Lower minimum wage to zero

[cooltigger21 0]

With all the talk about a living wage and the recent jumps in Seattle and LA to $15/hr, we see how that affects small businesses and locks people out of the job market. Why don't we focus instead on polices that will allow business to grow and expand and create jobs. Let's create a thriving market where there is competition for jobs and people have the opportunity to move out of a low wage job as their skills improve. http://katiekieffer.com/2015/05/25/lower-the-minimum-wage-to-0/

[AUFAN78 3,894]

With all the talk about a living wage and the recent jumps in Seattle and LA to $15/hr, we see how that affects small businesses and locks people out of the job market. Why don't we focus instead on polices that will allow business to grow and expand and create jobs. Let's create a thriving market where there is competition for jobs and people have the opportunity to move out of a low wage job as their skills improve. http://katiekieffer....imum-wage-to-0/

An interesting perspective. Probably not mainstream nor meeting the PC thought process, but interesting nonetheless.

[Mims44 1,867]

Better yet, make it so people pay the businesses for the pleasure of working there!

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Better yet, make it so people pay the businesses for the pleasure of working there!

Ha! Try it and let us know how you make out.

[The Freak 2,526]

Better yet, make it so people pay the businesses for the pleasure of working there!

That's called college.

[quietfan 233]

Many conservatives: "I don't want the Government providing basic needs like food, shelter, and health care. But I also don't want to pay hard workers a living wage."

What's the third alternative? Letting the poor or unskilled starve to death?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

With all the talk about a living wage and the recent jumps in Seattle and LA to $15/hr, we see how that affects small businesses and locks people out of the job market. Why don't we focus instead on polices that will allow business to grow and expand and create jobs. Let's create a thriving market where there is competition for jobs and people have the opportunity to move out of a low wage job as their skills improve. http://katiekieffer....imum-wage-to-0/

An interesting perspective. Probably not mainstream nor meeting the PC thought process, but interesting nonetheless.

You certainly can not argue with the "science". Think of the demand for labor if the associated cost is $0. Everyone will have a job! We can be just like the third world!

I envision a world in which multinational companies dominate all markets and, governments compete for their presence by promoting the lowest cost labor and lowest tax rates. There is just one minor problem I can not resolve. Who will consume when the vast majority of the world is attempting to survive on $4/per day?

Perhaps the American middle class, the worker/consumer, is incredibly under appreciated? If their wealth and credit worthiness continue to decline, who will consume? If the aggregate ability to consume declines, what happens to productivity and innovation? What happens to economic growth. What happens to societal stability?

[penguin149 391]

Those are interesting questions ICHY....not sure what the answers are.

IMHO, raising the minimum wage to $15 will not significantly improve life for low-skilled workers and will have a ripple effect on a lot of the labor force. Those who have taken on more responsibilites, additional training, etc are now making $12, $14, $18, etc. per hour and will want a proportionate increase in wages to differeniate their pay from the entry-level workers. Inflation will erode most of the gains by increased wages.

The biggest impact on wages and standards of living is the global economy in which we now live. NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, etc. is bringing more nations to a more comparable lifestyle. The entry-level worker really doesn't have anywhere to progress to because so many jobs that paid more than minimum wage have been sent to other countries. The US lifestyle will drop while other will rise. Worldwide wealth will not increase enough for everyone to lead the lifestyles that the US has enjoyed in the past.

[WarTim 3,456]

Many conservatives: "I don't want the Government providing basic needs like food, shelter, and health care. But I also don't want to pay hard workers a living wage."

What's the third alternative? Letting the poor or unskilled starve to death?

"living wage".....PC for govt dictate to "fairness"...

[WarTim 3,456]

With all the talk about a living wage and the recent jumps in Seattle and LA to $15/hr, we see how that affects small businesses and locks people out of the job market. Why don't we focus instead on polices that will allow business to grow and expand and create jobs. Let's create a thriving market where there is competition for jobs and people have the opportunity to move out of a low wage job as their skills improve. http://katiekieffer....imum-wage-to-0/

An interesting perspective. Probably not mainstream nor meeting the PC thought process, but interesting nonetheless.

You certainly can not argue with the "science". Think of the demand for labor if the associated cost is $0. Everyone will have a job! We can be just like the third world!

I envision a world in which multinational companies dominate all markets and, governments compete for their presence by promoting the lowest cost labor and lowest tax rates. There is just one minor problem I can not resolve. Who will consume when the vast majority of the world is attempting to survive on $4/per day?

Perhaps the American middle class, the worker/consumer, is incredibly under appreciated? If their wealth and credit worthiness continue to decline, who will consume? If the aggregate ability to consume declines, what happens to productivity and innovation? What happens to economic growth. What happens to societal stability?

Darn fact based intelligent questions...:-)

[TitanTiger 20,472]

"Let's take a job market where the ones with the money and the jobs have most of the power and tilt it even more in their favor."

[cooltigger21 0]

Why don't we concentrate on creating an environment where there is a job for everyone that wants one and then some instead of focusing on a "living wage" Get the damn government out of the way. Cut taxes and regulation and quit strangling the economy like we've done for the past 6 years. Get over this attitude of "you didn't build that" and all the other nonsense. You act like every business out there is just sitting on a pile of money and hoarding it instead of paying their employees. Most of the businesses that pay minimum wage have a very low profit margin as it is. If you really want to understand how all this works go read anything by Dr. Walter Williams. That man is brilliant and explains in a way that anyone can understand.

[quietfan 233]

Many conservatives: "I don't want the Government providing basic needs like food, shelter, and health care. But I also don't want to pay hard workers a living wage."

What's the third alternative? Letting the poor or unskilled starve to death?

"living wage".....PC for govt dictate to "fairness"...

"Living wage", by my definition/opinion:

Anyone who works 40 or more hours a week should be able feed and cloth their family, keep a roof over their heads, and cover basic medical bills without needing government assistance or having to face questions like "So do I put gas in the car to get to work, put food on the table tonight, pay the water bill, or buy my baby's medicine? ... because I can't afford to do all four.."

[icanthearyou 4,462]

IMO, Dr. Williams is not an economist but, an ideologue. He is unconditionally supportive of free market capitalism. He is an extremist. This country learned (or should have learned) what happens without some government intervention. You end up with monopolies, extreme concentration of wealth and power, depression, pollution, collapse of financial institutions.

Adopting the extremist philosophy that all government intervention is bad, is foolish. Capitalism is the best economic system. However, it is not perfect. Government interventions are not always bad. They are typically bad when the special interests override our national interests. The correct answer is not capitalism or socialism. The correct answer is balance and, the correct answer is always changing. Ideologues do not like that. It defies their "perfect" understanding.

It is time for us to put away the false absolutes of ideological idiots. Scientist or scholars who like to explain their absolute, unconditional beliefs in terms of anecdotal examples are not very scientific or scholarly. A real economist understands the less than exact nature of economics, particularly in a dynamic world. They do not pretend to have perfect understanding based on their ideology. They offer explanations and theory based on real data and real world observations.

[AUTUmike 79]

Why don't we concentrate on creating an environment where there is a job for everyone that wants one and then some instead of focusing on a "living wage" Get the damn government out of the way. Cut taxes and regulation and quit strangling the economy like we've done for the past 6 years. Get over this attitude of "you didn't build that" and all the other nonsense. You act like every business out there is just sitting on a pile of money and hoarding it instead of paying their employees. Most of the businesses that pay minimum wage have a very low profit margin as it is. If you really want to understand how all this works go read anything by Dr. Walter Williams. That man is brilliant and explains in a way that anyone can understand.

First off, citing or even suggesting the work of a George Mason economist is enough to get you laughed out of the room most places--so kudos, tigger. Second, your "Get the damn government out of the way" suggestion is fundamentally flawed. Markets may function ONLY with a state to enforce private property rights. And markets may function with efficiency ONLY with a state that intervenes to correct the many failures of unfettered markets. Third, your tired solution of cutting taxes and deregulating would increase the nation's debt in the case of the former (which you and yours have so vehemently opposed in the past), and enable sectors like finance to once again hold the state hostage through their own profligacy, in the case of the latter.

[penguin149 391]

So what is a "living wage"? $15/hour? $20/hour? Is a cell phone a necessity? Two cars? 2,500 sq ft 3br/2ba house? The definition of "middle class" has changed/evolved over the years...what is "middle class" now? Should a middle class family be able to send 3 kids to college at $40,000 to $70,000 each? You won't get there on $20/hour.

Let's set a "living wage" and reduce SNAP, Section 8 housing, welfare, ACA subsidies, etc. by 75%. If the economy will not be affected by an increase in wages, there should not be a gamble there. More would be paying taxes rather than qualifing form EIC (another government subsidy); and we could pay down the debt. Few would be willing to make that bet....

[quietfan 233]

... your "Get the damn government out of the way" suggestion is fundamentally flawed. Markets may function ONLY with a state to enforce private property rights. And markets may function with efficiency ONLY with a state that intervenes to correct the many failures of unfettered markets. Third, your tired solution of cutting taxes and deregulating would increase the nation's debt in the case of the former (which you and yours have so vehemently opposed in the past), and enable sectors like finance to once again hold the state hostage through their own profligacy, in the case of the latter.

Insightful and well stated.

[Mims44 1,867]

IMO, Dr. Williams is not an economist but, an ideologue. He is unconditionally supportive of free market capitalism. He is an extremist. This country learned (or should have learned) what happens without some government intervention. You end up with monopolies, extreme concentration of wealth and power, depression, pollution, collapse of financial institutions.

Adopting the extremist philosophy that all government intervention is bad, is foolish. Capitalism is the best economic system. However, it is not perfect. Government interventions are not always bad. They are typically bad when the special interests override our national interests. The correct answer is not capitalism or socialism. The correct answer is balance and, the correct answer is always changing. Ideologues do not like that. It defies their "perfect" understanding.

It is time for us to put away the false absolutes of ideological idiots. Scientist or scholars who like to explain their absolute, unconditional beliefs in terms of anecdotal examples are not very scientific or scholarly. A real economist understands the less than exact nature of economics, particularly in a dynamic world. They do not pretend to have perfect understanding based on their ideology. They offer explanations and theory based on real data and real world observations.

They aren't paying attention to you ICHY, use your gutter speak again.

[autigeremt 6,598]

IMO, Dr. Williams is not an economist but, an ideologue. He is unconditionally supportive of free market capitalism. He is an extremist. This country learned (or should have learned) what happens without some government intervention. You end up with monopolies, extreme concentration of wealth and power, depression, pollution, collapse of financial institutions.

Adopting the extremist philosophy that all government intervention is bad, is foolish. Capitalism is the best economic system. However, it is not perfect. Government interventions are not always bad. They are typically bad when the special interests override our national interests. The correct answer is not capitalism or socialism. The correct answer is balance and, the correct answer is always changing. Ideologues do not like that. It defies their "perfect" understanding.

It is time for us to put away the false absolutes of ideological idiots. Scientist or scholars who like to explain their absolute, unconditional beliefs in terms of anecdotal examples are not very scientific or scholarly. A real economist understands the less than exact nature of economics, particularly in a dynamic world. They do not pretend to have perfect understanding based on their ideology. They offer explanations and theory based on real data and real world observations.

I would argue that Government is one of the reasons crony capitalism exists. I'm not defending it, just pointing out that elected officials and agency administrators can be big contributors to it.

[cooltigger21 0]

The huge and ever expanding federal government is the largest problem we have now. We create some government program that doesn't work so we create another one to take care of the problems that one caused and create more. That monstrosity of a tax code is how favors are bought and power is used to take care of friends. That's how all of this came about. We had wage and price controls during WWII so employers used health insurance as a recruiting tool. We then gave businesses a break for providing this perk to employees which skewed the system towards that instead of individuals being responsible for their own. That's just one example of how we've gotten things out of hand.

Itchy have you actually ever read anything Dr.Williams has written or listened to him? I doubt it based on your comments. He has never said we don't need some government but that we should have the least amount necessary.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The huge and ever expanding federal government is the largest problem we have now. We create some government program that doesn't work so we create another one to take care of the problems that one caused and create more. That monstrosity of a tax code is how favors are bought and power is used to take care of friends. That's how all of this came about. We had wage and price controls during WWII so employers used health insurance as a recruiting tool. We then gave businesses a break for providing this perk to employees which skewed the system towards that instead of individuals being responsible for their own. That's just one example of how we've gotten things out of hand.

Itchy have you actually ever read anything Dr.Williams has written or listened to him? I doubt it based on your comments. He has never said we don't need some government but that we should have the least amount necessary.

Yes, yes, yes. He pounds the same ideological drum you do. There is nothing wrong with that though. In some sense you are correct. However, the "less government" philosophy is inaccurate and incomplete. We need a less bureaucratic government. We need government that serves the interests of the country. Simply saying we need "less government" makes for nice rhetoric but, that is about all. We need effective, efficient, fair government.

[autigeremt 6,598]

The huge and ever expanding federal government is the largest problem we have now. We create some government program that doesn't work so we create another one to take care of the problems that one caused and create more. That monstrosity of a tax code is how favors are bought and power is used to take care of friends. That's how all of this came about. We had wage and price controls during WWII so employers used health insurance as a recruiting tool. We then gave businesses a break for providing this perk to employees which skewed the system towards that instead of individuals being responsible for their own. That's just one example of how we've gotten things out of hand.

Itchy have you actually ever read anything Dr.Williams has written or listened to him? I doubt it based on your comments. He has never said we don't need some government but that we should have the least amount necessary.

Yes, yes, yes. He pounds the same ideological drum you do. There is nothing wrong with that though. In some sense you are correct. However, the "less government" philosophy is inaccurate and incomplete. We need a less bureaucratic government. We need government that serves the interests of the country. Simply saying we need "less government" makes for nice rhetoric but, that is about all. We need effective, efficient, fair government.

That would help true capitalism flourish.

[cooltigger21 0]

Itchy you're talking in circles. Less bureaucracy and all that goes with it necessarily means less. We simply don't need about half or maybe more of the various and sundry agencies we have now. Get rid of that monstrosity we call a tax code and replace it with a national sales tax or a flat tax and you'd solve a lot of problems. The government is involved in things it has no business doing. That large ever present government involved in every aspect of our life is why we have cronyism. If government isn't in the middle of something then trying to influence the outcome by getting legislation or some bureaucrat to do your bidding does no good and won't be tried because there is no gain to be had by doing so.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

The huge and ever expanding federal government is the largest problem we have now. We create some government program that doesn't work so we create another one to take care of the problems that one caused and create more. That monstrosity of a tax code is how favors are bought and power is used to take care of friends. That's how all of this came about. We had wage and price controls during WWII so employers used health insurance as a recruiting tool. We then gave businesses a break for providing this perk to employees which skewed the system towards that instead of individuals being responsible for their own. That's just one example of how we've gotten things out of hand.

Itchy have you actually ever read anything Dr.Williams has written or listened to him? I doubt it based on your comments. He has never said we don't need some government but that we should have the least amount necessary.

Yes, yes, yes. He pounds the same ideological drum you do. There is nothing wrong with that though. In some sense you are correct. However, the "less government" philosophy is inaccurate and incomplete. We need a less bureaucratic government. We need government that serves the interests of the country. Simply saying we need "less government" makes for nice rhetoric but, that is about all. We need effective, efficient, fair government.

That would help true capitalism flourish.

Yep. There are many necessary regulations but, there are a lot of regulations dreamed up by some industry's lobbying group designed to stifle competition.

Still, the real problem with the economy, IMO, is foreign trade. We have made very poor trade agreements. We have granted way too much access to our consumer market without leveling the playing field. The trade deficit says it all.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Itchy you're talking in circles. Less bureaucracy and all that goes with it necessarily means less. We simply don't need about half or maybe more of the various and sundry agencies we have now. Get rid of that monstrosity we call a tax code and replace it with a national sales tax or a flat tax and you'd solve a lot of problems. The government is involved in things it has no business doing. That large ever present government involved in every aspect of our life is why we have cronyism. If government isn't in the middle of something then trying to influence the outcome by getting legislation or some bureaucrat to do your bidding does no good and won't be tried because there is no gain to be had by doing so.

No. Quantity and quality are two different things. I believe a true conservative approach would be to work on the quality and, slowly work on budget cutting. The "slash and burn" rhetoric sounds pretty reckless. I think that would be quite a jolt to the current economy.