What, exactly, do you mean by that? Please elaborate.
My opinion is that when people start thinking of others with differing viewpoints as "THOSE people" with the elaboration that she provided, the chances of coming to a solution that's satisfying for everyone becomes very low, whatever those differing viewpoints may be. You end up with parties that spend more time and effort trying to thwart and spite one another than trying to think about what might actually be the options available to them.
This would not be received well but I would like to see a return to "company towns" for the purpose of getting people out of the unskilled labor pool and into the skilled labor pool.
Provide a safe town-like enviorment where everyone in town works for the same business that is both employing and training them. Restrict those people (while in the program) from the "frills" of life for the duration of their training.
I'm talking HDTVs and high performance cars. Each home should have Computers, TVs, Internet access, running water. Provide for a communal living arrangement for those in the program.
Would it be hard for many people to do this? Yes. Will the end result be worth it? Also yes.
Once these people gain the skills they need to get good paying jobs they leave the company town and reenter the workforce.
Obviously there are many holes in my plan. What do you do with people who have large families? What about the people who do not want to move? Why does this sound like a labor camp?
If you can spend 4 years in college with no money eating raman noodles why can't you spend some time in one of these towns?
Joe - Just because some people do try to make a living at a minimum wage job does not make it right. You wouldn't use a Prius to haul a ton of drywall to a jobsite, you would use a truck. So why would you try to support your family on a minimum wage job? No one who supports a family should be working a minimum wage job.
Believe it or not I am not 100% against salary caps. I was recently reading that the top 50% of wage earners (going by IRS information) make $30K or more per year. That figure surprised me.
How to cap the salary is the key question. Should it be a fixed dollar amount? Based on a percentage of the company revenue? Based on a multiplier of the highest paid tier of workers? Based on a percentage of the market cap of the company?
No, the point that I was trying to make is that Steve and Rym and I argue about this stuff all the time, and yet the points seem to keep coming up in the same way with little change. I am perfectly capable of listening to others viewpoints, as Rym and Scott disagree with me all the time (actually, I am more leftist than either of them, when it comes right down to policies). We all relish a good argument, but it's gotten to the point where Steve just puts forth the same stereotypical Conservative lines and knows that we will put forth the same Liberal ones, and...well, I was immature and sunk to the level of petty insults, as it has been established many times over that we disagree profoundly on these topics.
Joe - Just because some people do try to make a living at a minimum wage job does not make it right. You wouldn't use a Prius to haul a ton of drywall to a jobsite, you would use a truck. So why would you try to support your family on a minimum wage job? No one who supports a family should be working a minimum wage job.
Steve, so many of your problems would be resolved if you would just read for comprehension. I never said that it was right. Look at what I wrote and read it. You said, "Minimum wage is for high school kids not for working families." I showed you that many working families rely on minimum wage.
Why does this sound like a labor camp?
Because that's what it is.
@gomi - You don't have to apologize to anyone or even feel like you have to apologize to anyone. As usual, Steve and jcc are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
Joe - Just because some people do try to make a living at a minimum wage job does not make it right. You wouldn't use a Prius to haul a ton of drywall to a jobsite, you would use a truck. So why would you try to support your family on a minimum wage job? No one who supports a family should be working a minimum wage job.
Steve, so many of your problems would be resolved if you would just read for comprehension. I never said that it was right. Look at what I wrote and read it. You said, "Minimum wage is for high school kids not for working families." I showed you that many working families rely on minimum wage.
Than why did you call me wrong? If you are now saying I was right why did you post that quote and tell me I was wrong for saying that minimum wage jobs are not for working families?
Please explain because right now your argument makes no sense.
Joe - Just because some people do try to make a living at a minimum wage job does not make it right. You wouldn't use a Prius to haul a ton of drywall to a jobsite, you would use a truck. So why would you try to support your family on a minimum wage job? No one who supports a family should be working a minimum wage job.
Steve, so many of your problems would be resolved if you would just read for comprehension. I never said that it was right. Look at what I wrote and read it. You said, "Minimum wage is for high school kids not for working families." I showed you that many working families rely on minimum wage.
Than why did you call me wrong? If you are now saying I was right why did you post that quote and tell me I was wrong for saying that minimum wage jobs are not for working families?
Please explain because right now your argument makes no sense.
Goddamn. This is what I mean about just being contrary. READ. Read what you said: "Minimum wage is for high school kids not for working families." Yes, I said you were wrong. Why did I say you were wrong? Because I had a source that provided statistics that showed that 79% of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase are adults. Okay, now read that sentence again. What conclusion can you draw from that sentence? Is it possible that many families depend upon minimum wage jobs? Look at the other things the source says. Actually read it. It's not just for kids then, is it? If it's not just for kids, then your assertion was wrong, wasn't it?
The article on Soy has research attached. Is that research wrong?
What? You actually believe the research that soy makes you gay?!!
The article is misleading. There is substantial research about the effects of soybean products on estrogen levels. Essentially, excess soy consumption leads to increased estrogen levels, as soy contains a plant hormone that is similar in structure to estrogen, and thus functions in a similar (though less potent) fashion. This CAN cause some problems, with enough consumption, but that DOESN'T mean that soy will make you gay. It can lead to a flattened sex drive and such because of increased estrogen, but increased female sex hormone != gay.
That article is full of all kinds of BS - thanks, I needed something to be angry about today - but the cited research seems legit. Granted, of course, it's talking about excess and long-term consumption of soy, far in excess of what most people consume.
I'm with Rym, by the way: differentiate between fiscal and social conservatives. Social conservatives can die in a fire; fiscal conservatives might go overboard sometimes, but I'm generally in favor of making the government smaller and intruding less in people's lives. You have to figure out how to maintain adequate social programs, but I'm sure there's enough crap *coughunnecessarywarscough* that can be cut out to make that feasible.
Joe - Just because some people do try to make a living at a minimum wage job does not make it right. You wouldn't use a Prius to haul a ton of drywall to a jobsite, you would use a truck. So why would you try to support your family on a minimum wage job? No one who supports a family should be working a minimum wage job.
Steve, so many of your problems would be resolved if you would just read for comprehension. I never said that it was right. Look at what I wrote and read it. You said, "Minimum wage is for high school kids not for working families." I showed you that many working families rely on minimum wage.
Than why did you call me wrong? If you are now saying I was right why did you post that quote and tell me I was wrong for saying that minimum wage jobs are not for working families? Please explain because right now your argument makes no sense.
You are wrong because you suggest that the majority of these families have alternatives (i.e. "better jobs"that don't exist) and that there are enough teenagers to do all the minimum wage jobs our society had/needs. As far as I can interpret, and I may be misinterpreting, he is arguing that the minimum wags should be raised because it is not a living wage, and you are arguing that these people can just magic/luck their way into non-existent better paying jobs.
As far as I can interpret, and I may be misinterpreting, he is arguing that the minimum wags should be raised because it is not a living wage, and you are arguing that these people can just magic/luck their way into non-existent better paying jobs.
That's a part of it, but mostly I read it that Steve's sentence means that the number of kids with minimum wage jobs is greater than the number of families with minimum wage jobs. The source I cited says just the opposite. That's the only point I was trying to make with that source.
Your point about the inability of families to miracle themselves into better paying jobs is well taken. Steve would put them in labor camps.
Minimum wage should never be a living wage. Minimum wage is for high school kids not for working families. If you have a family to support you need to get a real job and not a minimum wage job.
Steve, if you own a company you want to make as much money as possible, right? So you'll probably hire people for the lowest wage you can. And seeing as manual labor is very easy to get by (Anyone who is not an invalid and above the age of 18 can do manual labor without a problem), that results in low wages for manual labor jobs, supply and demand. Now think of every person who is not capable of learning. There is an equally large pool of people under the IQ of 100 as there is above said IQ level. Those people will not be able to do much else than trivial manual labor, and because the supply is so huge for that, and the demand dropping (machines taking over those jobs) the wages for those jobs also drop. Because of the minimum wage that an employer is required to pay those people who can't do any work besides trivial/manual labor can make just enough money to afford a roof above their head and bread on the table for themselves, their spouses and their children.
EDIT: Is there such a thing as Social Quotiënt?
As far as I can interpret, and I may be misinterpreting, he is arguing that the minimum wags should be raised because it is not a living wage, and you are arguing that these people can just magic/luck their way into non-existent better paying jobs.
That's a part of it, but mostly I read it that Steve's sentence means that the number of kids with minimum wage jobs is greater than the number of families with minimum wage jobs. The source I cited says just the opposite. That's the only point I was trying to make with that source.
I think everyone comprehended this incorrectly.
I'm not saying that some people do not depend on minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. What I am saying is that minimum wage jobs do not exist to support families. Minimum wage jobs exist as an entry point into the job market.
If you are still working a minimum wage job (as a primary income source) after a couple of years in the workforce there is something wrong with you.
As to Scott's reference to Adam Smith about all jobs being worth a living wage... What about the high school kid who only wants to work 10 hours a week so he can go to the movies and buy video games? Should he have a living wage job?
Minimum wage shouldneverbe a living wage. Minimum wage is for high school kids not for working families. If you have a family to support you need to get a real job and not a minimum wage job.
Steve, if you own a company you want to make as much money as possible, right? So you'll probably hire people for the lowest wage you can. And seeing as manual labor is very easy to get by (Anyone who is not an invalid and above the age of 18 can do manual labor without a problem), that results in low wages for manual labor jobs, supply and demand. Now think of every person who is not capable of learning. There is an equally large pool of people under the IQ of 100 as there is above said IQ level. Those people will not be able to do much else than trivial manual labor, and because the supply is so huge for that, and the demand dropping (machines taking over those jobs) the wages for those jobs also drop. Because of the minimum wage that an employer is required to pay those people who can't do any work besides trivial/manual labor can make just enough money to afford a roof above their head and bread on the table for themselves, their spouses and their children.
EDIT: Is there such a thing as Social Quotiënt?
Why should the employer have to overpay unskilled workers? Is it the employers fault the worker is unskilled? What if the employer just said "screw it" and paid for a machine and a skilled operator?
If I need a hole dug I have two real options:
1) Hire a guy with a back-hoe for lots of money. 2) Hire a bunch of unskilled guys with shovels for little money.
Option one costs a lot but the job will be done fast. Option two costs less but the job will take longer. With proper supervision both options should result in the same quality of work.
Which option is better for the workers? One person making a living wage or ten guys making minimum wage?
As to Scott's reference to Adam Smith about all jobs being worth a living wage... What about the high school kid who only wants to work 10 hours a week so he can go to the movies and buy video games? Should he have a living wage job?
However, there should be a separate lower minimum wage that can be paid to people who are dependants of others. If there is a high school kid just trying to get money for some video games, you shouldn't have to pay them a living wage to flip burgers.
Just to answer that. Anyone who has to support someone (including him or herself) should have a living wage. The entry level should be living wage. It should not be entry below the poverty line. It is not reasonable to have two people working four or more jobs to support a family.
If you are still working a minimum wage job (as a primary income source) after a couple of years in the workforce there is something wrong with you.
That is great in theory, but not everyone can be the boss. Do you really not see that there are not enough jobs that pay more than minimum wage for these adults to move up into, and that is assuming they have access to the training and education they need to move into those higher paying jobs? Furthermore, teenagers are not required to work and there are not enough working teenagers to fill all of the necessary minimum wage positions that this nation relies on. What you are suggesting is not realistic.
I'm not saying that some people do not depend on minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. What I am saying is that minimum wage jobs do not exist to support families. Minimum wage jobs exist as an entry point into the job market.
If you are still working a minimum wage job (as a primary income source) after a couple of years in the workforce there is something wrong with you.
Have you any fucking idea how the market works? For real?!? If you're so hellbent on lowering the minimum wage, you go provide the people who are FORCED BY THE MARKET (annoying, no?) to work for minimum wage with jobs that will pay them enough to support their families.
If those minimum wage adult workers truly valued an education and training they would find a way to improve themselves. The only thing standing between you and a better paying job is you.
Want to learn a trade? Apprentice to someone who already knows the trade.
What about looking into an internship?
What about being creative and creating a niche to exploit?
Was there a "need" for the Penny Arcade strip or did they create a market for the strip after the strip had been created?
What about J.K. Rawlings? She was a welfare mom only about a decade ago.
If you are still working a minimum wage job (as a primary income source) after a couple of years in the workforce there is something wrong with you.
Do you really not see that there are not enough jobs that pay more than minimum wage for these adults to move up into, and that is assuming they have access to the training and education they need to move into those higher paying jobs?
Back in my day, there were few McDonalds and many steel mills. You could walk into a steel mill with a high school diploma on Monday afternoon and be working a decent job Tuesday morning. At that time, there was something wrong with you if you couldn't find a decent job with decent pay.
Now, there are many, many McDonalds and very few steel mills. A person with a high school diploma doesn't have as many choices as he used to have. He might very well end up working at McDonalds. What then? Can he afford to stop working to get job training? Can he afford to stop working to go to school? If he's unlucky, he might very well find himself trapped at McDonalds for years. These days, there is nothing wrong with you if you can't find a decent job.
I'm not saying that some people do not depend on minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. What I am saying is that minimum wage jobsdo not exist to support families. Minimum wage jobs exist as anentry pointinto the job market.
If you are still working a minimum wage job (as a primary income source) after a couple of years in the workforce there is something wrong with you.
Have you any fucking idea how the market works? For real?!? If you're so hellbent on lowering the minimum wage, you go provide the people who areFORCED BY THE MARKET(annoying, no?) to work for minimum wage with jobs that will pay them enough to support their families.
Tip: Grow a heart while you're growing a brain.
I'm not hellbent on lowering the minimum wage. I am hellbent on helping people understand that minimum wage jobs are not designed to be living wage jobs.
I do not have a college degree yet I work a job that requires skill and knowledge. Some of that knowledge I picked up in the Army the rest I picked up on my own or through work.
I am the only source of income for my family and we are fine. We own our own home, have two cars and other amenities of life. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth nor did anyone in my family help me land the job I now have. If I can do it why can't others?
Now, there are many, many McDonalds and very few steel mills. A person with a high school diploma doesn't have as many choices as he used to have. He might very well end up working at McDonalds. What then? Can he afford to stop working to get job training? Can he afford to stop working to go to school? If he's unlucky, he might very well find himself trapped at McDonalds for years. These days, there is nothing wrong with you if you can't find a decent job.
There is if you suddenly decide that your job flipping burgers is sufficient to raise a family on and then bitch when you find out the hard reality that you can't do it.
Do some people get trapped by bad decisions? Yes. Do some highly skilled people suddenly find themselves out of work because the job market changed and no one needs (or is willing to pay a lot for) their skills? Yes.
Is it the fault of the person hiring people at minimum wage? No.
If McDonalds had to choose between hiring 20 workers at $10 an hour or 20 workers at $20 an hour what do you think they would do? Would they reevaluate the profitability of that store and possibly close it? Would they lay off 10 workers and keep 10? would they just increase the prices of the stuff on their menu?
Yes, I do understand how the market works (myself), do you? Do you understand that if a business owner budgets for $10 an hour employees he may have to fire one if he suddenly has to pay them $11 an hour?
Yes, I do understand how the market works (myself), do you? Do you understand that if a business owner budgets for $10 an hour employees he may have to fire one if he suddenly has to pay them $11 an hour?
You just don't read, do you?
There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.
A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
If those minimum wage adult workers truly valued an education and training they would find a way to improve themselves. The only thing standing between you and a better paying job is you.
Coming from a poor family that couldn't pay for higher education, not being able to afford student loans, etc. are all reasons (not excuses, reasons) why people cannot get a higher education. Also, coming from an impoverished background, one probably does not have access to quality education (as urban schools are underfunded and mismanaged), there are no decent paying jobs in the neighborhood/area, etc. Sometimes these people are in crushing, cyclical financial problems (i.e. they work at a minimum wage job, so they can't afford to move to an area with better job opportunities, or go back to school, etc.). Moreover, THESE JOBS DO NOT EXIST! THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH HIGHER PAYING JOBS FOR EVERYONE THAT WOULD WANT/COULD QUALIFY TO DO THEM. Further, working a minimum wage job is not synonymous with being lazy, in fact, it takes a lot more work to keep yourself and your family afloat when you make almost no money, for what is often tedious and fatiguing work.
Want to learn a trade? Apprentice to someone who already knows the trade.
Tell that to an 18 year old mother who needs to put food on the table for her child NOW and has to work two minimum wage jobs to do so, instead of making no money as an apprentice. Also, are there enough apprenticeships for everyone that wants one?
What about looking into an internship?
These usually do not pay much, if anything at all. How do you fund your life (i.e. rent, food, and gas if you have been working a minimum wage job that didn't allow you enough money to save up?
What about being creative and creating a niche to exploit?
Such as? And if you find the niche, who is going to invest in your start-up when you have been working at McDonald's for 3 years?
What about J.K. Rawlings? She was a welfare mom only about a decade ago.
She had a very unique and rare talent. Not everyone can write a best-seller. All of your solutions would help a very small percentage of these adults working in minimum wage jobs. What about the majority? What should they do?
What about J.K. Rawlings? She was a welfare mom only about a decade ago.
Yeah, you minimum wage workers! The solution is so simple! Go write a best selling novel! What's wrong with you?!!
Well, according to Steve there shouldn't be welfare. So Rawlings should have starved to death with no job or money, and not been able to live long enough to write any books.
The fundamental problem here is twofold.
Fold 1 is that completion of the free state-provided education used to be enough to get a decent job. This is no longer true. A High School diploma gets you nothing anymore. It's hard for old people like Steve to understand this, because it is something that was not true when he graduated high school, but it is true now. Because of this, anyone who wants to earn a living either has to go to college, join the military, or be very lucky. There really aren't many other options available that don't fall in the "very lucky" category. Thus, while there are people who go from poor to rich, and rich to poor, the scales of difficulty are imbalanced. Really, the only true answer to this problem is that we need to make it where a high school diploma means something again. However, the result of that will be very many people who are unable to graduate high school because it will actually be difficult to get passing grades. At least in that situation you can justify the person's lack of employment by pointing out that they didn't graduate. They had the same chance that everyone else had, but they blew it.
Fold 2 is a more fundamental problem. People are often scared that computers and other technologies will eliminate jobs. History has shown that despite advances in technology, this fear is largely unfounded. Typically new technologies actually make more jobs overall. However, the new jobs are skilled jobs, and unskilled jobs are eliminated. Since people without money can't afford to build their skills in a non-public school, what do they do?
In addition, our society and economy are fundamentally powered by labor. People are rewarded for their work. Way back in the olden days of agrarian society everyone had to work, or basic subsistence would not be attained. Nowadays, the work of a few people can provide for many. In the future, it is quite possible that no labor at all will be required to provide subsistence for many many people. If the economy continues to only reward those who contribute their labor, what happens when we only need maybe a million people to do work in order to provide for 100 million? What do those 90 million people do? They'll receive their subsistence, but not much else. A new economy based on something else besides direct monetary compensation for labor will have to be developed. If the supply of labor exceeds the demand by a large enough quantity, then even the most skilled laborers will be left with nothing to do, and no justification for receipt of any more than anyone else.
If the economy continues to only reward those who contribute their labor, what happens when we only need maybe a million people to do work in order to provide for 100 million? What do those 90 million people do?
This seems to be a variant of the question "What do you sell when everyone already has what you're selling?" The short-term solutions we've found for this problem when it comes to items have been increasing who counts as "everyone" by expanding to other parts of the globe, and by marketing disposable versions of products instead of non-disposable ones, so that people always have to re-buy them. Im not quite sure what the equivalents would be if the product being sold is labor... I would say, though, that the problem of market saturation is going to be the big one for the future.
What about J.K. Rawlings? She was a welfare mom only about a decade ago.
Yeah, you minimum wage workers! The solution is so simple! Go write a best selling novel! What's wrong with you?!!
However, the result of that will be very many people who are unable to graduate high school because it will actually be difficult to get passing grades. At least in that situation you can justify the person's lack of employment by pointing out that they didn't graduate. They had the same chance that everyone else had, but they blew it.
The simple solution to that is to have a useful vo-tech option for those who can't hack the more intellectual pursuits. Something like BOCES, except not just for stupid kids.
So, basically, make public school not suck, and start a useful vo-tech system for those who truly can't hack the harder high school stuff. Then, everyone who STILL can't be employed after that is terminally unemployable and, well, fuck 'em.
Tell that to an 18 year old mother who needs to put food on the table for her child NOW and has to work two minimum wage jobs to do so, instead of making no money as an apprentice. Also, are there enough apprenticeships for everyone that wants one?
I would ask her where the father of her child is first.
The inner city schools do need fixing. Being stuck in a broken school system seriously impedes your ability to get a good paying job.
Fixing those inner city schools is a two part process. One part of that process involves parents telling their kids that having an education is more important than being true to their "blackness". Being smart does not make you white and it should not be ridiculed. Those who think "keeping it real" means walking around with your pants around your knees laughing at the nerds carrying books are a serious problem in inner cities.
These broken schools are part of the legacy of racism and Jim Crow in America. They need to be fixed. The question is how do you fix them? I think the first step is acknowledging the problem and understanding how we got there and what is keeping us there.
Failing inner city schools need an infusion of discipline and understanding. I don't want to see jack-boot security officers frisking kids in the halls either. What I do want to see is parents getting involved and showing their kids the value of an education.
How do we break that cycle? We can't just throw good teachers into these schools. Joe has pointed out enough times the problems he had working in inner city schools. Hell, even the "good" schools suck these days. My daughter is in the third grade and they spend more time teaching her how to take the standardized tests than teaching her basic reading, writing and math skills!
Bloomberg had an idea in New York of paying kids for good grades. It's a start but will it work and how do we transition out of it?
I honestly feel that the root problem is a lack of education. Not stupidity or low IQ but a lack of education. Fix the education problem and a lot of these other problems should go away.
You are right though. Telling someone who got a crappy education in the past that they are now screwed for life is not going to help. You also can't just throw a standardized test in front of them to see what skills they have because that same crap education is going to screw them on their test results.
I don't have an answer to this problem but I do acknowledge it exists.
So, basically, make public school not suck, and start a useful vo-tech system for those who truly can't hack the harder high school stuff. Then, everyone who STILL can't be employed after that is terminally unemployable and, well, fuck 'em.
What do we do when we eventually have enough vo-tech people to go around? What do we do when advances in technology turn vo-tech jobs into high skill jobs? Things are already getting pretty complicated in that department. It's going to take a lot more brains to be a mechanic in a world of computerized electric cars.
What do we do when we eventually have enough vo-tech people to go around? What do we do when advances in technology turn vo-tech jobs into high skill jobs? Things are already getting pretty complicated in that department. It's going to take a lot more brains to be a mechanic in a world of computerized electric cars.
Haven't we already had this conversation? I seem to remember telling you that we will always need vo-tech people to do stuff. What about our failing infrastructure? What if we want to construct colonies on other worlds? I do not foresee a future where we will never need these type of jobs.
Comments
Provide a safe town-like enviorment where everyone in town works for the same business that is both employing and training them. Restrict those people (while in the program) from the "frills" of life for the duration of their training.
I'm talking HDTVs and high performance cars. Each home should have Computers, TVs, Internet access, running water. Provide for a communal living arrangement for those in the program.
Would it be hard for many people to do this? Yes. Will the end result be worth it? Also yes.
Once these people gain the skills they need to get good paying jobs they leave the company town and reenter the workforce.
Obviously there are many holes in my plan. What do you do with people who have large families? What about the people who do not want to move? Why does this sound like a labor camp?
If you can spend 4 years in college with no money eating raman noodles why can't you spend some time in one of these towns?
Joe - Just because some people do try to make a living at a minimum wage job does not make it right. You wouldn't use a Prius to haul a ton of drywall to a jobsite, you would use a truck. So why would you try to support your family on a minimum wage job? No one who supports a family should be working a minimum wage job.
Believe it or not I am not 100% against salary caps. I was recently reading that the top 50% of wage earners (going by IRS information) make $30K or more per year. That figure surprised me.
How to cap the salary is the key question. Should it be a fixed dollar amount? Based on a percentage of the company revenue? Based on a multiplier of the highest paid tier of workers? Based on a percentage of the market cap of the company?
@gomi - You don't have to apologize to anyone or even feel like you have to apologize to anyone. As usual, Steve and jcc are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
Please explain because right now your argument makes no sense.
That article is full of all kinds of BS - thanks, I needed something to be angry about today - but the cited research seems legit. Granted, of course, it's talking about excess and long-term consumption of soy, far in excess of what most people consume.
I'm with Rym, by the way: differentiate between fiscal and social conservatives. Social conservatives can die in a fire; fiscal conservatives might go overboard sometimes, but I'm generally in favor of making the government smaller and intruding less in people's lives. You have to figure out how to maintain adequate social programs, but I'm sure there's enough crap *coughunnecessarywarscough* that can be cut out to make that feasible.
Your point about the inability of families to miracle themselves into better paying jobs is well taken. Steve would put them in labor camps.
EDIT: Is there such a thing as Social Quotiënt?
I'm not saying that some people do not depend on minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. What I am saying is that minimum wage jobs do not exist to support families. Minimum wage jobs exist as an entry point into the job market.
If you are still working a minimum wage job (as a primary income source) after a couple of years in the workforce there is something wrong with you.
As to Scott's reference to Adam Smith about all jobs being worth a living wage... What about the high school kid who only wants to work 10 hours a week so he can go to the movies and buy video games? Should he have a living wage job?
If I need a hole dug I have two real options:
1) Hire a guy with a back-hoe for lots of money.
2) Hire a bunch of unskilled guys with shovels for little money.
Option one costs a lot but the job will be done fast. Option two costs less but the job will take longer. With proper supervision both options should result in the same quality of work.
Which option is better for the workers? One person making a living wage or ten guys making minimum wage?
Tip: Grow a heart while you're growing a brain.
Want to learn a trade? Apprentice to someone who already knows the trade.
What about looking into an internship?
What about being creative and creating a niche to exploit?
Was there a "need" for the Penny Arcade strip or did they create a market for the strip after the strip had been created?
What about J.K. Rawlings? She was a welfare mom only about a decade ago.
Now, there are many, many McDonalds and very few steel mills. A person with a high school diploma doesn't have as many choices as he used to have. He might very well end up working at McDonalds. What then? Can he afford to stop working to get job training? Can he afford to stop working to go to school? If he's unlucky, he might very well find himself trapped at McDonalds for years. These days, there is nothing wrong with you if you can't find a decent job.
I do not have a college degree yet I work a job that requires skill and knowledge. Some of that knowledge I picked up in the Army the rest I picked up on my own or through work.
I am the only source of income for my family and we are fine. We own our own home, have two cars and other amenities of life. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth nor did anyone in my family help me land the job I now have. If I can do it why can't others?
Do some people get trapped by bad decisions? Yes. Do some highly skilled people suddenly find themselves out of work because the job market changed and no one needs (or is willing to pay a lot for) their skills? Yes.
Is it the fault of the person hiring people at minimum wage? No.
If McDonalds had to choose between hiring 20 workers at $10 an hour or 20 workers at $20 an hour what do you think they would do? Would they reevaluate the profitability of that store and possibly close it? Would they lay off 10 workers and keep 10? would they just increase the prices of the stuff on their menu?
Yes, I do understand how the market works (myself), do you? Do you understand that if a business owner budgets for $10 an hour employees he may have to fire one if he suddenly has to pay them $11 an hour?
The fundamental problem here is twofold.
Fold 1 is that completion of the free state-provided education used to be enough to get a decent job. This is no longer true. A High School diploma gets you nothing anymore. It's hard for old people like Steve to understand this, because it is something that was not true when he graduated high school, but it is true now. Because of this, anyone who wants to earn a living either has to go to college, join the military, or be very lucky. There really aren't many other options available that don't fall in the "very lucky" category. Thus, while there are people who go from poor to rich, and rich to poor, the scales of difficulty are imbalanced. Really, the only true answer to this problem is that we need to make it where a high school diploma means something again. However, the result of that will be very many people who are unable to graduate high school because it will actually be difficult to get passing grades. At least in that situation you can justify the person's lack of employment by pointing out that they didn't graduate. They had the same chance that everyone else had, but they blew it.
Fold 2 is a more fundamental problem. People are often scared that computers and other technologies will eliminate jobs. History has shown that despite advances in technology, this fear is largely unfounded. Typically new technologies actually make more jobs overall. However, the new jobs are skilled jobs, and unskilled jobs are eliminated. Since people without money can't afford to build their skills in a non-public school, what do they do?
In addition, our society and economy are fundamentally powered by labor. People are rewarded for their work. Way back in the olden days of agrarian society everyone had to work, or basic subsistence would not be attained. Nowadays, the work of a few people can provide for many. In the future, it is quite possible that no labor at all will be required to provide subsistence for many many people. If the economy continues to only reward those who contribute their labor, what happens when we only need maybe a million people to do work in order to provide for 100 million? What do those 90 million people do? They'll receive their subsistence, but not much else. A new economy based on something else besides direct monetary compensation for labor will have to be developed. If the supply of labor exceeds the demand by a large enough quantity, then even the most skilled laborers will be left with nothing to do, and no justification for receipt of any more than anyone else.
So, basically, make public school not suck, and start a useful vo-tech system for those who truly can't hack the harder high school stuff. Then, everyone who STILL can't be employed after that is terminally unemployable and, well, fuck 'em.
The inner city schools do need fixing. Being stuck in a broken school system seriously impedes your ability to get a good paying job.
Fixing those inner city schools is a two part process. One part of that process involves parents telling their kids that having an education is more important than being true to their "blackness". Being smart does not make you white and it should not be ridiculed. Those who think "keeping it real" means walking around with your pants around your knees laughing at the nerds carrying books are a serious problem in inner cities.
These broken schools are part of the legacy of racism and Jim Crow in America. They need to be fixed. The question is how do you fix them? I think the first step is acknowledging the problem and understanding how we got there and what is keeping us there.
Failing inner city schools need an infusion of discipline and understanding. I don't want to see jack-boot security officers frisking kids in the halls either. What I do want to see is parents getting involved and showing their kids the value of an education.
How do we break that cycle? We can't just throw good teachers into these schools. Joe has pointed out enough times the problems he had working in inner city schools. Hell, even the "good" schools suck these days. My daughter is in the third grade and they spend more time teaching her how to take the standardized tests than teaching her basic reading, writing and math skills!
Bloomberg had an idea in New York of paying kids for good grades. It's a start but will it work and how do we transition out of it?
I honestly feel that the root problem is a lack of education. Not stupidity or low IQ but a lack of education. Fix the education problem and a lot of these other problems should go away.
You are right though. Telling someone who got a crappy education in the past that they are now screwed for life is not going to help. You also can't just throw a standardized test in front of them to see what skills they have because that same crap education is going to screw them on their test results.
I don't have an answer to this problem but I do acknowledge it exists.