The problem is Capitalism. You must get rid of that system if you want to help. All raising minimum wage will do is get more people working at minimum wage.

There are many things that need to change this is one of them.

The number is arbitrary. You need to look at income distributions. If we intend on keeping Capitalism going here (God forbid), I would think you would want a large and prosperous middle class. If you raise the minimum wage, how many currently middle class or working class people will get a raise. ZERO. So, the middle class and working class gets pushed down towards the poverty (minimum wage) end of the spectrum. This will continue to happen until you have 99% of the population earning minimum wage, if they have a job at all, and 1% of the population as multimillionaires and billionaires.

which is why they take their business to Third World Countries where they don't have to worry about it. Are you recommending the same standard for the US as they have in Third World Countries?

Here's my solution. Take away all subsidies and tax breaks from Corporations that outsource their work to Third World Countries, UNLESS they work under the same labor laws, income salaries, they are trying to escape here.

Then set a standard for what is considered to be a LIVING wage. The minimum wage is NOT a livable wage.

If they don't like our laws and decide to move altogether then tax their products if they still want to sell them here.

Crack down on the wealthy who keep their money out of this economy, keeping it in offshore accounts. These people deserve no consideration, no benefits such as subsidies and tax breaks. They do not care one bit about this country.

Reward Corporations that keep their business here and are not hiding their money in offshore accounts.

One thing is certain, all statistics show that since this country adapted predatory capitalism as a system, it has FAILED.

One in six American children go to bed hungry every night in this country.

As the OP states, it is a SHAME.

The ideas you gave here are all good ideas. It is a very tough situation, I do not have an easy answer. In my heart I know that ANY economic modification via taxes, wage laws, etc are really just band-aids on a wound that can not be healed. The wound is Capitalism. We can try to make it fair, but the system is inherently a "winner take all" system. there is no getting around that. The system needs replaced.

I was part of that until I lost my job, due to it's closing seven years ago.

I was was 54 at the time. There was nothing out there. Nothing! One company offered me a salary that I had been paid 17 years ago. I was scared spit-less due to my age.

I finally found a job that paid me 20K less than I had been making. I was hired at just above minimum, plus commission. I had no choice. It started out okay then the economy tanked. I had two raises then all were frozen for a year. When they got back to yearly raises, they dropped to 10-30 cents. Not livable. It has taken me almost 7 years, to get a $2 raise.

So, I say to you, they are not paying raises to us now, we have already been pushed down towards poverty. It is already happening. That is no reason what so ever to deny a raise of the minimum wage.

It has already been happening, to too many people. I just see no reason to accelerate the decline of the middle and working class. Especially when there is no gains by the minimum wage earners. They will not live better with a higher wage. Any increases they see will be quickly offset by price increases and inflation.

They will not eat better? Minimum wage is 7.25 according to our poster at work. You don't think a 4 dollar increase will buy anything or help anyone. They will not live better with a higher wage!!!! WTF?!

You don't seem to understand my post. The middle class has become the minimum wage workers.

And yes, they will not see an overall improvement. We will see a drastic rise in cost for non-imported goods and services. Housing and food costs will rise significantly with a large minimum wage increase.

I hate to say this, the term "Middle Class" is a meaningless term today. I have seen Multimillionaires call themselves "Middle Class" and I have had clients on Welfare call themselves "Middle Class".

If we go by what people call themselves (i.e. Welfare recipients are "Middle Class" for that is what they call themselves), then an increase in the Minimum wage will increase the Income of the "Middle Class".

If we use the traditional definition of the Middle Class, the top 10% of wage earners LESS the top 1-3% (Who tended to be the Nobility), then an Increase will have minimal effect on their income (it will have some effect for as a general rule low income people spend their money, buying various items. Those items tend to be sold by people with slightly higher income, thus the money works its way to the Middle Class where it is lost to the Economy in the form of "savings".

This was known as early as the 1600s, increase income to the poor, the economy will boom, increase money to the top 10%, all of it will be lost in the form of "Savings". "Savings" are NOT good for an economy, until it is used to buy something (thus paying off Credit Card debt is "Savings" for the money is NOT being used to buy things).

Thus the economy gets the biggest kick from money getting into the hands of the lowest economic groups. The Bottom 25%.

Lets look at a graph:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

Please note all number are 2006 numbers:

The top 1% receive 34.6% of the wealth (Income $350,000 and up)
The Next 4% receive 24.3 of the Wealth (income $167,000 to $350,000)

Thus the top 5% of American Receives 58.9% of the wealth

The next 5% earns: 11.2 %

Thus the traditional "Middle Class" the pre WWII definition received 70.1% of all wealth in the US


Next 10% receives 12% of all income

Thus the top 20% of people get 82% of all wealth in the US. Income is over $92,000 a year in 2006

While the Traditional "Middle Class" is the top 10%, that definition has been the definition of "Middle Class" since WWII. Thus it is the top 20% of Income received or the top 40%?


The next 20% receives 10.9 % (People making 55-92,000 a year).

Thus if we use the term "Middle Class" to mean people receiving the top 40% of all income that excludes anyone making less then $75,000 a year.

The Next 20% receives 4% (People receiving $35 to $55,000 a year). This is the middle 20% of the traditional five 20% groups used in such comparisons. This is the true middle. Half the Population makes MORE, half makes less.


The bottom 40% receives .2 % (Making less then $35,000 a year)

The bottom 20% received less then $18,00 a year

The bottom 10% received less then $10,500 a year.

Lets look at those groups in terms of actual Income:




Thus what is "Middle Class" if we use my Client's definition that included Welfare Recipients is the cut off $55,000 a year? For that is 60% of the population?

Sorry, the problem with your response is you do NOT define what you mean by "Middle Class". Is it the top 10% less the top 1%? i.e Income less then $350,000 but more the $100,000?

Is it the middle 20%? Income $35-55,000?

Is it the lower 60%? Income from zero to $55,000

Is it the top 50% less the top 10%? $50,000 to $100,000

Is it excluding the top and bottom 20% (i,e, the middle 60%)? $18.500 to $92,000

I can safely say the top 1% is NOT in your definition of being in the "Middle Class", but which is your definition of "Middle Class"

Part of the problem is that in most surveys people put themselves in the Middle Class NOT the rich or poor. On the other hand if "Working Class" is an option, about half of the people calling themselves "Middle Class" defect to "Working Class". This reflects the US policy of saying the Post WWII economy lifted up the Working Class to Middle Class income. That was NOT completely true but it was the what was said.

My definition is the lowest 10% are the poor, that is people whose income is less the $10,500.

Above $10,500 to the 60% point (Income between $10,500 and $55,000 is the traditional Working Class.

Above that but below the top 5% is the Upper Middle Class, incomes from $55,000 to $100,000. I avoid the use of the term "Middle Class" for it has been so abused it can not be defined.

Yes. This is where I define "working class" in the majority of locales within the USA. Middle class is likely the next rung up on the chain. Obvious exceptions are extreme urban areas such as SF and NYC, possibly others such as Seattle, Chicago, and other expensive urban places. You can live a halfway pleasant life in that income range. Nothing grand, but you are not living paycheck to paycheck unless some major medical emergency or extended unemployment occurs.

Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

When "Working Class" is NOT an option, those same people opt for "Middle Class" in the US. In most surveys AND when most people are talking "Working Class" is NOT an option, thus Working Class people opt for "Middle Class" rather then poor. Prior to WWII, that same group would have called themselves "Poor", if "Working Class" was NOT an option.

The propaganda (I can NOT come up with a better term) in the US has said all Americans are "Middle Class" even when they are NOT. Thus my welfare recipient who called herself "Middle Class" instead of the Working Poor. Thus my demand that you define the term. The term "Middle Class" has become "American" i.e. everyone. "Middle Class" has become a meaningless term unless defined.

The Traditional definition of Middle Class (The top 10% less the top 1%), th pre-WWII definition even in the US, is clearly NOT what most Americans think of when they use the term "Middle Class" Today.

The better argument is that the Middle Class is the top 40% of the population less the top 1%, the Working Class is the bottom 60% less the true poor who are the bottom 10%. To use the true middle is also to use that part of the Income divide where most people are around, thus you have both Upper Middle Class and Working Class in the same income bracket.

Remember, the above "divides" are more fuzzy areas of overlap. Working Class People dip into the poor on occasion, the Upper Middle Class dip into the Working Class (and some times the poor) on occasion. Some Working Class workers, do to skills and demand, sometime earn more then many Upper Middle Class people. The issue of Class is thus "fuzzy" for people do NOT go through a ceremony as they go from one class to the next (such as graduation from School), and people's bodies do not Change as they moved from one class to another (such as when your body changes during puberty).

Thus any income, assets, neighborhood etc differences between the class may appear minor on the edges, but as you look more and more into people in those classes, what they drive, where they live, where they go to school and shop and even how they dress can show their class (and on top of this is a tendency to up class one self by buying what people think people of a higher class wears, lives, drive etc).


Side Note: I am into Archery and History. Inflation is easy to determine if you use one item as the basis for inflation (i.e. what can a curacy buys) but it is hard when the Currency itself deflates in value (i.e. when you use something other then currency as curacy, which was the case when we were on the Gold Standard. Gold, like other items, goes up and down in value but those changes are hard to determine for people use the currency not the gold the currency is made up). In such systems you have to look at what that currency could buy. I mention this for England had a law that if you were "worth" less then 30 pounds you had to practice Archery, if you were "worth" more then 30 pounds you did not have to. This goes to the issue of Class.

30 Pounds was the cut off between the vast majority of peasants and the then growing Middle Class (i.e. the traditional Middle Class the top 10% less the top 1-3%).

In the 1400s the British pound was defined as containing 240 Pennies. Each Penney contain 12 grain of Silver (in the 1500s this was reduced to 8 grains of silver). Thus a pound contain 2880 grains of Silver, or 186.62 grams of Silver or 6 Troy Ounces of Silver (in the 1500s that was reduced to 4 troy ounces of silver).

Today a troy ounce of Silver is worth less then $20. Thus the Silver in a pound in minted in the 1400s would be worth $120 ($80 if we are talking of silver in a pound minted in the 1500s). Thus 30 pounds in 1400 is about $3600 today if we just look at the price of silver, and ignore inflation caused by the massive influx of Gold and Silver into Europe after the Conquest of Mexico and Peru.

The massive introduction of Gold and Silver made inflation a major problem during the 1500. A good way to look at this is the price of wheat. The price per bushel of wheat went from .58 shillings per bushel in 1500 to 3.20 shillings per bushel in 1600. Then stabilized till the mid 1700s when it started to go to above 10 shillings per bushel ounce around 1800 and stayed at that price till 1819 then went into a slow decline to about 5 to 9 Shillings per bushel till you see a huge drop in the late 1800s do to massive importation of wheat from Poland, Russia and the US (England had adopted free trade so the imports became cheap as steam ships made moving the wheat cheap).

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Agprice.pdf

Thus a rough pricing would be .60 Shillings a bushel around 1500, 3,20 shillings per bushel around 1600, 10 Shillings per bushel around 1800, and 8 Shilling per bushel around 1850 The price drop after 1500 was driven by a change in technology, i.e. the Reaper that reduced the cost of harvesting wheat and thus its price). Thus you are looking at around an increase in the price of wheat of 14 times between 1400 and 1850 (or a decrease in the value of Silver by the same factor of 14).

Thus by 1850 what you could buy with the silver in 30 pounds of 1400, you needed the silver in 1230 pound coins. Notice this reflects the drop in the value of SILVER, not inflation in terms of Pounds.

The invention of the wheat haves tor and the massive influx into the world's markets of American Wheat saw the price of wheat drop after 1850, and thus no longer an good indicator of what the value of Silver and Gold was. On the other hand, the US, do to the influx of Gold from the California Gold fields establish its Dollar at $20 an ounce in 1857 (it had been officially at that price for decades, but do to a huge shortage of gold and silver NEVER at that level prior to 1857).

The influx of Gold from the California Gold Rush increase productivity 25% in the 1850s (mostly do to increase construction do to the increased money supply) and an almost 2% increase in what you can buy for each year of the period 1850 to 1860 or about 20%, one of the highest drop in prices in American history, mostly do to the drop in the value of Gold and Silver do to the massive influx of Gold and Silver from California and later Nevada

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8007.pdf

Thus if you apply that 20% rule to the Silver in 1230 pounds the Silver in 30 pounds of 1400 had become, you are looking at the same value of silver in 1476 pounds by 1860.

Subsequent to the massive influx of Gold, you had a massive influx of Silver after 1860 from Nevada, this influx had the effect of reducing the value of Silver to Gold of the 20 to 1 ratio of 1857, to almost a 40 to one by 1900, and 80 to 1 today. Thus the Silver in 1476 pounds of 1850 became 5904 pounds today.

Now, we also have to realized that the price of Silver in relation to gold drop tremendously in the 1800s. After the California Gold Rush the US stabilized its coinage system in 1857. An Ounce of Gold was to be $20, an Ounce of Silver was to be $1 (The 20 to 1 spread). By 1900, the silver content in the American Silver dollar had NOT dropped since 1857, but its price in relation to gold had, the silver in a silver dollar was only worth 55 cents by then. Gold prices peaked in the Spring at about $1600 an ounce, Silver is still below $20 an ounce, an 80 to 1 spread. Thus since 1971 when the US went off the gold standard (after changing it to $35 an ounce of gold in 1935), the value of silver in relations to gold has decreased by a factor of at least 4. Thus we have to take the $3600 above and increase it by 4, or $14,400 (in 1400s terms of the pound, using 1500s term for the pound we may be looking at $20,000).

Cite that says $1 in 1850 is the same as $28.30 today, which would make 1476 pounds, 41,770,80 pounds today (I know the cite uses dollars not pounds, but from 1850 to 1971 it was $5 to a Pound and inflation was roughly the same, today it is $1 to 1.6 pounds. so if anything I am low. I am using it for the rate of change NOT the actual amount of change).

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-americancosts/5/

Thus if we use the $28,30 test for $1 in 1850, you have to be worth more then $80,000 to be exempt from Archery if the 30 pound cut off had been inflation indexed.

I go into the details above, for it shows the difficulty in adjusting prices, income and net worth over a long time period (To many different factors, affecting those values at different rates AND times). Also remember I am talking about "Net Worth" not income. Thus the $80,000 NET WORTH seems about right to be the cut off, it would exclude roughly 20 to 25% of the population, but that 20-25% would include the Middle Class.

On the other hand it does agree with the traditional definition for the Middle Class, the top 10% (through the numbers would be the top 20% there is enough errors in these calculations to say it is the top 10% note the top 20%).

I went into the above more the sure this problem of defining the Middle Class has been a problem for centuries do to the definition tends to be asset bases, and assets value changes over time. Archery was a poor man. Working Class requirement Th3 30 pounds test was to exclude people with money, both the nobility AND the what we Americans call the Upper Middle Class. When looking in the past one of the chief problems was the massive gold and silver inflation of the 1500s and again in the 1850s (for Gold) and late 1800s (for Silver). You have to account for them, but it is easier to ignore them.

Those larger paychecks do not simply disappear. They get spent.

That spending boosts the economy. In addition, higher wages reduce spending on various forms of public assistance. Which can also boost the economy.

That boosted economy increases the number of and pay of middle-class jobs.

The only reason it may reduce public assistance is because they will not raise the threshold levels. The minimum wage people will still be in as much need after an increase as before; so will many more people who will now be at or near minimum wage who better off than minimum.

If the economy is not at or near capacity, then it just increases output. Idle resources are put to use instead of remaining idle.

In addition, we've had plenty of natural experiments thanks to some states raising their minimum wage while neighboring states do not. Any reasonable increase appears to have no inflationary effect.

We are overproducing at extremes currently. We do not need "increased output." I am not sure what theory you are quoting from as I am not an economics person, but it is probably based on some idealized, infinite growth, potential form of capitalism which can not exist in a world of limited resources. It is bullshit. And, it is taught over and over to economics majors who tend to not have very strong math backgrounds. Hard to understand that which you do not have the background (and possibly mental aptitude) to understand. Also, economics majors typically have their livelihood tied to the capitalist system. Therefore they are very unlikely to turn around and decry that system for the scam and lie that it is. Ok, my kind of ramble is over.

This is utterly and completely false.

Companies have cut back hours and shifts. They have large pools of profit they are not using to increase capacity because people do not have enough money to buy their goods. Wal-Mart's sales tank in the 4th week of every month because people have spent their aid money by that time. Unemployment is more than 7% (officially) and likely around 15-20% when you add in "discouraged" and underemployed workers.

The economy is running far, far, far below capacity.


Yes, you are clearly "not an economics person". Because what I said has nothing to do with infinite growth nor capitalism nor infinite resources.

What I'm talking about is reality, that we got to observe over the last 20 years. Some states raised their minimum wage above the federal floor. Other states did not. If your theory was correct, we should have seen signs of inflation in the states that raised their minimum wage compared to the states that did not.

There were no signs of such inflation. That means your theory is not correct.


Golly, a whole two sentences ago, you said you do not have the background for economics.

Do you always insult yourself so thoroughly? Or do you not have the background to understand when you are making an incoherent argument?

Google e-waste pics



http://artoflean.com/blog1/?p=9

Walk through some malls and warehouse stores. Really look around at the massive amounts of "stuff" that is out there. Tell me we are not overproducing with a straight face.

.....

Rents are definitely higher in areas with higher wages, at least in the places I have lived. Unless you can come up with real numbers we will be at a stand-off here as I have not supplied real numbers either.

edit - I took a couple economics courses during college (prob 101 and 201), but it was not my major.

-----

My background is engineering. I deal a lot with lean manufacturing and cost reduction of production. I am not an economics major, but have a very strong math background and apply that in areas that we are discussing here.

Ok, so if I kept insisting that steel is weaker than balsa, would that make me right?

If you put a steel plate and an equal sized piece of balsa wood on a desk and showed the balsa broke first, that would show I was wrong, correct? Shouldn't I change my theory when I am shown to be wrong?

Well, states that increased their minimum wage do not experience inflation. Happened in the 90s, the 00s and it's starting to happen again. Why are you continuing to insist that increasing the minimum wage causes inflation?


http://backtofullemployment.org/2013/01/18/minimum-wage-hikes-do-not-cause-inflation/

A nice, accessible blog post to start with that covers today's economy. But what I'm talking about is what happened in the 90s and the 00s, where many states raised their minimum wage above the federal minimum, yet did not experience inflation.


Yeah....you really, really do not understand basic economics.

An economy at full capacity would mean those warehouses were empty. Because factories could not produce any more stuff. In an economy at full capacity, unemployment is about 2% (there's always a little turnover). Our unemployment is 7.3%. An economy at full capacity looks like the US in the mid 1990s. We look nothing like that.

There's a ton of shit in warehouses because too many people are underpaid. Pay more, and those warehouses empty. Guess what raising the minimum wage does?

No, they are full because we manufacture too much shit. How many cars does a family need? How many flat screen tvs? How many video game consoles? How big of a wardrobe? We do not need more stuff.

Were those same warehouses full in 2007?

No.

Did manufacturing capacity massively increase since 2007?

No.

Is unemployment above 7%, and do you keep desperately ignoring that statistic to avoid re-thinking your position?

Yes and yes.

You keep stating unsupported statistics. Maybe I will research this and write an OP on the subject, but as of now I do not have numbers backing my views. It is all empirical evidence that I believe I have acquired. So, until I research this more or until you post some real data to support your position I am done with this sub-thread.

How 'bout trying a very basic google search?
https://www.google.com/search?q=unempoyment+rate+us

Hey look, they even thoughtfully create a graph for you so you can see the rate over time.

You can not have an economy running at capacity with a 7.3% unemployment rate. Because unemployment means there are idle resources (workers).

You can not have an economy running at capacity with full warehouses. Because an economy at capacity can only produce as much stuff as people are buying. If factories can make more stuff than be sold, they are not running at capacity.

raising the minimum wage to a living wage is one of the few things that can be done to alleviate the pain.

You know that when the parasites first started this global coup called "free trade", many people from economists to a billionaire told us for years that the only way to equalize markets globally was to reduce the first world's standard of living. We live on a finite planet and therefore are inevitably participating in a zero-sum game.

So, how should we distribute the societal gains as seen currently in the Dow? I know how I would like to see them distributed. Creating more paupers is not a solution to pauperism.

America will have the highest paid employees in the world.

We also need an "unspent profits tax" to get the rich to stop hoarding wealth and put it back into the economy.

Mind you, they can avoid taxes by buying bonds too.

confiscatory inheritance tax. Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations was the natural progression until the parasites changed the game to get around it. Vast multigenerational wealth is a counterproductive sinkhole, a drag on every economy it touches, eliminating it to the greatest extent practical helps to strengthen those economies.

This is disgraceful...

After we Clean House 2014!


[font color=blue][font size=21pt]And DU!![/font][/font]

Mahalo for your OP, she~

they raise their salaries, and hardly ever work. Yet the real workers, run their asses off. Three or more jobs for the price of one. Actually not even the price of one.

It has to stop, Cha.

2014!

Poor people are promiscuous and the culture of welfare moms. Solution: Cut off their welfare and slut shame them into behaving themselves.

Now you know why younger people are rejecting Republicans.

integration and the war on poverty, to name a few things. Then, suddenly, (not to name names) government WAS the problem. I really think some of the liberal ideas taking hold were too fast for a number of citizens. For them, it was a relief to slow down. Although programs with a "Socialist" basis had saved us during the Depression and are still highly popular, the right wing has devoted a lot of effort to make "Socialism" a scary word and mix it up with Communism as in the former USSR at its worst.

-Laelth

I dnt know if they are for sure any more than any other developed country but from what I gather from my travels, its from one our biggest exports; movies TV, music and all that liberal elitist Hollywood stuff. haha.

Yay, us

-Laelth

so here is a link if others want to like raise minimum wage.

https://www.facebook.com/MinimumWageRaise?notif_t=fbpage_fan_invite

I "liked" it as well. It couldn't hurt and it might help.