Conquer Club

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:See? JB makes the mistake of thinking inflation is only the consumer price index and forgets about the many problems of those weighted averages and other issues:

Just musing here, but wouldnt a CPI calibrated for low income spending actually make JBs number bigger? I dont know, just asking the question.

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure either, but I can't justify spending that time looking at the current CPI figures to figure it out.

If they can successfully disaggregate measures for the CPI (lol wow, to what degree? for each city, town, and village?), then it would depend on whatever those figures may be, so it may be higher or lower than JB's "hard-hitting" analysis.

Juan_Bottom wrote:3) AND THAT IS WHY THIS NUMBER IS USED IN The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 ANDY WHY OBAMA HAS PROPOSED TO INDEX THE MINIMUM WAGE TO INFLATION, ADJUSTED BY LOCATION

So you're okay with getting rid of merit and longevity pay increases for minimum workers in exchange for a minimum wage that constantly goes up? Because that's what you're going to get until the employment system collapses on itself due to the perpetual circle of rising labor costs causing prices to increase causing inflation to increase causing labor costs to increase etc.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:At any rate, my basic point is that the minimum wage is to set a true basis for what employment really means. If you are getting less than that you might be "working", but you are not truly a "working full time adult" in society. Whether the rate drops or stays the same, it will be an honest emploment rate, not a fiction that pretends people who have to depend on taxpayer support to just get by are "fully employed".

Working full-time adults rarely make only minimum wage. They may start at minimum in businesses with high turnover, but even Wal-Mart pays their employees more than just the minimum.

Minimum wage was not and should not be intended as the sustainable wage. It's the trainee wage made usually by part-time-working students who for the most part are not self-supporting anyway, and certainly are not considered a "working, full-time adult" in society.

Come on! You cannot truly believe that a brand-new employee who does not know the business tactics of his new place of employment, should make anywhere close to what a trained or longterm employee makes.

Just because they're putting in the same amount of time does not mean the QUALITY of the work is the same. The new employee has to learn how to put out quality work by learning the various requirements of the business, starting with being led by another employee to know where the timecards are kept, where the bathroom is, where to get a pen and paper, and so forth. And NONE of that, which has already taken a quarter of an hour (longer if things like breaktimes, sick time, and other policies are explained) NONE of that has even started training this guy for the actual job he's expected to do.

That is not the argument.
The real minimum wage, adjusted for inflation should be $10.55 an hour. But the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. So when a business, like Wal*Mart hires someone, they may pay them a little more than the federal minimum... let's say $9.90 an hour. But unless they make more than $10.55 an hour, then they are still below the inflation-adjusted minimum wage. One can speculate that this is why 50% of Americans are officially poor. That's 50 million Americans living below the poverty line, and 100 million who are low-income.

It's precisely the argument.

I'd speculate that why 50% of Americans are poor has zilch to do with a minimum wage; it has to do with the percentage of top-level income being more than ten times what it used to be in comparison to the lowest-paid worker's salary, and raising the minimum wage won't fix that, it makes things worse.

UNLESS there was a required COLA for every employee at every level, commensurate with the minimum wage adjustment COLA you want, then raising the minimum wage simply squeezes those adequately-trained employees in the middle by raising the costs of everything they purchase without giving THEM the same wage-raise percentage.

Additionally, adjusting the COLA by location does not necessarily help, since not all products one may need to purchase will be made within your own location. So your location may have a low COLA, but have to get products from somewhere with a high COLA, so the percentage it takes you to purchase that product would be higher than it was before this adjustment took effect.

Either way, those at the top will merely decide to raise prises.

I'll give you an example. My ex is on disability. He gets a COLA added to it each year; but each time he does, he gets an increase in rent by the same percentage; in his electric bill by the same percentage; in his cable bill by the same percentage; in the cost for his medical care by the same percentage; and the price of bread and other products he eats also goes up, as well as frequently, his share of any medicines he takes (copay). So it doesn't change his purchasing power for necessities - sometimes, his "COLA" actually reduces his purchasing power some years.

Same thing happens when the "minimum wage" increases with the added effect that, because companies raise prices to offset a minimum wage increase, but there are folks who don't get a wage increase themselves, the percentage of people "at or below poverty" increases.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

That's what happens when the government prints endless amounts of money.

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:3) AND THAT IS WHY THIS NUMBER IS USED IN The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 ANDY WHY OBAMA HAS PROPOSED TO INDEX THE MINIMUM WAGE TO INFLATION, ADJUSTED BY LOCATION

So you're okay with getting rid of merit and longevity pay increases for minimum workers in exchange for a minimum wage that constantly goes up? Because that's what you're going to get until the employment system collapses on itself due to the perpetual circle of rising labor costs causing prices to increase causing inflation to increase causing labor costs to increase etc.

No, in this case the market adjusts.

See, here is the irony. The market does work , to a large extent, for people who have specialized skills. It is very far from perfect, and HIGHLY skewed by the percieved need to pay investors dividends, boost stock prices.

But, it doesn't work at the bottom because, plain and simply, the "market" places no value on low skills. This is where human beings with morality have to come in and say "People have value".

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

That's what happens when the government prints endless amounts of money.

To be fair, the guy with the sign probably makes $40 an hour.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:3) AND THAT IS WHY THIS NUMBER IS USED IN The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 ANDY WHY OBAMA HAS PROPOSED TO INDEX THE MINIMUM WAGE TO INFLATION, ADJUSTED BY LOCATION

So you're okay with getting rid of merit and longevity pay increases for minimum workers in exchange for a minimum wage that constantly goes up? Because that's what you're going to get until the employment system collapses on itself due to the perpetual circle of rising labor costs causing prices to increase causing inflation to increase causing labor costs to increase etc.

No, in this case the market adjusts.

See, here is the irony. The market does work , to a large extent, for people who have specialized skills. It is very far from perfect, and HIGHLY skewed by the percieved need to pay investors dividends, boost stock prices.

But, it doesn't work at the bottom because, plain and simply, the "market" places no value on low skills. This is where human beings with morality have to come in and say "People have value".

Sure, "it" values low-skilled workers, but you have to examine what distorts those values (e.g. minimum wage laws and the substitution effect).

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:See, here is the irony. The market does work , to a large extent, for people who have specialized skills. It is very far from perfect, and HIGHLY skewed by the percieved need to pay investors dividends, boost stock prices.

But, it doesn't work at the bottom because, plain and simply, the "market" places no value on low skills. This is where human beings with morality have to come in and say "People have value".

Sure, "it" values low-skilled workers, but you have to examine what distorts those values (e.g. minimum wage laws and the substitution effect).

Nope, you are letting the tail wag the dog again.

Minimum wage is not about maintaining business or creating jobs or any other ephemeral cause. It is about ensuring that people who work get to live basic but decent lives for their efforts.

The rest is for the market to determine. MY argument, which you keep pretending doesn’t exist, is that the idea that someone can pay others less than it takes them to survive and still be providing anything for the economy is just false, particularly in a society which has determined that allowing people to just die on street corners of hunger is not a good idea. (i.e. most civilized societies)

Business should thrive or not, fully on its own.

Most of your arguments are not about economics or business in truth, they are about maintaining the CURRENT status quo. Set the boundaries and the system will change and adapt.

I am not in favor of a Marxist style revolution, don’t think that is really what will happen. (for one thing, folks have learned, from Machiavelli if no other, that you cannot oppress people too much or they will rebel). What I see is that this complete ignorance of the real world, the natural world, is allowing businesses and governments to make decisions that are very, very detrimental to humanity. Oil is one example, farmland is another, and chemical production is a third. There are others, but just focusing on the those 3 issues should terrify anyone.

IF business were truly forced to be accountable for the problems they are creating, then less wealth would be created, at least in the short term, but in the longer term you would see innovation toward more sustainability. Allowing “its not profitable [today]” to be a prime argument distorts the system and falsely creates a system where people are allowed to take serious gain by making horrible long term decisions.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:See, here is the irony. The market does work , to a large extent, for people who have specialized skills. It is very far from perfect, and HIGHLY skewed by the percieved need to pay investors dividends, boost stock prices.

But, it doesn't work at the bottom because, plain and simply, the "market" places no value on low skills. This is where human beings with morality have to come in and say "People have value".

Sure, "it" values low-skilled workers, but you have to examine what distorts those values (e.g. minimum wage laws and the substitution effect).

Nope, you are letting the tail wag the dog again.

Minimum wage is not about maintaining business or creating jobs or any other ephemeral cause. It is about ensuring that people who work get to live basic but decent lives for their efforts.

The rest is for the market to determine. MY argument, which you keep pretending doesn’t exist, is that the idea that someone can pay others less than it takes them to survive and still be providing anything for the economy is just false, particularly in a society which has determined that allowing people to just die on street corners of hunger is not a good idea. (i.e. most civilized societies)

We've already been through this. What's the wage at which "it takes them to survive" and how many hours per week would that be? If you say, $10.00 per hour and 40 hours a week, that's just silly.

The main point the buyers still value low-skilled workers, and those workers, as sellers, still value the money/whatever received, but you have to examine what distorts those values (minimum wage and substitution effect). Imposing a minimum wage doesn't do minimum wage workers any favors--well, except for the ones that aren't fired.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:See, here is the irony. The market does work , to a large extent, for people who have specialized skills. It is very far from perfect, and HIGHLY skewed by the percieved need to pay investors dividends, boost stock prices.

But, it doesn't work at the bottom because, plain and simply, the "market" places no value on low skills. This is where human beings with morality have to come in and say "People have value".

Sure, "it" values low-skilled workers, but you have to examine what distorts those values (e.g. minimum wage laws and the substitution effect).

Nope, you are letting the tail wag the dog again.

Minimum wage is not about maintaining business or creating jobs or any other ephemeral cause. It is about ensuring that people who work get to live basic but decent lives for their efforts.

The rest is for the market to determine. MY argument, which you keep pretending doesn’t exist, is that the idea that someone can pay others less than it takes them to survive and still be providing anything for the economy is just false, particularly in a society which has determined that allowing people to just die on street corners of hunger is not a good idea. (i.e. most civilized societies)

We've already been through this. What's the wage at which "it takes them to survive" and how many hours per week would that be? If you say, $10.00 per hour and 40 hours a week, that's just silly.

The main point the buyers still value low-skilled workers, and those workers, as sellers, still value the money/whatever received, but you have to examine what distorts those values (minimum wage and substitution effect). Imposing a minimum wage doesn't do minimum wage workers any favors--well, except for the ones that aren't fired.

Partially, you are reciting a standard, but highly disputed set of concepts.
Ultimately, I say it does matter, because people’s lives are improved, they pay more taxes and business adjusts, and many economists agree with that, though not all do. You disagree. Ultimately, there just is no set, firm answer it’s a debate.

Partly, it’s a “tail/dog” argument. What ultimately sets the success or failure of an economy tends to be basics like natural resource availability, rise of technology. Investment is secondary to that. Right now, we have major problems on both those fronts. We are using up and not replacing or finding alternatives for many natural resources ranging from farmland to oil to clean water. Also, we have likely reached a plateau technologically. That last one is hard, because there is always the chance of some brand new, never before thought of invention. Except… nothing truly phenomenal is in the “pipeline”, and in this country, the things that lead to that kind of innovation are specifically being destroyed -- creativity and high levels of knowledge in a wide range of areas is being replaced by a kind of “efficiency model”. Specialization might be good if your goal is to put out a known quantity quickly, but not to find new options or new products.

Its OK to talk about waiting for the new technological fix when the problem is not impending doom (literally) OR when there just are no other alternatives at all. Neither is the case here. By the time there is the kind of absolute firm proof some folks want, it will be far, far too late. In fact, it could be we are already almost at that point.. but we all hope not.

I'll just wait for you to address the substitution effect and how that's related to minimum wage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/1 ... 00984.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

Dube went on to note that if minimum wage incomes had grown over that period at the same pace as it had for the top 1 percent of income earners, the minimum wage would actually be closer to $33 an hour than the current $7.25.

It didn't appear that Warren was actually trying to make the case for a $22 an hour minimum wage, but rather highlighting the results of a recent study that showed flat minimum wage growth over the past 40-plus years coinciding with surging inequality across a number of economic indicators.

Warren went on to argue that raising the federal minimum wage to over $10 an hour in incremental steps over the next two years -- a cause championed by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address and since taken up in the Senate -- would not be as damaging for businesses as some critics have argued.

Adjust the minimum wage for inflation, and it should be over $10 an hour. Adjust it for productivity and it should be over $20 an hour. Adjust it to match the rise in income for the 1%, and it should be over $30 an hour.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'll just wait for you to address the substitution effect and how that's related to minimum wage.

It doesn't.

That is an artificial concept used by people who already have a set belief to justify their ideas.

I am saying we need to look beyond.

The basis of an economy is not Kenesian, Australien or whatever school of economics. The basis of an economy is natural resources, technology and damages. Weather has more to do with the economy than any negative impact of minimum wage, seriously!

Juan_Bottom wrote: Adjust the minimum wage for inflation, and it should be over $10 an hour. Adjust it for productivity and it should be over $20 an hour. Adjust it to match the rise in income for the 1%, and it should be over $30 an hour.

The root reason is that the 1%, many others making over even 100K, is not based on work, it is based on investment.
That inherently moves money up to the top. Just like in monarchies, initially it is a good system for a reasonable cause. however, those in power keep demanding more and more until the system becomes exploitive. That is what we are seeing today.

It would not be so bad if we were just comparing the conditions of poor workers to the wealthy. Bad enough, when you have so many working people removed from their homes, unable to feed their families or afford health care. HOWEVER, what truly makes this system destructive is the environmental damage and natural resource overuse being utterly ignored as "mere externalities" that, basically, is just for looney hippies to worry about.

Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

Dube went on to note that if minimum wage incomes had grown over that period at the same pace as it had for the top 1 percent of income earners, the minimum wage would actually be closer to $33 an hour than the current $7.25.

It didn't appear that Warren was actually trying to make the case for a $22 an hour minimum wage, but rather highlighting the results of a recent study that showed flat minimum wage growth over the past 40-plus years coinciding with surging inequality across a number of economic indicators.

Warren went on to argue that raising the federal minimum wage to over $10 an hour in incremental steps over the next two years -- a cause championed by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address and since taken up in the Senate -- would not be as damaging for businesses as some critics have argued.

Adjust the minimum wage for inflation, and it should be over $10 an hour. Adjust it for productivity and it should be over $20 an hour. Adjust it to match the rise in income for the 1%, and it should be over $30 an hour.

You're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'll just wait for you to address the substitution effect and how that's related to minimum wage.

It doesn't.

That is an artificial concept used by people who already have a set belief to justify their ideas.

I am saying we need to look beyond.

The basis of an economy is not Kenesian, Australien or whatever school of economics. The basis of an economy is natural resources, technology and damages. Weather has more to do with the economy than any negative impact of minimum wage, seriously!

It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

BigBallinStalin wrote:You're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

Instead of throwing around some bitchy posts, maybe you could spend your time doing a little research about the topic at hand.
"Oh you stupid fucker there are other considerations other than inflation! I'm BBS! This is what I talk like!"
Oh junior...
Listen son, you're clickity-click posting away like you know something, but you don't know sh*t. And you're looking like a fool. Inflation, which is very important somehow, was not a major consideration of Congress the last time they indexed the minimum wage. As I explained, there is no universal formula. Therefor, an intelligent person, like Krugman, Obama, Warren, ECT, might find it important to adjust the new minimum based off of the old calculation and also the inflation index. This is why we say "adjusted for inflation." It's because those other considerations were already made. In fact thanks to inflation alone, people made more money on minimum wage in 1962 than they do today. I mean, it all goes back to the Fair Wage Act, to history. So things might have changed yeah, but that's not the point. If it was the point, then you could explain to us all exactly how the old calculation was made, and exactly needs to change in our considerations, other than inflation. If you actually know anything about this, feel free to roll out the projector. Otherwise just shut up already with your fake "I'm an economist" argument from authority.
This isn't even something new. People have been bitching (not to be confused with b*tchyness - BBS) about this since before the $7 hike. Verily, you should try to shut your mouth and you might learn something. I can't explain this shit to you if you wont listen because you're too busy being a jerk and making Holocaust jokes all of the time.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:You're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

Instead of throwing around some bitchy posts, maybe you could spend your time doing a little research about the topic at hand.

substitution effect:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&start=240#p4090962

the knowledge problem:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&p=4092540&hilit=substitution+effect#p4092111


And I've already addressed your CPI rubbish. Here:

(at the end of the post)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=255#p4092382


Public Choice at play:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=195#p4084120
(in Canada, but I bet similar exemptions are given in the US)


Marginal productivity and price distortions from minimum wage:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=15#p4063699
(BBS + kenington)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=60#p4066698
(BBS w/ PLAYER)

Unintended consequences from well-intended, yet uninformed voters:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=30#p4063722
(last post by BBS)


etc., etc., etc.,

Keep going on about the $10/hour wage, and I'll keep repeating that your policies do not help poor and/or low-skilled workers.

But based on your history, you're not interested in learning anything that conflicts with your ideology, so after you iron out your personal issues, then we should take your positions seriously.

Until then, this is still true: you're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

Wait, that all together is your whole argument? 'The issue is too complex, some people aren't worth anything, giving people too much money will get a lot of people fired....'

Well, the actual discussion on capital hill would have the minimum wage raised to $9-10 specifically because it won't impact the job market much. Why the f*ck do you think Obama would grow the economy then just turn around and tank it?

And that's kinda irrelevant, if we just look at history. People on minimum wage have earned more historically than people on minimum wage earn today, yet I don't recall any recession that spawned from any hike in the minimum wage ever. In fact, Oregon has a law that ties their minimum wage to inflation, yet even the worst reviews say that they job market has shed only a few jobs, which are mainly low-paying food service jobs. And that's during the recession. Meanwhile the most optimistic economists say that it has increased the number of jobs.
All a person has to do is look at all the wealth that is being concentrated on the top, and they will know that any defense of that serf system is bat-sh*t stupid. There's plenty of wealth to be distributed honestly for honest work, and you're dead wrong about the existence of free labor or that an intern isn't worth anything. People are not commodities as you believe them to be.

Now if some wise guy wants to argue that we should have a pyramid minimum wage system like Australia, then that's a damn fine argument to make. But if someone wants to argue that "some people aren't worth much money" then those people are idiots. Fire your worker if you don't like the job they are doing. Don't take advantage of everyone by paying them shit wages while you make insane profits. That's the essence of fraud. BBS says that a person's value in the job market is tied to their productivity. Well, obviously that's not f*cking true if 50% of American's are low income or poor, while at the same time our stock market has never been more valuable.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:You're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

Instead of throwing around some bitchy posts, maybe you could spend your time doing a little research about the topic at hand.

substitution effect:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&start=240#p4090962

the knowledge problem:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&p=4092540&hilit=substitution+effect#p4092111


And I've already addressed your CPI rubbish. Here:

(at the end of the post)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=255#p4092382


Public Choice at play:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=195#p4084120
(in Canada, but I bet similar exemptions are given in the US)


Marginal productivity and price distortions from minimum wage:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=15#p4063699
(BBS + kenington)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=60#p4066698
(BBS w/ PLAYER)

Unintended consequences from well-intended, yet uninformed voters:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=185845&hilit=consumer&start=30#p4063722
(last post by BBS)


etc., etc., etc.,

Keep going on about the $10/hour wage, and I'll keep repeating that your policies do not help poor and/or low-skilled workers.

But based on your history, you're not interested in learning anything that conflicts with your ideology, so after you iron out your personal issues, then we should take your positions seriously.

Until then, this is still true: you're being an idiot for reasons already explained.

BOOM!! Welcome to the school of BBS (quite literally).

Juan_Bottom wrote:Well, the actual discussion on capital hill would have the minimum wage raised to $9-10 specifically because it won't impact the job market much. Why the f*ck do you think Obama would grow the economy then just turn around and tank it?

ROFL!!!

This guy thinks Obama has actually done work to grow the economy!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'll just wait for you to address the substitution effect and how that's related to minimum wage.

It doesn't.

That is an artificial concept used by people who already have a set belief to justify their ideas.

I am saying we need to look beyond.

The basis of an economy is not Kenesian, Australien or whatever school of economics. The basis of an economy is natural resources, technology and damages. Weather has more to do with the economy than any negative impact of minimum wage, seriously!

It's okay to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

feel free....

knowing some economics doesn't make you an expert on the world

Juan_Bottom wrote:Wait, that all together is your whole argument? 'The issue is too complex, some people aren't worth anything, giving people too much money will get a lot of people fired....'

Well, the actual discussion on capital hill would have the minimum wage raised to $9-10 specifically because it won't impact the job market much. Why the f*ck do you think Obama would grow the economy then just turn around and tank it?

And that's kinda irrelevant, if we just look at history. People on minimum wage have earned more historically than people on minimum wage earn today, yet I don't recall any recession that spawned from any hike in the minimum wage ever. In fact, Oregon has a law that ties their minimum wage to inflation, yet even the worst reviews say that they job market has shed only a few jobs, which are mainly low-paying food service jobs. And that's during the recession. Meanwhile the most optimistic economists say that it has increased the number of jobs.
All a person has to do is look at all the wealth that is being concentrated on the top, and they will know that any defense of that serf system is bat-sh*t stupid. There's plenty of wealth to be distributed honestly for honest work, and you're dead wrong about the existence of free labor or that an intern isn't worth anything. People are not commodities as you believe them to be.

Now if some wise guy wants to argue that we should have a pyramid minimum wage system like Australia, then that's a damn fine argument to make. But if someone wants to argue that "some people aren't worth much money" then those people are idiots. Fire your worker if you don't like the job they are doing. Don't take advantage of everyone by paying them shit wages while you make insane profits. That's the essence of fraud. BBS says that a person's value in the job market is tied to their productivity. Well, obviously that's not f*cking true if 50% of American's are low income or poor, while at the same time our stock market has never been more valuable.

Pounding out logical fallacies and painting imaginative scenarios isn't doing you any favors. Try as you might, your imagination is not a good substitute for being quiet and learning something useful. I'll wait a few months and see if your level of gibberish has changed for the better.

Good luck with ironing out your personal issues!

Juan_Bottom wrote: There's plenty of wealth to be distributed honestly for honest work, and you're dead wrong about the existence of free labor or that an intern isn't worth anything.

While there is plenty of wealth to be distributed for honest work, an intern is getting valuable experience to be employed later. You wouldn't expect a college to pay that intern for sitting in class, would you? Well, WOULD YOU?

But raising the minimum wage simply squishes the middle because those at the top will raise prices, and aren't going to raise everyone's salaries by the equal percentage to compensate.

The problem isn't the minimum wage is too low.

The problem is, most higher-paying jobs got shipped overseas.

Raising the minimum wage is a political "looks good," maneuver that doesn't do jack shit to help the poor or near-poor, but ties everyone up in this argument so the majority don't argue for what could really work: put tariffs back into imports to make it just as profitable to make stuff here if you want to sell it here, as it is to pay Nike peanuts in Viet Nam yet still sell those two-buck shoes for Two Hundred Bucks here.