This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Failed Moral Argument For A "Living Wage"
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
With Labor Day upon us, newspapers across the US will be printing op-eds calling for a mandated “living wage” and higher wages in general. In many cases, advocates for a living wage argue for outright mandates on wages; that is, a minimum wage set as an arbitrary level determined by policymakers to be at a level that makes housing, food, and health care “affordable.”
Behind this effort is a philosophical claim that employers are morally obligated to pay “a living wage” to employees, so they can afford necessities (however ambiguously defined) on a single wage, working forty hours per week. This moral argument singles out employers as the morally responsible party in the living wage equation, even though the variables that determine a living wage go far beyond the wage earned.
For example, as I discussed here, the living wage is a function not simply of the wage, but of the cost of housing, food, health care, transportation, and a myriad of other factors. Where housing costs are low, for example, the living wage will be lower than it would be in a place where housing costs are high.
So, what matters is not the nominal wage paid by the employer, but the real wage as determined by the cost of everything that a wage is used to purchase.
Why Is Only the Employer Responsible?
So, if it’s the real wage that matters, why is there a fixation on the nominal wage itself? After all, wages, in real terms, could be increased greatly by forcing down food costs and rents. So, why is there not a constant drum beat for grocers to lower their prices to make necessities affordable? Why are activists not picketing outside grocery stores for their high prices? Why are they not outside KB Homes headquarters for KB’s apparently inhumane efforts at selling homes at the highest prices that the market will bear? Why are people not picketing used car dealers for not lowering their prices to make transportation affordable for working families? And why are gas stations strangely exempted from protests over the high cost of gasoline? Certainly, all of these merchants are just as instrumental in determining real wages as any employer. Grocers, landlords, home sellers, and the owner of the corner gas station can put a huge dent in the family budget when they allow their “greed” to impel them to charge the highest prices they can get away with in the market place.
And yes, it’s true that plenty of activists regularly denounce landlords as “slumlords” or greedy capitalists for charging the highest rents the market will bear. And there are still plenty of activists who argue for price controls on rents and food. But they’re in a small minority nowadays. The vast majority of voters and policymakers recognize that government-dictated prices on food and housing lead to shortages. Setting a price ceiling on rents or home prices simply means that fewer housing units will be built, while setting a price ceiling on eggs, or milk or bread will simply mean that fewer of those staples will be brought to market.
Such assertions are barely even debated anymore, as can be seen in the near-extinction of new rent-control efforts in the political sphere. You won’t see many op-eds this Labor Day arguing for price controls on fruit, gasoline, and apartments. You won’t see any articles denouncing homeowners for selling their homes at the highest price they can get, when they really should be slashing prices to make homeownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers.
So, for whatever reason, homeowners, grocers, and others are exempt from the wrath of the activists for not keeping real wages low. The employers, on the other hand — those who pay the nominal wage — remain well within the sights of the activists since, for some arbitrary reason, the full moral obligation of providing a living wage falls on the employer.
Were food prices to go up by 10 percent in the neighborhood of Employer X, who is responsible? “Why, the employer, of course,” the living-wage activists will contend. After all, in their minds, it is only the employer who is morally obligated to bring up real wages to match or exceed an increase in the cost of living.
So while price controls on food, housing, and gasoline are generally recognized as a dead end, price controls on wages remain popular. The problem, of course, as explained here, here, here, and here, is that by setting the wage above the value offered by a low-skill worker, employers will simply elect to not hire low-skill workers.
A Low Wage Is Unacceptable, but a Zero Wage Is Fine
And this leads to the fact that when faced with high wages, employers will seek to replace employers with non-human replacements — such as these automated cashiers at McDonalds — or other labor-saving devices.
But this phenomenon is simply ignored by the living-wage advocates. Thus, the argument that employers are morally obligated to not pay low wages becomes strangely silent in the face of workers earning no wage at all.
Indeed, we see few attempts at passing laws mandating that employers hire human beings instead of machines. While it’s no doubt true that some neo-Luddites would love to see this happen, virtually no one argues that employers not be allowed to employ labor-saving devices. Certainly, anyone making such an argument is likely to be laughed out of the room since most everyone immediately recognizes that it would be absurd to pass laws mandating that a road builder, for example, hire people with shovels instead of using bulldozers and paving machines.
Meanwhile, successes by living-wage advocates in other industries — where automation is not as immediately practical — have only been driving up prices for consumer goods. Yes, living wages in food, energy, and housing sectors will squeeze profits and bring higher wages for those who luckily keep their jobs, but the mandates will also tend to raise prices for consumers. This in turn means that real wages in the overall economy have actually gone down, thanks to a rising cost of living.
All in all, it’s quite a bizarre strategy the living-wage advocates have settled on. It consists of raising the prices of consumer goods via increasing labor costs. Real wages then go down, and, at the same time, many workers lose their jobs to automation as capital is made relatively less expensive by a rising cost of labor. While the goal of raising the standard of living for workers and their families is laudable, it’s apparent that living wage advocates haven’t exactly thought things through.
»
- 46096 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
If the whole world was to be on the standard of living as the United States the global resources would be depleted in short time..... Not a good idea.
by what unit of measure i might ask
, as if i did not know.
More resources have been wasted becuase of Central banking, and Central planning misapropreating capital and creating huge bubbles of debt while relying on constant consumer expansion to fund increasing large governments. Big government and more laws are not the answer, and the lower standard pverty stricken couldn't give a rats ass about natural resources or the environment. A race to the bottom social engineering will make it worse.
Do you have any idea of the amount of resources dissolved in the ocean? At this time it is uneconomical (except for things like NaCl) to extract.
We have plenty of resources. What we need is cheap energy.
http://protonboron.com/portal/
"If the whole world was to be on the standard of living as the United States the global resources would be depleted in short time..... Not a good idea."
Not quite. There is no means of giving the world that standard of living fo the US - as it is only gained for the US by ripping off the entire globe by leaning on "their" Reserve Currency status. In short, gained through connivance, and we can't all be equally good at conning each other.
Besides, the US standard of living is collapsing anyway. Conns, like everything else, work...until they don't.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
Really? American standard of living is collapsing because TPTB has transferred fiat/resources to china. 1.2 trillions worth.
I agree actually. That's happened more recently. But wages haven't grown in the US in real terms since the 70s. Thank Nixon for that - and the undue spending practices that led to the money printing that drove the US off the gold standard for good.
Of course shipping the bulk of the US' industry overseas didn't help, but having done that and still trying to maintain the standard of living at the same level is what I was referring to in "the conn".
That's unravelling now - hence the world tensions, currency wars etc.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
Soon to have american ghost cities, only we used them first.
(Detroit model)
This article is wrong on so many levels. That "living wage" has been called the Minimum Wage for a long time. The problem is, the crowd in Washington never let it keep up with inflation. Just like Social Security has never kept up. So people end up starving or, just as the "masters" want, work more hours just to keep up with inflation and keep a roof over their heads, while the "masters" reap the massive rewards of someone else's labor. Typical master-slave mentality that humans have always lived under...well, at least since the Egyptians or Babylonians.
There will never be any advancement in humans as a species until this paradigm is thrown in the dustbin on history.
The "advancement in humans as a species" will not come from social justice being rained down upon us by our betters.
It will come in the form of the masses developing a higher level of intuitive knowledge that they are being fucked over, coupled with a hightened desire to wreak bloody carnarge on the perpetrators.
Anything less is not an advancement in humans as a species, only a social advancement in the cultural dealings of the price setters.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
This article is wrong on so many levels. That "living wage" has been called the Minimum Wage for a long time. The problem is, the crowd in Washington never let it keep up with inflation. Just like Social Security has never kept up. So people end up starving or, just as the "masters" want, work more hours just to keep up with inflation and keep a roof over their heads, while the "masters" reap the massive rewards of someone else's labor. Typical master-slave mentality that humans have always lived under...well, at least since the Egyptians or Babylonians.
There will never be any advancement in humans as a species until this paradigm is thrown in the dustbin on history.
No one seems to see the endpoint that is approaching. When the economy is fully cybernetic (100 years? 200?) the age-old relationship between wages and labor will have been shattered.
The only question is what happens between now and then. When will the right (libertarians, conservatives, other assorted misanthropes) stop resisting the inevitable, and abandon the bullshit idea that rich people "earn" their money, and that poor people are just lazy and ought to get off their asses?
When will socialists and other fantasists abandon the bullshit idea that any collection of Humans will save their sorry asses from another collection of Humans?
Who said economics is a dismal science?
yes thats why CBS reports
The surging ranks of America's ultrapoor http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-americas-ultrapoor/and LA Times reports 13,000 become homless in a month in LA. Keep it up, America! Without the middle class buying useless garbage, US is gonna be fucked up very very soon.
Sure, the argument for living wage is failed. Keep it up, USA and soon you will have hordes of poor fuckers who got nothing to lose.
Yet another Libertarian BS garbage on ZH. sometimres I still wonder why i still visit this place.
I'm sure that those hordes of uber poor can qualify for upwards of 70k in various benefits. That's more than most Americans make in any given year. The system is operating the way it was designed. The Proletariat get to eat the Bourgeoisie's lunch and if they don't like it, they;ll be hounded and stripped of even more of their earnings and rights to defend their rights. The 1% support this egalitarian paradigm as long as they can maintain their privileged status. If that should change, then it's a short step to nationalization of most if not all private property. The Proletariat own everything. A new .01% emerge in that event, and they work for us, they are of the State. History is rhyming if not repeating.
Ever wonder why they only raise the minimum wage to levels that only affect a small percentage of the country (typically low-single-digits)? Or why they stagger it over a few years so that it gives inflation time to catch up? How about the fact that none of the advocates for a higher minimum wage in Congress or the Senate pay their interns what they're proposing (if they pay them at all)? Or, why the only senator dumb enough to propose $15 an hour waited until he had a 0% chance of getting it passed to propose it for the first time (it would have been much, much easier with the Democratic majority they had in 2009)?
Hint: See the section of this post about robots.
It's because Congress is owned by the rich and their proxies, the corporations.
I may have wondered once, but not for long... the answer is too obvious.
This is also why neither the right nor the left will fix immigration. They dont' want border controls; capitalism requires a steady supply of desperate poor people.. until we have perfected machine labor, at which point capital will not need people at all.
Labor market for low-skill jobs is Global. Market for housing and some other "cost of living" things is local. Mises Institute writes the same 2 or 3 dogmatic, condescending articles over and over again.
The FED needs inflation. Are they finally realizing inflation is not rising prices, but rising wages?
The Federal Reserve needs another heroin fix to maintain their status quo.
Inflation is not rising prices or rising wages, but rising currency supply. The others are merely symptoms that inflation has already occurred.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
Inflation refers to price inflation (rising prices). Monetary inflation is increased currency supply. Monetary inflation, among other things, drives price inflation.
Price inflation can exist absent monetary inflation.
I understand the term inflation is used to describe rising prices. It's poor terminology though. Want proof? It's in the etymology of the word. They are literally inflating the money supply with inflation ie there's more in the economy than before.
How do you inflate a price? How do you have more "in it" than before? You can't - it's jargon, and sloppy jargon at that.
The confusion has been brought about through common usage - but that doesn't make it right - just more muddled thinking.
I agree that price rises can occur without monetary inflation though. All the more reason to point out that it's not the same thing occurring.
Leads to greater clarity of thought.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
Only when true demand is greater than true supply.
PM paper is a good example. Lightweight , portable, Mostly multi margined on a pad device, and a future bet can be made.
No one is taking physical delivery now because there is too much physical around for the physical demand. Prices continue to decrease.
Physical gold retail premiums , I understand, there should be some mark up for the beautiful coins and cute little bars, and you know the retailer's mark on chains is above 200%.
I get it, but gold paper demand is manipulated low, with physical delivery getting slower and slower.
Silver, please,if someone has an Idea, it ain't me.
But I do Know this, the more dollars they print, the more dollars it costs and the less it is worth.
This is the basis of my thought process on the fact that oil is being given away these past few months, yet there is poor demand , poor enough to keep the price low.
Commodities are someone's Hedge somehow and any sort of detail escapes me.
Wheel barrow of reichsmarks is the clear enough example of the rule.
A loaf of bread hasn't changed, but something else sure has.
Who needs a moral argument when you can simply get Yellen to go up your FAFSA.
A living wage from employers is a bit of a daft idea and will accelerate labour to capital substitution. However, the idea of a 'positive tax' payment to cover basic neccessities is interesting from both an economic and community participation perspective and has been trailed in a number of countries. In a world with increased fragemented and casual work this enables people to respond to these opportunities while being able to house and feed themselves. I get sick of the vile attitude of those that want to crush fellow citizens into poverty. Whilst there are freeloaders in terms of welfare there are also exploitative and greedy employers.
Agreed Nexus 789 - but the solution to corruption brought about through end game Capitalism ie Fascism, isn't Socialism or Communism. It's correctly practiced capitalism by new players at the local level.
Once we lose the provincial, we lose the greater as well. Collectivising, whether under Socialism or Capitalism doesn't work. You need better local representation, not just in the political sphere, but in the economic one as well.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
Fuck the living wage, which is nothing more than government mandated labor rates to satisfy the potentially rioting masses.
So here are the new rules assholes:
If you do not like communism, fucking move to Russia.
If you do not want to pay a "living wage", fire your existing employees and leave. Fuck 'em. they were losers anyway.
If you are communist and demand a living wage whether it is economically supportable or not, put a gun to your fucking head and pull the trigger. Give us the fucking pleasure of your due departure. The GDP should rise after you are gone anyway.
After all of the above, the communist government fucks will change their simple minds when the tax revenues sink to shit status and look for economic development consultants.
Call me when they wake up.
Lastly, if you truly need love, go fuck yourself.
Love and leather lashes, Alexa
You need some anger management / CBT
Major C.H. Douglas figured much of this stuff out prior to WW2.
The living wage community ought to go back and review his works. The "Gap" is comprised of waste in production process and usury paid to bankers. That gap is overcome in pricing system, so labor can buy their output. Pricing system has injections of direct spend, so that means the money system has to change. Douglas allowed private banks, but they were usually 100 perecent reserve. Exogeneous money had to be pumped into the system to cover the gap formed between prices and costs.
This exogenous money would be sovereign greenback type money. Douglas didn't discuss how to recover it, but the obvious answer is through rent taxes. All taxes should land on unearned income, or rents. Capitalism will always try to maintain that "capital" is dominant in the production system, but any examination of reality proves capital is only one factor.
The factors are earth and its minerals, labor, and machines. All economic output includes earth and its energy and its minerals. These elements are fashioned by labor and machines to produce goods and services. Capital as money is only one part of the entire production process, and in reality the dominant factor is earth. Capital as money allows labor, machines and earth to coordinate in order to produce goods/services. But, capital especially private capital takes for its right to exist - it is an elaborate rent scheme, with compounding usury and improper vectoring.
The earth is free.. a gift upon birth to humanity, from God. Or Natures God to those who are athiests, but there is no denying that the earth, its flux energy from the sun, and its gifts are free.
These gifts are enclosed by Capital, to then take rents.
If the future is automated, and labor has no way to make prices, then capital will enclose land and claim dominance. Capitalism is thus hoisted on its own petard, a failed system.
In the past, capitalism always managed to somewhat mitigate its failure, usually though political force redistributions. Communism is another form - super capitalism, where an oligarchy controls prices, production and distribution.
To my mind, capitalism can be repaired by 1) Sovereign Money 2) Direct Injections into price system and households 3) Rent taxes
1) returns money to a wealth form rather than private credit. This type of money is then taxed and pumped, creating velocity, so consumers can buy. It can also scientifically flux relative to goods and services so as to prevent inflation.
2) Direct injection into price system to cover the gap. There is no question that industry trys to recover in prices, their full costs including waste, and hence labor cannot buy their output. This puts people on a treadmill and they have to go into "debt." By injecting into price system, or into households, stops this usury mechanism.
3) Rent taxes. Humans are rent seeking animals. They will take rents in the forms of prices in order to get a free lunch. Other schemes abound... Our Jewish friends have been doing it for thousands of years typically via the money system, and any other group will do it too if they can get away with it. Monopoly actions by corporations are another example of an in group doing extractions via rent seeking.
Money isn't going away, and money/prices is the distribution scheme modern humans have chosen. So, take your pick, redistribute via political force or resdistribute via prices and money.
Distribution via prices and money and returning gifts of earth to its rightful owners is the one best way as discovered by Douglas. Gift economies prior to invention of money prevented in- group and oligarchy formations, usually by ostracising or ejecting rent seekers. Rent taxes are an analog to gift economy behavior. Humans evolved in gift economies, and solved interpersonal problems through evolutionary methods, sometimes with elaborate rituals. The invention of money (capital) has altered man's evolution to become predatory in class warfare finance warfare, and military warfare. On the plus side, money allows division of labor to thus produce goods/services at a higher rate of efficiency.
Keep the good, and fix the bad.
After an "appropriate" minimum wage, then comes the "appropriate" maximum wage...
Maximum wage, but not for everyone.
All people are equal, but some are more equal than others....
This has actually been tried. Queen Elizabeth 1 with the Statute of Artificers in 1562 is one example. Looks like a pretty shitty deal.
August 1971, Richard Nixon, wage and price controls. There is no end to the "control" thing once you start.
Idiot socialists.
eg PMs as currency are also required to eliminate built in inflation.
The above statement is nonsense, and not backed by historical reality.
Let's see: Gold worked in Hanseatic league, but they had to recall it periodically and re-cast it, to thus prevent hoarding. Sounds like "law and force" to me.
In Venice PM worked, but it was forced to enter the state bank ledger, and then was respent into wages, thus forcing it into circulation. But, most money was ledger money, and had low friction.
Gold and Silver had exchange rate differences that were exploited, especially by our Jewish friends in the East West Caravan routes. They took the exchange rate difference as a form of piracy, in effect steaiing the labor value as the Silver drained from West to East, and Gold drained East to West.
When the Jews were kicked out of England circa 1100 they were allowed to take their gold and silver with them, and hence money supply collapsed. England then had to increase use of tally sticks as issued by government to compensate. This worked well for 600 years, longer than the U.S. has existed. This type of money was actually a threat to gold/silver usury capitalism and is one reason England was attacked by Orange Kings to then install private bank of England in 1694.
Britian became a Gold center, yet had no natural supplies. How is that? She took it through the usury mechanism as Credit rode on top of Gold in a 10 to 1 ratio. With engineered depressions, Gold would be harvested from the population to pay credit debts.
Or, England just made Navy ships and rammed Spanish galleons, to then take precious gems minerals, gold and silver by force.
Or, how about the Spanish enslaving millions of Amerindians to then work the mines. These amerindians then decided to stop breeding because their life circumstances had become so apalling.
Silver and gold then inflated Spanish economy, and all of Spanish doomed citizens walked around thinking they were rich because they had shiny metal in their pockets. Oh wait, eveybody keeps saying PM is not inflationary. Doomed spanish civilization shrank to nothing because they thought money was wealth. When in reality wealth is goods services and labors abilty to extract from the earth.
Rome moved away from Bronze law money (fiat) to PM's after second Punic war. It is no accident an oligarchy formed and Rome's began her descent into dark ages.
Dark ages were really the greatest depression, where PM's were consecrated to the vaults, and land owners enclosed all the land. No money and land was enclosed. Go back and read my previous post on how wealth is created from land, labor, machines and capital.
Bad thinking has civilizational destroying consequences.
Why is it too hard for people to go back and look at the ACTUAL HISTORY of money systems, rather than pulling it out of their ass and imagining things that are not so?
Imagining and fantasy are not good thinking, and can lead to disaster.
Franklin's Philadelphia Colony had bank loans based on 8 year notes, and the principle and usury were divided into 8 increments. So, debt instrument did not make exponential claims. The colony spent the extra interest needed into the supply by vectoring it into the commons on bridges and ports and the like to then allow improved commerce. This would be a good credit system with good path for its money. There were no rents in this system as the usury fluxed into the loan, and then was spent back out again in a loop.
In this way, CREDIT AS MONEY, was repaired and worked well. Franklin was very monetarily astute, and he was not a Gold Bug. Franklin's colony had full employment, and Franklin mentioned that it was probably the happiest place on earth up to that time. Rentiers (usually merchants) in the colony, who had previously tried to corner markets and PM gold supply, had to return to their former Atlantic shipping trade as they were denied their free lunch. Real competition soon arrived and hence lower costs of living.
Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the statement. PMs, by their very nature do eliminate built in inflation. By simple fact theat they are rare and cannot be printed at will. Inflation can happen due to such things as piracy (your example of the English vs Spanish) or deflation (as in Spain via the collapsing mining of gold by Ameriindians). In all cases however it requires a physical intervention into the money supply to bring about change. Not just a printer's whim as is the case for fiat currencies.
That a PM based system is not perfect is not the point. No system is. Sound money cannot be guarranteed no matter what humans may try - as we will always have more than our fair share of shifty fucks trying to undermine the rest of us. But a money supply that cannot be printed goes a hell of a long way as a start.
Having said that, money is not wealth - I'll give you points for that. It acts - if it is sound - as a store of wealth ie wealth in potentia. There is a difference between financials and economics.
I was only discussing the financial side with my comment - you seem to be blending both for your argument.
A mountain of gold and silver will not help you if there are no goods or services to purchase with them. So a partial agreement with your statement, but I dispute that "The above statement is nonsense, and not backed by historical reality". PMs as currency may bring their own particular problems, but they do "eliminate built in inflation." Sorry if facts and not convoluted tales upset you.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
You contend inflation is increased currency supply, but also contend PMs eliminate built in inflation. Yet, gold and silver supply has increased significantly over time. By your definition of inflation, PMs as currency would exhibit inflation. You can't print PMs, but you can dig them out of the ground.
Don't mistake what I'm saying as advocating so-called fiat or equating printing fiat with mining PMs. I'm not. I'm just saying the currency supply would be continuously increasing if PMs were currency (monetary inflation).
BTW, as I pointed out in an earlier response, your definition of inflation is not correct. What you call inflation is monetary inflation. The generic term inflation refers to price inflation. Almost everyone agrees on that terminology. As stated earlier, price inflation can exist absent monetary inflation.
I agree that gold and silver supply has significantly increased over time - but not in relation to their demand. That's how they have kept their value - for thousands of years mind you - and are thus a good store of wealth. And yes, we can dig more out of the ground - but not readily so ie they are rare. So rare that despite the fact that we mine the hell out of them they don't decrease in value, so no "price rises" when checked against PMs is occurring. Fluctuations, yes - permanent price rises - no.
Fiat currencies or digital currencies as they are becoming by comparisson can be magicked up by whim. It's the overabundance of the money supply that is recognised as inflation, not just a greater money supply. Its all to do with supply meeting demand, not surpassing it.
As for the price inflations comment - see my response above.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
Except you miss the point that the face value of PMs issued as coinage has always been well above the actual value of acquisition by governments/monarchs.
Rome when through it's period of decline was continually debasing the value of it's gold, silver, and copper coinage.
Not at all. As I said before sound money can't be guarranteed. But today you can check the validity of PMs, so watering them down on a large scale won't wash. And it didn't back then either. The people were quite aware that the new coins weren't up to scratch with the old. Another reason that undermined the people's support for the empire.
Money printing has a price, whether paper, electronic or through PM debasement. My point is that only sound money works long term.
Enjoyed the read this point ...
"There were no rents in this system as the usury fluxed into the loan, and then was spent back out again in a loop."
Think thermodynamics and perpetual motion machines.
If the FED or any other puts money into the economy, if it flows out of the nation it breaks the loop and if it is hoarded it stems the flow in the loop making it appear less. Some things speed up the flow like increasing telecommunications speed but without restriction on the 2 points it enabled even more to exit the loop or even larger amounts to be hoarded. We are now in the phase of no longer being able to support the speed of flow and the only policy the FED has left is to keep injecting liquidity into the system but it will cost more and more to keep it all going.
It fails because it does not tackle the 2 issues for your loop so you are guaranteed to end up where you started albeit with a larger debt level to serivce and that is the cost. I say service because noone has any intention of paying this debt EVER, we are way past that fantasy.
yes, yes... Pay high school drop outs 70k a year to flip burgers at McDonalds so rich socialists can feel better about themselves and their 2 million dollar, 2 bedroom San Fransico condo. Free Teslas for everyone!
Repeal the entirety of the welfare state, obamacare, and disband the batfe, the epa, nlrb, doe, doe, irs, bureau of Indian affairs, nsa, and dept of commerce, and we can start talking about "living wages." Whatever the **** that is.
The left/right paradigm is a way to lead the unwary around by the nose. A bull with a ring in his nose can be easily maneuvered.
It is not left/right...it is right/wrong.
A good parasite will trick the brain into thinking it is important. The parasite can make the host think parastie is good for the host. A really clever parasite can make host walk and talk and even drink water and nourish parasite, even to hosts detriment if necessary.
Socialism that rewards government workers with pay/beneifts is a rent seeking mechanism ... it is easy to see and overt which is why people get bent out of shape. Much more evil though, is that which is hidden from view.
The sneaky covert rental parasites do it through pricing schemes. They slip their hands into your pockets and steal your labor energy and transfer to themselves, a form of free lunch.
Anybody with eyes can see that humanity is much more productive than in the past, yet wages are stagnant and free time is less. Why is that?
Shouldn't greater efficiencies lead to greater freedom and more time?
Perhaps most of you who are being lead around by the nose, should start looking at the money system especially and also at rentiiers. Leftists who advocated that their forced redistribution via politics cannot lead to rents, ought to examine their positon. They are wrong.
People on the right who think that money is magic, and markets are magic, and everything can self regualate are equally wrong.
There is only one best path forward, and that is through the money and price system. Rents and unearned uneconomic overhead should be eliminated to the extent possible.
Stop being dupes pulled around by a nose ring. The parasites want you to think a certain way, so they can steal from you without your knowing.
The pendulum swings seeking equilibrium. Currently the balance is in favour of those holding power. This too shall pass.
CEO pay is of greater multiples of base worker pay than sustainable or morally acceptable.
House prices are of greater multiples of annual pay than previously, higher than their materials and labour costs combined.
The scales will rebalance.
Marx’s class struggle plays out.
1920s - high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes on the wealthy (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
1970s – low inequality, worker and union power, high taxes on the wealthy (proletariat in the ascendency) (the unions were much stronger in the UK)
2000s – high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes on the wealthy (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
2015 - the re-emergence of the Left (Bernie Sanders US - Jeremy Corbyn UK)
Excessive power in the hands of the Proleteriat or Bourgoisie allows them to become dangerous and they destroy themselves through their own greed and lust for power.
Due to the limited power of the Proleteriat they are less dangerous.
Global recessions follow the ascendancy of the Bourgeoisie and Wall Street crashes (1929/2008).
Our leaders do not care for those at the bottom of society.
What they have noticed is the collapse in global demand highlighted by the collapse in commodities (the stuff that products are made of).
Capitalism, in its more benign form, works well for all, but this involves redistribution from the rich to the poor to combat its inherent trickle up effect.
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
This redistribution also used to involve allowing workers to benefit from increased profits with pay rises.
Now those at the top take all, with high pay at the top; dividend distributions to shareholders and stagnating wages for the majority.
The 1% are destroying Capitalism through their own greed.
The minimum wage is an attempt to offset the greed of the 1% and get Capitalism functioning again.
Marx’s class struggle plays out.
1920s - high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes on the wealthy (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
1970s – low inequality, worker and union power, high taxes on the wealthy (proletariat in the ascendency) (the unions were much stronger in the UK)
2000s – high inequality, high banker pay, low taxes on the wealthy (bourgeoisie in the ascendency)
2015 - the re-emergence of the Left (Bernie Sanders US - Jeremy Corbyn UK)
Excessive power in the hands of the Proleteriat or Bourgoisie allows them to become dangerous and they destroy themselves through their own greed and lust for power.
Due to the limited power of the Proleteriat they are less dangerous.
Global recessions follow the ascendancy of the Bourgeoisie and Wall Street crashes (1929/2008).
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all provide a life of leisure and luxury with someone else doing all the work.
Feudalism - exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism - exploit the masses through wealth
The system itself provides for the idle rich.
The entitlement culture started at the top and has worked its way down.
"The entitlement culture started at the top and has worked its way down."
Always does during a culture's democratic phase. That's one of the reasons they end up in Tyranny - the masters end up having to physically beat the prols to get them to work again.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
-Victor von Doom
You would think Austrian Aristocrats like Hayek would be only too aware of the idle rich in Europe.
Did they just come up with a set of ideas based on their own self-interest?
Hayek was the idle rich, although his resume is a great deal better than most.
First borns were the hereditary entitled to the family wealth, second and lesser sons had to make their own way, often as warriors. This was common European practice, even at the turn of the century.
Royal Europe solved many of it's problems in the first and second millennia by warfare against the evil du jour, with the help of plague and low birth/ high general mortality rates.
Self serving? We all are.
why not take the minimum wage to its logical progression ---> unconditional basic income
for what will the unwashed masses do when their jobs become automated?
perhaps the eugenicists get the last laugh this time around, affirming the economic system's continued dependency on hydrocarbons as a primary energy and product component resource.
a non-Republican President may delay the seemingly inevitable by weeks to months, but a President Trump will assure that any agreements made in NY + Paris this year re: climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies will be delayed for implementation or rescinded by executive order.
Trump says he knows how to surround himself with good, smart people. one should question that judgement when evaluating previous proclamations, such as the following:
We're all fucked anyways so might as well go out with a bang and not a whimper. Trump for President !!!! :-PAwww.....how cute. Somebody out there is still stupid enought to believe in global warming.....er....sorry, i mean.....climate change. Blame it on republicans all you want buddy, blame it on capitalism too, but the real greed in in the hands of the phony snake oil hucksters (democrats, communists, profressives. Et al) who make this crap up so THEY can have a paycheck all the while killing millions of jobs in energy production, transportation, mining, etc. etc. they are the real problem. And you socialist lazy asses who have 10 weeks of vacation every year and work 30 hours a weeks feed this crap to the rest of the world. The only problem we have is nobody wants to actually earn an honest living anymore. Everyone wants something for nothing (credit). Well, we are about to see just how well your eurofaggot keynesian works. Starting....right now. capitalism, when truly left alone works quite well in a free market where real price discovery is allowed to occur. When this happens all resources seek out their optimum efficient utilization. When markets ara bastardized like they are now from printing money, they break down and become corrupt. The masses will soon have no faith in these markets and liquidity will dry up via a lack of buyers and sellers and many of the "wealthy" will get their clocks cleaned. That is happening now in China, Japan, soon Europe and the US. Who is to blame? Conservatives, liberals? No. The political class. Period. Communists.
you're fucked and you don't even know it
Why not take the warmist's worldview to its logical conclusion and they kill themselves. Every last one. For the planet.
The models don't work. The theory makes no falsifiable claims. It is not a scientific theory. The fact that humans are a warming influence does not prove that the warming that is taking place is due to our influence.
Even if the warmists turn out to be right (the jury is out on that) their religious, McCarthyist, anti-rational fervor will never have been justified. As Lincoln said in 1848, “I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.”
Any movement that calls its opponents "deniers" is not scientific.
What is the opposite of a "denier," if not a "believer?"
Also, it's going to be very hard to persuade people that climatologists know what they're talking about, as the Earth continues to cool for the next 35 years, due to reduced solar activity not unlike the Maunder Minimum. Perhaps by mid-century, the climatologists will have abandoned their propaganda and created climate models that work, and then we can get down to something serious.
stopthejunkposts
You're mostly right. But here's what's wrong:
Capitalism was always going to end like this, because of its fundamental premise, which is that property is sacrosanct.
Capitalism = property matters more than people. (This makes it an inequality engine.)
Socialism = people matter more than property (and thus progressive taxation is justified)
The perfection of capitalism, and its ultimate goal, is to be free of labor entirely. It will accomplish this through technology. This trend has been in place for 100s of years: the industrial revolution, tractors, machines, computers and finally AI.
You could not save capitalism unless you arrested technological progress. Capitalism is a stepping stone to something better. It wasn't necessary for humanity to have capitalism in order to have technology -- but that's the route history took, and now we are stuck with it until it exhausts itself. I'd say within the next 100 to 150 years, the premise "you must work to eat" will fall apart completely since there is no work for humans, and at that point, ownership will not matter, because all consumption will be subsidized, and all production will be automated.
Living wage, minimum wage ... A CENTRAL BANKER POLICY TOOL not for your benefit.
Minimum wage, living wage are a baseline in society raise the baseline on income and the baseline on costs that is housing, food, energy etc. all raise by the same %.
The UK in the next 4 years as per Chancellor Osborne (conservative) is to chase the living wage by 2020 through a 20% increase in the minimum wage to this livable wage. This ensure Carney does not have to CTRL-P the value allowing the growth to come from this other area to support the sovereign debt.
Here is the bit they do not figure, took their eyes off the ball all those on 10% more than this living wage will without a real increase in business be pulled into this living wage group. So they will at the same time be expanding the number on this living wage level rather dramatically (more by the magnitude of the % increas) and if businesses can pay no more then that will be the way it will be.
Then consider wether you earn $10 or $100 dollars an hour is kind of pointless the main issue on this is that by exapnding the number on the living wage (just maintainable cost of living) you stagnated your economy because an ever increasing number of the population cannot support growth.
RECOGNISE THE MINIMUM WAGE / LIVING WAGE FOR WHAT IT IS not for the pretence it helps the poorest they will be in exactly the same position after it is implemented as they were before. If anything YOU may be joining them as explained above.
Of all the people on the planet that DO NOT NEED a LIVING Wage its Americans
Most are idiots that dont'even deserve 50 cents an hour.
And a nation that are bullies and warmongering murderers of INNOCENT people around the globe dont' deserve anything but a gigantic karmic kick in the ass.
Pay them a DYING wage,, the less warmongering Ameritrash on this planet the better
Especially the morons who bash unions and believe that employers ''care'' about their employees.
alfred," he less warmongering Ameritrash on this planet the better"..I think we kinda knew all your posts were to do harm to us ameritrash..now go fuck off. you be the idiot who cannot seperate .gov from the serfs who are ruled.
Can't we be generous and set aside some of the playground for the umm...slow kids to play in?
Really? what's the harm?
You're seriously mental and crying out. Were you traumatized as a child or something? Dollars to donuts you don't even have a job because nobody will hire you, iisn't that it?
Your pain bleeds on ZH and that's OK. Just don't go hurting yourself or others.
Based on your misanthropic comment, your background check for a firearm permit is denied.
Please report to the nearest euthenasia center at your earliest convenience.
If we can find a way to share the burden of work, and automate the production, we can all work, say, 2 hours/week more or less.
$15 an hour for some meth head to screw up my big Mac order? Fuck off. Bring in the machines.
LOL, @ the Burger King Economist, If you don't give me my $5.00 burger for free, I will replace you with a $10,000 dollar machine or computer that will, well not really. How is this any different than the welfare queen that believes food originates in the supermarket? You know there isn't a machine or robot that stamps burgers out of cows don't you? This isn't the Simpsons, someone has to actually raise and feed the cow, someone has to grow the feed, someone has to butcher the cow, they probably do have a machine to shape the burger but with a technichen that has to keep the machine running and working properly. Then the burger must be stored by someone on a forklift before it is put on a truck driven by someone else, where it is unloaded by someone else. I suppose all of those people are "meth Heads" also? You are part and parcel of the war on the middleclass, unwittingly obviously. You are a "conditioned" moron.
Really? You do know that self driving trucks and fork lifts are already here.
Experimental and extremely expensive, and not likely to make the transition into real life, Hell they can't even make a train automated, and thats on rails. If you cut off a computer controlled semi wieghing 80,000 pounds, you and your family will not survive. the risk and cost are not viable. They look good on papper, and make for nice pictures, but no.
Try to think ahead.
How long do you think it will be before machines do ALL of the things you mentioned?
50 years? 500?
Do you really only care about things that happen in your lifetime?
Never happen, despite all the engineers, programmers, and Keynesian economist, economies are about people, not balance sheets, governments or technology, no people? no production/consumption, robots do not consume, so robots effectively wipe out businesses, sure they will try it, and there are absolutely great uses for robots, but they will not replace a production worker/consumer. Do I care about what happens beyond my life time? Well yes, in fact I care enough to know that if we do not stop Fukushima and the military's use of DU, humanity will likely not exist in 500 years.
I thought we already had it - it's called the earned income tax credit.
Every coin has 2 sides, every sword has 2 edeges. Here are points that must be taken into consideration, now I focus on USA.
The most intractable part of the current financial crisis, and the ongoing problem of the US economy is the huge tax which is levied on the American public by its corporations, primarily in the financial and health care sectors, and a political system based on lobbyists and their campaign contributions.
There are hidden taxes and impediments to ‘free trade’ at every turn. The ugly truth is that capitalism-in-practice hates free markets, always seeking to overturn the rules and impose oligopoly if not outright monopoly through barriers to entry, manipulation of the political process, distortion of regulation, predatory pricing, brute force, and the usual slate of anti-trust practices.
Some of these ‘hidden taxes’ are the bonuses on Wall Street which require an increasing percentage of the financial ‘action.’ The credit cards fees and penalties levied by banks to support profits in a contracting economy. The Sales General & Administrative portion of the Income Statements of the pharmaceutical industry which only American consumers seem willing to pay. A health care system which is a monument to overspending, outrageous pricing, and greed.
The notion that “if only government would not regulate markets at all everything would be fine” is a variation of Rousseau’s romantic notion of the noble savage which no one believes except those who wish to continue to act like savages, and those who get no closer to the real work of an economy than their textbooks. Economic Darwinism works primarily to the advantage of the sharks. Anyone who believes that ‘no regulations’ works well has never driven on a modern highway at peak periods.
Yes, a certain portion of the population are adult, and generally good and fair. But there is a percentage of the population that is not. And since the 1980’s they have been encouraged by the culture of relativism and greed to ‘express themselves’ and so they have, with a vengeance.
it's easy...just figure out where wages / profits are too high and then redistribute that to where wages are too low.
;-)
The west is just a fascist non-free market, portrayed to be free and for the average joe who dreams to climb up that invisible fucking ladder.
There is no such thing as a "free market," and if there were, none of us would survive it.
OT but i see a technical chart thats hard to ignore
9-day candle sp500, bolinger bands breaking out of keltner channels next week
last time this happened in 2008 sp500 fell 50%
The discussion on the living wage will go on in the future , tremendous changes are about to happen . The age of the Robots is just starting and already there are jobs lost in cooking food , waitressing , and prostitution . More applications of robots are discovered as time goes by . And the next paradign shift is Three Dimesional printing , this will ,without doubt , revolutionalize the factory production line .
How will the government cope with the masses of unemployed that no longer have a hope of a living wages ? How the government cope with the factory production efficiency going over the roof and the costs of production nearly eliminated ?
Will the governments engage in wars to eliminate the unemployed ?
What is the future of the " useless eaters " ? By definition the poor with menial jobs or unemployed ? But not the useless eaters with money and connections ?
Famine, Pestilence, War, and...
Armies of Roombas scouring the land collecting meatbags to turn into fertilizer.
Tax the machines. Eliminate the illegal tax on labor. Fund the government by taxing the imports. Follow the constitution(s). Eliminate the crooked Fed and its unconstitutional debt money. Those things would go along way to making life good for the people.
"And this leads to the fact that when faced with high wages, employers will seek to replace employers with non-human replacements — such as these automated cashiers at McDonalds — or other labor-saving devices."
Come-on! They'll do that anyway. They'll even take the jobs abroad anyway if you let them.
All in all, what the author can't bear is the idea of better living standards for the poor in the USA. In this country, everyone wants to be somebody eles's rich neighbor, and that is because this country doesn't value knowledge, beauty, history or happiness. The only thing this country values is wealth. This is a place where a man is judged by how much "he's worth" - as if the amount one holds in one's bank account could be any measure of a human being's worth...
By that incredibly low-brow and inverted standard, Al Capone, who could barely read, was a saint and for instance, the exquisite ancient China philosopher Laozi, who was poor, or the painter Van Gogh, who ended up in dire poverty, were only bums.
If 'Murika doesn't raise its standards fast, it will be more and more despised on the world stage as a country of morons and self-complacent ignoramuses.
See Donald Trump for an illustration of what I'm saying. Or Obama. Or Hillary Clinton. Or George W. Bush. Or yet even worse, Jeb.
Government dictated prices don't work. They just cause pain. Period.
The "poor" in America live better than 95% of the rest of the world.
I'm betting you don't donate >$0.00 to charitable causes year after year.
"The "poor" in America live better than 95% of the rest of the world."
Bullshit.
And even if it were true (which it isn't) it's no excuse for refusing to fix the inequality problem, which is completely tractable.
We need more streetcorner rap 'artists'.
That will save us for sure.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2011/12/30/a-healthcare-list/
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-11-13/how-mcdonald-s-and-wal-...
This simply means = take money from one working class man as tax a give it to another working class guy for keeping social peace and security for corporate profit. Amen. So why we doing this? Yep, minimum wage is stupid idea as welfare, food stamps, housing pay, health care pay etc. Just scrap them all. But I recomend to by plywood and put it on windows and doors and visit some armor store because Somalia or Haiti will knock on door soon. Result is = Korporations can only profit in secure area but they do not want to pay for it.
Amerikan health care system does not need reform but need to be alternated, let say local-regional-state cooperatives, same apply to car and home insurance etc. Main point is to take benefits out of employer hands and let people choose what is good for them. I guarantee ya if system is alternated to cooperative system then current healt care insurances will bankrupt within years. And what's about people who work 40+ hours in 2 employees? None employer give them his benefits. From every dolar man made man has to pay tax to health care and must be covered cradle to grave. Am telling ya, no forced mandatory = let people choose what they want. But employers must pay some surcharge = increase wage ( eventually employers want this. They do not want to medling with out of biznis stuff. They do their biznis and let others do healthcare atec). All this would need tax reform.
Minimum wages. Go to wikipedia MINIMUM WAGES and check Skandinavia, Benelux, Austria. They do not have minimum wages but almost 100% workforce is union. And look how are they doing now. Beside all other faktors young people between 25-34 live with their parents at lovest rate in those countries. Amerika is simply outdated, live on past fame.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-22/euro-young-adults-living-their-...
Other thing is debt for education = tax. Rise child in US cost $250.000. Socialist EU countries are multiple times less on it.
Freemarket? Korporations can bring cheap made goods from outside to sell it here. But buy Rx drugs by interenet is crime.
Low price is not magic formula for prosperity and good for society. Higher price will make biznis more atraktive and that's means competition will arrive. Realize that in USA is single % digit of workforce selfemployed thanx to combination of all I said above. On other hands Greece, Spain, Ireland are edging 40%. OK. If you want to throw argument look how they ended...well actualy how they ended was not made by those selfemployed but by big korporations, banks and korupted politicians. One of the goal they actualy achieved was to scrap selfemployed.
Food. Cheap food is not good at all. Chemistry in it and lead to obesity. I can buy cheaper food than in grocery store at farm and farmer is happy because no multiple parties siphoning his hard make money. And gues what? Lobbyist push states to forbid farmers to do direct sale. What's about gas? If I create local-regional health care coop I would add some sales tax and gas tax up toward this.
Boy, your English and grammar is atrocious.
Boy, your English and grammar are atrocious.
FIFY
PS - iIf you're going to go full grammar nazi, it's a good idea to make sure you get your singular and plural grammar rules right when pointing out the mote in another's eye.
Please do not use the argument and comparison of countries like Scandinavia, Austria and the like.
They are very small and homogeneous societies, the US is a mess of different political and racial groups pitted against one another by the communists, liberals in government and unions.
Keep them dumb, angry and believing they are victims and you control the peons.
As technology progresses, human labor will mostly be replaced by machines. This will result in massive unemployment. The only way, for the future human society to live in harmony, is for the machines to work for everybody and not for the few. Machines that have made capitalism prosperous will finally bring the death of the same, unsless, fascism and corporatism, is used to replace the present "democratic" system, which in a way, saddly, is already starting to happen.
Tax the machines.
Exactly right; in essence that is what will happen.
Machines will take all the jobs;
capital owns all the machines;
machines generate all the income.
The only source of revenue will be income generated directly by capital, without (human) labor. (Machine labor is capital, not labor.)
Consumption must be subsidized or else the entire economy stops.
Partly right, but you err in your conclusion.
Machines wll replace all or nearly all human labor. This is the natural perfection of capitalism -- when capital no longer needs labor, but is self-perpetuating. When that time comes (and it is already here, in part) consumption will naturally have to be subsideized.
What is necessary is that we discard the age-old relationship between wages and labor. The only thing standing in the way of this is the desire for inequality among (most of) the rich.
That's right... people want to have more than other people. That's how they gauge their well-being and happiness. A guy on a trash heap in Lagos is happy as long as he has more trash than the next guy. Study after study bears this out: people are happier and more satisifed with their lives when they are wealthy, where "wealthy" is relative to those around them.
This is the fundamental evil in human nature, and it is also the underlying sentiment for those that insist on "free markets," which means, "no help for the weak, the losers, the less fortunate, the less abled," etc.
The Bible says "The love of money is the root of all evil," but that is only half-right. The truth is that the love of having MORE money than anyone else is the root of all evil... and it also defines free-market enthusiasts, conservatives, and anyone else that wants to preserve a system that valorizes and celebrates inequality -- because they delude themselves that they personally can climb to the top of it.
How about stopping the unconstitutional practice of taxing the labor of the citizen? Since "income" is profit or gain separate from the source. Something received separate from the capital (one's labor) without reducing the capital's value. It seems that would go a lot toward helping the citizens. Free them from the slavery of direct tax on their labor this labor day!
Umm, the problem is really that America has exported its manufacturing jobs - the ones that pay a living wage. The shrinking number of living wage jobs are dominated by government spending - defense jobs, healthcare jobs, gubmint employees, road construction, education - that produce nothing that can be exported to other countries. In such an economy, only three things can happen to maintain a 'living wage' - the gubmint keeps handing out money and tax credits (until it goes broke), you lower the number of low wage workers so that there is enough demand that they can get higher wages (not likely with their higher birth rates, gubmint handouts, and immigration), or you have to accept a lower living standard (we are moving in this direction with unreported inflation).
This is how the Irish deal with living wages et al:
Paddy McCoy, an elderly Irish farmer, received a letter from the Department for Work & Pensions stating that they suspected he was not paying his employees the statutory minimum wage and they would send an inspector to interview them.
On the appointed day, the inspector turned up.
"Tell me about your staff," he asked Paddy.
"Well," said Paddy, "there's the farm hand, I pay him £240 a week, and he has a free cottage. Then there's the housekeeper. She gets £190 a week, along with free board and lodging. There's also the half-wit. He works a 16 hour day, does 90% of the work, earns about £25 a week along with a bottle of whisky and, as a special treat, occasionally gets to sleep with my wife."
"That's disgraceful" said the inspector, "I need to interview the half-wit."
"That'll be me then," said Paddy.
The more humorous for the truth contained in the tale.
Some interesting thoughts here on robots, which will definitely be replacing low wage jobs. You cannot easily tax the robots, and though you could tax or tariff the robot makers, that just has the same effect as raising the minimum wage (to raise prices for low wage consumers). So the real benefit to robots is that can lower the cost of making or serving products to low wage (and even high wage) workers. However, the analogy to Chinese, Vietnamese, or Mexican workers is a good one in this case - as both shrink the number of jobs in America -- and THAT is a problem that has NO sustainable solution. Historically, the cure has been either a worker migration to other lands or war.
From purely economic viewpoint many considerations come to mind :
1° What jobs are we talking about? Are they exportable, are they local or protected by national legislation (government sector) ? Are they price elastic ?, is capital productivity capable of replacing them like in a Fordian factory ?
2° Jobs are for a mosaic of social or productive functions. If the economy is totally open then obviously world competition makes minimum labour wage a problem relative to labour productivity elesewhere. If the wages are for social services that can only be done locally that gives it more flexibility. With th advent of Internet delocalising even desk jobs like hosptial surgical work or call centers can now be delocalized elsewhere.
So labour wages price competitivity has to take into account all these considerations.
3° If key tech variables impede delocalizing local jobs (energy crunch) then local economy value chains will become more viable especially in food chains and housing constructs.
Basically what I am saying is we have to know what type of society we want (degree of autarcy, degree of mercantlism, degree of social, local networking, degree of global competitive integration) and in what sectors. Some sectors can be deemed strategic and made totally national or local. doesn't mean they are monopolistic. They can be open to local competition and thus made cost effective.
What is important to note is that basic human needs if not met will lead to massive social migrations. Nation states and even civilization are not static but dynamic constructs.
Economia is just part of the cultural mix, its not the only criterium defining civilization. If we need clean air to breathe we will not trade it off for moar Wal Mart goods. Our economy has to first consider survival before considering consumption.
Our short term shamans, who are ONLY private sector oriented, sometimes can lead us off the cliff; as the basic survivalist criteria ARE NOT EVEN ON THEIR PROFIT MAKING MODEL RADAR !
Our von Mises Shamans only have one tune to play : neo liberal.
The tide raises all boats. But there is energy to be tapped as it moves in and out. The minimum wage is just another part of the capitalist's farming operation. It is part of the mechanism for generating the business cycle which is absolutely necessary for a good harvest.
what good is a robot if demand for product is falling from reduced personal income
Economics 101... sad that so many miss the point.
. PMs as currency may bring their own particular problems, but they do "eliminate built in inflation." Sorry if facts and not convoluted tales upset you.
"My greatest flaw. I surround myself with idiots."
- Victor von Doom
Victor,
I gave you an example of the Spanish economy becoming inflated by PM's. In the process, the Gold/Silver also murdered millions in the mines.
Perhaps the idiots are the ones that CANNOT LEARN, even thought facts are pointed out to them in direct fashion.
Here is a better aphorism for you:
One can lead a horse to water but they cannot make it drink. Maybe the horse is willfully blind? If one holds a position at variance with facts, and clings to that position willfully, then they are the idiot.
Most people are just ignorant, meaning not educated on things, as history has been purposefully obscured.
Those who are willful though, are like petulent children, and worse are harmful.
The employee has a big share of the responsibility for what they earn too - and you never hear a politician say
JHC! You are a high school drop out, you can barely read and write, can't do even simple math, your English is so bad I can't understand what you are saying - and you expect to be hired and paid $15 an hour plus benefits.
Hold people accountable for their bad life decisions -
We cover for all the bad decisions by giving these folks free shit - and are then surprised that paying them to make bad choices just causes more people to follow the same path.
Anyone against a living wage of US$15, using the lame excuse of 'freemarkets' has never, as I have, sat on a remuneration committee for managing directors of companies, where salaries of US$2m+ are doled out against a 'benchmark' of other CEOs in the industry, a natural reciprical upward spiral. Negotiations with the lowest paid positions are then benchmarked agaisnt the lowest common denominator globally, a natural downward spiral. And people call this freemarkets!!!
They haven't read Thomas Picketty, either.
Maybe they don't read at all, period. They certainly don't read history.
Peter Theil and some other oligarchs that got lucky and wealthy in the 90s have realized and begun to say publicly that if you don't fix the ridiculous inequality problem, there are going to be torches and pitchforks. Nor can you simply go hide in New Zealand.
Spiraling inequality has never ended well for the rich. And yet they never seem to learn.
This is all about the stock market. Screw it - take the stock buyback money and profits and put them back into higher wages and get people off SNAP and other government programs which companies like Walmart and McDonalds encourage their employees to use. Then, these people can buy the products they make and sell. That will help the deficit too. Then, we need to reform our medical/pharmaceutical business and stop subsidizing higher and higher costs. Stop making it illegal to import drugs from Canada and enforce anti-competitive and anti-trust laws against hospitals and insurance companies.
Let's stop making people rich on the back of the middle class.
Would $15 per hour put the typical serf above the threshold to receive the Unearned Income-tax Credit? Perhaps that is .gov's true motivation?
From MWEN who thinks the state created the Federal Reserve:
It is a funding mechanism FOR THE STATE which created it an
Go back and read the congressional record for that period. The Aldriich bill was stopped at every turn by the "state."
Here is a link to Senator Lindbergh, who was foresquare against the money trust, and most likely the reason his Grandson was abudcted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_August_Lindbergh
Federal Reserve act was first and foremost an money power funded and planned operation. This point is not debatable and is fact.
I'm going to say it again, if somebody holds thoughts or ideas that are at variance with reality, then they should jettison those ideas.
Please people, don't become walking and talking morons. Most of you ZH folks are too smart for that.
I guess that could be like stating that gold and silver killed the new world miners when it did nothing of the sort. They were worked to death and the subsequent inflation the Spanish suffered was because the extraction costs in labor and investment was nil.
An increase in the money supply doesn't automatically lead to inflation if the increase is due to a boom in production with it's offsetting input costs.
The Spanish theft and use of slave labor was essentially the same as printing money with the same predictable outcome.
Siggghhh... this is going to be lengthy, and I am going to get flamed. Let's start with a quote from upthread by Moribundus:
"There are hidden taxes and impediments to ‘free trade’ at every turn. The ugly truth is that capitalism-in-practice hates free markets, always seeking to overturn the rules and impose oligopoly if not outright monopoly through barriers to entry, manipulation of the political process, distortion of regulation, predatory pricing, brute force, and the usual slate of anti-trust practices."
1) I agree, and anyone who thinks lack of regulation will solve any of the above is a mouth-breathing moron who knows nothing of history. Take away the regulation and you just get corporations controlling us directy instead of via government proxies. Face it: your libertarian fantasy is going to remain exactly that barring a radical increase in the average IQ.
2) It apalls me how many ZH readers seem just fine with letting the masses starve. Look, the vast majority of jobs available are ALWAYS going to be unskilled, and unskilled labor has to eat and house itself. These days all of those jobs are service jobs... well shit, that means a service job needs to pay enough to afford these things. Before anyone junks me on this, I want to see someone suggest a realistic, implementable solution that doesn't involve higher wages or welfare. Because ya know what? There isn't one.
3) Unions. Christ, everyone hates unions. Again, history. Go all the way back to the beginning of the industrial revolution and the song remains the same: labor either organizes, or it lives in poverty. An individual worker cannot stand against the power of capitol. Again, present me a reasonable alternative before junking.
It all comes down to the same thing: money equals power. Taking away government regulation will not change that and in fact may make the situation worse. When confronted with libertarian ideals I always ask the same question: how do you propose to prevent wealth from being leveraged into power? The solution has to be consistent with a mass public with an average IQ of 100 that will never be more awake or aware than they are right now.
Honestly, I don't think there is a solution. I saw a particularly stupid comment above suggesting that we just pull the entitlements and Americans will quickly become productive and prosperous and learn to compete again. Bullshit: Americans will starve en masse, because there will never again be enough jobs to go around. How to ethically deal with this might just be THE most important single problem of our times. Personally I don't think there's going to be a non-catastrophic answer. Global wage arbitrage isn't going anywhere, and the only way for America to be competitive again is for the working class to be willing to work 12 hour days for a pound of rice and a head of cabbage. Is this what you guys want?
There was yet another stupid comment that after the wheels come off we will build something better. Again, bullshit. I don't think we've even scratched the surface for ways to build badly designed big systems. At our current state of evolution, I don't think it's possible to build a big system that ISN'T badly designed. And I don't think we have any hope of returning to small systems. In short, we're fucked.
Here's a solution for your whole communist argument.
Free will and personal responsibility.
The government or some quasi-government institution [insert 'unions' here] should not be able to mandate The theft of property, wages and freedom in general to support their belief system.
That is communists in an nutshell; 'we know better so we are going to take your shit to spend as we want to.'
Fuck them, you and the rest of the communists, liberals, progressive, destroying the world.
PS - you want the power in peoples hands rather than the politicians? Take away their power by removing the IRS and the tax code. The IRS is the power arm of politicians, it feeds them, their laws and their power. No money - no power.
Don't forget the alternative solution which has worked in the past...
Take turns bombing the shit out of competitive production societies and wiping out millions of workers while suffering none of the losses yourself and reap the benefit of full employment at high wages as you resupply the world with manufactured goods in peacetime.
I'd go with the first option myself, but that is a personal preference.
What horse shit.
Communism has never been tried. The USSR and China are state-run capitalism. Look at the distribution of wealth in each. That is the proof.
Also, since extreme inequality undermines any society (see: French revolution, Belle Epoch Europe, etc.) and since markets tend to distribute economic rewards in a lopsided fashion, taxation is the only remedy. Getting rid of the IRS only serves the rich.
Libertarians are of two varieties:
1. Shils for the rich -- because they think they will someday be rich themselves (or already are.) In reality, your "possibility of upward mobility" is very, very low. Buy a lottery ticket instead, your chances are better.
2. Teenaged boys, I am convinced, who cannot think more than 2 or 3 moves ahead, and so are seduced by the facile logic of "get rid of all rules!"
Actually most hunter gatherer tribes run in a fashion many would describe as communism. However, I have to tell you that I don't think true communism would work any better on a large scale than capitalism has. I don't think there is a way to build a good big system... at least not until people get smarter.
Communism has been tried but as usual humans become involved and the 'rules' of communism are only used where convenient.
Regardless pure communism or quasi-communism blows.
If you really think .gov represents capital's only access to power you are badly deluded, Take away the IRS tax code and politicians and you know what will happen? The people with the most money hire private armies. You won't be any better off.
I didnt say I endorse communism, I said there is NO non-catastrophic solution. I don't believe there is ANY way to build a big system in which the power and wealth is not concentrated into a very small number of hands... usually hands belonging to the biggest assholes because they are the ones willing to do anything to get it.
When confronted with libertarian ideals I always ask the same question: how do you propose to prevent wealth from being leveraged into power? The solution has to be consistent with a mass public with an average IQ of 100 that will never be more awake or aware than they are right now.
Libertarians have been warning statists for generations. And they ignored us. So the sub IQ 100 population and the socialist pied pipers will have to suffer for it. There is no way to stop the economic collapse in progress. We'll have to see what is left to work with when it peters out. I for one, see this as the end of the nation-state. At minimum, there can be no recovery until commerce and state are separated as church and state are separated.
The answer is hidden in the question. Without the monopoly power of government wealth cannot be leveraged into power over another person.
The reason Monsanto does not spend a cool hundred mil to lobby your HIA board is because they cannot grant the favors Monsanto might want. However, the Chairman of the agricultural committee in Congress will find much coming his way. It will really help his reelection bid and he may have a job after retiring...if he is not in government until he dies.
Now, the local contractor might steer money to your HOA to get the roofing contract.
Monopoly power of government to do what?
Government must have a monopoly on the first use of force. Otherwise you have no government. You cannot enforce laws without coercion -- that's the meaning of the word "enforce."
The alternative is anarchy, which is bullshit.
There's no magic bullet to the problem of money in politics, but there are plenty of ideas that would help. Here are a few:
1. Corporations are NOT people, and are not equal with people before the law. Pass a constitutional amendment that specifically excludes corporations from 14th amendment protections. PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROPERTY. This is the most important change, and our troubles go back to the 1880s "Santa Barabara" decision. This also means that Citizens United is immediately overturned. Corporations do not have political rights; they are subservient to the people and their charters are granted at our pleasure, and revoked as we see fit. Don't like it? Then don't incorporate; incorporation (with its firewall protections to individual wealth) is a privilege, not a right.
2. Restrictions on max net worth of people that hold public office, both before their tenure and for the rest of their lives afterward. These restrictions also apply to their immediate family -- spouses, children, spouses of children, etc., so that there will be no wealth hiding. The Clintons "earning" $100 million for speeches since 2000 is bullshit and nothing but legalized graft.
3. Wealth inequality must be fixed, and can only be fixed by progressive taxes on wealth (not merely on income.) If the wealth distribution curve was flatter, the interests of the rich vs the rest of us would not be so wildly divergent. The people who have done the most important work for humanity never did it for money, so this will not affect motivation for important work. Salk, Einstein, Newton, Starzle, whoever you like did it for non-economic reasons. And Ayn Rand's philosophy is misanthropic bullshit.
4. The above changes must be made global (at least in the civilized world) so that the rich and their corporations cannot simply flee to a more friendly jurisdiction and continue their plunder.
Wrong on every single point and I do not have the energy to counterpoint each one.
Let's say you fall to the central leftist-statist logic trap of asserting that an all powerful government is the answer to an all powerful government.
You may even be right about the death of the nation state... but I think you are being wildly optimistic assuming it will be replaced with something better. I don't hink we've even scratched the surface of ways to build badly designed big systems.
You can't avoid wealth being leveraged into power anymore than you can tell a 17 year old that he really doens't want that fresh young poon tang.
Take away the need for money and you can take way the power it brings
Until then; money, sex, hunger and power are the great motivators
"You can't avoid wealth being leveraged into power anymore than you can tell a 17 year old that he really doens't want that fresh young poon tang"
I agree. This is exactly why I think we're fucked.
Given the relative pittance of the amounts in question compared to the huge leap in cost of living created by TPTB, I think this article space would have been better spent attacking the corrupt who steal trillions from those who are trying to survive
Stay focused on those who have made housing, food, and health care unaffordable
An increase in the minimum wage is nothing that hasn't been done before
It should keep up with inflation
If business can't find ways to adapt, so be it.
We won't miss an absence of McDonalds or banks on every street corner
On the flip side, with higher wages, employers might attract a better pool or workers and burgers might get made faster and right the first time, eliminating wasted time and resources. There will always be chronically unemployed and dregs. They can be shipped off to our new friends in Cuba or sold to N. Korea as slaves
"Indeed. All of those children of the elite who have millions to play with from conception and never have to work for a minute of their lives. Yes, they've "earned" it."
I experienced this first hand in the beginning of this year..
I am a production collision painter 27 years , I can produce great work and am a profitable employee..I packed up my tools and headed East to FT Walton Beach Florida to work for Preston Hood Chevrolet. I dealt with the son Taylor , who was about my age (47) ... talked how he worked at this store since he was a kid , washed cars , service ....blah blah...never in the Body Shop...well after being there a few weeks I get the "real" story...
Fucker had a trust fund when he was still a squirt in the old mans nut sack..find out he and his sister did more blow then Pablo Escabar..
Was told the family had 4 vacation homes and that the nanny that took care of him ,sister was still alive and was now taking care of the old man ....flew first class where ever they go etc.. I was like WTF, I had a granny when I was a baby ,not a nanny!!
So,
My pay, flat rate was $18 a hour and I had 2 prepers.
I paid each $4 a hour and I got $10 . Now I am strict production so turn 200 paint labor hours a week is pretty easy to do when you have 2 paint booths and know how to run a paint shop which I do (and the work itself). That's 40 hours a day/20 a day out of each booth..
Well one preper was not cutting it , so he quit , so that left the other preper , a black female..So I asked her if she thought she would be able to keep up.She said yes. We were paid bi weekly. I had no secret in what I was paid because she saw the repair orders to know what to prep..Payday comes and I ask her" nice check huh!?"
She proceeds to tell me that they still only paid her $4 a hour. I was fucking pissed!!! She stepped up and did the work of 2 , so she should have been paid $8 per hour. ...she earned it. I went to the manager and he tells me "oh , well the other $4 is extra to the store,it's extra for us," FUCK YOU!! (preper pay comes out of my flat rate of $18).
So I go to Taylor and this fuckwad tells me "we didn't discuss it" and that "I shouldn't have assumed they would increase her pay" ..I said well where is my other $4 since it was my money...Prick says that we didn't discuss that either...
Told him your a fucking thief you trust fund fuck!!!!!. I wanted to punch the fuck outta him..!!!!!
Went back to the paint shop and packed my shit and left. Fucking thief.!!!!!
Now , back in Lafayette La working for a small shop and this guy is ADD 100%have no idea how long I will hang there dealing with that...
Sad that I have great work ethic , know how to produce , cut material cost down ,and I can't seem to find employment where owners want loyalty , efficiency, and someone they don't have to watch like a baby...
Socialism does not fix any of that. Someone else finds that gal, pays $7/hr and both are better off...or maybe pays $9 and gets twice as many jobs.
The deception is pretty clear. While the corporate pay structure is defended….
Everyone already receives a ‘living wage’ for sitting at home collecting welfare.
We’ve already learned from ZH. If you earn less than 45K a year, why bother? Get on the dole and work a side gig.
The sport franchise investors keep the profits from the wins while the state subsidizes the stadiums, infrastructure, security, etc… anything goes, grab what you can!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-amer...
Quad City Dj's - C'Mon 'N Ride It (The Train)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-DpRcxK_N8
Wow... this thread has been quite a ride.
My most sincere admiration to all of you people.
Here's a system that worked. It allows small business to come into being whenever larger businesses are screwing people over and stealing from labor. This is not supposition or bull shit. It actually happened.
The nature of money means far more than Communism or Capitalism. Canada’s Sovereign money system 38-74.
From 1938 to 1974 Canada had little to no price inflation. Canada had a quasi- Sovereign money system, where their money pumped into channels and was non usurious. Private Banks were part of Canada’s mixed money supply. However, private credit emission was a small component, and was held to four year loans only, and limited to 6%. Further, private banks were jawboned by Bank of Canada (BOC) to keep them from emitting bad debts.
BOC became a crown bank in 1938 and was initially was privately incorporated in 1935. A crown bank means that BOC had its stocks fully owned in trust by Ministry of Finance (MOF).
In 1945, private banknotes are ordered removed from circulation. Private banks emit credit, and their banknotes then represent high cost interest bearing loans. After 1945 only bills issued by bank of Canada were allowed. This issuance of BOC bills represents seigniorage and profits received thus lowered taxes. Seigniorage should not go to rent seeking private banking corporations.
After first seigniorage, then old bills are replaced with new, and no additional inflation of money supply is necessary.
BOC after 1938 was a State Bank that emitted debt free money. The downside is that this money power was not protected by good law, and ultimately BOC was returned to a debt spreading type of bank in 1974. This conversion was at behest of Bank of International Settlements (BIS). There was also coercion and bribery against parliament to convert BOC in 74. Thus 1974 is the date that Canada became subordinated to private money power.
Bank of Canada was structured as follows: Shares are held in a Trust by MOF, Minister of Finance. In other words, BOC is incorporated as a company with shares, however the shares are wholly owned. Said shares are put in a trust, and MOF is trustee. It would be interesting to see what the trust specifies as to the actions of trustees.
Prior to 1974 MOF would tell Governor of BOC to create money debt free. This isn’t a real clean way to make debt free, and is still a corporate structure, which is why it was co-opted.
This debt free would be injected into the commons. Commons, when they are used by everybody, has a multiplying effect, where every dollar in creates much more than a dollar out. Think clean water, it makes everybody healthy so they can then labor and create. Not clean water? Then people get sick, and you have economic collapse.
Debt Free is recalled by taxes, and then is re-spent by government, so it flows in a loop that has no interest. In this way, money becomes a tool that the people use to labor with and create wealth. It has zero cost, and hence production chain does not have to add price to cover usury. This type of money can be saved to then be used to form small business, so it is entrepreneurial.
Canada’s population in 1939 was only 12 million people, in 74 it was 23 million. It is astonishing what Canada was able to do with this small population and a sovereign money system.
These things netted out of this system, the time period of 38-74:
1)
Beginning in WW2, sovereign money funded war effort without debt. Canada contributed greatly to WW2 effort. By end of WW2, RCN was fifth largest navy in world.
2)
Free Education, especially for returning WW2 Veterans. Improving labor in this way improves productivity.
3)
Business loans. Business loans allows small to medium enterprises to form.
4)
Land Grants. (Land Grants are a way of keeping land from being grabbed by monopoly forces. This was easy in Canada given the amount of land available.)
5)
St Lawrence Seaway was dredged and improved and added locks. (Note that Canada spends into their commons, as all governments should.) This is something like Panama Canal and a significant engineering feat. It allowed an inland seaway to get from Montreal and Lake Ontario.
6)
Welland Canal is another waterway link between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. It is eight locks and lifts ships 326 feet over the Niagra Escarpment.
7)
Trans Canada Highway was built, about 4,000 miles
8)
Universal Health Care. Free health care. Since economy was efficient, health care could be afforded. (Note: the U.S. private health care system is 3X more expensive than Japan’s. Only after 1974 did Canada’s health care system go bad.)
9)
Pensions and Direct Injections
a.
This is Social Credit Theory similar to that advocated by Major C.H. Douglas. These direct injects are debt free money being collected in taxes, and then spent (injected) back down into the base of the population. This creates a pumping action, and the money goes on to create consumption and wealth. It also overcomes losses from waste in industry, so labor can buy their output. (Wages never equal the actual value of production as waste and overhead is captured in prices.) Canada may not have not understood this action, that injections are proper economics and needed, as shown by Gap theory. They injected as a response to the Depression.
b.
Family Allowances: This is another direct injection, usually for kids up to age 16, about $5 in the 1960’s money, per month.
10)
Private Banks are Restricted to four year loans only.
a.
This is private creation of credit by banking corporations, but a four year loan at 6% interest means that the interest does not go exponential. Note: In 1974 BIS coerced and removed these restrictions, so private Banker could make profits. His profits are usurious and also change the nature of Canada’s money supply. Canada’s money supply ratio then shifts, making it predominantly private credit and less debt free.
The nature of money means far more than Communism of Capitalism. Communism vs Capitalism is dialectic. This dialectic means people have their attention diverted away from money, its creation, and how a country’s wealth vectors.
In 1974 Debt stood at only 18 Billion, easily supported by a Continental Country of 23 million people.
Runaway inflation in late 1970 was created by Bankers, especially since the money had changed to become private credit. After 1974 Governor of Bank of Canada only controls the overnight rate for reserves. Control of overnight reserves is control of the price of Credit, and in no way allows volume and path control of wealth type law money (debt free).
How did Canada provide for mortgages?
Answer: They used trusts, which were similar to Savings and Loans in the U.S. This would be intermediated money, that already exists. A saver would loan their savings to a new debtor. In this way, the population held debt instruments against each other. Debts were NOT held by banks for housing. Since inflation was low, trust would offer loans at very low rates in the 1 to 3 percent range. Retirees used their savings as income, as young people paid the loans off. Trust loans would not be for 30 years, and had to be renegotiated periodically. CD’s were for 5 years.
After 74 private banks offered loans structured in such a way as it was low down payment, but long term. The entry point was all usury up front in the loan, and hence borrower would be forever in debt. This then pushed housing costs in asset inflation, and also destroyed the Trust intermediated banking model.
When the trusts collapsed, bankers swooped in and bought up the remnants, which also happened with Savings and Loans in U.S.
Asset backed commercial paper. This is working capital used by business in order to operate. It is usually issued by non bank entities and is intermediated EXISTING money, not new credit.
These sort of financial entities, shadow banks were usurped after 74, so savers were then disallowed access to have “capital” returns from industry. Instead returns of productivity then went to bankers, who created new credit as loans. Banksters now use credit default swaps to insure toxic asset backed short term loans. Therefore, FIRE (finance insurance and real estate) have usurped the money supply.
There are many proper ways to volume and channel control an economy. No one is talking about these methods:
1)
Sovereign money as in Canada’s model
2)
Self funding loans, which go into inelastic markets, to then create wealth, to then pay off their loan over time.
3)
Rent taxes. Free lunch should be taxed. Why the giveaways and welfare to the rich? Income should be untaxed.
4)
Interest free loans to municipalities, so they can then inject into commons. This money also goes on to be used for local transactions, savings, and is used to pay off private debts.
5)
If one must have credit emitting banks, then they should be modeled on Sparkassen Muncipal Banks of Germany. These banks return their profits and their debt instruments stay local. Their costs are low because they are public.
A better approach is to get rid of all present entitlements and the massive infrastructure supporting them. Instead give all citizens a no questions asked a $1000/month federal allowance. There should be no mandated wages levels. Free market wages will get many folks not wanting to be idle incentive to work, those with marginal outfits the ability to hire marginal employees, and those determined to remain idle a marginal existance. This will have a happy side effect of putting non-citizens at such a disadvantage that many will self deport.
I expect this, sooner or later. No government will let it's population starve if it can afford otherwise. That way lies revolution.
"...advocates for a living wage argue for outright mandates on wages; that is, a minimum wage set as an arbitrary level determined by policymakers to be at a level that makes housing, food, and health care “affordable.” All in all, it’s quite a bizarre strategy the living-wage advocates have settled on."
It is a strategy that is mathematically doomed to failure.
The math works out just fine.
You only have to make some reasonable assumptions:
1. We don't have open borders and unlimited supplies of fresh poor people
2. You can tax wealth as well as income
"The vast majority of voters and policymakers recognize that government-dictated prices on food and housing lead to shortages. Setting a price ceiling on rents or home prices simply means that fewer housing units will be built, while setting a price ceiling on eggs, or milk or bread will simply mean that fewer of those staples will be brought to market."
Government dictated wages will lead to a shortage of jobs.
That's why government dictated wages must be (and will be) accompanied by government-subsidized income, funded by highly progressive individual taxes (on wealth as well as income.)
There's plenty of wealth in the country and in the world to do it. All that is required is that people are valued more than property, which is not the case under the current economic/legal regime.
5% of Americans control 90%+ of the financial wealth. Did they "earn" it? How much is enough?
Mises was not a right winger, he was an anti-Statist. Mises Canada seems to be suffering from a case of false dichotomy syndrome, which is quickly progressing into full blown RedBluism.
The problem is not a living wage. The problem is slavery enforced by the State.
Great article. A profound exposition of the truth. Nothing could be more destructive to both business and America than paying ordinary workers more than minimum wages.
In related news, Costco had to declare bankruptcy today due to their insane policy of treating workers like humans.
In a tearful farewell, Costco's management told the WSJ that their foolish policy of paying an average wage of $40,000 per year, with benefits, was the undoing of the company.
Their CEO said: "If only we had known that the road to profit is paved on the backs of impoverished, hungry, and desperate workers, we would never have given our employees enough money to feed their children. As Christians, our only responsibility is to protect management, the stockholders, and nothing else."
The CEO went on to quote Jesus, who said in the sermon on the mount: "Corporations owe nothing to their employees, their community and their country. They especially owe nothing to the weakest and humblest of us. And the Lord shall smite any stockholder or corporate manager who lifts a finger to help the weak, for their pain, poverty, and desperation is a Sweet Savour Unto The Lord."
The CEO finished his admission of failure by noting that "We bankrupted our company because management thought they could treat workers like humans. We will regret this forever."
So what is the "human wage".? Is it higher or lower than a living wage? How about compared to a minimum or even maximum wage? Is minimum wage the same as slave wages?
So many kinds of wages!
Why don't you try living on minimum wage for a few months?
You will quickly arrive at the answer to your (insincere) questions.
I lived on .90//hr which was below minimum wage long ago.
Your assertion is stupid. Are all the people on minimum wage dead? How do they survive? What should be their motivation? How about getting more skills and making more than minimum wage?
People like you really miss the point of the questions and it kind of amazes me. You take them personally. The point of the question is to get YOU and many like you to ask yourself the same hard questions. In the process you might purposely or accidentally arrive at the truth. The point is simply to THINK!
I think the author needs to spend a month living with an indigenous tribe in the Papua New Guinea highlands, as then he would far better understand the whole problem of human sustenance and the role of resources in proper context, one he clearly does not possess.
Moar free stuff is all many people care about no matter what their qualities or qualifications.
Yeah that's right... massive inequality exists only because people are lazy.
smh
How is it "free stuff" when you are working for it?
Yes, the living-wage advocates HAVE thought things through.
What they have realized is that in order to get Big Business behind tax increases on the wealthy, Big Business must first feel the pain.
Right now, Big Business does not feel the pain, because minimum wage is a joke, and we have a steady supply of new poor people flooding the borders, ready and willing to be wage slaves.
The only way to get something done in the American kleptoligocracy is via corporate lobbyists.
The minimum wage hike is step one. Business then revolts, unemployment surges, and popular support (and corporate support) surges for highly progressive individual (not corporate) taxes to subsidize incomes at the bottom end.
The slope of the progressive tax curve should equal or exceed the slope of the wealth distribution curve. Today, it is not even close. Wealth taxes, not just income taxes, will be required.
Obamacare was the same thing: a Step One that the corporations could get behind (because it is a huge boon to them.) When it proves unworkable, popular and corporate support for a government solution (single payor) will be sufficient to go to a euro model.
Business doesn't have to "revolt", the businesses that employ minimum wage workers simply move if they can, or if they can't, then they adapt.
Australia has a very high minimum wage, $17.29
The result? If people want a minimum wage job, they are EXPECTED to work "unpaid" hours. Anyone that doesn't want to work unpaid hours? There are lots of people waiting to take their place.
In pubs, bars and small restaurants, if you want food, you place your order at the bar and they call you to fetch your food when it's ready. No servers. Also, tipping is frowned upon in Australia.