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

a reply to: JDeLattre89

If you don't think that businesses have been running governments since governments have been formed, then you need to go read some actual history books.

I have stated in my OP and many posts that government is corporate run, I never suggested a starting date this is something you have assumed.

Your attitude stinks my friend. Your first recourse is always an insult of some kind. Even if in this case your insult was a result of your own ignorance.

But you keep missing my point. The corporations are what is wrong with the economy. However, what you are proposing (hiking up minimum wage) does nothing but boost the power of the corporations further. This is because the major corporations (walmart, google, amazon, etc... etc...) are the only ones that can continue to function (at a loss at first followed shortly thereafter at a major profit due to monopolization) in such a situation. As long as big corporations are buying government, this conversation will continue.

No you are missing my point. The current system does'nt work and many people believe a more keynesian theory based economic system could provide a solution.
To say I am encouraging an idea that gives corporations more control and then say it is better if there was no minimum wage at all; Instead a free market dictated by employers...such as corporation...Is just outright, bat#, crazy to say the least.

a reply to: Puppylove

You seem to have some misconceptions about me.

For starters, I am in what the government calls lower middle class. I make between $1-3k above low class earnings per year dependent upon work etc... I live month to month / paycheck to paycheck.

I also know that by raising the minimum wage you also raise the cost of living. There is a reason you can't buy a coke for a nickle anymore. The same reason is why people get paid more for the same jobs in larger cities where the cost of living is higher.

Letting the markets dictate the pay is by no means throwing the workers under the bus (except for the lazy ones whom do not wish to move up). It is actually the opposite, it is what happens when workers take their fate into their own hands and work harder to earn more. This is also where true Workers Unions could help (not the corrupt ones that have mostly taken over nowadays).

No, the more the government regulates us, the more they control us and decide on how we live our lives.

If you want to stop the Big Corps, then you have to quit giving them everything they need to succeed where others cannot, and thus giving them all the control.

Higher minimum wage helps nobody but big corps.

a reply to: Puppylove

The problem is simple numbers. There are lot's of Low Skilled Workers and only so much Low Skilled Work available. Those positions are also being filled by machines more and more like we all know.

So from a business perspective it's a employers market. You have a few positions needing filled and a crowd of people willing to take them. That means the employer is holding the cards. If one person doesn't work hard enough, fast enough or wants too much money there is always someone who will take his place. So you can work them all as hard as humanly possible for as cheap as possible and when one gives out you just get another one right away.

Along with our big economic boom after world war 2 what was the other boom we also had with it????

Population boom!!! Babies babies everywhere because times were good. Population explosion which was ok at first because we also had an economic boom too. But that boom went bust already but the population is still here and growing. It's not booming here anymore but people don't just vanish like economic booms do. They have to live out there lives still and the population doesn't just go down to where it was either.

a reply to: mOjOm

There is only one logical solution and outcome. Wars, Revolutions and mass genocides of various proportions.

As you said these ideas are not good for "the people" but are workable ideas.

The dark but interesting thing here is when, and how, they decide to Cull/Elminate the people. The problem with our future, for the upper classes, is that as more and more people become marginalised they grow in numerical power. You have to effectively contain or eliminate them before they become to big a threat

My thoughts trail to the current divisive climate we live in and the shadows fanning these flames. Come for the people one by one, by which I mean one group or type, until those remaining, those who stood by and watched, are now to weak to resist.

a reply to: WanderingNomadd

Ok, my last post for the night y'all.

First I want to apologize. I in no way meant to insult anyone here (on the contrary I thought we had a decent debate going on). I also wanted to apologize for my misinterpretation of you:

We went from the rule of monarchys, into a rule of the people, then to the dictatorship of government, next is Corporatocracy and Banking institutes, Aka perfected slavery.

I was making a clarification of that statement.

And yes, sometimes the crazy ideas are the ones that actually work. The theory behind letting the market dictate, is that the market is the equalizer for small businesses and large alike. Without minimum wage, large corps cannot put the same strangle hold on small businesses. Yes some of these corps are going to pay a higher wage to get more employees, but the higher wages do not put them out of business as it does with small companies (which I repeat is where most jobs come from). As stated earlier by someone, this is no longer a manufacturing economy, it is a service economy which is one that hinges on the people not the corps. And yes, in a perfect world all jobs would be straight commission (which is what profit sharing is). Basically, I made you $XX today, so I bring home $X today, but if I don't make you money then you don't pay me. That is a logical and fair system. But since people don't for the most part want to share in the risk (which is very important here) then yes the pay is going to be dismally low so that the business can continue to stay in business.

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: mOjOm

There is only one logical solution and outcome. Wars, Revolutions and mass genocides of various proportions.

As you said these ideas are not good for "the people" but are workable ideas.

That's right. This isn't anything new either. "They" have known this for a while actually and even tried telling people, "Hey, listen up. You need to limit your breeding. Straighten up your lives. Basically get your sh*t together but most importantly slow down the growth of the populace or there are only so many options available before we're all dead."

Some people listened and some didn't. At the same time some organizations fought back against what was being said. So now we're here and "they" have to deal with it somehow. You have to look at it from their perspective. If someone came to you and said, "Ok our data shows limited resources and growing population still what do we do??" It's not an easy decision to make but someone does have to make it.

They're trying every alternative for the most part. We've had major advances in farming and food engineering. They are starting to literally grow meat now. Not animals, but meat, from stem cells. They'll just make chicken breasts in lab farms or something weird like that. Weird but cool. First of all no killing so many animals, plus we can feed people with less work and less time.

Technology has and is doing it's best to keep up with us but it can only do so much so fast. But for the most part you really only have so many choices at that point. You either just start Killing People Off in mass murder or you get them to stop breeding until the growth numbers start going down and you let people die off naturally or you do a little of both.

I'd say "they" are doing both. They have to because nobody listened when they told them decades ago and with advances in healthcare and longer lives and breeding, they have no choice. Exponential population growth can literally spell extinction for everyone if not put in check.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Ok first off, the "working your way up" thing is a myth. It's bull# used to try to get people to accept a bull# life for themselves and everyone else.

There's literally no such thing as transitional job. It does not exist. There is no such thing as a job only for high school students and temporary employment for college students.

We'll go back to fast food the one most often hoisted as such a job.

There's A: Not enough working high school or part time college kids to fill every position at all the fast food jobs out there, and if it was just meant to be for such people it wouldn't be open all hours of the day when such people shouldn't or can't even be at work.

And now for B: There's not an infinite number of better paying jobs. If you think an infinite number of people can work harder and thus raise their position, pardon my ignoring of the TNCs but your an idiot*. There's always going to be people forced into the lowering paid jobs even if everybody was the most ambitious hardest worker ever.

Yay it's C's turn: The only time letting the market decide helps workers is when there's more jobs than there are workers to fill them. With the advancement of automation combined with population growth, the gap between workers and number of jobs is getting worse and worse, leaving workers with no choice but to accept whatever they can get. If they can get anything at all. You take away the minimum wage and workers are forced to undercut each other into abject poverty. The complete opposite of empowering the worker.

So onto D: More and more jobs are being lost,really we're pretty screwed, because we as workers are becoming obsolete. So either we need to find a way to MAKE those in power take care of us for doing less, or we need to take ourselves out back and commit mass suicide, because we have no power in the market as is.

So you're advocating we become either become slaves that die in poverty or kill ourselves.

I'm sorry but your lack of compassion for the majority of people that have to do unskilled labor no matter how skilled they are is disgusting.

No matter what the majority will fill the least paid most unskilled jobs in existence because that encompasses like 90% of the jobs available.

I'm not willing to accept abject poverty for most of the world simply so a minority of the population can live it up.

*Oh and sorry for implying your an idiot but that one belief that people seem to have is just so ridiculous I can't help but question the intelligence of anyone who has it, which seems to be a lot of people by the arguments they make. I'm hoping you think about and realize the failure of logic and are in fact not an idiot. I don't want to think your an idiot. I really don't.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

I also know that by raising the minimum wage you also raise the cost of living. There is a reason you can't buy a coke for a nickle anymore. The same reason is why people get paid more for the same jobs in larger cities where the cost of living is higher.

Then explain the explosion in the costs of living compared to 1968? Wages have decreased in value since then yet the cost of living, such as products, have risen greatly. If wages have decreased since 1968 why have'nt prices?
The facts; Wages have decreased, the economy has increased greatly, prices have increased, how is this any different to what you "Assume" will happen if minimum wage was increased.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

I was making a clarification of that statement.

Understandable. I ment it as more of a "Completion" than a starting phase.

I made you $XX today, so I bring home $X today, but if I don't make you money then you don't pay me. That is a logical and fair system. But since people don't for the most part want to share in the risk (which is very important here) then yes the pay is going to be dismally low so that the business can continue to stay in business.

That is indeed logical and fair. The problem then becomes regulating the percentile return for the employee, so basically the minimum wage.

a reply to: mOjOm

Here's the thing, the nations with the highest standards of living breed the least. The areas where people have higher education and recreation, that can afford an education, typically have the least amount of kids. In many places where people are really doing well, they are actually reducing population.

Meanwhile the poorest areas of the world, where people are impoverished, the worst parts of greater nations, childbirth is really high, the poorer people are, oddly the more breeding they do. There's tons of reasons for it, but this about economics not psychology.

The point is, the best way to curtail over breeding is to make people have a higher standard of living, to build people up, give them things to do that's worthwhile.

We have the resources to do this. If they really want to fix the population situation peacefully they need to do the opposite of what they are doing. Creating wars and poverty put people into sexual overdrive.

# PAY people a sum of money to NOT have kids. Make having kids a privilege not a right. If you want kids you need to be able to care for them. Make jobs something for people that want kids, or just a higher standard of living. I don't know...

a reply to: mOjOm

Basically get your sh*t together but most importantly slow down the growth of the populace or there are only so many options available before we're all dead."

To true. I don't think "they" were worried about us though, just the extra effort required to subjugate us. I believe in constraints on breeding, not legal ones though, personal choices. It is just a shame people don't consider it. I decided long ago not to have children, I would get snipped but, well, # that.

Technology has and is doing it's best to keep up with us but it can only do so much so fast. But for the most part you really only have so many choices at that point. You either just start Killing People Off in mass murder or you get them to stop breeding until the growth numbers start going down and you let people die off naturally or you do a little of both.

Thats just it though, In a world so divided and lacking in any form of natural cooperation, where do you go from here. The true answer lies in global peace and unity. No rulers, no corporations, no banks, no governments, no money. Just people sharing the work load in their communities to ensure houses are built, food is grown, water is collected. Without high tech and other such assets more people would die(This ideal would never happen though without some form of sudden global enlightenment). I think diseases and such are a gift from earth in a way. You can help the starving man by feeding him, thats not an Illness its a need. But things like diseases should be allowed to run their course. Medicine for the pain but otherwise let nature fly free.

a reply to: mOjOm

Is why jobs need to pay more and/or require fewer hours, preferably both.

With fewer jobs available we need to go back to jobs being able to care for more than one person. Perhaps create seasonal jobs, where each person in a household can work a season. If we have more jobs than workers than obviously we need to find a better way to divide up that work while maintaining a living for everyone involved.

Think outside the box.

As long as everyone is doing their part to maintain their society by working, I don't see why dividing a work week between 3 people per shift two days a week each should be an issue. As far as I'm concerned everyone who contributes to society in some way deserves a living. The more you contribute I see no problem with more, but the base should be decent for everyone.

originally posted by: Puppylove

Here's the thing, the nations with the highest standards of living breed the least. The areas where people have higher education and recreation, that can afford an education, typically have the least amount of kids. In many places where people are really doing well, they are actually reducing population.

Meanwhile the poorest areas of the world, where people are impoverished, the worst parts of greater nations, childbirth is really high, the poorer people are, oddly the more breeding they do. There's tons of reasons for it, but this about economics not psychology.

That's right. Which means we need to bring those nations up to meet a better standard then they have now. They need education, infrastructure, resources, etc.

We have the resources to do this. If they really want to fix the population situation peacefully they need to do the opposite of what they are doing. Creating wars and poverty put people into sexual overdrive.

Yes and no. We're destroying our planet and resources at an incredible rate. Forests, oceans, farm land, etc. They are all in trouble and every one of them has been declining. We have stepped up trying to fix that to some degree but I can't think of one of them that has gone back to level where we don't need to be concerned.

Which probably means that to some degree those who are doing better than third world have to give something up to those who we're trying to help. Of course that doesn't mean those with the most are going to give up the most. No, they're steal from the middle rather than tap into their hoards of wealth. So this is what we're seeing.

# PAY people a sum of money to NOT have kids. Make having kids a privilege not a right. If you want kids you need to be able to care for them. Make jobs something for people that want kids, or just a higher standard of living. I don't know...

Those are some options, yeah. Some don't work out too well though. Look at China and it's one kid policy and how screwed up that was. People started just straight up killing their girls in favor of boys. Not a good end result.

But yes, you're thinking in terms of what to do and how to do it. It's hard because there are also institutions that don't want change. Renewable energy would help too, but big oil isn't just going to say "Ok". They'll fight that to the bitter end. Then you have a million other forces pushing in all directions that don't agree or want some other option instead. I'm sure some just want to kill a certain group of people while others want to curb population nicely. Others probably just say "Put some stuff in the water so they can't breed!" Some say "Educate them."

Most likely whoever makes those decisions just looked at the stack of options and said, "Yah, do all of them until we get a handle on this."

a reply to: Puppylove

I've thought of that solution before myself. It seems perfectly sane IMO to change the work load expectations of people while adjusting the cost of living.

Basically instead of 1 person working 40 hours a week to live, cut it in half and have the position filled by 2 people working 20 hours each but still make the same money earned working 40 because you've also adjusted the cost of living.

That would work fine to help with unemployment. People would also have more time to live, be with family, etc. It's a win win. Almost. The only problem that I see though is that there is also a major increase in Resources being used then. Which is the problem now.

If everyone who is poor now, the bottom 40% let's say, all had increased standard of living to just the lower middle class even, it would cause a massive resource increase to compensate.

That's the other problem we face. It would be great for everyone to do better, but doing better comes with a cost that our planet may not be able to pay because there are too damn many of us for her to pay for.

a reply to: mOjOm

It's a complicated issue I admit. But like you mentioned with the energy issue. A lot of our problems are greed based. So due to that, it's hard to determine where greed based problems begin, and populations problems end.

A lot of our problems have solutions that aren't being taken, because people in power choose greed over the right thing.

Until we can separate greed issues from population issues. Which scarcities are artificial, which are real, which have alternatives that are purposely not being taken, which ones don't...

So it's hard to say what can or cannot work, as we're missing these vital calculation integers...

a reply to: atrollstalker

You are right to a point. However, to create such wealth to the 1.0% meant the construction of a massive monster. Many factors are involved, ie., automation, destruction of trade unions, Free Trade practices, expansion of global empires, ridiculous Supreme Court decisions, Lobbying, Tax Evasion, unchecked corruption, etc. In other words, it's a system designed by the elite ruling class to obtain obscene wealth at the expense of the population. Phase two: Having the power to follow up eugenics policies of historical lore to "eliminate" useless eaters. After all, broke and clueless riff-raff with a lot of time on their hands poses a threat that may be a game changer. Besides, who wants to "see" starving people everywhere you go.

The assault on Earth has reached alarming levels and she is showing death throngs. Oceans are radio-active and new diseases, man-made or natural, threatens the world's inhabitants. Cancer rates are exploding and much of the "cause" is in the new technology everyone "must" have at all times of the day. Add to all that, all resistance is met with overwhelming counter forces that only produces "hate" among the clueless. We have "freaks" running for President, armed to the teeth with nuclear, biowarfare agents, and chemical weapons and created a vast number of foreign states who despise us and all we stand for. This militarist power, paid by the poor, working poor, and much of the middle class, threatens the world with possible madness.

The American Constitution is beyond threatened and many would say it's extinct. Banks fail by investing your bank account sums in frivolous schemes, the FED exists to keep you in slavery, borders are non-existent, your rights are questionable on a daily basis, Wall St. interests "own" and control State and Federal prisons systems that ultimately allows financial gains to Wall St. based on the number of prisoners under supervision. America's rate of incarceration exceeds China's billion people population's number of incarceration rate per capita. America's debt to amass the largest military and weapons on a yearly basis is larger than all industrial nations combined, People are forced to buy a product i.e., Obama Care despite the fact most can't afford it, Republican's bitch about it, but never questioned the same process when it was "introduced" in all states law concerning auto insurance. Therefore, the govt. can and do as it wishes.

Government officials often lie in congressional investigations and do so with no concern for criminal liability. In areas where grievous trespasses that are noted and a response to such crimes is warranted, those who are questioned fail to do so without an "executive session." All game-changing events such as JFK's assassination to 9-11, with all scandals and crimes in between, are considered as a threat to national security, therefore, not to be under the public's inspection and "true" investigations are not produced. All Law enforcement organizations from local, state and the federal government, "work under the color of authority" therefore, they are managed by a strict code. No longer do police agencies have the choice to police by officer discretion and must enforce "ALL" laws and statutes. In other words, the "primary" duty of police officials is to enforce all laws, regardless of circumstances, to protect the state rather than the individual. Also, it's common practice for the police to shoot unarmed citizens.

Now America is "policed" 24-7-365. Cameras are on poles in much of the nation's intersections. Camera poles are erected like mile counters in Missouri's urban areas and highways. All high tech communication devices owned by the masses are hackable and used for surveillance. Local police cars are equipped with the technology that just driving in traffic or canvassing through parking lots pinpoint cars whose operators are checked for wants and warrants. Cars can be hacked and it's a proven fact. A number of questionable deaths are under scrutiny for that fact alone. It's quite possible the television you are watching is watching you as well. Only God knows the degree of theft of privacy and intellectual property was gained as a result of such technology.

Crowd control opts when mind control fails. This is seen quite often around the globe. Mainstream media fails in its duty to inform the facts by all parties involved and many people now use "social networking" as a means to communicate out to the world. A good example is obvious in Seria. Information neglected by media outlets found its way into the global public arena. It was quite effective initially but Seria's power elite opted to bring in the professionals to counter such tactics. This, in itself, created a means to surveil and capture "suspects" and a number of murders ensued as a result.

So, at this point, you are thinking "what does all this mean in picking flea # from pepper?" You probably asking, if not irritated, by this rant, what the hell does this mean to the subject matter of this thread? It's easy. ALL ASPECTS OF LIVING TODAY IS GOVERNED BY A FASCIST STATE! YOU NO LONGER ARE FREE! YOUR COUNTRY DOES NOT PROMOTE FREEDOM! YOU ARE CONTROLLED IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE MEANS KNOWN! YOU'VE BEEN SEDUCED AND NOW SLAVES BY FASCIST OFFICIALS! EVERYTHING THE FOUNDERS GAVE YOU NO LONGER EXISTS! AND...ITS YOUR FAULT FOR BEING SO STUPID TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN IN YOUR LIFETIME WHILE ALLOWING IT TO GOVERN YOU CHILDREN WHEN YOU ARE GONE AS WELL!

Now, to get back to the subject matter, freedom to exist and to prosper is now held by the elite. Only do they have freedom. All that was offered to the masses under the Constitution and Bill of Rights now are maintained and enjoyed by the power elite. Therefore, big government and corporate rule operate in "their"freedom. Organizations, such as those you probably supported, gained absolute power based on lies and corruption. The NEOCON fascists who wrote and devised the Project of The New American Century brought fascist ideals and policies into our realm. What the fascist elite members of the "American Liberty League" of Wall Street failed in 1933 has gained the support of treasonists government officials to further their agenda.

Only when you realize true historical evidence can you see the real hatred of corporate greed. Never should we allow this marriage of government and corporate entities to dictate Law in America. That marriage equals fascism. Period. It is now essential that true political blowback towards those who lied to and manipulated the public fess up or be criminally charged for the felonies they committed. To do otherwise only solidifies the status quo's grip on the individual. Citizens must dictate the laws in all areas that threaten the individual's rights and future.

As to you, Mr. Atrollstalker, it's obvious you are just another salesman for the greed of corporate power. You need to read the "fine print" on the garbage you lend assistance to. You've been played by professional snake oil producers and it's rotten your mind. The things you stated as "benefits" of corporations no longer exists for the majority of workers in America today. Less than 1.0% "owns much of the economy. They dictate wages and conditions in society. They Lobby Washington to gain more power over the individual and the consumer and gain by your loss.

a reply to: dagann

That was an impressive rant my friend. Worthy of it's own thread actually. I can't find anything in it that I'd disagree with. You covered a lot of ground and a lot of history within a relatively small space and summed it up honestly and truthfully.

I don't really have anything to add other than, Good job!

a reply to: dagann

Beautiful rant. I agree, deserves its own thread.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Bolding aside...

There are several reasons why we are in the poor economic state we are in
...
So hate the businesses all you want; the government is the real problem. This same thing has been being preached since I can remember, but the only solutions actually tried are always more of the same failed policies.

Which kinda shifts some of the blame from the government to the guy you see in the mirror every morning.

TheRedneck

This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on ATS. You need to get one of the other moderators to give you that "applause" thingy.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

The nature of the corporations will change as the nature of the society will change.

They have no option to accept the violent taxes or there will be no money for their customers to buy their products.

Today a factory worker in china earns, lets say, 3 usd/h in america lets say 10 usd/h in the future a robot will cost the same everywhere, and will receive the same everywhere.

But producing what for who? For the unemployed? No, people must have money to buy things so there is where the minimum basic income thing comes in.

A different economy, a different world. That´s what will start to happen in the next 5 to 10 years.

In 20 years we will be well into a new age of civilisation.