capitalism which is worshiped almost like a god, is not the only or best system. We can live in the system and work in the system while staying open to new ideas. It doesn't mean we have to embrace communism or even socialism. 

 

I have wealthy family members who have worked hard and worked smart for what they have. I have very poor family members who have worked hard and did their best to make smart decisions from their limited options. It's not fair that people who have TRULY worked equally hard have such different outcomes.My wealthy family members are kind, generous, and charitable, but so are my poorer family members. My poorer family members have made some bad choices, but so have my wealthy family members! I don't begrudge the wealthy ones what they have, but I think as a society we should have the goal of making things more fair. We may not be able to make it a reality anytime soon, but it should be what we work towards rather than accepting inequality as the way things are. 

[regentrude]

Why is a person sitting on a pile of capital in the first place?

What else would they do with it if this constant need for higher profit margins to pay shareholders disappeared? Should they be happy with the same level of returns in stock dividends they would have gotten if they put their money in a traditional bank account?

Perhaps they could invest for altruistic reasons rather than greed? But perhaps that's asking too much of some people... you know, to have a sense of morality.

 

You seem to consider shareholders as some "other" , evil people.

Any person who invests in a retirement account operates on the principle that they save during their working years, invest the capital in shares of companies, so that they can retire when they are old, because their investments are paying them a dividend on which they can live. Very few people would be able to amass enough money so they can live on the capital itself.

Seeing that the period during which they may be retired can be several decades, that takes quite a lot of money.

So, in your opinion that is immoral?

Edited December 3, 2016 by regentrude

[Tanaqui]

One result of that will probably eventually be more that more Robots are deployed by employers, to do routine repetitive tasks

 

I haven't read the entire thread, but I want to point out that we're already heading in this direction. There's absolutely no way to put that genie back in the bottle. No matter how low we cut wages, sooner or later machines will be a better investment. Machines don't take breaks. Machines don't get sick. Machines don't go on strike, or take days off to go to their granny's funeral, or leave early to pick up the kids at daycare. Machines don't get wages, and they don't make mistakes.

 

And it's not just low-tier work. We recently tested a robot anesthesiologist. That was supposed to be a good, safe job - high wages, low risk! Computers do a lot of our pharmacy work nowadays. We're well on the path to self-driving cars, and when we do that the entire economy is going to collapse. Do you realize that the most common occupation in almost every state is "trucker"? What's going to happen when the trucks drive themselves? Consider all the infrastructure we use to support truckers - diners, motels... prostitution - you know things are bad when you can't even get that sort of work anymore.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Ravin]

Oh

My

God

 

The piece that you don't comprehend is that is not at all true in THIS country.

 

Seriously.

 

That's not true at all that people can do the minimum and have everything, or even anything, paid for in this country.

 

At all.

 

So gobsmacked people really believe this.

 

Just.

 

No.

 

😫😧

Also ignores the reality that many people can't get 40 hours a week. Can't work a second job, either, because to keep one job and have any faint hope of advancement you often have to have open availability for whatever shifts they will give you and it can change drastically from week to week. This is also a problem with trying to go to school while working.

[Murphy101]

Also ignores the reality that many people can't get 40 hours a week. Can't work a second job, either, because to keep one job and have any faint hope of advancement you often have to have open availability for whatever shifts they will give you and it can change drastically from week to week. This is also a problem with trying to go to school while working.

It's a big huge very common problem indeed.

[Bluegoat]

Some people may have been employed before there was the corporate legal structure that we have today.  There were also many people who died of starvation, died from diseases (that today's corporations, supported by shareholders, have developed cures for), indentured servants, slaves, feudal systems, capital handed down through the generations to the oldest male in the family

 

One thing a corporate structure does, is it allows the original owner, who often has put in a massive amount of work, to get a return from that work and retire.   

 

Do you have some reason to think all that death was connected to the lack of corporate structures?  That seems a bit hard to imagine.  Not all economic and political structures at every time were good, it's true, but I didn't suggest they were.  (Though people under-appreciate some - there are freedoms that often exist in feudal systems that people don't have today, for example.) 

 

People could get a return for their work and retire before corporate structures existed.  The big thing that the development of incorporation allowed was people to invest money but not be personally liable for the debts of the business if it failed.  So they were willing to take bigger risks.  OOH, they might also be willing to be reckless with their money, or forget that they have moral obligations with how they use it, despite limits on the legal obligations.

[Bootsie]

Do you have some reason to think all that death was connected to the lack of corporate structures?  That seems a bit hard to imagine.  Not all economic and political structures at every time were good, it's true, but I didn't suggest they were.  (Though people under-appreciate some - there are freedoms that often exist in feudal systems that people don't have today, for example.) 

 

People could get a return for their work and retire before corporate structures existed.  The big thing that the development of incorporation allowed was people to invest money but not be personally liable for the debts of the business if it failed.  So they were willing to take bigger risks.  OOH, they might also be willing to be reckless with their money, or forget that they have moral obligations with how they use it, despite limits on the legal obligations.

No, I do not think that all death was connected to the lack of corporate structures.  I  was responding to this statement:

 

You do know that there were businesses in the world before there was such a thing as a shareholder, and people were employed.  People still needed things, and to make a living.  I don't see any reason that suddenly they would disappear

 

Yes, some people were employed before there was a legal corporate structure, but many people were not.  There are a lot of benefits that a corporate legal structure brings.  One of those is that in countries and societies with a corporate legal structure more people are employed.  My point is that it is not a situation in which everyone who wanted a job had a job, was paid fairly, was able to retire, had enough to meet basic necessities, etc. before the corporate legal structure and after the corporate legal structure that has changed.  There are many instances in which a corporate legal structure has allowed more people to do those things.

 

Yes, a corporate structure limits personal liability.  If I invest $100,000 in my personal business and incorporate the business, I can loose my $100,000.  If the corporation borrow $50,000 from the bank, the corporation owes the bank, and not me personally.  So, I am not personally liable for the debt of the business.  However, the bank knows this and adjusts its interest rate to compensate for that risk (which can be a disadvantage of incorporation).  The risk of business failure is still there; it is just a question of who is taking that risk (and how they will be rewarded for taking that risk.)

 

Why would a corporate structure make someone be willing to be reckless with their money? 

[LucyStoner]

Ideas that both conservative and liberal economists have been kicking around for years include wage insurance and minimum annual income.

 

https://hbr.org/2016/01/why-the-u-s-needs-wage-insurance

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/375600/?client=safari

 

One of the biggest advocates for a basic minimum income was that crazy communist Milton Friedman. Or wait, I mean that hero of conservative free market Chicago school economists, Milton Friedman.

 

I dislike how people assume there isn't common ground between conservative and liberal economic thinkers.

Edited December 3, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bootsie]

Ideas that both conservative and liberal economists have been kicking around for years include wage insurance and minimum annual income.

 

https://hbr.org/2016/01/why-the-u-s-needs-wage-insurance

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/375600/?client=safari

 

One of the biggest advocates for a basic minimum income was that crazy communist Milton Friedman. Or wait, I mean that hero of conservative free market Chicago school economists, Milton Friedman.

 

I dislike how people assume there isn't common ground between conservative and liberal economic thinkers.

I think Milton Friedman supported a "guaranteed minimum income" but not a minimum wage, as minimum wage creates a distortion in the labor market.

[LucyStoner]

I think Milton Friedman supported a "guaranteed minimum income" but not a minimum wage, as minimum wage creates a distortion in the labor market.

You are correct, which is what I was saying. Neither of my links advocates for the minimum wage.

 

I think the minimum wage is not as beneficial as some liberals claim and not as harmful as some conservatives claim. In short, a complex problem is getting boiled down to a simplistic debate over a concept that doesn't really move the needle all that much.

[Ravin]

oregon law requires paid attendants to pump gas. I admit - I'd rather pump myself and save some money. it might only be a few cents per gallon - but that adds up. I'm not in oregon very much. surprised me the gas on the indian reservation (right off the freeway) was more than than the town. in washington - at least where we've gone - reservation gas stations (again, right off the freeway) have been cheaper.

This is probably because of different state tax policies. Some states will not tax on the reservation to the extent that the tribe does. Others don't care so the tribe has to collect full state tax on top of their own for non-tribe members. This makes it very difficult for tribes to be competitive with nearby off-reservation businesses and still collect tax for their own government.

[Bootsie]

You are correct, which is what I was saying. Neither of my links advocates for the minimum wage.

 

I think the minimum wage is not as beneficial as some liberals claim and not as harmful as some conservatives claim. In short, a complex problem is getting boiled down to a simplistic debate over a concept that doesn't really move the needle all that much.

Yes, if the problem that people want to address is poverty, increasing the minimum wage does  very little (if anything) to address that.  Over 1/2 of the people working at minimum wage jobs live in families at the top 50% of the income distribution.  Much research also suggests that the jobs that are eliminated by increases in minimum wage fall disproportionately on those who are in the bottom portion of the income distribution.  Thus, the people who proponents of minimum wage increases most want to help are the people most likely harmed.  There is a huge amount of agreement among economists--both liberal and conservative--on this point.  In fact, it is one of the areas in which there is the most agreement in opinion among economists. 

[LucyStoner]

Yes, if the problem that people want to address is poverty, increasing the minimum wage does very little (if anything) to address that. Over 1/2 of the people working at minimum wage jobs live in families at the top 50% of the income distribution. Much research also suggests that the jobs that are eliminated by increases in minimum wage fall disproportionately on those who are in the bottom portion of the income distribution. Thus, the people who proponents of minimum wage increases most want to help are the people most likely harmed. There is a huge amount of agreement among economists--both liberal and conservative--on this point. In fact, it is one of the areas in which there is the most agreement in opinion among economists.

There are a lot of economists who think the benefits and detriments of the minimum wage are nearly a wash. There is also surprisingly little research that is conducted on this issue without some bias one way or the other. Like I said, I tend to think that the benefits and detriments are over stated depending on the paradigm of the person conducting or reporting on any given study or review of many studies.

[Guest]

You are correct, which is what I was saying. Neither of my links advocates for the minimum wage.

 

I think the minimum wage is not as beneficial as some liberals claim and not as harmful as some conservatives claim. In short, a complex problem is getting boiled down to a simplistic debate over a concept that doesn't really move the needle all that much.

I don't disagree at all. I don't believe pure capitalism is more beneficial to the balancing needs of society than communism or socialism. There needs to be some protections and safety net. It's the ever increasing regulatory burden and duplication of state and federal laws and protections that starts to inhibit more than help. And I do think fundamental differences in a view of human nature explain some of the gridlock too.

[Bootsie]

There are a lot of economists who think the benefits and detriments of the minimum wage are nearly a wash. There is also surprisingly little research that is conducted on this issue without some bias one way or the other. Like I said, I tend to think that the benefits and detriments are over stated depending on the paradigm of the person conducting or reporting on any given study or review of many studies.

There has been a great deal of research into minimum wage laws by labor economists.  It is probably impossible to conduct research without some bias, no matter how hard humans try.  I am curious about your conclusion that there is surprisingly little research conducted without some bias one way or the other.  Do you think that the research is intentionally biased and that there is some way that they could conduct the research without the bias?  Or, do you think that research, by its very nature, is biased? 

[LucyStoner]

There has been a great deal of research into minimum wage laws by labor economists. It is probably impossible to conduct research without some bias, no matter how hard humans try. I am curious about your conclusion that there is surprisingly little research conducted without some bias one way or the other. Do you think that the research is intentionally biased and that there is some way that they could conduct the research without the bias? Or, do you think that research, by its very nature, is biased?

I think that much of the research I have read on the issue is funded by people with is a vested interest in raising or not raising the minimum wage and that still other summaries are written and conclusions are drawn by people with a strong ideological attachment either pro or con.

 

It's possible to have less biased research and there is some of that but mostly it's from people with a dog in the fight.

 

Both major US political parties have a core set of issues that they use to prop up their get out the vote efforts. Minimum wage is one of those issues for the Democrats. They will tend to overstate the benefits as they put the issue on state ballots. Conversely, Republican opponents of it tend to overstate the detriments to keep a portion of their voters happy. This is not a partisan criticism of either but an observation of both sides. I am unconvinced that the best or the worst of it is true, based on reading and discussing a lot more over 20 years than I can link here.

Edited December 3, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Murphy101]

I'd be for a minimum income if that was it. Get rid of food stamps and other assistance programs and just have a minimum stipend.

 

If people want to pool together in multigeneration homes - fine. If they can save any of it - fine. If they want to buy steak or ramen - fine.

 

It'd save a bloody fortune in maintaining a ridiculous amount of subbeaucracies and lobby influence for things that don't benefit lower classes.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

I get frustrated by the conservative/liberal discussion.

 

I'm fed up with it being made about conservative vs liberal.

 

People need fed. There's nothing conservative or liberal about that.

[LucyStoner]

I'd be for a minimum stipend if that was it. Get rid of food stamps and other assistance programs and just have a minimum stipend.

 

If people want to pool together in multigeneration homes - fine. If they can save any of it - fine. If they want to buy steak or ramen - fine.

 

It'd save a bloody fortune in maintaining a ridiculous amount of subbeaucracies and lobby influence for things that don't benefit lower classes.

One reason I think we don't do this is because we have an inherently paternalistic view of the poor. We give food stamps because people think that we can't trust poor people to buy food with cash assistance. Well, you know what? Addicts (who are not over represented in public assistance beneficiaries) will find a way to turn food stamps into their fixes while the vast majority of people on food stamps will buy food but sure would like to be able to take a few bucks of that for diaper rash cream and tampons. Imagine. Trusting people to make their own decisions.

 

The last presidential candidates to discuss basic minimum income were Nixon and McGovern. Obama is discussing wage insurance but we could have acted on this stuff years ago.

Edited December 3, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

I get frustrated by the conservative/liberal discussion.

 

I'm fed up with it being made about conservative vs liberal.

 

People need fed. There's nothing conservative or liberal about that.

Exactly. This is why I get tired of hearing the same old same old essential economic myths being bantied around along the same old same old ideological lines. Edited December 3, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bootsie]

I think that much of the research I have read on the issue is funded by people with is a vested interest in raising or not raising the minimum wage and that still other summaries are written and conclusions are drawn by people with a strong ideological attachment either pro or con.

 

It's possible to have less biased research and there is some of that but mostly it's from people with a dog in the fight.

 

Both major US political parties have a core set of issues that they use to prop up their get out the vote efforts. Minimum wage is one of those issues for the Democrats. They will tend to overstate the benefits as they put the issue on state ballots. Conversely, Republican opponents of it tend to overstate the detriments to keep a portion of their voters happy. This is not a partisan criticism of either but an observation of both sides. I am unconvinced that the best or the worst of it is true, based on reading and discussing a lot more over 20 years than I can link here.

There has been a great deal of research by academic labor economists that has not been funded by vested interest groups (published in the American Economic Review, Journal of Labor Economics, etc.).  Estimates of the magnitude of the impact of minimum wage laws varies from article to article, but there is surprising consistency among the results over a long period of time (more so than in many areas of research).  In his book Hard Heads, Soft Hearts, published back in the 1980s, Alan Blinder highlights some of the reasons why this academic research differs from what we see happen in a public policy arena.

[Murphy101]

One reason I think we don't do this is because we have an inherently paternalistic view of the poor. We give food stamps because people think that we can't trust poor people to buy food with cash assistance. Well, you know what? Addicts (who are not over represented in public assistance beneficiaries) will find a way to turn food stamps into their fixes while the vast majority of people on food stamps will buy food but sure would like to be able to take a few bucks of that for diaper rash cream and tampons. Imagine. Trusting people to make their own decisions.

 

The last presidential candidates to discuss basic minimum income were Nixon and McGovern. Obama is discussing wage insurance but we could have acted on this stuff years ago.

I'm so *insert ranting epithets* sick of even the word insurance that I don't think there's any way I'd be able to vote for anything with the word "insurance" in it anymore.

 

Yes, I know that's probably not fair.

 

But that's how strongly a gag reflex it's left me the last 2 decades or so.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

One reason I think we don't do this is because we have an inherently paternalistic view of the poor. We give food stamps because people think that we can't trust poor people to buy food with cash assistance. Well, you know what? Addicts (who are not over represented in public assistance beneficiaries) will find a way to turn food stamps into their fixes while the vast majority of people on food stamps will buy food but sure would like to be able to take a few bucks of that for diaper rash cream and tampons. Imagine. Trusting people to make their own decisions.

 

The last presidential candidates to discuss basic minimum income were Nixon and McGovern. Obama is discussing wage insurance but we could have acted on this stuff years ago.

Also, I agree much of our policy is based on the presumption that poor people deserve to be poor bc they are too dumb or whatever to handle making their own decisions.