This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Chicago Considers Boosting Minimum Wage To $15/Hour

Tyler Durden's picture




 

If there is one thing that the militarized warzone with the weapons ban (and which makes east Ukraine look like a kindergarten) namely Chicago, did not need in order to fall further into social chaos and disarray, it is a new tidal wave of unemployment: people freshly without jobs who for lack of better options would likely join the daily survival of the fittest routine on the streets of the windy city. And a tidal wave of unemployment is precisely what Chicago is likely to get if, as a group of Chicago aldermen have proposed, the minimum wage in the nation's third-largest city is nearly doubled to $15 an hour. Why $15? Because according to recently striking McDonalds line cooks, it's only fair, and is the minimum pay that fast-food workers have sought during national protests.

Chicago won't be the first to push for a city-level minimum pay raise: Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced a plan earlier in May to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, making it the first major U.S. city to commit to such a high base level of pay. The proposal awaits approval by the city council. New York and San Diego also are considering such raises.

However, unlike other cities, Chicago is unique in that it has not one but two wage hike proposals on the table. As Reuters reports:

The group proposing the wage increase is separate from a panel Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel named last week among aldermen, labor and business leaders to provide recommendations for raising the minimum wage.

 

Alderman Ricardo Munoz said 12 to 15 of the 50 council members support the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and he expected more to join.

 

Illinois lawmakers on Wednesday approved an advisory referendum for the November ballot that asks whether the state's minimum wage should be raised to $10 an hour from $8.25. Governor Pat Quinn said he would sign the bill.

As for the justification, it's a cliched as that old Keynesian broken window fallacy:

"Study after study demonstrates that when you put money into the pockets of consumers, they spend it," Munoz said. "They don't hoard it in their mattresses."

And what does study after study show employers do to their employees when a mandatory and unexpected intervention by the nanny state tells them they have no choice but to see their profit collapse if they keep their existing workforce and have zero chance of passing on higher labor costs to an insolvent consumer? Do they, perhaps, fire a whole lot of people and tell those who still have jobs they have no choice but to work double as hard for the new minimum wage?

We should find out very soon.

And speaking of warzone, there was also this idiocy:

Declaring gun control "essential" to public safety, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday proposed a gun shop ordinance that would videotape gun purchases and limit sales to one per month per buyer. The ordinance comes in response to a January court order invalidating a longtime ban on gun shops within the nation's third-largest city. The proposed law would require a 72-hour waiting period to purchase handguns and a 24-hour waiting period to purchase rifles and shotguns.

The ordinance would also require gun store employees to undergo background checks, and sellers to do quarterly inventory audits and make store records available for police inspection.

"Gun control is essential to our public safety," Emanuel told reporters. He said the ordinance, which also would prohibit gun sales within 500 feet of schools, was "smart, tough and enforceable." The court order had given the city six months to come up with store policies.

 

Emanuel and the Chicago Police Department released a report on Tuesday showing that almost 60 percent of the guns used to commit a crime in Chicago between 2009 and 2013 had been initially purchased in states like Indiana, Wisconsin and Mississippi which do not require background checks for sales at gun shows or on the Internet.

And with gun control in Chicago, those guns will no longer be purchase in Indiana, Wisconsin and Mississppi?

Because if there is anything that could assure the even more accelerated destruction of Chicago - a city which already boasted an unsurpassed murder rate when it had a gun ban - it would be giving central planners free reign over how to fix Chicago's "gun problem."

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:39 | 4803131 ACP
ACP's picture

Do it please! When it causes Chicago's economy to collapse, it will be an example for what NOT to do!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:43 | 4803157 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Green. I thought they collapsed years ago. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:46 | 4803173 WayBehind
WayBehind's picture

Why just $15? They should make it at least $50 :)

 

Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md0LvQ9gANc

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:53 | 4803197 Save_America1st
Save_America1st's picture

Do it bitchez!!!  I fucking dare ya!!!  Can't wait to sit back with a big 'ol buttery bucket 'o popcorn and watch that fucked up debacle burn down to the ground! 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:58 | 4803227 Keyser
Keyser's picture

A minimum wage of $30K per year for blue and white collar employees... This is going to end well... /s

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:06 | 4803249 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

How can his utterly dependent constituency look to him to fix a problem unless he causes one in the first place?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:06 | 4803449 max2205
max2205's picture

After chicqgo taxes they still net $5 per hour....weeeee!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:34 | 4803721 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Jump, jump, jump!!!!! lol

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:05 | 4803837 deeply indebted
deeply indebted's picture

Companies will turn more to automation as well. Why the hell pay $15/hour when you can buy a robot?

I'm sure there will be no end to the unintended consquences.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:10 | 4803259 graneros
graneros's picture

Hell why stop at $15 an hour?  Why not a million an hour? Just think of it, all our problems would be solved. Work one day make 8 mil and retire. A new person fills your job the next day and the cycle continues.  Unemployment solved as well. Soon we'll all be millionaire retirees living in a progressive utopia and all Americans will be happy, healthy, (free Obamacare) and living stress free lives.

Then we can tackle climate warming, cooling, change, whatever by mandating all carbon spewing vehicles be replaced with unicorns. Magic unicorns that can... blah balh blah blah blah.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:21 | 4803280 g'kar
g'kar's picture

This article would be a good reason why the push for minimum wage hikes. Unions ride the wage hike up.

 

 

          "The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Berman explains:

The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increases—even when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.

The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.

The Labor Department’s collective-bargaining agreements file has a limited number of contracts available, so we were unable to determine how widespread the practice is. But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace. On its website, the UFCW notes that “oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases.” Such increases, the UFCW says, are “one of the many advantages of being a union member.”

 

http://absoluterights.com/why-unions-want-higher-minimum-wage/

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:35 | 4803927 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

In all fairness, we need a city to make this move so the rest of the world can watch and see what happens.

We also need a city...to abolish Minimum Wage, FMLA, EEOC, Affirmative Action policies....and the rest of the world can watch what happens.

But we know this experiement would never happen.  Because people would flood from city A to city B and the socialist who don't believe in a freedom to choose one's own destiny would be left scratching their heads in total dismay.   We must have mutual economic destruction to be truly fair.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:55 | 4803792 falconflight
falconflight's picture

Finally, a silver lining to this shyt sandwich.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:12 | 4803268 ThirdCoastSurfer
ThirdCoastSurfer's picture

I make $17.23 an hour now here in Chicago and if you start paying the kid at Mickey D's $15 an hour then you damn sure better start paying me $27 or you can take all the knowledge, experience and stress I put up and shove it in a paper bag and take it to go.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:38 | 4803348 SumTing Wong
SumTing Wong's picture

I'm glad this didn't end with, "...and I sit on my butt on the internet all day doing it. You can make huge bucks, too, by going to the following link..."

As you can see, this is already starting off well. Class envy. And if they're getting more, I should get more too. This will lead to inflation and more taxes being taken out of your paycheck. You can trust me on this one.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:04 | 4803625 Greenskeeper_Carl
Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

I always wonder of this stuff is another way to extend and pretend on social security. Think about it- if they get to 15/hour, they will still get most of what they pay in federal taxes back when they file, especially if they have kids. But social security stays, no refund on that. This will force the workers, and especially their employers to provide a large increase in the money going in to everyone's favorite Ponzi scheme. Most on here know its a good possibility that it will be offset by the unemployment that is sure to follow, but people dumb enough to do shit like this probably don't realize that

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:00 | 4803618 SilverIsMoney
SilverIsMoney's picture

I make roughly $17 but i'm on salary... today at worked someone asked the question why we wouldn't quit and go work an easier job...

 

we gotta get outta here...

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:54 | 4803787 falconflight
falconflight's picture

Yeah but progressives vomit the meme that the only way to equality is "fairness."  Equal misery for all but the ruling elites.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 10:37 | 4805529 Monty Burns
Monty Burns's picture

Why just $15? They should make it at least $50

 

Exactly.  What a boost that'd be to the economy.  Can't understand why they don't do it.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:49 | 4803187 ACP
ACP's picture

Or maybe Rahm's plan to increase violence (after the inevitable layoffs) so that stricter gun control can be enacted.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:55 | 4803214 jimijon
jimijon's picture

Time for me to run for alderman and then mayor.

If there are any Chicagoans here who live in Pilsen or ChinaTown, give me a shout. It's time to start the ZHParty!

Cheers

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:02 | 4803620 rwl160
rwl160's picture

i'm in bridgeport.. lets party..

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:33 | 4803716 Fidel Sarcastro
Fidel Sarcastro's picture

Rahm's a cunt that thinks he's OWED the mayor's position who may not win reelection. This is his stunt to win.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 22:03 | 4803996 CuriousPasserby
CuriousPasserby's picture

I left Chi-town as soon as I got my degree and never looked back. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:44 | 4803165 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

Maybe if life wasn't so damn expensive, ahhh fuck it. This is pointless. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:55 | 4803598 PT
PT's picture

I stand by these assertions:

1.  The Achilles Heel of a minimum wage increase is the cheaper labour elsewhere.
2.  Otherwise, the benefits of richer customers and debt dilution outweigh the  burden of more expensive employees ... until some external wall is hit, such as reaching a resource supply limit.
3.  Minimum wage increases are actually about allowing debt to be repaid instead of defaulted on - bailing out the banks.
4.  Point 3 will be negated by the banks themselves when every dollar in pay rises results in real estate prices rising by ten dollars, or 20 dollars if everyone is already sharing accommodation.
5.  Banks have more political leverage than minimum wage workers.

For those where the action is, this stuff should not be too hard to track.  Minimum wages and minimum wage increases, real estate prices - mortgages and rents at the cheaper end of town, number of people sharing ( okay, reality vs official figures may be hard to compare - but haven't RE researchers had that problem since forever? )
Debt defaults vs real estate mortgages vs rents vs minimum wage over time.  That might be worth looking at on a graph or two.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 00:02 | 4804363 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

You're overthinking this. The question is can a given minimum wage job generate $20 profit to its employer ($15 plus employer taxes). If not, then that job is going away. All this blah-blah about "allowing debt to be repaid" doesn't mean shit if the job goes away.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 00:45 | 4804451 PT
PT's picture

How do jobs disappear when your customers get RICHER???  Oh deary me, I have to pay my workers more.  Well, if your customers get exact the same pay rise then, at worst, you will end up EXACTLY WHERE YOU STARTED - except with higher numbers written on everything (inflation)  AND DILUTED DEBT.

Oh but your customers earn more than the minimum wage, do they?  Well, at worst they will demand proportionate pay rises and what I wrote above still holds.  Remember, the MINIMUM wage is a MINIMUM because those workers HAVE NO LEVERAGE.

What you are left with is as I wrote above. 

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 09:06 | 4805116 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

The jobs disappear because they no longer generate a profit for the employer. The employer has two choices - raise prices or switch to automation. You seem to assume that everyone will just go along with the price increases and the volume of business will be unchanged. That is classic Keynesian thinking (of which you seem to buy hook, line, and sinker). The reality is that if the price of a Big Mac value meal is now $10 a lot of people will stop buying Big Mac value meals.

Let's go one step further - who besides employers will be hurt with the $15 minimum wage and resulting price increases? Anyone on a fixed income - retired persons on pensions or SS, anyone who is on public assistance on food stamps, etc. They will clamor for cost of living increases.

Your assertion (in all caps no less) that we will end up "EXACTLY WHERE YOU STARTED" is Keynesian crap because it assumes that you can change a major component of an economic system in isolation without it having any unintended and negative effects on anything else.

Tue, 06/03/2014 - 23:11 | 4822100 PT
PT's picture

From someone else who disagrees with my conclusions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr5oWfoWRY

You mean you can double their wages and prices go up by only 15%?

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 00:54 | 4804463 PT
PT's picture

Given that the price of real estate quadrupled over seven years, you may want to reconsider the impact of debt on the economy, in particular in the form of impact on spending power of minimum wage workers.

But no, someone else supplies your rich customers.  They just magically appear out of "rich customer fairyland". 

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 09:13 | 4805144 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Once again you seem to assume that price levels will remain the same if the minimum wage is increased to $15. In the real world, prices will increase. I hope they do raise the minimum wage to $15 so we can all see what will happen to prices, employment, etc. How will you explain things when prices rise and population employment ratio declines? The weather?

Tue, 06/03/2014 - 23:59 | 4822106 PT
PT's picture

No, I do not expect prices to stay the same.  I expect this to happen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr5oWfoWRY

15% inflation from doubling the minimum wage?  Sounds like a good trade to me, but as you may have noticed, others disagree.  How many minimum wage earners shop at Walmart?  Keep thinking.

What if employment goes down?  Then try point one from my comment 4803598 above.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:54 | 4803201 Gaius Frakkin' ...
Gaius Frakkin' Baltar's picture

I wouldn't get your hopes up.... Has anything been learnt from Detroit?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:10 | 4803257 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

I can see it now,

"Hey Johnny, how was your weekend?"

"Good, my wife is pregnant. We just bought a new SUV. Great deal. Have you seen those new Pathfinder hybrids? They now do 19MPG, can you believe that boss? And it was only $42,000."

"Sounds good Johnny"

"Boss, we just bought a house too, beautiful place. Realtor told us it was a great time to buy. He said if we invest wisely we should make 7000% in the coming year. He said the market has never been this blazin' hot and that we were smart to buy." 

"Well listen here Johnny, the city of Chicago is mandating that I pay you $15/hour now. My operating expenses are about to skyrocket and I have to make some slight modifications to my workforce. Johnny, 'You're Fired'."

"But my house? What about my car? Shit, my baby!!!" 

"Sorry Johnny, you're a good worker its just that America really 'sux' right now. Here's a map to your nearest unemployment office. Good luck Johnny."

"Fuck You Boss, I'm gonna kill you." 

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:48 | 4803382 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Burger Bawtz Bytchez!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:22 | 4803682 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

*meh*

Johnny's obviously not the brightest bulb in the string, if he's buying houses, driving new vehicles and  makin' babies on a minimum waged job.

natural selection.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:47 | 4803963 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

million points of light? (dim bulbs indeed)

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:03 | 4803236 Gringo Viejo
Gringo Viejo's picture

Al Capone....John Wayne Gacy.....Obama.....
Has anything good ever come out of this shithole?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:25 | 4803304 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Not sure I would put Capone on the same level with those pieces of shits. He was at least honest about what he was, the others had to lie their way into power or into their "thing".

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:42 | 4803738 The Gooch
Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:51 | 4803779 falconflight
falconflight's picture

Well maybe Upton Sinclair's novel about the shithole named Chicago.  The Jungle.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:43 | 4803135 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Robots everywhere rejoice !

    Never send an expensive human to do a machine's job !

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:49 | 4803183 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

So this means my specialized labor should be worth $500/hr, right? 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:47 | 4803577 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

No. Just be thankful you have anything to sell.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:13 | 4803656 PT
PT's picture

The average yob can't afford my specialized labour.  Well, not every day, anyway.

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:14 | 4803660 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Hooker?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 22:43 | 4804137 PT
PT's picture

No.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:05 | 4803628 PT
PT's picture

If only those horses weren't so lazy and demanding, always wanting rest breaks and hay all the time - they could have kept their jooooooooobbbs!!!  They NEVER would have been replaced by the motor car.

Why would anyone bother inventing a 100hp motor car if it was cheaper just to tie a hundred horses to the front of their carriage?

Dumb, lazy unemployed people.  If they didn't price themselves out of the market then they could get a job digging coal out of the ground by hand and swimming with it all the way to China.  Jobs for all!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I, for one, welcome the robots.  Now where is the four hour working week they were supposed to bring with them? 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:00 | 4803818 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

You only say that because you either believe your job is safe or you believe those who do retain their job will gladly pay you to stay hame and not compete for theirs.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 22:50 | 4804160 PT
PT's picture

Currently unemployed (hopefully not for long but who knows? - it's the nature of my work ), I do admit that the transition phase will be highly unpleasant and make me very miserable.  But I still welcome the robots.  If a robot can allow one man to do the job of ten, doesn't that mean that alternatively ten men could work a tenth as hard?  The fact that half the population works eighty hours per week as they fear losing their jobs while the other half of the population starves is not the robot's fault ... until we hire robots to solve that problem.  Time for us fleshy robots to use that grey, squishy microprocessor we all have between our ears to take a closer look at our options.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 00:57 | 4804471 PT
PT's picture

To be honest, I do prefer to give my money to a human being.  I resent when a person who I may have to hold accountable for delivery lives thousands of miles away and may keep me on hold for hours / days on end.  That is the little hole in my philosophy.  Other than that, we need production, not jobs.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:39 | 4803137 QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

Long popcorn. This will be epic (from a safe distance).

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:00 | 4803232 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

A livable minimum wage is about the only way some of the wealth could actually trickle down, instead of ending up driving the price for London's lofts up to lunatic  level..

http://www.allscandinavia.com/happiestcountries.htm

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:40 | 4803330 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

:-)

Free markets fundamentalists, complaining about the CEO pays and the shipping of jobs to countries with wage and working conditions that resemble slave labour, but denying the working class a livable wage at the same time... If your flawed ideology is finally full blown global, open borders, no tariffs, no minimum wages, everybody will be poor except the 0.01% owners.

Capitalism Hits the Fan: A Lecture by Richard Wolff on the Economic Meltdown?

With breathtaking clarity, renowned UMass Economics Professor Richard Wolff breaks down the root causes of today's economic crisis, showing how it was decades in the making and in fact reflects seismic and systemic failures within American-style capitalism as a whole. Wolff traces the source of the economic crisis to the 1970s, when wages began to stagnate and American workers were forced into a dysfunctional spiral of borrowing and debt that ultimately exploded in the mortgage meltdown. By placing the crisis within this larger historical and systemic frame, Wolff argues convincingly that both the government "bailouts" and calls for increased market regulation will not be enough to address the real causes of the crisis - in the end suggesting that more fundamental changes will be necessary to avoid future catastrophes. Richly illustrated with graphics and charts, this is a superb introduction that allows ordinary citizens to comprehend, and react to, the unraveling crisis.

http://blip.tv/zgraphix/capitalism-hits-the-fan-a-lecture-by-richard-wol...

PS: I like capitalism, but with a decent social security and minimum wages like Scandinavian countries. So you still can get quite rich, but nobody has to sleep under a bridge and being born in a poor family doesn't automatically imply bad education, criminal behavior and ending in jail. Look at crime rates in Scandinavia compared to US..

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:44 | 4803372 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Perhaps you should find out what capitalism is. You might want to figure out the difference between a political system (socialism) and an economic system (capitalism).  Wolfe is another academic poodle. 

Fractional reserve banking is the problem. If you don't understand this basic concept, it will be useless to converse.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:22 | 4803393 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

Fractional reserve banking is no problem by it's self, it is only a problem when it is in private hands..

But i don't feel like starting a huge discussion since I know most of you have been brainwashed with the American dream, rejecting every form of wealth distribution. So then you have to accept the consequences, without redistribution, capital accumulation will continue untill a handful of families own the world. Won't take long anymore, they are half way already..

For me it's obvious the only working sytem is a compromise between capitalism and socialism. Take one of the two in it's pure form and you get disasters..

PS: I agree on the non existing free market thing, which is a shame.. I am pro-free market, but with minimal wealth redistribution to mild the imminent accumulating force(in wealth, land and political influence) of pure capitalism.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:50 | 4803537 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Wealth concentrates because of the State. The State guarantees cronyism, monopolies, cartels and market restrictions as well as regulation for a favored few. Competition (cornerstone of capitalism) is the great distributor of wealth, otherwise, the distribution is controlled by those whom control the State- any guess whom that is?

Your statement on fractional reserve banking shows so much ignorance of monetary policy, leverage and theft through money inflation, it is beyond the pale. Why would the state make a difference? Because the State would never borrow debt beyond its' ability to collect revenue? Is that your case?

This is not rocket science. Read Lord Blackstone on fractional reserve banking- then look at the date he wrote it.

The only workable system is one without law and the State. Otherwise slavery ensues- see the history from.....forever.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:15 | 4803663 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

The system of fractional reserve banking, just allows to expand the money base, which is necessary if the population grows. I know where your rejection comes from, but it is the fact that the state (we the people) do not create this money trough fractional reserve banking, but a private entity does, and then the state (we the people) has to borrow it at interests that are not in the system. If the state would create it, there is no loan, money would be credit, not debt. But then again I'm no monetary expert..

But this monetary issue has to be parted from the socialism/capitalism discussion..

Capitalism in it's pure form is also a concentrator of wealth by it's design. But it has good properties as well, it generates incentives to invent and create. It's opposite communism lacks that incentive, that's why it will never work.

I am pro-capitalism, but in a mixed form with a redistribution mechanism to fight the extreme concentration of wealth and power that is imminent in a 100% capitalist system. I'm not preaching full equality here, I'm preaching living minimum wages and basic education, so when born poor, you have a chance to work your way up. A kid without a roof above his head and some education has no chance..

But on a global scale we are moving in the other direction. due to free trade agreements, open borders and austerity programs. It's a race to the bottom for the working and a sure win for the 0.01%

But that's only my opinion, it won't hurt to think about that for a minute dough..

Without law and state you risk becoming Bloods and Crips..

I think the best solution would be decentralization of government to local level, only large infrastructure, monetary matters and defense and few other should be at central level. on a local level there is a thing called social control, when you live in the same neighborhood as your voters and visit the same malls, you become prudent not to screw them.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:49 | 4803771 falconflight
falconflight's picture

And you would argue that the USSR via the CCCP didn't engender a class of 1 percenters?  Dacha anyone?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:07 | 4803841 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

No, I am stating the opposite. I'm not promoting communism by far. I'm pro capitalism since it is the lesser evil. There is no perfect system and full equality is only nice in theory, but we are not equal. We are equal in terms of human rights, but not in terms of wages, intelligence or talents.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:13 | 4803866 falconflight
falconflight's picture

As written I believe by at least Ben Franklin, 'personal liberty guarantees that some will sink to their level of ability and motivation.'   The Constitution denies the ability of a gov't to force a minimum wage, but it's done anyway.  There hasn't been even a simulacrum of "laise faire" capitalism in this country since the early 20th Century.  

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:51 | 4803780 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Without law and state you risk becoming Bloods and Crips.."

lol...sorta like when I'm being scolded on what to eat, say or read and taxed to death by a Blood, I'm also being spied on, beaten and arrested by a Crip? ;-)

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 22:33 | 4804101 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The State cannot borrow what it does not have, but it can borrow if allowed to ONLY pay interest on the principle. The debt which is never paid becomes an albatross arond the neck of every succeeding generation which never was allowed to lend consent to the debt. Even if the State created it, by whose authority? We the People? When the government is operated by the Wealthy? What is wrong with paying as we go? What is wrong with asking instead of threatening us with prison and confiscation?

What is your redistribution system? How is it achieved? Whom determines the percentages? How do you require the rich to pay or stay? They hide their incomes in offshore accounts, in foundations, in trade through shell corporations to limit taxation. You think this would change?

Your preaching a give away which you did not earn. Like some insipent snot nosed kid, I'm entitled! I'm entitled!

You want an education? Stop going to school. Educate yourself or your children. Want a guaranteed wage? So does everybody, but there has never been a labor theory of value. Why? Because the value of labor is subjective. Just like the price of a good or service. 

Now, who created the free trade agreements? Who controls the borders and special work visas? Who demnds the austerity programs? The State. 

No, it is the law and State that created the blood and crips. How do they profit from a drug trade if drugs are not illegal? Prosititution? Did all those mexican farmers not stop the drug lords? Who stopped the farmers? The State.

You don't even know how to parcel out the State responsibilities. Now, multiply that times 325 million.

The problem is you have a wish list government and hope it will all work out because everyone basically wants the same things. It wouldn't hurt to think about that for a minute, doh!

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:18 | 4803670 PT
PT's picture

Wealth concentrates regardless of the state.  The instant you can re-invest profit, you're gonna leave the subsistence mob in the dust.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:02 | 4803827 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Competition can be scary. maybe Obama will hold your hand

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:28 | 4803913 falconflight
falconflight's picture

Translation:  Maybe Obama & Co will put the heels of their boots on the dirty unfair successful,,,

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 01:00 | 4804477 PT
PT's picture

May as well, he's holding everyone else's hand.  Err. actually, I don't think that is their "hand", but anyways ...

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:36 | 4803539 cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

Save your breath, this crowd has been as you say indoctrinated and welcome with open arms the very things that are fucking their own lights out and to dumb to connect the dots.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:46 | 4803755 falconflight
falconflight's picture

And you would argue that the political class hasn't facilitated and encouraged fractional reserve lending?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:00 | 4803432 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

I believe money games can, and have existed without fractional reserving (i.e. the bimetal standard, and arbitrage opportunities in the 15:1 silver/gold payout ratio.)

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:40 | 4803553 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Which is why you use the Constitutional mandate of a silver dollar of 371 1/4 grains of pure silver, gold in a ratio to be determined on a regular basis (though it would be best if it just floated)  and maintain the prohibition against paper money paper as a legal tender.

Further, with all the attempts to destroy the system, it was still waaaaaaay better in terms of debt control and value stability.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:51 | 4803388 SamuelMaverick
SamuelMaverick's picture

Free Lunch,you and yours are liars, stupid, ignorant, or a combination of all three. You are blaming non existant American capitalism. I am in my 40's, and I have not seen a free market in my lifetime. All I have seen and dealt with is Fascism, Socialism, and complete regulatory capture of most businesses.

 

                                                     Maverick

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:37 | 4803411 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

Capitalism on a global scale without borders, minimum wages or any restrictions means that wages will drop to a cup of rice a day.. Just count the Billions of poor that will compete for a handful of jobs..

And born poor will mean staying poor, because there will only be private school, for which you need money, which you would not have being poor..

You can downvote all you want, but that won't change the ugly truth that pure capitalism can mathematically only lead to accumulation of wealth until a few families own everything. If you don't understand that, you might want to take math classes.

“If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of capital rises disproportionately faster. The material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position. The social chasm that separates him from the capitalist has widened." Keep this system up long enough and all is owned by few..

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:57 | 4803564 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Prove your "ugly truth". You are either ignorant or a liar. Pure capitalism NEVER leads to wealth concentrations. Only the State and law can do that. FRance has one o the worse wealth gaps in the world- how did socialism allow this? Russia? England? All the same.

Even in the nordic countries the distributionn is coming home to roost with calls of cutting back State entitlements and taxation. Even mghty Norway, cognisant that the oil is running out is calling for reductions. The sovereign wealth fund, well the "government" needs to protect it now- wonder who will benefit?

You speak as if you have some ability to derive influence or control. How would you do that? Vote? Bwahahahahahahahaha. The candidates are hand picked, both sides of the aisle. 

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:59 | 4803737 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

"a)Pure capitalism NEVER leads to wealth concentrations. b)Only the State and law can do that."

(here I was thinking that was the whole purpose of capitalism, to gain more wealth.. It's a zero sum game, there is only so much wealth at any given time, if one gets richer it comes from somewhere. However in absolute terms everybody can improve.. But relatively the gap grows)

a) Yes it does, the capitalist takes his profit and invests its for more gain, he also buys property, which the workers may rent(again profit) and politicians to tune laws to his advantage..

b) The state and law will do that because they are being corrupted by the capitalists that have accumulated enough to be able to do so.. this corruption problem is universal, it it's not tied to any system, it's because of centralization, the further the rulers are from their voters, the less they are urged to be honest..

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 22:49 | 4804156 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The purpose of capitalism is to create profit. In creating profit, you benefit the community by providing jobs, training in processes and input demand. Further, your profit is then either re-invested which creates more jobs or is spent, creating different types of jobs. Some goes into savings and other may be put in other businesses which do the same. This is the role of the entreprenuer, he takes great risks (bankruptcy, loss of capital) in hopes he can sell his product at a future date for a profit.

Has the worker risked anything? Invested anything? Thi is why he gets a wage, determined by what the capitalist can afford to pay.If he can't make a profit, he either shuts down or moves to where he can make a profit. It is not a zero sum game, because the production of goods and services which do not exist add value to the present inventory. 

If you understood economics, it would help immensely.

Your A point illustrates the use of the State through politician ownership. (you're trying to negte this point).

In B you blame the capitalist for corrupting the politician. The politician carries no blame because it is unversal? That's your argument? And if there were no state and law, whom would the capitalist corrupt? It's because of centralization? But you said there had to be centralization?  Talk in circles much?

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 06:12 | 4804714 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

Capitalism is about incentives(that's the good stuff) AND increasing concentration of wealth, power (the potentially bad stuff). The bigger fish eat the smaller ones to the point the smaller ones can never compete the big ones anymore because of scale advantages.

Just look at this pic to see the effect in practice, it happens in all sectors: http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/big-bank-theory-chart-large.jpg

And some another example of concentrating capital: http://24.media.tumblr.com/68a17bc74988146bc994bbe0e9b7c26b/tumblr_mslfj...

And another: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/

And there is this confession: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

If you're still not convinced check income inequality statistics and the vanishing middle class...

It IS a zero sum game, if you have a pie and someone takes a bigger stake, the others will have a smaller.

You can try to mask that by stating the cake will get bigger, but as the cake get's bigger, the piece of the employee(wage) stays the same size, guess who's piece has grown bigger again?

But of course you claim this is all not true, even if the facts are indisputable: the rich get richer and the gap widens. Even dough the whole purpose of capitalism is to try to accumulate as much capital as possible, you claim this is not happening. Talk in circles much?

If there was no state or law, the capitalist would compose a private army and force you all to work as slaves: Feudal system!

Oh and here is your growing pie, just look who is eating the surplus.. http://images2.dailykos.com/i/user/6/change-since-1979-600.gif

So, I come back to my point that capitalism is the best system, and there is nothing wrong with people getting rich, but we have to try to compensate the concentration of wealth and power that is imminent to this system. Because if not, over enough time the concentration will get worse ultimately taking away competition and thus ending capitalism in feudalistic ownership.

But I do not expect you to open your mind enough to admit this, just keep believing it is not happening..

 

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 06:42 | 4804755 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Everything you refer to is the result of State intervention. While people whom save and invest will end up with more wealth than people whom spend and not save is the nature of people. There will always be rich, middle and poor. It is the degree of disparity and the means by which it is accomplished that is important.

You complain that the wage never increases. Then why don't you start a business and make more? Because it is easier to demand more and expect it to be paid? If you choose to remain at the mercy of the captalist, is that not your choice? Now, you could live without a government that taxes you excessively and steals your labor, but you seem determined to live nder their oppresion- because you hope for a few gifts? You will never have any influence or power, so what else is your motivation.

The facts are always disputable, because they are not facts. Statistics are just another way to lie. Just as I never claimed the purpose of captalism excluded accumulating capital. That is your definition and it is wrong. 

We have a state and a army and we are forced to work as slaves( slaves by definition, cannot own property) in a neo-feudal system. EXactly what is the difference? We get to vote and agree to it?

You refuse to address how your re-distribution will happen. You seem to think real captalism exists. You are ignorant of money functions and what it is. If you are to open your mind, you must consider someone else's argument first, which you have not. You contine to bang away at concepts you fail to understand. You even call capitalism the "best" system, while decrying the results. Are you deliberately obtuse?

If it is a zero sum game, explain the creation of wealth during the industrial revolution. Explain the rapid development of the US in the 1800's, prior to fractional reserve banking. Now, what happened between then and now? The Federal Reserve, Income Tax, the shredding of the Constitution, the elimnation of the gold standard, the rise of consumerism, the creation of massive debt through government spending. 

However, you think a higher minimum wage will reverse ths trend? You think the Elites will give up their power and wealth? To you? Really?

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 07:19 | 4804804 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

I'm am getting tired of your deliberate ignorance, so i will end the discussion with this:

- ZERO SUM does not mean that the total SUM can't grow bigger, it means that what A gains comes out of B's part.

- The creation of wealth is done by DEBT, because wages are so low all expansion comes from debt. The real profits ends up with the capitalist oligarchs, who have no debt, but capital. increasing it and expanding there business with take-overs and expansion to other sectors.

I am very well aware of the faults of government and the flawed financial system.

But even if the money system was fixed, the imminent concentration of capital would still do its work until everything is owned by a few. It would slow down the pace of the process, but it would not stop it.

That the government does not act as like a father taking care of all children is also a result of capitalistic concentration of wealth which enables the oligarchs to sponsor the candidates(both parties) in return for favors.. Government is a dilemma, we need it, but it is hard to prevent extreme lobbying and outright corruption.

Minimum wages will at least improve the lives of the ones working for it.. or at worst compensates their loss of buying power as a result of the great wealth transfer: QE-infinity..

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 08:29 | 4804969 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

I'm tired of your sheer stupidity, but I will take a whack at this jewel:"ZERO SUM does not mean the total sum can't grow bigger". What part of zero and sum do you not understand? What you want to say is, "of the total sum, the division of value is changing". 

You cannot create wealth from debt. This is a magnificent imbecility you have at work here. You can transfer wealth via debt assignment(taxes) and the means of distribution. Thus you steal the wealth of workers via taxes, which you demand through political chicanery,state coercion, debt creation. However, products and services are still being created, which result in wealth.

You have failed to prove your argument on the concentration of wealth. Claimng something will happen is not a proof.

Why do we need a government if you cannot stop corruption and influence? You do not prove something by making wild claims.

Minimium wages have been proven to create higher unemployment consistently- please consult an economics textbook. Worse, it will either drive up all other wages to maintain wage value and could impact competitiveness enough to eliminate industries alltogether. You completely ignore monetary inflation through expansion of the money supply in excess of productive gains. (fractional reserve banking). 

When you focus on the emotional issues versus the methodologies, you get your arguments. 

 

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 11:00 | 4805618 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 00:43 | 4804448 Not My Real Name
Not My Real Name's picture

" Capitalism is a zero sum game ..."

Nope. Subjective value ensures that it can never be a zero sum game.

Epic fail ... but thanks for playing.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:32 | 4803714 Zirpedge
Zirpedge's picture

Is that organic wild rice?

That's a good offer but the other guy said he has magic beans for my day of labor.

 

Just going to interject a bit of Geolibertarianism here for shits and giggles. Land is being held for ransom by the monied elite, we need to enfore a tax code strictly on land as it is "The Commons" from which all productive labor takes place. A limited federal goverment that derives it entire revenue on land taxes. Think about it.

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:28 | 4803911 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

We can spend years delving into the concept of fair taxes. The problem is that no matter how fair the tax scheme may be, it is applied by our government who's goal is to control us and direct every dollar we spend to their best purpose. Taxes were initially approved for use to pay for the "common good" which we would want to believe meant schools, roads, defense, the stuff generally agreed to benefit most everyone. Today it is almost all redistribution. Even road taxes are seldom spent on the areas where they were collected.

I have conjured a number of tax schemes over the years but have come to the conclusion that none of them would work, mostly because those that benefit from existing structure have the power to prevent any change.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:44 | 4803745 falconflight
falconflight's picture

MultiNational, supraNational corporations does Not equate to free enterprise.  And neither does requiring a  gov't permit to sell cup cakes.

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 08:24 | 4804955 ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

Ask why there are only a handful of jobs to compete for.  That's your problem.  

 

Innovation and invenntion have become enemies of the state.  We are told what we can do, how to do it, and when to do it.  And if we do ANYTHING outside of the norm, it's shut down.

 

When this nation started, everything was legal until it became illegal,

Today, nearly everything is illegal, unless we are given permission to do it.

 

We have ground this economy to a halt.  Simple road projects take years.  New and complex projects never get off the growund.

 

The Greatest nation on the planet, has choked itself with government.

For our own good, of course.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:26 | 4803697 falconflight
falconflight's picture

Did you forget the role the PetroDollar and debt growth plays?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:36 | 4803341 rubiconsolutions
rubiconsolutions's picture

Just a simple question @free_lunch: Should I be able to negotiate a private employment contract at whatever rate is mutually beneficial? 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:43 | 4803364 free_lunch
free_lunch's picture

In the scandanavian model: NO, there is a minimum..

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:54 | 4803407 rubiconsolutions
rubiconsolutions's picture

"In the scandanavian model: NO, there is a minimum.."

So they don't have to report their employment income to the government? That was the point of my question. I don't think its anyones business including government what I exchange my labor for. It's a moot point anyway because the moment the minimum wage is raised to $15 the federal reserve will just turn up the printing presses further devaluing the value of the dollar. Eventually the minimum wage will have to be raised to $1 Trillion an hour....the Zimbabwe model.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:23 | 4803686 PT
PT's picture

"My three year old little brother gave me his lollies.  He wanted me to have them.  It was a mutually beneficial transaction."

- 5 year old bigger brother.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:43 | 4803138 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Does anybody in Chicago actually work for minimum wage? Starting pay for McDonald's in our little town is $9 an hour. Regardless, I see a lot moar part time workers and robots in the future.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:30 | 4803322 graneros
graneros's picture

Left the Chicago area (Lake County, IL) in 74.  Was making $7.00 an hour at the time. That was some pretty good pay back then. Of course it was Manuel's labor. Humping furniture for a moving company. Hard work with long hours (in the summer moving season(lots of OT pay)) but for a young man without any real plan it was pretty good. Damn sure didn't need to spend any cash on joining a gym.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:15 | 4803473 dobermangang
dobermangang's picture

Nike shed over 100,000 workers last year.  Automation is coming faster and faster to a job near you.  

http://www.ibtimes.com/nike-sheds-106000-workers-last-year-profit-revenu...

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:26 | 4803695 PT
PT's picture

When did Australia get rid of its telephone operators?
When did the US get rid of its telephone operators?

Keep looking...

 

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:39 | 4803139 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Make it $25 per hour, I'm sure the FED has the money.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:37 | 4803342 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The Fed isn't paying the increase, the small business owner is, and that's who is going out of business with all these centrally planned expenses.  But I like the idea of the Gov making the Fed subsidize the increase in minimum wage with newly printed money.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:45 | 4803571 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Once the small business owners start laying off thousands upon thousands of workers, that's exactly what will happen

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:25 | 4803689 falconflight
falconflight's picture

It will only drive out small businesses and engorge corporations, since they can absorb these costs through various means.  But isn't that the point, to further cement to the Corporate-Fed-US Gov't partnership, a/k/a fascist state?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:39 | 4803140 becky quick and...
becky quick and her beautiful mouth's picture

long robots.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:53 | 4803575 dobermangang
dobermangang's picture

Hamburger assembly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMdDn3pZDDw

I like how the robot puts on the mustard and ketchup.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:30 | 4803709 PT
PT's picture

I like robots.  That was the whole point.  We need PRODUCTION not jobs.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:40 | 4803141 gcjohns1971
gcjohns1971's picture

Why 15? Why not $20?\

Why not $50?

$150?

 

If this stuff works then why settle for a penny ante number?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:24 | 4803293 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Agree.

Since .gov and the FED bails out corporations and the Supine Court ruled that corporations are individuals - this therefore means that individuals (real ones) deserve to be bailed out in the same fashion.

And if corporations can pay an average $10 Million to a CEO there is obviously enough slush to pay the people who actually do the work $50/hour.

Talk about stimulus to the economy!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:37 | 4803543 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Lighten up boys and girls.  Think it through.  I believe bailouts, QE, and the FED are bullshit.

But if bullshit is what we have, let's spread it on all the fields, not just the corporations and banks.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:08 | 4803641 Shad_ow
Shad_ow's picture

How much is that burger going to cost and how many will shut down their businesses?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:47 | 4803761 PT
PT's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr5oWfoWRY

If Peter Schiff and Walmart are anything to go by, you can double the minimum wage and it will inflate prices by 15%.

Or if you look at it in reverse, by accepting a 50% pay cut, minimum wage workers have given you a 15% discount.  Perhaps you should THANK them as they spit in your burger.  As long as they ruin less than 15% of your burger, you're still ahead!

 

Okay, for those who actually know maths:  What should cost $1.15, costs a dollar.  .15 / 1.15 ---> 13 % discount so the 50% pay cut leads to a 13% discount, but I think we can agree that my point still stands.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:40 | 4803142 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

15 bucks an hour. "Gee, thanks ya phucking Jew."

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:21 | 4803676 falconflight
falconflight's picture

Does that mean you're into a Rusty Sanchez for People of Color?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:41 | 4803144 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

So I went to school, studied medicine, worked my butt off and all I had to do was protest instead?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:01 | 4803603 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

Sucks to realize how much of a dupe you are, right?

Ironically, 0Blam0 Kare mandates your pay rate works out to 8 dollars per hour, if you see 6 patients per hour on a 16 hour day.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:14 | 4803849 PT
PT's picture

Don't matter how smart you are, or how qualified you are, if you aren't prepared to move out from under the elephant's ass then you WILL get shat on.

How many drop-outs go on to be successful businessmen?
Or would it be better to reverse that question - how many successful businessmen started out as drop-outs?  

(The answers to these two questions are not the same.)   To be successful you MUST be able to move out from underneath the elephant's ass.  Some people actually work out how to do this WITHOUT spending a fortune in time on pieces of paper.  Cue Henry Ford and his "I don't know much but I have these telephones and I can ring people who know stuff who can answer my questions".  Want a more modern version?  Poppy King and her "Confessions of a Lip Stick Queen" (in which she thanks Yellow Pages).

On threads like this, capitalists love to proclaim that everyone is paid "what they are worth".  But they never value what you are worth by what you produce ("The market might not want that").  They value you by "what you agree to work for and what the market can withstand".  In other words, if you are dumb or DESPERATE enough to be underpaid, the capitalists will DECLARE that THAT IS ALL YOU ARE WORTH!!!  It's a subtle language shift, and you'd better learn it as quickly as you can or you WILL be fucked over by employers for the rest of your life.  It ain't enough to be good.  It sure ain't enough to THREATEN to leave.  You'd better have one foot in the stirrup and be ready to leave at any time.  Trouble is, you might have nowhere to go.  You can study all you like, but if supply of your services exceeds demand, you may want to either study marketing or start protesting.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:47 | 4803151 Number 156
Number 156's picture

"Study after study demonstrates that when you put money into the pockets of consumers, they spend it," Munoz said. "They don't hoard it in their mattresses."

That's because they are forced to spend it, you dumb ass. After all, the price of goods and services will go up and immediately nullify the wage increase.

People are so stupid, continually fooled by politicians.

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:27 | 4803313 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

You are not new, so why did you just post with Italics without making a space first so people could upvote you?

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 01:41 | 4804531 Number 156
Number 156's picture

 

I didnt realize did that. Should've worn my reading glasses. Thanks for spotting it.

No biggie though, you cant downvote me either. Ha ha!

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:43 | 4803158 Charles Nelson ...
Charles Nelson Reilly's picture

Illinois and Chicago in particular have rapidly become the poster children for the half aborted liberal utopia test fetus.

They should seriously start doing what George Costanza did in that one episode of Seinfeld and do the opposite of what their intentions are.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:43 | 4803159 B2u
B2u's picture

DO IT.   Detroit needs  company in bankruptcy.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:44 | 4803163 BeagleOne
BeagleOne's picture

Even Max K says that the minimum wage should be $100.00 an hour. That will take care of the demand issue...

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:46 | 4803172 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

So what happens when gas becomes $75/gallon? Do we raise the min wage to $200/hr. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:10 | 4803207 cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

You will have to if you expect someone to come to work.

While I am not a big fan of minimum wage laws. If you feel an economy needs minimum wage laws or corporations will just voluntarily pay living wages(not supported by the last 30years of data) then at least make the minimum wage you vote in COLA adjusted. If not, just bringing it up every 15years is merely a way to steal peoples labor for the last half.

But then again, everyone in any business likes 2.00 hr slaves to eternity to exploit.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:15 | 4803276 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

So what you're really sayin' is I have to get fucked 3 ways from Sunday so everyone can feel better about themselves? Got it.

 

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:19 | 4803284 cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

No that not what I'm really sayin, You pulled that statement (whever it is) out of your ass. Nobody is fucking you unless you allow it EVER.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:33 | 4803321 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

So what's the current applicable living wage for Chicago today?

See government fucks it up, now government wants to fix it. And lemmings like you want to enable them. How does a burger flipper buy a house today? A car? How does he support himself? Hedge against inflation? You think giving them a raise fixes all this? I'll give you a hint, the problem is not the $8/hr.   

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:48 | 4803383 cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

Your  the fucking lemming there putz. I work for myself and could really care less what you pay the convicts in Chitcago.

It's just like I said. Why even pay them 8 dollars an hour, how about 2 dollars then you are right there with the Chinese and Hatians which is were this is headed. 2 Pounds of fucking bacon is 15 bucks and a gallon of gas is north of 4.

Wonder why 92million people say fuck it? Because after tax it isnt worth setting the alarm clock.

So get your ass to work you fucking little bitch, and grovel for your next 25 cent raise and get laughed at, because whatever they are paying you is to much.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:04 | 4803443 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

 

"because whatever they are paying you is to much".

Tell that to my pts. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:57 | 4803604 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 Wonder why 92million people say fuck it? Because after tax it isnt worth setting the alarm clock.

Yes... and that tax level has absolutely nothing to do with the 92 million people saying fuck it, right?

Anyway dude, wages in a competitive industry aren't just set arbitrarily, they reflect the supply and demand for labour with that skillset. And that's all. This is why, in a free market, there's different pay rates... all set by the invisible hand.

Raising the minimum price for labour just means less labour gets used. It's great if you manage to retain your job, it sucks if your labour can't generate more than the minimum wage (+ employment expenses) for an employer, though. Uncle Sugar has just made you unemployable.

It's like you're trying to make dairy farmers wealthier by insisting people pay at least  $15 for a gallon of milk. Do you think more milk will be drunk? Or rather less?

You work for yourself? Not doing anything requiring even fundamental economics knowledge, obviously.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:16 | 4803651 cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

Im a business major and took more economics classes than I care to remember and made As in all of them, the top score in almost every class. I was even encouraged to major in it by some of the people who taught me so save the- Im smarter than you bullshit. Your not.

I think you have a reading comprehension issue because I said people say fuck it because of the taxes and the pittance of what is left. How you get i think tax has nothing to do with it after that simple statement?

If you even can read above 3rd grade level you will see my opening statement "I am not a fan of minimum wage laws"

You don't see the macro-economic picture of whats wrong with your so called invisible hand that has its fingers up you ass.

I can call up any number of H1b employees that will do exactly what you do for a bag of rice. Its called global wage arbitration, The  Global labor supply you speak of is almost unlimited in relation to actual jobs so your simple little world of supply and demand breaks down to a bag of rice a day eventually. Enjoy your stew.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:18 | 4803669 falconflight
falconflight's picture

And a prime arbitrage are 30 million foreign felons driving down any chance of wage leverage by employees.  

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:21 | 4803677 cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

What do you think the average burgur flippers in Chicago are?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:01 | 4803824 falconflight
falconflight's picture

And in 100 other metro concentration camps to be...

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 14:13 | 4806432 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Oooh, I'm impressed! And I'm sure your inability to differentiate between your and you're helped you get all those straight A's in business school.

I think you have a reading comprehension issue because I said people say fuck it because of the taxes and the pittance of what is left. How you get i think tax has nothing to do with it after that simple statement?

Do you think they'd say 'fuck it' if they didn't have social welfare handouts - the very thing that helps push up taxes - to rely on? NOW do you see the link?

If you even can read above 3rd grade level you will see my opening statement "I am not a fan of minimum wage laws"

No, just protectionism.. which is even worse. And in the post I was replying to, you certainly didn't say "I am not a fan of minimum wage laws", and I'll be damned if I read back through all your previous doggerel every time I reply to one of your rambling, poorly constructed, grammatically laughable thoughtblots. As it is, despite being 'no fan' of minimum wages, you were espousing them being linked to COLA... hmmm... dissonance much?

You don't see the macro-economic picture of whats wrong with your so called invisible hand that has its fingers up you ass.

I can call up any number of H1b employees that will do exactly what you do for a bag of rice. Its called global wage arbitration, The  Global labor supply you speak of is almost unlimited in relation to actual jobs so your simple little world of supply and demand breaks down to a bag of rice a day eventually. Enjoy your stew.

Yeah, that's right, these people who will work for a bag of rice a day miraculously became skilled in a desert and neither they, their employers, or their society have any costs or capital to repay for all those years of development. And while they're working, they generate no demand despite being so productive, so we never have anything to sell to them and their countrymen in return, cuz they are all just sitting round on the desert floor churning out goods and services, but never consume anything themselves.

Lulz... dey tooks ar jabs! Quick, put me on a COLA-adjusted, non minimum, minimum wage!

 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:21 | 4803894 PT
PT's picture

In my town:  Minimum wage (after tax) = $500 per week.  Cheapest mortgage = $450 per week.
Tell me again, what is the problem?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:37 | 4803726 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Not sure I understand...you are self employed yet suggest as an employer you would be happy to pay $2/hr slave wage if you thought you could? If this is true, your opinion on this subject is worthless.

Anyone who has ever run a business, who has ever had employees, understands that their is little be gained by concentrating on the lowest wage. Business, those real business that compete and are not pets of the government, understand value. They seek the best employee for the money, just like you as a consumer of products seeks the best value for the money.

These arguments are stupid. In a real world we know how real markets work. As free individuals we should be able to negotiate our own wages to their maximum value. Instead we are told that we are simultaneously worth far more than we are earning yet too stupid to be able to fend for ourselves. In a real free market, those who bring the greatest value to the table will consistently be the winners. People who will not or cannot excel will stay at the bottom. Those who must be coerced to come to work on time and refuse to do anything requiring any skill or responsibility will never be anywhere else but the bottom. Yet our brave new world, that is constantly trying to redefine economic and social justice, will tell us that regardless of how little we do, or even if we refuse to do anything at all, we still DESERVE a safety net, a base living, a minimum wage.

Minimum wage jobs are an incredibly small portion of our employment stats, and it is questionable how many would possibly be helped by an increase...but we do know that those increases will telegraph throughout the entire wage chain, pushing up costs and eliminating even more jobs. Automation and technology are a direct response to these labor costs.

Liberals continue to remind us of how heartless we are to the plight of the poor, yet with every advance of their policies, the poor's plight becomes worse. Raise wages, reduced the number of employed, and those unemployed will enjoy the safety net that is used to remind us of how cruel and heartless our world is. Anyone can see us swirling about the drain now, and the left's only response is to flush more often.

This would be comical if not so dire. We see their "test cities" seemingly collapsing and they celebrate the very policies that brought them to this point. Detroit asking for federal money to tear down houses that taxpayers have already bailed out or otherwise paid for. Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws in the country and also some the highest gun crime, so their answer is more gun laws. We see the most terrible gun crimes occur in the communities with the strictest laws and in buildings and facilities with the strictest gun restrictions, yet no one will see any correlation, much less causation. Damn funny I say and so sad....

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 20:41 | 4803736 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

Another fine post Oldwood. Do mind sharing some of your background?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:42 | 4803949 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Self employed for forty or so years with between four and eight employees. We build high end custom furniture for many of the loved..and reviled people we discuss here every day.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:24 | 4803904 PT
PT's picture

If you're twice as good as the minimum wage worker, you're worth twice as much.  But twice fuck all is still fuck all.
And if your direct competitor is equally as good as you, then your worth is directly proportionate to HIS desperation. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 21:39 | 4803939 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

And that IS the market. You can try and place false wages on it but it will respond, usually not in a good way. Competition is organic, like a tree growing towards the sun. Every creature on this planet form the smallest to the largest, plant, animal or virus...competes. Those that don't perish.  What is it about this you do not understand?

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 01:36 | 4804534 PT
PT's picture

Oh, yes, no point in building a fire - You're supposed to freeze in winter.  There is no better way so don't even think about it.  

Why do the cheapest workers and the richest customers live in different countries?
If China decided to cut exports to zero and sell all production internally, would minimum wages have to go up?  Or down? 
Why is the US economy going down the gurgler?  Can't they just sell stuff to the Chinese, with their 1.3 billion workers and potential customers?

Lemme give you a hint.  The cheapest workers, no matter how hard they work, don't buy anything.  The minimum free-market wage is a bowl of rice / porridge and a bed on the factory floor.  So unless you're happy exchanging the fruits of your labour for grains of oatmeal, expect to see less customers wherever there is cheaper labour.  And don't forget the extortionate real estate prices biting your potential customers from the other end.

"That's all we can afford!  There is no better way!", howl the capitalists as they underpay their workers and drive each other's customers' incomes down to zero.

How many ways can I explain this?

Worker = customer.
If your worker is NOT someone else's customer THEN YOUR WORKER IS A SLAVE.

Your worker's ability to negotiate fair wages is dampened by hunger.  Without sufficient resistance to market forces, the minimum wage is a bowl of porridge and a bed on the factory floor.  Those people do not buy houses, cars, furniture, electronics etc etc etc  And as one factory closes, another gains excess people banging on its doors, wailing for jobs, all the while the capitalist inside urges those inside to work harder for less, as he can't sell as much as he used to "and there is no better way!!!!"

Thu, 05/29/2014 - 06:57 | 4804774 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Americans in the 1800's were the cheapest workers and the Europeans were the richest customers. However, with liberty, they were able to carve out lives, even empires by makng use of available resources to produce prostigious amounts of wealth. Big enough to play in the same game.

Many developing countries are doing the same. The opportunity exists. So, why is it going in reverse in America? One, we traded liberty for the State and coercion. We allowed the Elites to corner markets and eliminate competition through State influence and the law. We allowed corporations to socialize costs and called it infrastructure and jobs. We grew the State until it became bigger than the private sector in terms of costs and wages. The State created debt to a degree unseen in history and we cried for more. However, you think it has to do with minimum wages? 

Worker=producer Customer=consumer  If production is greater than consumption, you get wealthy. 

Tue, 06/03/2014 - 23:43 | 4822174 PT
PT's picture

and Worker = Customer.
Or don't your customers have jobs?

I agree that Wealth = ( Production greater than Consumption ).
That is why I welcome the robots and keep insisting that jobs don't matter.  We need production, not jobs.  (Ignoring for the moment that a large section of the population really are so stupid that they cannot handle free time, and even those of us who know how to handle free time would much rather the time plus a few dollars in our pockets.)

And after production comes distribution.  The capitalist down the street got himself a magic machine that lets one man do the job of ten.  He sacks 9 people.  For some reason the tenth person still works a 40 hour week on the same wages as before.  No-one ever thought to put ten people on 4 hours per week.  Your company produces ten widgets per week.  Now, instead of selling to ten employed people you have to sell them to one employed person and nine unemployed people.

No, hopefully the other nine get jobs elsewhere, operating machinery that also lets one man do the job of ten, and then we all end up ten times richer due to automation.  "Get jobs elsewhere"?  Why don't they just go to the bank, borrow a bucketload of money and build their own automatic factories that let one man do the job of ten?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:28 | 4803317 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Of course it's not supported by the past 30 years. The past 30 years have been nothing but inflationary everywhere.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:19 | 4803487 cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

Exactly, my point. Its not one in a million people who understand the effects of inflation. Everything for the past 100 years not 30 has been inflationary except what you are paid which adjusted for inflation has fallen for 30 years.

Wonder where the middle class went?

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:49 | 4803184 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Max K is an idiot.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 18:29 | 4803318 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

I am honestly shocked people still listen to that tool. 

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:59 | 4803231 yogibear
yogibear's picture

It's all relative. If the Federal Reserve continues to push massive inflation a billion dollars an hour might not be that much before long.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:45 | 4803166 BabylonDeer
BabylonDeer's picture

And what where you expecting with the skyrocketing prices? That the mass will just sit there and tight their belts? In consumer America? LOL

Free market bitches, costs go up.

Expect more populist bs in the future with the coming reset.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 19:04 | 4803441 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

It's a QE market. I agree with the populist bullshit.
To be politically against raising the minimum wage in the face of the Fed purposefully creating inflation is not going to be popular.  They should be arguing over who can raise it the most.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:48 | 4803182 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

If there is no downside to printing, then:

1)  Minimum wage should be 25$/hr with timely raises to 50$/hr

2)  Taxes should be abolished as unnecessary.

 

Just print moar.

Wed, 05/28/2014 - 17:52 | 4803202 Jlasoon
Jlasoon's picture

"Taxes should be abolished as unnecessary."

Exactly, "QE-Gigantum" should fix the problem.   

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!