I do not support a livable wage

I think that's true. I don't think that there's any legitimate reason why 8 bucks an hour can't be a "decent living wage". I don't buy that you have to keep using ever larger numbers, 8 bucks 100 years ago was like having 150 bucks today, should we really accept that it is inevitable 100 years from now 150 bucks might only buy you a fast food combo meal?

I think we'd be better off working to increase the buying power of 8 bucks rather than merely making 15 bucks the new 8 bucks.

 

There is no right answer here.

You are asking for deflation which is also a scary proposition for our modern economy where the vast majority of Americans have some form of debt. Deflation also means the value of your debt increases.

 

FWIW, was reading through an article that popped up yesterday on things to be aware of when traveling to Europe. One of them was about customer service, or rather the lack of, and it specifically mentioned that European wait staff gets paid a living wage, so service suffers because they have little incentive to work for tips. The article wasn't political either way, just making an observation on that item, but it does support, in a real life example, one of the issues brought up when discussing paying a 'living wage' for what still are minimum wage jobs.

 

And there it is right there i don't see way the middle class can't get a raise along with a increase of minimum wage.

 

One of the things that is ignored in any discussion around living wage (or any artifically elevated wage): When you artificially elevate prices, you correspondingly reduce demand. Artificially elevated wages create incentive to look for lower cost alternatives. With the growing trend of automation, this would just accelerate that. You would (and this is simple economic fact, not debatable) have higher wages, but fewer workers. Outside of automation and other forms of job reduction (simply expecting each worker to do more), you also create incentive to outsource the work if possible. All of these lead to fewer and fewer jobs at those wages. This is simple economic fact.

 

LOL, are you a person or a bot stuck posting the same script over and over again?

 

Then why haven't we killed all the secretaries?

 

Basic premise without the minuiae is:
We forcefully demand everyone "Get a DANG JOB" because you NEED JOB to LIVE!

But COMPANIES and business principles have LITTLE/NO OBLIGATION at all to help ANYONE live, or to even employ. They exist ONLY for their own gain. Having NOBODY on staff with SAME profits is OPTIMAL, its BETTER than paying any single person.

Its like commanding people to always have clothes on while outside, but half the stores & providers only have shirts, but no underwear & pants. And they can say it makes "business sense". Its a built-in restricting factor that goes against societal life standard thats NOT all the fault of "not working hard enough". Wage suppression almost works the same way in that it restricts life necessities away

Simple solution: If life demand is GET A JOB cuz JOB = Life / Sitting on Ass = No Good Mooch, then "JOB" should be offering necessary level to live. Who cares if un-skilled McDonalds person can minimally support family with higher pay, as long as the distinction is "Willing To Work / Non-Mooch" willing to go out and earn, thats fine enough for me.

 

Thats correct, More harder work & effort = More returns more yields

Still, what says that there ARE ENOUGH construction jobs for EVERYONE who wants them? Its not determination of the worker to create available construction jobs, thats 98% at discretion of the companies. Everyone is a scavenger looking for these infrequent openings.

We've always assumed that jobs are just "out there" waiting to get plucked. But that is NOT a GIVEN anymore with the automation jobs eating beast coming through and other factors. You just tell people "Work HARDER!"? Like, each person in a graduating class is supposed to individually start up their OWN construction company? And if they don't theyre "bums" who dont have it figured out? I'm not saying there's no value to working hard, just there's only so much a job seeker can do through sheer will.

 

Incurring unnecessary labor costs would be a violation of fiduciary duty to shareholders.

Paying more than is needed for labor has an opportunity cost, that money can't be used for other things (like capital investment/expansion, hiring more people, etc.)

 

Except with respect to top executive-level labor.

 

It is more immoral to violate fiduciary duty than to let people starve/use public funds to supplement underpaid labor?

That is why Capitalism and morality don't mix

Rocket River

 

why does the income of the laborer take priority over the shareholder?

 

pure capitalism isn't moral or smart long term; this is why no one expect and most do not practice it in that form.

but given the chance, some absolute would abuse it, thus we have regulation to hold it in place.

of course those regulation are being weaken left and right and even if not , we see the limit and danger of today capitalism.. there is also a realization that it is now actually harmful to individual well being, especially in developed countries

capitalism has been great, but i think it's coming to an end in the next century

 

Look at these morons on the right all think they know something about economics.

Fact is that studies don't really show much of what raising the minimum wage does to the economy. It's very industry dependent.

 

Out of economic necessity? Suppose someone works at Walmart: where do you expect that person to shop?

 

Companies have unprofitable quarters or years all the time due to shifting overhead costs or reduced demand and revenue, so an executive reducing or minimizing wage hikes or increase prices at an individual is a more complex choice and process than this characterization.

 

Because class warfare.

 

Because the laborer usually draws his primary income from his labor, while shareholders do not.