minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good

[MU82]

eh, not sure how much they are fixes as opposed to just fingers to be stuck in the dike to keep an already poorly constructed system.

I think there are some excellent ideas there and some less so. It's at least a place to begin a conversation.

But wow ... there are many special interest groups who would not like many of these proposals. Which is always the biggest impediment on getting real things accomplished in politics (even at the city level).

I confess that I did like this from the article:

Obamacare was, in fact, the long-standing Republican alternative to the more radical health-care reforms, such as a single-payer system, that Democrats have proposed since the Truman era. What President Barack Obama and his party pushed through Congress in 2010 was more conservative — and more pro-private sector — than what Richard M. Nixon proposed in the 1970s, or what Republican Gov. Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts in 2006. Put simply, Obama dared Republicans to take yes for an answer. In a polarized America, they still said no.

[mu03eng]

I think there are some excellent ideas there and some less so. It's at least a place to begin a conversation.

But wow ... there are many special interest groups who would not like many of these proposals. Which is always the biggest impediment on getting real things accomplished in politics (even at the city level).

I confess that I did like this from the article:

Obamacare was, in fact, the long-standing Republican alternative to the more radical health-care reforms, such as a single-payer system, that Democrats have proposed since the Truman era. What President Barack Obama and his party pushed through Congress in 2010 was more conservative — and more pro-private sector — than what Richard M. Nixon proposed in the 1970s, or what Republican Gov. Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts in 2006. Put simply, Obama dared Republicans to take yes for an answer. In a polarized America, they still said no.

Like most things in politics, special interest groups are why we get the bastardized version of healthcare (both in the past and the present). You know what the difference is between a horse and a camel? The camel is a horse designed by committee. Healthcare is some sort of really poorly designed camel.

One thing to keep in mind is that this all basically comes down to a fight between state's rights and federalism. That fight makes healthcare nearly impossible to resolve because it is felt at the individual and local level, not at the federal level. IMO one of the most overlooked stories of the current technology age is how it has allowed the "nationalization" of issues away from the local levels. People in California can now comment and influence decisions in Pennsylvania and vice versa. A federal bill that applies to all is now understood at the local level and then reflected back to the national level (it's bad for this region so it must be bad for all, etc).

I do wonder if the entitlement fight at the national level might eventually break the current government model of the US, either with a move to full federalism, or with a return to distributed governance and a weaker central government.

[MU82]

Like most things in politics, special interest groups are why we get the bastardized version of healthcare (both in the past and the present). You know what the difference is between a horse and a camel? The camel is a horse designed by committee. Healthcare is some sort of really poorly designed camel.

One thing to keep in mind is that this all basically comes down to a fight between state's rights and federalism. That fight makes healthcare nearly impossible to resolve because it is felt at the individual and local level, not at the federal level. IMO one of the most overlooked stories of the current technology age is how it has allowed the "nationalization" of issues away from the local levels. People in California can now comment and influence decisions in Pennsylvania and vice versa. A federal bill that applies to all is now understood at the local level and then reflected back to the national level (it's bad for this region so it must be bad for all, etc).

I do wonder if the entitlement fight at the national level might eventually break the current government model of the US, either with a move to full federalism, or with a return to distributed governance and a weaker central government.

I hadn't thought about all that, mu03. Very deep stuff. Some of it is troubling, but I'm not as high on states' rights as some are. The states have gotten an awful lot wrong! (But of course, so have the feds. It's a debate that will never end.)

But yeah, look at the out-of-state money that comes into so many state elections now. We had local judge elections getting campaign money from thousands of miles away in 2016!

I don't see how one turns the clock back on this, um, "progress," for better or worse. Almost surely worse.

[Jay Bee]

Point is, we do a poor job in the us of placing decent value on low-level employees. Including those that are just above the minimum wage standard

Raise minimum wage then raise other lower levels, bring down upper levels and everyone wins.

False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

Do well, be rewarded. Simple.

[forgetful]

False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

Do well, be rewarded. Simple.

This is BS.  Doing well and being rewarded are poorly related these days.

It's like saying that slavery was good, because the plantations did a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees and were just disrupted by gov't.  I mean, why would anyone open a plantation in a state that didn't have slavery...it is not economical, clearly slavery is a good thing.

[Jay Bee]

This is BS.  Doing well and being rewarded are poorly related these days.

It's like saying that slavery was good, because the plantations did a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees and were just disrupted by gov't.  I mean, why would anyone open a plantation in a state that didn't have slavery...it is not economical, clearly slavery is a good thing.

Slavery was awful and those people didn't have a choice. Comparing illegal and unthinkable activities such as slavery to a guy choosing to work a fast food job is sad, bub.

[jesmu84]

If we had true capitalism in this country, I'd agree that we'd be fine. But we don't. So we have to have some societal and governmental regulation to even the playing field. Otherwise, the endgame will be royalty and peasants.

Again, compare the numbers. Minimum wage vs inflation. Executive pay vs low level employee pay. Where the money is concentrated. Etc. Huge changes in the last 30 years.

The lower classes have always gotten kinda screwed. The middle class has seen a significant change in the recent past. Want to make America great again? Make the middle class the focal point of policy.

[rocket surgeon]

Point is, we do a poor job in the us of placing decent value on low-level employees. Including those that are just above the minimum wage standard

Raise minimum wage then raise other lower levels, bring down upper levels and everyone wins.

  wait a minute, everybody wins?  what is that?  sounds like everyone gets a trophy to me. 

  what do you propose we raise the minimum wage to?  and to what levels do you bring the "upper levels" to?  try this in your household and get back to me on how it works out

[jesmu84]

  wait a minute, everybody wins?  what is that?  sounds like everyone gets a trophy to me. 

  what do you propose we raise the minimum wage to?  and to what levels do you bring the "upper levels" to?  try this in your household and get back to me on how it works out

I live alone. Works out fine

Yes. Everyone wins. As in society. Our communities. The places we live. The populace, as a whole, succeeds. I'm not talking free hand-outs. I'd get rid of most of the social safety nets and raise wages for the bottom 90%. Of course, that's gotta come from somewhere - and those top 10%, the ones who run things - aren't going to do it themselves

I don't have the specific numbers on minimum wage, etc. That's for the expert economists, etc. to figure out. You hear a lot of the lower-middle and middle tier that get all up in arms about raising minimum wage because they feel then they're getting screwed. Well, they are, but not by the lower end. They should be going up too.

[MU82]

False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

Do well, be rewarded. Simple.

False.

You should have started your post with: "High-quality, moral, fair-minded companies ... "

Then I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately, many companies try to get away with whatever they can.

I won't say it's all or even the majority, just as you shouldn't have suggested that all companies do a "great job."

Here's an example from my not-too-distant past. When I moved to NC, I decided it would be fun to get a part-time job at a golf course. So I got a menial job cleaning carts, putting members' clubs on carts, etc. I was told I'd get $9/hour.

My first paycheck comes ... and they paid me $8/hour. I thought there was just an oversight, so I pointed it out to my boss.

"Well, I just decided to start you at $8/hour," he said, as matter-of-factly as he could.

I had about 5 seconds to decide if I wanted to press it. Given that it was basically a shyte job, I decided to.

"OK ... but you told me the day you hired me that you'd pay me $9/hour."

Silence for about 10 seconds. Then, after a sigh, "All right. I'll call our HR department and have it adjusted."

My next paycheck I got the $9, but they never went back and credited me the extra buck an hour for the time I had worked in my first pay period. Why? Because they didn't have to. They were "the man," I was the peon, and tough crap if I didn't like it - despite them promising me more.

Fact is, I took the job for the free golf I got to play when members weren't on the course, and the wage $8, $9, $10, whatever ... that didn't really matter for the 2-3 five-hour shifts I'd work.

It was just the principle of it. The boss told me he'd pay me something but tried to get away with paying me less ... just because. He didn't even try to weasel out of it by claiming it was an "accounting error." And then, when caught, he didn't even give me the $15-20 or whatever I was denied in the first paycheck.

Again, I won't say that all employers are like that, or even most, or even 50% or even 33%. But a shyteload are. Hell, that's not the only example I could give from me or my wife's employment history.

Many companies will get away with whatever they can. If you don't believe that, you're in fairytale land.

[Jay Bee]

^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic

[Pakuni]

False. Companies do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees, but have to deal with the gov't as well, unfortunately.

Do well, be rewarded. Simple.

Or, in the case of our top executives, do terrible, be rewarded.
See: Carly Fiorina
Leo Apotheker
Jeff Smisek
Richard Fuld
Eckhard Pfeiffer
Stephen Hilbert
Franklin Raines
Marissa Meyer
Michael Ovitz
Philippe Dauman
And so on and so forth

[Lennys Tap]

^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic

Exactly. The big, bad "company" didn't do anything wrong - some a-hole working for the company did. That there are people in the private or public sector who are a-holes is a given. A-holes are everywhere.

The question isn't about what to do with the a-holes. The question is to what degree do we want the public sector interfering and artificially altering markets. Going after criminals (fraud, etc.) is a legit governmental function. Telling private companies how much to pay their employees? More harm than help, IMHO.

[MUBurrow]

The question isn't about what to do with the a-holes. The question is to what degree do we want the public sector interfering and artificially altering markets. Going after criminals (fraud, etc.) is a legit governmental function. Telling private companies how much to pay their employees? More harm than help, IMHO.

This is where I agree to disagree - which, I think, is a good source of disagreement, and is supposed to be the key divide between the left-leaning and the right-leaning (honestly the political discourse has become so bastardized, its hard to tell anymore). And there are a lot of really good rich, mature conversations to happen around this topic that just aren't happening because everyone is busy calling each other names.

I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of examples of government getting it wrong. But for me, I think we are far too defeatist about our ability to shape the world we want to live in, for fear of upsetting the invisible hand. At the risk of being labeled a commie, I think responsible approaches to the tax code, regulation of the financial industry, the health care insurance market, etc., can help us start to work our way back toward a wealth bell curve, and I don't think that stating from the outset that my goal would be approximating that bell curve  is unacceptably redistributionist.

[MU82]

^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic

Perfect. You didn't like that it upset your narrative, so you dismissed it as bizarro ... even if it happens ALL THE TIME.

Shall I share an anecdote about a person (not me) who worked for a major international corporation, got nothing but great job reviews for two decades and then had the CEO lie to his face about compensation he was promised but now was not going to be paid?

What? That wasn't about the "company" but about a "pathetic CEO"?

Hell, how about our so-called president stiffing numerous contractors for work they performed, guys who couldn't afford the legal fees to take his orange arse to court?

The Orange Menace WAS the company. The CEO who dealt with my friend IS the company. And my boss at the golf course WAS the representative of that company. None of 'em went rogue, Sarah Palin; all were representing their company's interests, trying to save every last nickel on the backs of the peons.

I can't believe you honestly think that "companies" - or whomever you think represents them - always "do a great job of placing decent value on low-level employees."

It's never "the man" who's the bastard but the poor schlub who didn't work hard enough or who "tried to get away with stuff." How naive. It must be wonderful to always root for the overdog!

What next? "Reverse racism" is a worse problem than actual racism?

[forgetful]

Slavery was awful and those people didn't have a choice. Comparing illegal and unthinkable activities such as slavery to a guy choosing to work a fast food job is sad, bub.

So slavery is awful, but paying someone a wage that they cannot survive on is not?  But if you don't like that one, how about paying coal miners in money they can only use at company stores, where they will go into debt and be tied to the company for life?

You seem to want to say that the working poor taking minimum wage jobs have a choice.  What is their choice?  They are taking the only work available to them, where most often they are in this situation not because of anything of their own doing, but merely where they were born.

Slavery, company coin, non-living wage labor are all far more similar than they are different.  They are labor exploited in non-humane ways for the benefit of the wealthy.


Slavery was once legal and considered good for the slaves, it is now illegal and considered unthinkable.  Paying in company coin was once legal and considered good for the employees.  It is now considered unthinkable and is illegal.  The minimum wage was created, because people were exploiting workers with unlivable wages, which with the new law made it illegal and unthinkable to pay people sub-sustenance level wages.  Now, you and others here are saying we do not need the minimum wage, let business handle it.

If we did remove the minimum wage, we would quickly go back to the illegal and unthinkable conditions. 

[forgetful]

^^^ pathetic story about a thief. We're talking about a company having the right to offer whatever pay they like, and potential employees deciding if they are agreeable to it or not. The bizarro sob stories don't represent the topic

How about the fact that our very own president repeatedly doesn't pay his contractors.  Saying if they don't like it take him to court, and when they do try to sue he buries them in legal work for years to the point that he bankrupted many of them?


Such scenarios are not uncommon and our president is well known for it. 

If you give companies the right to set the salary at what they want, why should they pay them anything at all?  Why not switch to the chinese model of just letting them live in dormatories and providing them food?

[warriorchick]

If you give companies the right to set the salary at what they want, why should they pay them anything at all?  Why not switch to the chinese model of just letting them live in dormatories and providing them food?

Have you forgotten the supply side of the equation? Someone has to be willing to do the work for what you are willing to pay.  And isn't the reason we shouldn't enforce the current immigration law is that we have so many jobs that Americans refuse to do?

[forgetful]

Have you forgotten the supply side of the equation? Someone has to be willing to do the work for what you are willing to pay.  And isn't the reason we shouldn't enforce the current immigration law is that we have so many jobs that Americans refuse to do?

You are forgetting a lot of elements to the equation.  Much as FDR created a high-paying federal works program to force wages up, right now wages are kept somewhat reasonable (and minimum wages haven't been challenged), because of welfare.

The same people challenging minimum wages also challenge welfare completely are want a work requirement.  Right now it is wiser to be on welfare, then to work for minimum wage...keeping things ok.  If those challenging welfare/minimum wages get their way supply is not an issue. 

Immigration has nothing to do with jobs americans do not want to do; you are confusing immigration laws, with illegals.  Illegals work off the books, for sub-minimum wage, in jobs americans refuse to do, because welfare is economically more intelligent.

[warriorchick]

Illegals work off the books, for sub-minimum wage, in jobs americans refuse to do, because welfare is economically more intelligent.

The majority of illegals in this country work legitimate jobs with fake work visas and are making better than the minimum wage. You would be surprised at the number of union members who are illegal, and the unions protect them.  At a company I worked for, we had several instances where we could prove that an employee had a fake I-9 and/or social security card, and the union filed a grievance when we fired them.  These were people making $15-$20 an hour plus full benefits.

[Lennys Tap]

This is where I agree to disagree - which, I think, is a good source of disagreement, and is supposed to be the key divide between the left-leaning and the right-leaning (honestly the political discourse has become so bastardized, its hard to tell anymore). And there are a lot of really good rich, mature conversations to happen around this topic that just aren't happening because everyone is busy calling each other names.

I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of examples of government getting it wrong. But for me, I think we are far too defeatist about our ability to shape the world we want to live in, for fear of upsetting the invisible hand. At the risk of being labeled a commie, I think responsible approaches to the tax code, regulation of the financial industry, the health care insurance market, etc., can help us start to work our way back toward a wealth bell curve, and I don't think that stating from the outset that my goal would be approximating that bell curve  is unacceptably redistributionist.

You're right. Rather than arguing anecdotal "my boss lied to me" silliness the subject should be the role of government - I'd argue that role doesn't include advocating for every disgruntled employee.

The first item that needs to be accepted in this sort of dialogue is that well meaning people on both sides of the argument want a fairer, stronger and more prosperous union for all citizens. That assumed...

I ascribe to Milton Friedman and his economic dictums because I believe history proves that free markets have done more to alleviate hunger and other forms of human suffering than all governments, religions, charities, etc., combined. The deeper the government goes to restrict or interfere with these forces the greater the misery for her citizens. Seems obvious (to me, anyway) looking at history

Now, can a country made great and wealthy on free market principles withstand some tinkering on the edges to insure a safety net for her least fortunate? As long as it doesn't abandon principles that made it wealthy, sure.

IMO, the evidence shows that socialism does no better for its poor than does capitalism - other than giving them more company. And just as in capitalism, the elites/rich do great - only there' fewer of them. The best thing about capitalism for its citizens? There's mobility for the lower and middle classes - one's economic status is not determined at birth.

Again it's my opinion, but I think there is a great deal of truth in Chuchill's contrast of capitalism/socialism: one is the system under which the fruits are divided unequally, the other is the system that divides the misery equally.

I'll take my chances on a government safety net and the charity of free men and women in an economy as vibrant and unfettered as is feasible over one directed from Washington. The former may contain some cruelty (man is imperfect, after all) but not near as much as the latter.

[MU82]

You are forgetting a lot of elements to the equation.  Much as FDR created a high-paying federal works program to force wages up, right now wages are kept somewhat reasonable (and minimum wages haven't been challenged), because of welfare.

The same people challenging minimum wages also challenge welfare completely are want a work requirement.  Right now it is wiser to be on welfare, then to work for minimum wage...keeping things ok.  If those challenging welfare/minimum wages get their way supply is not an issue. 

Immigration has nothing to do with jobs americans do not want to do; you are confusing immigration laws, with illegals.  Illegals work off the books, for sub-minimum wage, in jobs americans refuse to do, because welfare is economically more intelligent.

Article in the Charlotte paper just this week about a farm in danger of going under because the H2B visa program is not letting LEGAL immigrants into the country to work as had been the case just last year and the year before. The owner kept increasing the wage he was willing to pay, reaching $15/hour, and the owner was quoted as saying NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN applied for any of the jobs. Not one! Right about now, the owner is thinking that America is not being made great again.

Editing to add link: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article159412859.html

[forgetful]

The majority of illegals in this country work legitimate jobs with fake work visas and are making better than the minimum wage. You would be surprised at the number of union members who are illegal, and the unions protect them.  At a company I worked for, we had several instances where we could prove that an employee had a fake I-9 and/or social security card, and the union filed a grievance when we fired them.  These were people making $15-$20 an hour plus full benefits.

I'm aware that this exists, but I don't believe your statement of "the majority" is correct.

And I'm not sure what industry this is, but if it is factory work, it is shameful to be paying $15 an hour for a union job.

[MU82]

You're right. Rather than arguing anecdotal "my boss lied to me" silliness the subject should be the role of government - I'd argue that role doesn't include advocating for every disgruntled employee.

Anecdotes always seem silly because they don't "prove" anything. I knew that when I was writing it.

I wrote it in response to JB saying that all companies take care of their lower-level employees wonderfully. He KNOWS that isn't true, and I used an anecdote to show it.

It's like saying that we don't need environmental regulation because all companies would be good stewards to the environment. It sounds lovely but we know for a fact it isn't true. Even with the laws we have, companies look for ways to pollute anyway. Without 'em, we're Beijing.

Otherwise, Lenny, I agree with most of what you say. I am a capitalist myself, and I know of no better system. I root for more side dishes of compassion to go with my main course of capitalism, and I'm willing to help pay for those side dishes, but maybe that's naive on my part. I'd like people to try harder to put themselves in other people's shoes. Again, probably naive.

Seriously, though, you and I aren't far apart on a lot of this stuff.

[Mutaman]

I ascribe to Milton Friedman and his economic dictums because I believe history proves that free markets have done more to alleviate hunger and other forms of human suffering than all governments, religions, charities, etc., combined.

This is a really simplistic way of viewing Milton Friedman or the way he looked at the world. Sort of Paul Ryan's view of economics.