The true cost of Low Wages. Who is really to blame.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Is there a price diff between union and non union made cars?

originally posted by: gladtobehere
The debt based monetary system and the Federal Reserve are the primary forces behind a lower standard of living.

This Rothschild scheme which creates money from debt results in a weakened dollar also known as inflation (ie higher prices).

It does just the opposite. It keeps the money supply growing.

But instead of dealing with the actual cause of the problem (inflation/debt), its easier to place the burden on the employer.

Inflation is not debt, it's profit. Without it, exchanges would be zero sum.

a reply to: mOjOm

What you're getting from the poor are all the things you clearly take for granted every single day. They're the people who cook you food when you go out and bring it to you. They're the people who make the clothes you're wearing now and the items that fill your house. They're the people who build your house that build your appliances, that clean your office, that take care of your kids, that deliver the products you buy and check you out when you buy them and make sure the shelves are filled when you go to buy them.

They are they people you see every day that are busy working just like you making sure that society is working smoothly.

Herein is the true disconnect.

Those you speak of do indeed keep society running smoothly, but that's not why they do it. They do it because they want the money that comes from doing the things they do. I would wager that any industry in the country would grind to an immediate halt if they stopped paying their employees.

On the other end of the scale we have the 'rich' (translation: those who make more than I do) doing the exact same thing, working to make money, but now vilified.

Romanticism aside, we are all trying to make a living, any way we can.

Here's the real differences:

Person A manages to get through school with passing grades. He then gets a job in an entry level, making minimum wage. He works hard at the job, but he also likes to have fun... maybe a party on the weekend or a night out during the week. He can afford it, but he can't afford much else. He's also busy working and having fun, too busy to worry about filling out applications or going on to college or learning a trade. As time goes on, he gets a raise here or there, but since his mind often wanders, he never makes a huge splash at work. 20 years later, he's about where he started.

Person B tries to get good grades in school. When he gets out of school, he starts thinking about his future. He decides to learn a trade while he's working alongside person A. So instead of eating out twice a week or having a night out on the town, he starts learning a trade. After a few years, during which time person A decides he's crazy for working so hard and stops speaking to him, person B gets his certification and starts filling out applications. A year later he's got a better job, making 50% more than person A and keeps getting raises from there.

Person C can only work part time beside person A because he went on to college. He's spending every waking moment studying and going to class, living like a pauper to get by. He has to wait 4 years or more before he can get a better job, but when he does he's making 3 times what person A is making. Now he can rest a bit and enjoy his new job. He gets good raises every year, paid vacations, and a nice office.

Who harmed person A?

Person A did. He made choices in his life. Those choices had consequences. Should he make as much as person C? No, because he didn't make the sacrifices person C made. As much as person B? No, same reason. Should he make enough to survive? Yes.

But here's the question that people seem to get confused on. What is survival? Food, of course, but are we talking steak or potatoes? Both are food. Water of course, but that doesn't seem to be an issue. A car is probably needed to be able to hold a job, but does it need to be a Mercedes Benz? Gas for that car makes sense, but are we talking about enough to get to work and town for supplies, or enough to take long drives on the weekend as well? How about TV? Is it needed to survive? Cell phones? Smart phones? High speed Internet? Central air conditioning? A house is necessary, but how big does it need to be?

Person A wants the fancy car, the big house, the steak dinners, and all those other things. But he isn't willing to do what it takes to get them. He also keeps making bad decisions. The power bill is due next week, but he's hungry, and he deserves that steak dinner because he's worked hard this week. When he's running short paying the power bill, he panics and pays 2000% APR at the check cashing service. The whole time he's angry because person B is living in a nice section of town and person C is driving a Mercedes Benz through the drive-thru where he works. It's just not fair!

So he decides to get a raise. He joins with others in a similar position and forces the government to give him a raise. His company is now spending more, so the prices go up to cover it. Soon everything is more expensive and person A is having more trouble than before.

Person B is having trouble, too, but he managed to get a COLA raise, so he's still doing OK. Person C didn't have much trouble because he made so much already, but he still gets the same COLA raise. They're OK, but person A is hurting worse than before. So he joins others and they get another minimum wage increase... same result. They do this 4 or 5 times. Then the company he works for can't afford to pay their payroll, and they cut hours. Person A is now having to survive on less money than before, and prices continue to rise.

Person B's workload has dropped off, because there's not as many people who can afford him. But he's still getting by. He uses his free time to get more certifications so he can make more. Person C starts investing his money because he sees the economy slowing down. He's fine.

Another minimum wage increase, and the company person A has worked for for 20 years closes... they just can't afford to keep the doors open. Person A has to start over looking for a new job. But he has no real skills. Jobs are hard to come by, because he's not young any more and there's so many other unskilled workers trying to find a job too. So person A goes on welfare.

Again, who harmed person A? Person A did.

That is reality, folks. It's hard, sometimes cruel, but it is how things work. Sure, you can find villains, sitting in the mega-banks and the heirs of Sam Walton, but those are exceptions. The vast, vast majority of the people in trouble today are just like person A.

I do not hate these people; I want more than anything to help these people. I preach often and loudly in my daily life for them to better themselves, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, make some good decisions and have a better life. I preach constantly on here not to make their situation worse through bad decisions like drastic minimum wage hikes. I want them all to succeed!

They cannot succeed in a fantasy, and that is what people are begging for: a fantasy land that will bite them in the posterior when it turns to reality. If you really want to help people, help them to help themselves. Don't pat them on the back while they're slitting their own throat.

TheRedneck

Reading through most of these responses I observed one thing. Everyone is looking at the finer detail of the problem at hand, ie; corporations are too greedy, governments are too greedy, change from industrial based to service based economy and so on. All of these details share a common root, and we all know what that is. It's money. Well, not the idea of money but rather the corrupted version of it; fiat money. If there was a way to put regulation/control back into a non-corrupted version of it. I think a lot of these issue will solve themselves. As Mahatma Gandhi once said "The world has plenty for everyone's needs, but not everyone's greed."

originally posted by: Edumakated
You cannot artificially increase wages without it causing other issues somewhere else. If you raise wages at the lowest rung, it means you will have to raise wages across the board. They guy who bust his ass to make $20/hr now is not going to be happy when a new employee with no skill is also making $20/hr. The $20/hr guy will now want $30 or whatever and this will continue up the supply chain.

Increasing the minimum wage is supposed to hurt the person in the middle. It's a reduction in income inequality, everyone over the point of the new minimum gets hurt. You don't increase the minimum wage unless you're trying to bring down inequality.

You work the job, gain some skills and move up or find a new job at a higher salary. If you are stuck in a minimum wage job, you've made some seriously bad choices in your life. Hell, teenage baby sitters around here charge $15/hr.

Jobs don't teach skills anymore. Employers figured out that it's better to hire already trained employees than to train their own.

originally posted by: Edumakated
I don't disagree which is why I am against importing low skilled immigrants. However, one of the political parties prefers to call these immigrants Dreamers at the expense of the lower skilled American worker.

America and Capitalism are both built on competition. If you can't compete, then go into another field. Those who are fine with the lower wage will continue to work that job.

Or go to another country that looks out for it's citizens rather than being cutthroat.

That said, I would be happier with higher wages. I find it ridiculous to deny a minimum increase though while demanding your competitors aren't allowed into the market.

a reply to: Aazadan

but, how is most of the money created? by people going into debt?? so, if a person doesn't make enough money to adequately care for his family, have a running car, a livable place to live, and enough food on the table but he makes a little over the small amount the gov't says qualifies him for the help... how do you think he is living??
he's going into debt, which the bank is using to create more money, which is causing inflation, which is increasing the amount he will need in the future, which he will have to borrow more money to meet, which will create more debt, which the bank will use to create more money...which will increase inflation...
because his paycheck hasn't changed, or may have gone down!

a reply to: dawnstar

The money supply is not proportional to inflation, it is only one factor among many. As a multiplier on the money supply is also the velocity of money. If it is rapidly changing hands, then the demand for more money is high, which keeps the value high. If it is slowly changing hands (such as if people are saving) it becomes stagnant and demand drops which causes inflation.

a reply to: WanderingNomadd

Reading through the thread, I see mostly reasoned, rational discussion, so thanks WM for a marvelous thread!

So far, I still see 2 distinct positions in the arguments:
1) The poor are poor because they choose to be
2) The poor are poor because they are being victimized

I humbly submit that both of those things are true.

Labor vs. Employer is a TOTALLY disfunctional relationship right now in America.

As with any disfunctional relationship, both parties are saying " Yeah, I know I carry some of the blame, but you change your ways first. You start giving your part as expected, and trust me to do my part once I feel I can trust you to keep doing your part,"

It's totally wrecked, in other words.

I say we need a game-changer.

a reply to: TheRedneck

gee, I don't know, we were making considerably more than minimum wage...
and for some reason, I spent quite a few times eating one meal every other day!!

didn't want steaks, still don't have a cellphone, I am totally enjoying some of the old tv shows from the 80's and 90's that I can find on the internet because we lived without cable, ever tried going grocery shopping with three kids under the age of three, no car, and unwilling to waste any of the little money you had on taxis, it's an experience you never forget! you have the youngest strapped to you in a baby carrier, you have the middle in the baby stroller, and you hope like heck that the oldest doesn't decide to chase the kitty across the busy highway. you also have the groceries you just bought on the canopy of the stroller worrying that they will weigh too much and break it. and you do this every day, because any more groceries would probably break it!

if a job requires a living breathing human to do the job, then they should be paying enough for that person to continue living and breathing in american society. and if that job requires any significant amount of experience, maybe society should take if for granted that the worker has a family to support, with kids.. and be providing at least half the funds needed for them, along with any childcare that might needed so both parents can work? gee, I probably wouldn't have had to walk to that store everyday if I could have had a cow to give me milk every morning and some chickens laying eggs... maybe, since it's so unpleasant for american society to have their employees get paid enough to live in it, they should be allowed to do all that is necessary to to live on what they can earn.... and people can just accept that rooster crowing one the patio in the apartment next door or having the kid's playground taken over by a bunch of cows.

a reply to: dawnstar

Because the poor can afford an extra 4 hours a day to care for animals that provide a couple dollars worth of value each day?

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Thats an interesting point to add to this thread.

As technology evolves, And you cant get much faster than this, Opportunities for flesh workers shrink. Automated arms exist. AI exists. Piece them together and you have one time investment factory workers producing at speeds embarassing the quickest human. Employee two technicians, Two cleaners and a manager and your set. New employee number down 80-90%

All that means is that you should reduce the working week from 40 hours per person to less. If there's not 40 hours of work for each person due to automation drop it to 20 or 30 or whatever works. We're already following a trend in the US to move to 29 hours and unemployment rates suggest this is too much.

a reply to: TheRedneck

We are on the same page.(some of the page)
Unfortunately the good paying jobs are almost all gone. I worked for a very profitable company that had 600 full time employees. Over the years when the well paid employees left/retired/died the company filled those positions with temps. Now there is 75% temp 25% full time. Again the company shared the financials with the employees every quarter, and they were doing fine.

We don't live in a temp society, and this company preaches family, religion and community through their vision statement that is etched in marble in an grand entrance at corporate head quarters.

This grand experiment in freedom is doomed without moral leadership.

Should person A who partied and had a good time be omitted from social services or a wage that meets a minimum level because on a whole the majority of employers have squeezing wages (no real wage increases for 30+ years). I wish it wasn't so, but a little research will show were the $ is going, and it is going to the 1%. Remember, there is ALWAYS another certification, license, or accreditation.

I am a tradesman and I see what a temp labor pool is. It's disposable, it's Pissed off, poor, no car, exhausted from working 2-3 jobs, and they make products they can't afford, just like Ford auto employees before the wages were raised to $5 a day. The temps know they are working for a multi billion $ company and, right or wrong, they resent the fact they can work for years as a temp, but will not be hired. I see their point.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You went to school to do a job you wanted to do.

It is impossible to predict wage trends 20 years in the future. If your only reason for college was based on that type of prediction then you made a serious error.

Also, have you ever considered that your definition of upper middle class is screwed up? You have to adjust expectations to current standards of living, and the standard of living in the US has been on the decline for decades compared to other developed nations.

a reply to: dawnstar

Not sure where you were living (NYC? Ritzier section of LA?) but the only time I went through something like that I was unemployed. And yeah, it sucked! Big time!

I'm going to let you in on a couple of secrets.

People are not supposed to work for low-paying jobs. If the job needs a living person to do it, the lowest bidder will get the job. The problem is that too many people are letting employers pay less. You don't need a law to set the value of your time.

As long as people keep taking these low-paying jobs, they will keep being low-paying jobs.



You know those people that seem to just rise to the top? Want to know what they do different? It's not what they know or who they know, it's how they act. They're the people who put off lunch for 15 minutes to finish a job occasionally, or work an extra 15 minutes just because the job needs doing. They're the people who do their job and sometimes have to cover for the next guy too, because they know (and care) how important that job is. That gets noticed. Soon no one cares if they need to leave 30 minutes early or take an extra 5 minutes on lunch, because they almost never do it. Then the promotions start coming. Next thing you know, they're getting invited to lunch with the owner.

They care about what happens to the company. So the company cares what happens to them. If someone is waiting for the company to start caring first (like most people do), they're in for a very, very long wait.



TheRedneck

a reply to: jjkenobi

What about the MILLIONS of people who have gotten rich from the stocks of corporations?

a reply to: WanderingNomadd

There are roughly 350 Million People currently Living in the United States . If Each and Every one of them were to receive 1 Million Dollars Tax Free from the Federal Government , thus making the Entire Population Millionaires , it would Pale in comparison to the Trillions of Dollars the U.S. Government Spends in just 1 Year . In Turn , Over haft those People would Likely Increase their Net Worth by using that Money in Fruitful ways , the other Half could actually Lose it All to Bad Decisions , and Still Increase the Strength of the U.S. Economy . What is Really Wrong with that Idea other than the Fact that Corporate Greed would Lobby the Government to Prevent that from Ever Happening ?

There is a lot of talk about who is too greedy.

Let's have another look at it. A greedy person wants $15.00 per hour for flipping hamburgers or stuffing grocery bags which as we see in life, requires very little intelligence or education. Even those sign spinners you see out in front of the E-cig stores spinning signs want $15.00 per hour. Why should we pay them the same as someone who stayed in school and at least got a high school diploma? How much education do you need to see that you don't bag the can of Hawaiian Punch on top of the loaf of bread?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If that happened, a loaf of bread would cost $10,000 and soda machines would have to go out of business.

a reply to: CantStandIt

who has the most ability to change things??
seriously, the mother can't shove her kids back into her stomach when the cost of living begins to exceed the wages that the family can earn. and I have a couple sons who would love to go to college, only, they are both working their tails off just trying to get by, they couldn't afford to go to college, and they wouldn't be able to put the time in they needed to actually get the grades needed. and the college loan bit is just another trap to keep the people from gaining any ground. there's a good chance that they'd be in worse shape after they graduated because of the loans even with a slightly higher paying job.. they can forget about starting a family, or having much of anything.

people can blame the poor for the decisions they made but I have to say, I don't really think that there are many people who haven't made a few stupid decisions in their younger years. and if you look at it realistically, if everyone made the right decisions, went to college, got those good paying jobs (no one ever considers all the people out there that did just that and are serving tables in resturaunts, working in low paid factory jobs, ect), well, the economy would probably come to a standstill... because we need those low paid workers working!

and, I have to say, that if we cut the assistance out that are helping them to survive, well... I don't think they'd be working either. dead maybe, rioting in the streets, or well, maybe, going to their bosses with demands for higher wages or resignation letters because they found a higher paying job... only it's quite possibly that they were just replacing someone in that higher paying job because they were willing to accept a slightly lower wage.