Simple solution, HoD. Since you didn't understand his point or refuse to accept it, I'll break it down for you. YOUR LABOR is worth what the market will pay for it. If it is not enough compensation for you, increase your skill set to be worth more in the market.

It is not the value of a person but what skills that person brings to the labor market that the wage represents.

(12-03-2013 05:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you wanted it to be easier for job producers to make more jobs then you wouldn't be cool with driving down wages so that nobody can afford to buy the things that real job makers produce.

Seems those "real job makers" are doing just fine because somehow, just somehow, all those lower wage workers are well fed and have new cars, iPhones and PS4s.

(12-03-2013 05:53 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Simple solution, HoD. Since you didn't understand his point or refuse to accept it, I'll break it down for you. YOUR LABOR is worth what the market will pay for it. If it is not enough compensation for you, increase your skill set to be worth more in the market.

It is not the value of a person but what skills that person brings to the labor market that the wage represents.

You must not have gotten my point.

When you only have a certain set of skills and they are worth X. Then you are only worth X.

Quit trying to introduce some break between what we all accept is immoral and your take on market value of skills/people.

(12-03-2013 05:54 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 05:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you wanted it to be easier for job producers to make more jobs then you wouldn't be cool with driving down wages so that nobody can afford to buy the things that real job makers produce.

Seems those "real job makers" are doing just fine because somehow, just somehow, all those lower wage workers are well fed and have new cars, iPhones and PS4s.

Thanks to Food Stamps.

(12-03-2013 05:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It would be great if people quit making these massive logical jumps like you just did. Nobody is being screwed. Nobody has endorsed any sort of forced redistribution or anything else. We've simply pointed out that what is going on now is unsustainable for society as a whole.

Total BS.

Nobody is making any massive logical jumps. Requiring businesses to pay $11/hour for $7/hour worth of production is screwing them. And contrary to your expectations, they don't like being screwed and are going to do everything they can to avoid it. When workers taking orders can be replaced by automated kiosks for the equivalent of $9/hour labor costs, you'll see automated kiosks. Prices will rise (since competitors face the same problems, price increases are feasible). Jobs will be terminated. Jobs will move overseas.

That's the problem with the left. The assumption is that businesses just have money coming out of every pore and they can just "allocate" ever more and more of it to workers with no adverse consequences. That's a totally inappropriate and incorrect way to look at it.

If you want to get paid more than $7.25/hour, get off your lazy ass and learn some skills that are worth more than $7.25/hour. It's not that hard to do so.

The problem is not that greedy capitalists are taking money away from lower income groups. That assumes a closed system, which our economy is not. The problem is that we are transitioning to a retail/service economy, and retail/service economies dot have a lot of jobs that pay good wages. They have a lot of six-figure salaries and a lot of minimum wage jobs, and not a lot in between. What we need are value-added industries (manufacturing, extractive, construction) which can support higher wages. But our combination of tax, legal, and regulatory policies is chasing those jobs overseas.

(12-03-2013 06:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Thanks to Food Stamps.

It’s been obvious for decades that raising the minimum wage does not alleviate poverty, because, like you said, look at the preponderance of food stamps.

But the Pro-Discrimination Left continues to push minimum wage increases because it plays well politically with your base. Democrats will promise people anything and everything in order to get elected, and then blame the failure to deliver on “externalities” like the Koch Brothers or Diebold or White Men.

I find it remarkable, but never surprising, that Democrats always seem to get caught flat-footed by the realization that you can't legislate away the reality of lazy or uneducated workers.

(12-03-2013 05:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 02:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 01:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 12:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 04:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  When the working poor become the poor, as they are doing now, don't be surprised when they have little sympathy for the sanctity of your paycheck when all you had to say to them was "that's all you're worth."

Just because I think I am worth more...does not make it so. You are worth what the market will bear...no more...no less. Much of that has to do with your skill set and company margins. Anyone that thinks a McDonald's frycook is worth 15 an hour is insane.

We need to blame the jerkoffs in Washington for screwing up the economy and making manufacturing jobs leave our shores. These were the jobs these folks had. Now they are begging for those wages flipping burgers. Sorry...it that is just plain nonsense.

If our President really wanted to help the poor...he would push for a consumption tax(that would totally untax the poor give them a monthly prebate to help them) and he would do everything in his power to bring manufacturing jobs back the country. Do WHATEVER it takes. THIS is why we are in the mess we are now in.

You can not run an economy on service industries...PERIOD. Until we address this issue..more and more poor people are going to appear.

Manufacturing built America....the lack of it is destroying America.

I agree with what you said about needing manufacturing. I'd also say that prices and wages have a direct effect on manufactering.

I have to say that I struggle with the idea that I am worth several hundred fry cooks.

Now, wait. Again. You're not. I can assure you that. lol.

What you do, or produce, or what the marketplace will pay for your services or what someone else values what you DO, not who you are, is what determines worth here.

This isn't some existential exercise where someone or some thing is placing a "value" on ones life or existence, it places that value on what they do. When what they do is of increasing value, they too will be better compensated and probably have better working conditions as well. But that is part of the equation. If their ability to get the skills, resume builders, work ethic is further thwarted by artificially mandated wages or unionization or any number of other obstacles, which keep them out of the workplace altogether, then guess what? Their options are limited that much further as well.

If you really want "social justice" (tee hee) work to make it easier for the job producers to make money and well, produce more jobs. It's really not that difficult. If you want fewer jobs, thus fewer opportunities, then do what we're doing- make it tougher.

You are placing a value on people's 'worth' no matter how you have to tell yourself otherwise. If I say you are worth $7 an hour then that's what I'm telling you you are worth. If being a frycook is all you know how to do and that's $7 an hour then that's what you are saying that person is worth.

Don't try to play with words to make it sound less immoral.

If you wanted it to be easier for job producers to make more jobs then you wouldn't be cool with driving down wages so that nobody can afford to buy the things that real job makers produce.

Nobodies playing with words and certainly nothing I am saying even borders on "immoral". You or anyone else is paid to do a job. That's it. Has nothing to do with a persons "worth". What was Mother Teresa "worth"? She broke!

I once employed a guy about 20 years my senior as a grill chef. Didn't really know a lot about him, but he was pretty good at what he did and so commanded a little more than my Sous, let's say it was $9.25 an hour or so (it's been a while).

So in your world Rick was worth 9 bucks an hour, hunh? Cause that's what I "told" him he was worth?

Well then what about when my motorcycle had some problems and he offered to fix it, cause he freaking built bikes from other bikes from the ground up? Then he refused any money for doing so. Said bring over some beer and spend the day learning and we're even.

Course bike talk and many beers led to needing to use the Johnny. Why wouldn't he take any money? Cause once you walk inside his rather battered old farmhouse it was littered, yes littered, as in literally just strewn all over, one award after another for all kinds of award winning photography over some number of decades. Stills, wildlife, out doors all kind of schit. Couldn't believe it.

Now, granted this is one guy, it's anecdotal, but it's also instructive. This guy, kinda a long haired "loser" when he first came around, working as a 3 guy for someone 20 years his junior was anything but.

Accomplished, well traveled, talented beyond anything I could ever dream and yep, "worth" 9 bucks an hour. Only not.

See the flaw in your "logic"?

(12-03-2013 06:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  When you only have a certain set of skills and they are worth X. Then you are only worth X.

Quit trying to introduce some break between what we all accept is immoral and your take on market value of skills/people.

What a load of left wing rubbish. I don't accept that low skill jobs with low pay are immoral. Fire all of them and there would be an army of equally low skilled people ready to take the jobs.

My take is reality.

(12-03-2013 06:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You must not have gotten my point.
When you only have a certain set of skills and they are worth X. Then you are only worth X.
Quit trying to introduce some break between what we all accept is immoral and your take on market value of skills/people.

You have described it as immoral. That's your opinion, not ours. We do NOT all accept that. I think it's immoral to force or expect an employer to pay $11/hour for $7/hour of work.

The employer has a moral obligation to may market value for goods and services rendered, no more, no less. The employee has a moral obligation NOT to demand or expect more than market value as compensation. Expecting more is indeed screwing the employer. As such, it is immoral.

If society wants to decide that the individual's worth is more than the economic value of his/her output, then let society as a whole make up that difference.

(12-03-2013 01:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 12:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 12:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 07:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 07:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It doesn't change the value to an employer of their output. It may change society's utility. But that's an argument for society to pay the difference, not the employer.

Would you not have to separate employers from 'society' for that to hold true? Employers, as much as employees, and everybody else all have their part, and all have their impact.

I'd argue that societal pressures are of a higher order, since society is the ultimate expression of human coexistence, cooperation, etc, and the market is only one aspect of that. So, when you have market pressures that begin to negatively impact society as a whole those market pressures must yield to the greater pressure. After all, if society comes apart the market as is, begins to behave in way that are contrary to the very idea of what a market is, a self regulating positive force.

CEO's are the job creators, workers aren't worth ****. Especially low skilled workers. THey are completely worthless.

You want low skilled workers to make a good wage?...bring back low skilled manufacturing jobs. Stop making it so GD hard for a company to do business that they have to go abroad. Relax the regulations...reduce the taxes...Make America the manufacturing mecca of the world again.

If manufacturing does come back, it won't be of the low skilled variety. It will be highly technical and quite automated. To employ people and pay people at the levels seen during the 50's and 60's we would be better off rehabbing the nations' engineering infrastructure. That would be about a 50-60 year endeavor that would accomplish what manufacturing can't.

Unless you are going to totally automate...there will still need for low skilled workers. Even then...there will still be a need for low skilled maintenance, clerical and grounds workers. These workers generally still make higher wages than fast food jobs and receive benefits.

(12-03-2013 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You must not have gotten my point.
When you only have a certain set of skills and they are worth X. Then you are only worth X.
Quit trying to introduce some break between what we all accept is immoral and your take on market value of skills/people.

You have described it as immoral. That's your opinion, not ours. We do NOT all accept that. I think it's immoral to force or expect an employer to pay $11/hour for $7/hour of work.

The employer has a moral obligation to may market value for goods and services rendered, no more, no less. The employee has a moral obligation NOT to demand or expect more than market value as compensation. Expecting more is indeed screwing the employer. As such, it is immoral.

If society wants to decide that the individual's worth is more than the economic value of his/her output, then let society as a whole make up that difference.

It is more immoral to hold a gun to an employers head and make them pay someone more than they are worth than an employee not getting payed what they think they are worth. The fact that coercion is used ..is immoral on its face. HoD evidently has zero problem with violence...as long as the government is the one that is delving it out.

(12-03-2013 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You have described it as immoral. That's your opinion, not ours. We do NOT all accept that. I think it's immoral to force or expect an employer to pay $11/hour for $7/hour of work.

Hear! hear! Agreed!

(12-03-2013 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The employer has a moral obligation to may market value for goods and services rendered, no more, no less. The employee has a moral obligation NOT to demand or expect more than market value as compensation. Expecting more is indeed screwing the employer. As such, it is immoral.

But the other side's idea of "morality" is decidedly selective.

(12-03-2013 06:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If society wants to decide that the individual's worth is more than the economic value of his/her output, then let society as a whole make up that difference.

Disagree. Instead, why don't those individuals who wish to overvalue the output collectively group together to overpay those whom they choose out of their own resources, without infringing on the freedom of those who disagree with their overvaluation of those individuals' services?

But then, those individuals who decide to overvalue and overpay might become less competitive due to their reduced or eliminated profits, or even deficits. Thus, they would be threatened with going out of business because they could not make enough extra money to afford to act irrationally. And it would then of course be the fault of the individuals who acted rationally in correctly valuing the services rendered.

This illustration only further proves that the market works sanely, fairly and rationally, and to tinker with it arbitrarily only produces disorder which is unjust and detrimental for all.

So then, the proper action is a hissy-fit. Those of us who have had small children who we told could not buy the candy bar at the checkout register or hit their little sibling or randomly take their toys away or abuse the family cat/dog/tarantula are familiar with this situation. We are very familiar with the screams of "It's not fair!!! You're mean! I hate you!! WAAAAAH!"

Socialists and liberals are children who never grew up. They get eaten by the bears and the lions in the fight. Conservatives learn to hunt and fish and take care of themselves and their families, and keep things in relative order. When it is time for the feast by the fire with the kill of the day, they get to choose who eats and how much because THEY EARNED IT.

I am not against the VOLUNTARY redistribution of wealth. Philanthropy and charity are two things I hold dear.
Tyranny is the INVOLUNTARY redistribution. I will always stand against taking away someone's freedom to choose. Is the left not pro-choice? Why are they so inconsistent in their application of this principle to their detriment? Every rational conservative is pro-choice consistently. But he ascribes that choice to EVERY individual without qualification.

The Left picks winners and losers. The right allows for balance, fairness and freedom. Freedom to fail as well as to succeed, for any less is not freedom but oppression. That is the true difference here.

(12-03-2013 08:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 01:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 12:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 12:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 07:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Would you not have to separate employers from 'society' for that to hold true? Employers, as much as employees, and everybody else all have their part, and all have their impact.

I'd argue that societal pressures are of a higher order, since society is the ultimate expression of human coexistence, cooperation, etc, and the market is only one aspect of that. So, when you have market pressures that begin to negatively impact society as a whole those market pressures must yield to the greater pressure. After all, if society comes apart the market as is, begins to behave in way that are contrary to the very idea of what a market is, a self regulating positive force.

CEO's are the job creators, workers aren't worth ****. Especially low skilled workers. THey are completely worthless.

You want low skilled workers to make a good wage?...bring back low skilled manufacturing jobs. Stop making it so GD hard for a company to do business that they have to go abroad. Relax the regulations...reduce the taxes...Make America the manufacturing mecca of the world again.

If manufacturing does come back, it won't be of the low skilled variety. It will be highly technical and quite automated. To employ people and pay people at the levels seen during the 50's and 60's we would be better off rehabbing the nations' engineering infrastructure. That would be about a 50-60 year endeavor that would accomplish what manufacturing can't.

Unless you are going to totally automate...there will still need for low skilled workers. Even then...there will still be a need for low skilled maintenance, clerical and grounds workers. These workers generally still make higher wages than fast food jobs and receive benefits.

Yes, the need will be there, but as HOD points out, in no way will the market justify paying $12-$17 for that particular labor. While in theory, these should be entry level positions for a teenagers or a means to augment retirement, the reality is that many middle aged people with families are employed in these jobs.

The reasons for middle-aged employees being in such a position are legion and don't need to be recounted here, but the overall situation is untenable. One can't complain about low information voters and label the general population as 'sheeple', then somehow expect those same denigrated individuals to somehow grasp programming in 18 months or be capable of becoming an expert welder.

I've just presented one solution (stipend) which while quite unpalatable for someone who believes in hard work, I realize that many people don't. The thought that you could somehow incentive them buy cutting gov't aid is quite naive. Its a form of projection and wish fulfillment to hope these individuals would respond in a manner than would be beneficial to society. They are under no obligation to do so.

(12-03-2013 08:55 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:25 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 01:06 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 12:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 12:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  CEO's are the job creators, workers aren't worth ****. Especially low skilled workers. THey are completely worthless.

You want low skilled workers to make a good wage?...bring back low skilled manufacturing jobs. Stop making it so GD hard for a company to do business that they have to go abroad. Relax the regulations...reduce the taxes...Make America the manufacturing mecca of the world again.

If manufacturing does come back, it won't be of the low skilled variety. It will be highly technical and quite automated. To employ people and pay people at the levels seen during the 50's and 60's we would be better off rehabbing the nations' engineering infrastructure. That would be about a 50-60 year endeavor that would accomplish what manufacturing can't.

Unless you are going to totally automate...there will still need for low skilled workers. Even then...there will still be a need for low skilled maintenance, clerical and grounds workers. These workers generally still make higher wages than fast food jobs and receive benefits.

Yes, the need will be there, but as HOD points out, in no way will the market justify paying $12-$17 for that particular labor. While in theory, these should be entry level positions for a teenagers or a means to augment retirement, the reality is that many middle aged people with families are employed in these jobs.

The reasons for middle-aged employees being in such a position are legion and don't need to be recounted here, but the overall situation is untenable. One can't complain about low information voters and label the general population as 'sheeple', then somehow expect those same denigrated individuals to somehow grasp programming in 18 months or be capable of becoming an expert welder.

I've just presented one solution (stipend) which while quite unpalatable for someone who believes in hard work, I realize that many people don't. The thought that you could somehow incentive them buy cutting gov't aid is quite naive. Its a form of projection and wish fulfillment to hope these individuals would respond in a manner than would be beneficial to society. They are under no obligation to do so.

Clinton made strides in 1996 with workfare...Guess who is now doing a backdoor to subvert it? Yep...Barry Zero.

(12-03-2013 05:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You don't see a lot of old roofers or construction workers, for instance, for a reason. Vocational work is hard on the body from Day One.

That's because the old roofers and construction workers are called boss. They put in their time, learn their craft, and open their own business or become the guy who looks down into the hole and points things out instead of being the guy digging the hole.

(12-03-2013 10:20 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 05:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You don't see a lot of old roofers or construction workers, for instance, for a reason. Vocational work is hard on the body from Day One.

That's because the old roofers and construction workers are called boss. They put in their time, learn their craft, and open their own business or become the guy who looks down into the hole and points things out instead of being the guy digging the hole.

This.

And to the person who said employees are under no obligation to acquire new skills, any employee who lets their skill set become obsolete or that lacks of skill in the first place is setting themselves up to be downsized and will have a tough time finding replacement work. It is every employees obligation to continue to grow their value as an employee.

(12-03-2013 10:53 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 10:20 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 05:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You don't see a lot of old roofers or construction workers, for instance, for a reason. Vocational work is hard on the body from Day One.

That's because the old roofers and construction workers are called boss. They put in their time, learn their craft, and open their own business or become the guy who looks down into the hole and points things out instead of being the guy digging the hole.

This.

And to the person who said employees are under no obligation to acquire new skills, any employee who lets their skill set become obsolete or that lacks of skill in the first place is setting themselves up to be downsized and will have a tough time finding replacement work. It is every employees obligation to continue to grow their value as an employee.

Tell that to a Liberal Union worker that made 30 an hour doing the same damn job for decades.

(12-03-2013 11:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 10:53 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 10:20 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 05:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You don't see a lot of old roofers or construction workers, for instance, for a reason. Vocational work is hard on the body from Day One.

That's because the old roofers and construction workers are called boss. They put in their time, learn their craft, and open their own business or become the guy who looks down into the hole and points things out instead of being the guy digging the hole.

This.

And to the person who said employees are under no obligation to acquire new skills, any employee who lets their skill set become obsolete or that lacks of skill in the first place is setting themselves up to be downsized and will have a tough time finding replacement work. It is every employees obligation to continue to grow their value as an employee.

Tell that to a Liberal Union worker that made 30 an hour doing the same damn job for decades.

I was the person who said they were under no obligation and Fo beat me to the my rebuttal. For most of us, you are absolutely correct about needing to refain and improve your skills. BUt there's an whole other segments that longs for to be a hub cap riveter earning $23/hr or a baggage handler earning $45/hr. If Unions were truly concerned about their members' employment, they would lobby for a seat on the BOD. They don't because they aren't interested in fiscal responsibility. Nor are their members interested in the boarder implications of demanding such high wages.

Another way to look at this minimum wage debate.

I don't think either Van or myself have entered into any type of minimum wage debate.