Nice Going Governor.. 15 an hour for Fast Food Workers across the State of New York. oh boy.....

[Glaurung]

The first statement is subjective. It's a very ethical assertion of society but I find it highly unrealistic. Where are these resources going to come from? That, again, basically points to a communistic society without considering skills and efficiency.

Are you flipping serious? The idea that working full-time should (at the least) earn enough to sustain a roof and three square meals a day is unrealistic and points towards communism? Billion dollar corporations have the resources to pay a liveable full-time wage. The problem is that those at the very top don't like sharing the wealth. Apparently, it's only fair that executives are paid over one hundred fold more than the very workers who make that wealth even possible.

Here's a tip. Not supporting corporate interests as the be-all-end-all economic consideration does not mean one wants to implement communism.

Where are these resources going to come from?

There's no lack of resources.

 

[Underhill]

I do have more respect for it, because I believe they were right to fight for democracy. Korea is the best example. Compare North and South and that is literally history teaching us what US did right for the South. I owe many US servicemen because they sacrificed their lives for an ideal that benefited my family.

I can tell you that my life would be radically different if I stayed in Vietnam because I've visited several times and had to come to an acceptance of how much proverty there really is over there. It's getting better now but only because Vietnam is adopting more capitcalistic ideals, much like China. The problem still is with democracy and censorship. Communism simply does not work. So any ideals that is a step towards communism is not a good one, IMO.

The problem, as I see it, is one of absolutes being bad. Communism is bad in it's purest form; as is Capitalism. Neither is a panacea. Some things work better when done by the government, other things work better when run by the people (meaning the wealthy). But capitalism without constraints is just as flawed as communism. Without constraints the business owners can constantly undermine wages and benefits (not to mention other problems like their destruction of the environment).

Finding that happy medium can be problematic. It is also why it is imperative that the two parties compromise. You end up with the capitalist interest defended by one side and the workers interest defended by the other. What has been happening in the last 30-40 years is that unions, who used to prop up the left, have been destroyed. This leaves the left looking for money in all the wrong places and beholden to the same people as the right in too many cases.

Many people always thought the unions funding the left was a bad thing, but I think it was the ideal situation. It helped keep that balance.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The fight for fair wages is not about "giving people money". It's about paying people for their work. And the saints of Capitalism have a very sketchy history of doing so unless leaned on by a democratic government. We fought very, very hard to get where we are, and as an immigrant you definitely benefited from the rights workers have here even if you don't respect them.

I think a lot of people who immigrate understand.

Pay is based on availability and skill required to do the job. If fewer people apply and difficult to find help, typically employers will take measures to make the job more attractive.

Burger flipping and placing meat on a conveyer is clearly less monetarily valued than say an involved preparation and cooking of a gourmet dish by a professional chef.

Living wages come through skill and by professional development and training for which the value of the task rises.

 

[Underhill]

I think a lot of people who immigrate understand.

Pay is based on availability and skill required to do the job. If fewer people apply and difficult to find help, typically employers will take measures to make the job more attractive.

Burger flipping and placing meat on a conveyer is clearly less monetarily valued than say an involved preparation and cooking of a gourmet dish by a professional chef.

Living wages come through skill and by professional development and training for which the value of the task rises.

The problem with that is that model no longer works, or at least works as well as it used to. The combination of outsourcing jobs and mechanizing everything, means that the number of good paying jobs keeps shrinking. This is what it really means when people talk about the American economy becoming a service economy. A service economy is essentially passing money around among the people.

The real growth is in manufacturing, where companies take $10 worth of plastic and make a $50 toy. But those jobs are going the way of the dingo. The companies are still making the toys and thus the money, but 9 out of 10 jobs have gone to machines and/or foreign workers.

Hard core capitalist would say that's fine, and it is, as long as you are willing to accept the fact that the pool of good jobs (ie the middle class) will continue to shrink. Sure, you can educate yourself into higher paying jobs, but that is dependent on capability. There will always be a large pool of people unable or unwilling to go to college and even if they did, it would just mean a flooded job market and wages would fall.

So the options are limited. You can artificially prop up wages or you can cut the work week. You could regulate global commerce but that is a dangerous game too. But something will have to change sooner or later. This trend can't continue indefinitely.

 

[Politesse]

I think a lot of people who immigrate understand.

Pay is based on availability and skill required to do the job. If fewer people apply and difficult to find help, typically employers will take measures to make the job more attractive.

Burger flipping and placing meat on a conveyer is clearly less monetarily valued than say an involved preparation and cooking of a gourmet dish by a professional chef.

Living wages come through skill and by professional development and training for which the value of the task rises.

The wealthy value their own work more, yeah. So does everyone. I'm even fine with there being income disparities, and indeed would be a bit hypocritical if I said otherwise given my own recent good fortune in that arena. But we're not talking about leveling all incomes here, we're talking about the minimum wage and what's going on at the bottom of the pile. If you insist that the wealthy ought to be allowed to make upwards of 10,000% the wages of the poor, they should be able, logically, to kick a living wage down to their workers. And I think work is a better model than welfare for how that money ought to be redistributed, but it will happen one way or the other. People aren't going to volunteer to starve; if you're paying your workers at a rate that puts them below the poverty line, you're paying them with your taxes instead of their salaries, to the tune of your loss, governmental inefficiency, and their needless and unearned humiliation. That a person who works two jobs ever has to stand in a food stamp line in order to feed their kids is an embarrassment to our entire nation and way of life.

 

[suncowiam]

Are you flipping serious? The idea that working full-time should (at the least) earn enough to sustain a roof and three square meals a day is unrealistic and points towards communism? Billion dollar corporations have the resources to pay a liveable full-time wage. The problem is that those at the very top don't like sharing the wealth. Apparently, it's only fair that executives are paid over one hundred fold more than the very workers who make that wealth even possible.

Here's a tip. Not supporting corporate interests as the be-all-end-all economic consideration does not mean one wants to implement communism.


There's no lack of resources.

Yes, I'm flipping serious. I have to repeat myself so no point with this conversation.

 

[suncowiam]

The problem with that is that model no longer works, or at least works as well as it used to. The combination of outsourcing jobs and mechanizing everything, means that the number of good paying jobs keeps shrinking. This is what it really means when people talk about the American economy becoming a service economy. A service economy is essentially passing money around among the people.

The real growth is in manufacturing, where companies take $10 worth of plastic and make a $50 toy. But those jobs are going the way of the dingo. The companies are still making the toys and thus the money, but 9 out of 10 jobs have gone to machines and/or foreign workers.

Hard core capitalist would say that's fine, and it is, as long as you are willing to accept the fact that the pool of good jobs (ie the middle class) will continue to shrink. Sure, you can educate yourself into higher paying jobs, but that is dependent on capability. There will always be a large pool of people unable or unwilling to go to college and even if they did, it would just mean a flooded job market and wages would fall.

So the options are limited. You can artificially prop up wages or you can cut the work week. You could regulate global commerce but that is a dangerous game too. But something will have to change sooner or later. This trend can't continue indefinitely.

Everyone so far is expecting their governments or the world to change. Is this solely an issue of government? What then of the individual? Are there any expectations on them? Should there be any responsibilities for the individual?

 

[Underhill]

Everyone so far is expecting their governments or the world to change. Is this solely an issue of government? What then of the individual? Are there any expectations on them? Should there be any responsibilities for the individual?

There already are plenty of responsibilities on the individual. The problem is, this is not something the average guy who works 40 hours a week building widgets, who gets replaced by a machine, can just change. A good portion of those guys end up stocking shelves in a Wal Mart.

And keep this in mind too. This is happening across the board. It's just a matter of time before even fields like engineering are hit by this. Computers are already making their job easier. Our engineering department has gone from close to 50 people to about a dozen in the last 25 years.

So yeah, some can go back to school and be retrained. But that only takes us so far for so long. Eventually some major shift needs to happen at the national, or preferably even the international, level.

My suggestion has always been we reduce the full time work week (say from 40 hours a week to 30 over the next 20 years). It only makes sense that if 5 people can do the work of 10, then those 5 people should make more (per hour) and work less. Thus there are more opportunities created for others. It wouldn't be easy to do well, but I don't see a solution that would be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The wealthy value their own work more, yeah. So does everyone. I'm even fine with there being income disparities, and indeed would be a bit hypocritical if I said otherwise given my own recent good fortune in that arena. But we're not talking about leveling all incomes here, we're talking about the minimum wage and what's going on at the bottom of the pile. If you insist that the wealthy ought to be allowed to make upwards of 10,000% the wages of the poor, they should be able, logically, to kick a living wage down to their workers. And I think work is a better model than welfare for how that money ought to be redistributed, but it will happen one way or the other. People aren't going to volunteer to starve; if you're paying your workers at a rate that puts them below the poverty line, you're paying them with your taxes instead of their salaries, to the tune of your loss, governmental inefficiency, and their needless and unearned humiliation. That a person who works two jobs ever has to stand in a food stamp line in order to feed their kids is an embarrassment to our entire nation and way of life.

Do you think that will ever happen? The CEO kicking back profits towards lower paid positions? If the bottom tier receives a substantial increase, then additional subsequent increases follows all the way back throughout the organization itself making something like that incredibly expensive overall.

What about the Goverment itself? Why isn't it doing it's part by substantial reductions in taxes rather than using other peoples money to relieve the financial pressure on low to middle class incomes?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or the far left lunatic wing to North Korea.

At least we don't tell people were to live, what to name their kids, what hair-cuts to get, and don't feel the urge to display our military might. At least those of us on the far right want a society that works for everyone, not just state plutocrats and the wealthiest of corporate executives who can buy elections and legislation.

 

[Lyndon]

Lower income minimum wage workers don't pay income taxes, how are you going to lower their taxes???

Nowhere man, your comments are going nowhere, man!!

 

[suncowiam]

There already are plenty of responsibilities on the individual. The problem is, this is not something the average guy who works 40 hours a week building widgets, who gets replaced by a machine, can just change. A good portion of those guys end up stocking shelves in a Wal Mart.

And keep this in mind too. This is happening across the board. It's just a matter of time before even fields like engineering are hit by this. Computers are already making their job easier. Our engineering department has gone from close to 50 people to about a dozen in the last 25 years.

So yeah, some can go back to school and be retrained. But that only takes us so far for so long. Eventually some major shift needs to happen at the national, or preferably even the international, level.

My suggestion has always been we reduce the full time work week (say from 40 hours a week to 30 over the next 20 years). It only makes sense that if 5 people can do the work of 10, then those 5 people should make more (per hour) and work less. Thus there are more opportunities created for others. It wouldn't be easy to do well, but I don't see a solution that would be.

Yes, workers will need to retrain themselves. Who's responsibility is that?

Are you in engineering? Engineering is about creating automation in a fundamental form. Only when Artificial Intelligence establishes itself further do I might even see your point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The first statement is subjective. It's a very ethical assertion of society but I find it highly unrealistic. Where are these resources going to come from? That, again, basically points to a communistic society without considering skills and efficiency.

If you read communist literature, such as Karl Marx, there is indeed a huge emphasis on skill. And there is nothing than prohibits efficiency. But, because there are both left and right winged versions of communism, you have to be more specific than just communist. It's like trying to say all libertarians support right-winged dog-eat-dog social Darwinist form of Capitalism, and while many do, there are also many that do support welfare and also many who hold views that are similar in many to left-winged forms of socialism and communism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, workers will need to retrain themselves. Who's responsibility is that?

What are we to do about the older crowd though? Silicon Valley has a bad rep for age-discrimination (even against people who aren't old), and many do not just have to retrain but they also have to learn computers.

 

[suncowiam]

If you read communist literature, such as Karl Marx, there is indeed a huge emphasis on skill. And there is nothing than prohibits efficiency. But, because there are both left and right winged versions of communism, you have to be more specific than just communist. It's like trying to say all libertarians support right-winged dog-eat-dog social Darwinist form of Capitalism, and while many do, there are also many that do support welfare and also many who hold views that are similar in many to left-winged forms of socialism and communism.

Communism from an economic perspective. Let's not dig into theory. Let's use real world examples like Russia, Vietnam, China before they adopted more Capitalistic ideals. Cuba is still a prime example.

History has shown that any tangible form of communism has not worked.

 

[suncowiam]

What are we to do about the older crowd though? Silicon Valley has a bad rep for age-discrimination (even against people who aren't old), and many do not just have to retrain but they also have to learn computers.

You might be correct but do you have a link or story to support this on age discrimination?

Whatever it is needed to be in stride with work demands then one can't argue with that. So if one needs to learn computers, then they should learn computers. If one needs to learn a language then one should do so. The market has needs and will pay for those needs. Just like you have needs, you will pay for those needs? What use is it if a gardener offered you services but you live in an apartment and not need gardening? Of if you could do yourself and found shortcuts or discounts, I would assume you would choose to try to save money.

 

[Underhill]

Yes, workers will need to retrain themselves. Who's responsibility is that?

Are you in engineering? Engineering is about creating automation in a fundamental form. Only when Artificial Intelligence establishes itself further do I might even see your point.

Yes, I work in engineering. And this isn't about being completely replaced (although that may come someday). It's about efficiency. A engineer using modern tools almost never has to break out the pencil and paper to calculate anything. Even the calculator is quaint and old school in many applications. Modern Engineering is so much less time consuming than it used to be. As is drafting, accounting, purchasing and any number of other fields where companies are cutting back. They will never go away, but the number of people needed to do the same amount of work is going down and has been for many decades.

On top of this your assertion that every laborer who used to work the floor of an assembly line should run out and go to college or trade school is a bit far fetched. First, they won't. And second, many can't whether because they aren't capable, or they don't have the money. And even if they did, the notion that our economy would be helped by such a massive shift is also problematic. We don't need 200 million college educated people in this country. The market for those with a degree would simply become saturated (just look at India for an example of a saturated market of college educated people). We are already seeing that in certain fields where an associates degree, which used to be more than adequate and still is to do the job, is now not sufficient to get the job.

I'm not the only one who has had similar thoughts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2011/04/16/india-and-the-economic-folly-of-a-college-degree/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703515504576142092863219826

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...-return-higher-education-would-be-much-better

I'm not saying engineering isn't a worthwhile field to go into. I would say the opposite in fact. There is a shortage right now. But if even half the people working at minimum wage jobs went back to school and came out packing degrees, I suspect two things would happen. The value of a degree would fall precipitously and the quality of those degrees would suffer.

 

[suncowiam]

Yes, I work in engineering. And this isn't about being completely replaced (although that may come someday). It's about efficiency. A engineer using modern tools almost never has to break out the pencil and paper to calculate anything. Even the calculator is quaint and old school in many applications. Modern Engineering is so much less time consuming than it used to be. As is drafting, accounting, purchasing and any number of other fields where companies are cutting back. They will never go away, but the number of people needed to do the same amount of work is going down and has been for many decades.

On top of this your assertion that every laborer who used to work the floor of an assembly line should run out and go to college or trade school is a bit far fetched. First, they won't. And second, many can't whether because they aren't capable, or they don't have the money. And even if they did, the notion that our economy would be helped by such a massive shift is also problematic. We don't need 200 million college educated people in this country. The market for those with a degree would simply become saturated (just look at India for an example of a saturated market of college educated people). We are already seeing that in certain fields where an associates degree, which used to be more than adequate and still is to do the job, is now not sufficient to get the job.

I'm not the only one who has had similar thoughts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2011/04/16/india-and-the-economic-folly-of-a-college-degree/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703515504576142092863219826

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...-return-higher-education-would-be-much-better

I'm not saying engineering isn't a worthwhile field to go into. I would say the opposite in fact. There is a shortage right now. But if even half the people working at minimum wage jobs went back to school and came out packing degrees, I suspect two things would happen. The value of a degree would fall precipitously and the quality of those degrees would suffer.

Depends on the company and if they are growing. Google and Apple are aggressivly hiring. Microsoft, Intel, HP are not. That's all situational.

I agree with you that a "proper" education might not be the best bang for the buck, but that is not my sole meaning of retraining. The way I see degrees, is that it will get your foot in the door for an interview. But its the interview that will settle the deal. Unfortunately, at least in my field, recruiters scan for keywords including skills and degrees. I can't say the same for other fields.

I can tell you that there is a business model to hire from a college pool as opposed to senior folks. That's because the interns and NCG(New College Grads) do the grunt work while senior folks are assigned to more critical roles. But I can't say the same for other fields so you could very well be correct.

It's all situational, but I just have a core belief that if one trys hard enough with sacrifice and smarts, then certain things are attainable.

I'm going try to transition this discussion to the individual, because there's been much discussed on businesses and societies.

I think its fair that if an individual wants economic assistance then their financials and history should be fully transparent. We should know how much debt and savings they have, to ensure that they are not taking advantage of a system. Are they spending and planning properly towards themselves? Is that purchase of a new car really needed? Do they need that big screen TV?

Some people created their own misfortune. Some folks have bad luck. How do we distinguish those that truly deserve assistance?

Don't we all know at least one individual that is living above their means?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Communism from an economic perspective. Let's not dig into theory. Let's use real world examples like Russia, Vietnam, China before they adopted more Capitalistic ideals. Cuba is still a prime example.

Why should theory be discarded? After all, even our modern ideals of capitalism come from theory.
And we can point and play the blame game all day. To uphold one "real world" government or system of economics is really nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. Even with capitalism, there is imperialism, wars of aggression, slavery, and severe exploitation.

You might be correct but do you have a link or story to support this on age discrimination?

I am correct.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2015/05/04/silicon-valleys-worst-kept-secret-ageism/
While claims of sexism and racism in Silicon Valley make headlines, it looks like the technology industry faces what may very well be a more legitimate problem: ageism.
Writing for Techcrunch in 2010, entrepreneur-turned-academic Vivek Wadhwa said the industry’s preference for young, inexperienced talent “is not something that tech executives publicly admit, because they fear being sued for age discrimination, but everyone knows that this is the way things are.”
In a 2012 New York Times article called “Old Techies Never Die; They Just Can’t Get Hired,” Norman Matloff, a U.C. Davis professor who has long studied the technology industry’s hiring practices, said “workers over 35 regularly face discrimination by technology companies.”

 

[suncowiam]

Why should theory be discarded? After all, even our modern ideals of capitalism come from theory.
And we can point and play the blame game all day. To uphold one "real world" government or system of economics is really nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. Even with capitalism, there is imperialism, wars of aggression, slavery, and severe exploitation.

I am correct.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2015/05/04/silicon-valleys-worst-kept-secret-ageism/
While claims of sexism and racism in Silicon Valley make headlines, it looks like the technology industry faces what may very well be a more legitimate problem: ageism.
Writing for Techcrunch in 2010, entrepreneur-turned-academic Vivek Wadhwa said the industry’s preference for young, inexperienced talent “is not something that tech executives publicly admit, because they fear being sued for age discrimination, but everyone knows that this is the way things are.”
In a 2012 New York Times article called “Old Techies Never Die; They Just Can’t Get Hired,” Norman Matloff, a U.C. Davis professor who has long studied the technology industry’s hiring practices, said “workers over 35 regularly face discrimination by technology companies.”

Theories that have not been tested are just thoughts. It might look good on paper, but when implemented you might get much different results. I disagree then, and would rather base conclusions not on untested theories but on real world examples that I've already mentioned including Vietnam, Russia, China, Cuba. I think reality speaks for itself.

[Edited] I wouldn't deny that Capitalism has unethical results. But we're comparing to other social ideals. Compare US to Russia. Compare US to Vietnam, to China, to Cuba. Be realistic about it is all I'm saying... You will find that time and time again, US is simply the better society in various ways.

I'm over 35 and I have not experienced this. I know many people over 35 years of age in my work. There has to be more going on then a simple age bracket.

I suspect that older folks have a lifestyle that demands a higher salary, hence, are in a more competitive situation. I've already mentioned one strategy involving hiring interns and NCGs to save cost. That leaves less positions for more senior folks, but the pay is definitely much higher than an NCG. There are more responsibilities from a senior folk. My point is that if senior folks are willing to take on intern and NCG responsibilities with less pay, I don't expect an "inequality" perception in this market. Can I prove that correlation to you? No, I cannot so like I said, I suspect that is what's going on and I emphasize that its my own opinion.