“That defeats the whole concept!”It certainly does. It has been shown that an unfortunately high percentage of “the 1%” are psycho/sociopaths. To such people not only is it important that they win, it’s just as important to them that you lose. And the greater the gap between the winners and the losers, the happier those folks are to the point where they are often willing to sacrifice some of their (potential) winnings if it will enhance the losses of others.See: the financial structure of Tea Party politics.
Obviously, set the minimum wage too high, and all the dire consequences that “Chicken Little” predicts will come about. There is no reason, however, especially with the vast improvements in productivity in the last 50 years, for minimum wage not retain the buying power it had in 1963 by adjusting it for inflation at least enough to do that. Leaving it alone while productivity continues to rise and inflation continues is, in effect, LOWERING the minimum wage. In fact, each year that it does not stay level with buying power is effectively a reduction in the minimum wage. Minimum wage was at it highest in actual buying power in 1968, at least 40% higher than it is today. Raising it to $10 an hour will still leave it significantly lower in value than it was then. A larger number (and percentage) of people work for minimum wage now than they did 45 or 50 years ago. It is the livelihood of many adults, and even parents. Raising it would in some (perhaps many) cases raise household incomes enough so that those households would no longer qualify for foodstamps. Therefore, anyone who wishes to see the so-called welfare rolls reduced and improve the fiscal condition of the nation should support the raising, within reason, of the minimum wage.It is possible that some few businesses will employ fewer minimum-wage employees if they have to pay them $10 an hour instead of $7.25; it is possible the price of a Big Mac will have to go up. (The price of most goods would not be much affected.) But you know what? Abolishing slavery put a lot of slaves out of work, and probably increased the cost of raising cotton. That doesn’t mean it was the wrong thing to do. If you own the only operating well during a drought, and people are desperate enough to pay out their life savings to get enough water to live, that does not mean your are justified in charging a hundred dollars a pint. If you are the only person in hard times that a desperate person can find who will employ him, that does not mean you are justified in paying him a pittance. Minimum wage laws serve a good purpose; and while raising the minimum too high or too quickly can have unintended and bad consequences, a rise of $1 an hour each year for the next three or four years would be neither unjust nor destructive. And the purchasing power of that minimum wage would still be lower than it was 40 years ago.
The reality of wealth redistribution: take every dollar away from everyone and give it to one person. The total amount of wealth in the country will be the same. The average per capita amount of money will be the same. Do you think it would make no difference in the general welfare of the country? This is the direction in which we are going, after all.Even given the example you cite: take $300,000,000 from Warren Buffet, who is worth 50 times that much, and he won’t even notice the difference. He loses that much any time there is a 2% drop in the market. Give a dollar to a hungry kid who is going to go without lunch or supper, and he can buy an apple. And you think the kid is no better off? Take 99% of Warren Buffet’s money, and each person get $50. There are people in this country, for whom $50 is still a big deal. And Warren Buffet would still have half a billion dollars. I don’t think he would suffer too much.If you are genuinely against wealth redistribution, then you’d better oppose all subsidies, all tax deductions, because they are forms of it, not to mention things like “alimony” and “child support”. Things like free public libraries and free public schools and parks and fire protection and so on will have to go, too. …. And if you want to be actually consistent, and think that no individual should receive anything from another that he has not earned or paid for, quid pro quo, then all charities should close up shop. And while you’re at it, better not go paying for your kids’ education and health care and food and such: let them earn it themselves. Unless you want to loan them the money: but then make sure you don’t charge them less than market interest! And I sure hope you didn’t go around redistributing your wealth last week by giving away presents. And you’d better not buy insurance of any kind, for insurance is always a scheme for collecting money from the fortunate to pay for the losses of the unfortunate.Obviously, wealth redistribution can go too far as well as not far enough. It can go in the wrong direction. The question is not whether wealth should be redistributed, but how much and in what way. All the indications at present show that, for the last 30 years or more, the wealth of the nation has largely been flowing from the hands of the many into the hands of the few, and that we are growing more and more unequal rather than the opposite.Still, we have a problem more serious even than growing inequality of wealth: and that is the inequality of opportunity. America was once “the best poor man’s country in world” and not merely because the poor lived better here than elsewhere, but because they had the highest chances of rising from proverty. That is no longer the case: a poor kid born in western Europe will get a better education, better healthcare, will live in safer conditions, and have a better chance of rising out of poverty than a kid born poor in modern America. He will even have a better chance of just surviving childhood. That’s what all the statistics demonstrate.
Alexander the Good Enough over 10 years ago
“That defeats the whole concept!”It certainly does. It has been shown that an unfortunately high percentage of “the 1%” are psycho/sociopaths. To such people not only is it important that they win, it’s just as important to them that you lose. And the greater the gap between the winners and the losers, the happier those folks are to the point where they are often willing to sacrifice some of their (potential) winnings if it will enhance the losses of others.See: the financial structure of Tea Party politics.
Doughfoot over 10 years ago
Obviously, set the minimum wage too high, and all the dire consequences that “Chicken Little” predicts will come about. There is no reason, however, especially with the vast improvements in productivity in the last 50 years, for minimum wage not retain the buying power it had in 1963 by adjusting it for inflation at least enough to do that. Leaving it alone while productivity continues to rise and inflation continues is, in effect, LOWERING the minimum wage. In fact, each year that it does not stay level with buying power is effectively a reduction in the minimum wage. Minimum wage was at it highest in actual buying power in 1968, at least 40% higher than it is today. Raising it to $10 an hour will still leave it significantly lower in value than it was then. A larger number (and percentage) of people work for minimum wage now than they did 45 or 50 years ago. It is the livelihood of many adults, and even parents. Raising it would in some (perhaps many) cases raise household incomes enough so that those households would no longer qualify for foodstamps. Therefore, anyone who wishes to see the so-called welfare rolls reduced and improve the fiscal condition of the nation should support the raising, within reason, of the minimum wage.It is possible that some few businesses will employ fewer minimum-wage employees if they have to pay them $10 an hour instead of $7.25; it is possible the price of a Big Mac will have to go up. (The price of most goods would not be much affected.) But you know what? Abolishing slavery put a lot of slaves out of work, and probably increased the cost of raising cotton. That doesn’t mean it was the wrong thing to do. If you own the only operating well during a drought, and people are desperate enough to pay out their life savings to get enough water to live, that does not mean your are justified in charging a hundred dollars a pint. If you are the only person in hard times that a desperate person can find who will employ him, that does not mean you are justified in paying him a pittance. Minimum wage laws serve a good purpose; and while raising the minimum too high or too quickly can have unintended and bad consequences, a rise of $1 an hour each year for the next three or four years would be neither unjust nor destructive. And the purchasing power of that minimum wage would still be lower than it was 40 years ago.
Doughfoot over 10 years ago
The reality of wealth redistribution: take every dollar away from everyone and give it to one person. The total amount of wealth in the country will be the same. The average per capita amount of money will be the same. Do you think it would make no difference in the general welfare of the country? This is the direction in which we are going, after all.Even given the example you cite: take $300,000,000 from Warren Buffet, who is worth 50 times that much, and he won’t even notice the difference. He loses that much any time there is a 2% drop in the market. Give a dollar to a hungry kid who is going to go without lunch or supper, and he can buy an apple. And you think the kid is no better off? Take 99% of Warren Buffet’s money, and each person get $50. There are people in this country, for whom $50 is still a big deal. And Warren Buffet would still have half a billion dollars. I don’t think he would suffer too much.If you are genuinely against wealth redistribution, then you’d better oppose all subsidies, all tax deductions, because they are forms of it, not to mention things like “alimony” and “child support”. Things like free public libraries and free public schools and parks and fire protection and so on will have to go, too. …. And if you want to be actually consistent, and think that no individual should receive anything from another that he has not earned or paid for, quid pro quo, then all charities should close up shop. And while you’re at it, better not go paying for your kids’ education and health care and food and such: let them earn it themselves. Unless you want to loan them the money: but then make sure you don’t charge them less than market interest! And I sure hope you didn’t go around redistributing your wealth last week by giving away presents. And you’d better not buy insurance of any kind, for insurance is always a scheme for collecting money from the fortunate to pay for the losses of the unfortunate.Obviously, wealth redistribution can go too far as well as not far enough. It can go in the wrong direction. The question is not whether wealth should be redistributed, but how much and in what way. All the indications at present show that, for the last 30 years or more, the wealth of the nation has largely been flowing from the hands of the many into the hands of the few, and that we are growing more and more unequal rather than the opposite.Still, we have a problem more serious even than growing inequality of wealth: and that is the inequality of opportunity. America was once “the best poor man’s country in world” and not merely because the poor lived better here than elsewhere, but because they had the highest chances of rising from proverty. That is no longer the case: a poor kid born in western Europe will get a better education, better healthcare, will live in safer conditions, and have a better chance of rising out of poverty than a kid born poor in modern America. He will even have a better chance of just surviving childhood. That’s what all the statistics demonstrate.
oneoldhat over 10 years ago
the reason to raise min wage is to increase the unemployed who will vote for the democrats
Doughfoot over 10 years ago
Most of your so-called “welfare people” ARE “working people.” Just don’t have a clue, do you?