Progressives push for a $2K/month check for duration of the pandemic

[ClubLevelVegan]

I mean, I felt I made it clear before. People should in general make livable wages no matter if that job is "low skill/effort", especially considering these jobs were the ones that stayed open to a large part of this global pandemic. These people are considered essential workers and their pay does not reflect that. Though with what is going on right now, I think there needs to be a proper lockdown and people should be getting a regular stimulus in order to start minimizing the spread of the virus as much as possible. Other parts of the World have done this and it was no problem. Why can't the US? We can afford to do so.

I mean I just read a story where a Teacher made a stay home request because she had pre-existing conditions, the School Administration denied it, she has since died of COVID. People are literally dying to try and survive in our Country. This should not be happening.

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Reminder

COURTESY & RESPECT

 

[Kulindahr]

I still work seasonally for myself. So I am not out of touch with the reality of today's workforce. In my younger days a low pay job took little effort or skill and that is still true today. For the government to set an arbitrary wage (based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system) will do no good, why $15.00, why bot $30.00... heck $50. is a nice number, lets go with $50.

If a burger flipper (I was one at one time) makes the same as a cop or a fireman, plumber, teacher or carpenter where is the incentive to learn? $15 per hour is $600. per week. The price of burgers will go up and people won't buy them... suddenly we have unemployed burger flippers and closed hamburger joint.



When an economy parts company with the law of supply and demand there are repercussions. In a perfect world all would have a fun job and go home to a wonderful home, however the world is not and never will be perfect. The government should at times intervene on the behalf of employees, if wages are stagnant fluffing the pillow won't help. We need to ask why wages aren't going up.

The $15 figure, if aimed at for 2025, is very close to what the minimum wage was when I was in high school and early college -- maybe a bit ahead, depending on the next several years of inflation.

As for the price of burgers, various groups have calculated that, and for MacDonalds an immediate change to $15/hr would raise the price of a Big Mac by a dime, the price of a full meal by under forty cents.

The economy has departed from supply and demand because giant corporations have realized that they don't have to keep wages advancing to keep up with inflation because they can shove the cost onto the government. Walmart even has packets they hand out to new employees with everything needed to apply for all possible government programs. If you want supply and demand to work, you should be demanding tht those corporations be billed for the cost of all that aid to their employees.

 

[Kulindahr]

You keep attacking the profit-motive aspects of our economic system. I have asked you many many many times to give us an alternative that doesn't end up starving millions of people. Here is your chance. Stop attacking and tell us what an alternative could be.

It's not profit per se, it's the notion that the courts have handed down that a company is obliged to maximize its profits for its shareholders. Today Henry Ford wouldn't be able to follow his concept of paying workers as much as possible.

As for an alternative, do what's done in Germany: give the unions seats on the boards of directors. That would give workers a voice regularly instead of having to strike, and it also has the effect of making the unions responsible for working to keep the company healthy.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't dispute that there are plenty of homelessness and poverty in America. But compare it to what the peasants in the Soviet Union and Communist China faced...

No one is saying capitalism is perfect. Everybody recognizes it is far from it. But in the history of economic systems that have been experimented, this one so far wins by a long shot. My family escaped extreme poverty through capitalism. What do I mean by extreme? Ever had to eat sewer rats to survive? Or on days when even there's no rats to eat, it's sleep-all-day day because hunger isn't as bad when you're just sleeping (as a kid).

Alternative to capitalism like socialism and communism may sound good on paper. But try living through it for yourself and see what happens.

We were actually warned about capitalism by the man everyone loves to invoke in support of free markets: Adam Smith. He recognized that capitalism is inherently an enemy of free markets and has to be restrained.

As for living through socialism, most of Europe does it every day and they're doing just fine. The problem here is that there are two types of socialism, and one is actually beneficial to prosperity -- but today's reactionaries in the U.S. refuse to distinguish between the two.

 

[Kulindahr]

You know what, there are places in this country where people scrounge for food in the trash, and places where people for generations have survived eating squirrels.

What you are doing is inventing reasons to look away - tossing in a disclaimer here and there as if that isn't the same old tired justification for apathy that gets trotted out ad naseum, and it comes across - if indeed you are "upper middle class" like a big fuck you to people who can't earn enough in the richest courtly in the world, to eat.

We aren't capitalism we are indeed oligarchy, because the rich bought the politicians who changed the rules to funnel profit only up to them, and if it continues a whole bunch of people inventing reasons to look away won't be middle class any longer.

We're an oligarchical corporatist plutocracy: the candidates we get to vote for are chosen by the 0.2% most wealthy who supply well over four-fifths of all campaign money, and they make sure that laws favor corporations (which they use as their own tools to get more speech than other Americans).

 

[Kulindahr]

Since I have Alistair on my ignore list, thanks for showing me what he said.

When my family first came to the US, all 7 of us lived in a broken down trailer in the worst part of town. We survived on food stamps and food pantries. My parents got us off them ASAP. It's a pride thing. On the other hand, I've known people who only knows food stamps and food pantries. That's all they know. That's all they aim for.

Yes, there are people who stay on food stamps and that's all they know.

But to a large extent that's all they know because our laws leave the wealthy better off in comparison to the middle class after taxes than before, and the middle class better off in comparison to the poor after taxes than before -- and this is done in the name of "job provides" who have not in fifty years provided more jobs after getting a tax cut. One thing the COVID relief checks have accomplished is showing just how much the economy depends on spending from the bottom, something that ought to be common sense since if you allow someone to have more money who really doesn't have enough to get by they'll spend it.

 

[Kulindahr]

For what it's worth, I'm allowing a homeless guy to tent on my porch for the duration of the pandemic. The sad thing is that he spends enough on cigarettes and beer that if he dropped the tobacco and drank water he would have saved up enough for first, last, and deposit for a fairly nice apartment. (He did use his relief check to pay six months ahead on his storage unit, though.)
So the point about vices is a good one.

 

[peeonme]

The $15 figure, if aimed at for 2025, is very close to what the minimum wage was when I was in high school and early college -- maybe a bit ahead, depending on the next several years of inflation.

As for the price of burgers, various groups have calculated that, and for MacDonalds an immediate change to $15/hr would raise the price of a Big Mac by a dime, the price of a full meal by under forty cents.

The economy has departed from supply and demand because giant corporations have realized that they don't have to keep wages advancing to keep up with inflation because they can shove the cost onto the government. Walmart even has packets they hand out to new employees with everything needed to apply for all possible government programs. If you want supply and demand to work, you should be demanding tht those corporations be billed for the cost of all that aid to their employees.

In 1968 I was hired at McDonald's at $2.00 per hour. That would be $15. per hour in today's money adjusting for inflation. $1.10 was minimum wage in 1968. Why then have wages not kept up? It is indeed because of supply and demand. In '68 the store I worked at was in a Detroit suburb, at that time they didn't hire blacks or women. It was a teen age/ young (white) man job. There weren't many of us available. At 16 I worked 40-45 hours per week and made from 600. to 675 per week in today's money. At $11.00 per hour that's only $440. per week today. But let's look at who is working for that pay today. It's not a 16 year old any longer. It's an adult and in many cases they have a family. Looking close you will find that the crew is much smaller than back in '68. On a Friday at lunch or dinner we had 6 people on window, 5 on grill, 2 on fries, 1 on shakes and a few floaters to take up the slack or fill in.
18-20 people was not uncommon. I know this because I was promoted to assistant manager and made out crew schedules and assignments. Today you will find maybe 6 people even during a rush hour.

So given the fact that the hiring base has expanded and is more inclusive and the employees are "stuck" in a low pay field that has need for fewer workers to maintain operations there is nee need to give raises or pay much more than minimum wages. In '68 when a guy turned 18 he could move on to a higher paying job at a factory. If he had worked and obtained a degree of any kind (even liberal arts) their was a job waiting. Due to high tech, automation and jobs going to cheap labor over seas the demand is not there any longer and many find themselves among the working poor.

How did we get here? Automation and high tech are pretty easy to understand, they have been taking the place of people for decades. But outsourcing? I can see why the party of big business and the wealthy might get on board.
After all it was a great cure for inflation (too many dollars chasing too few goods). Inflation was despised by the rich as it became difficult to make a return on money that kept up with it. Capitol gains and all that passive income sort of thing. If you had a million dollars and didn't find a return that paid more than inflation your poor portfolio shrunk and you became less wealthy. But why would the democrats go along with global economics? Don't they care about the poor worker? Well, it benefited the liberals to have a system that kept workers more dependent upon government for a supplement for their needs. Health care, food stamps just to name a few. This meant that people could vote for themselves largess from the federal government if the liberals were in power. So we have a class of working poor, stuck in low pay jobs. It is all due to supply and demand of goods and workers.

Automation can be off set by the number of workers needed to build "robots", how ever most are built overseas so that does little to help the American worker. High tech jobs are great, but we import workers who are willing to work for cheaper wages thus increasing supply and lessening the demand and stagnating wages. So we find ourselves at square one. cheap labor supplemented by government hand outs. But, where does our government get the money? Why they borrow it from the countries that supply the goods that are sold on our shores. We must not tax the top 10% why that is a terrible thing to do. Our economy is a house of cards, it's all on paper. We must transition back to making goods on our shores producing a dynamic economy with a demand for workers thus increasing their value and wages.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

Re: Moderator Reminder

COURTESY & RESPECT

I'll have courtesy and respect for people who think people should make livable wages.

 

[peeonme]

Re: Moderator Reminder

I'll have courtesy and respect for people who think people should make livable wages.

With all due respect... if it's mandated by the government it is in effect being given to them through their employer. If it is paid to them by their employer because they are needed and of value then they are earning the pay.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

If employers truly valued their workers they would already be paying them better instead of finding ways not to in order to keep the profit margin up.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Moderator Reminder

With all due respect... if it's mandated by the government it is in effect being given to them through their employer. If it is paid to them by their employer because they are needed and of value then they are earning the pay.

This is the most ridiculous thing anyone has said in this thread. It's like some kind of Dickensien justification. One expects this sort of thig to come out of the mouth of a guy in a stovepipe hat who beats starving children with a cane.

 

[TX-Beau]

If employers truly valued their workers they would already be paying them better instead of finding ways not to in order to keep the profit margin up.

In fact we know from history that employers will pay as little as they can get away with, and ignore the safety and welfare of their labor force without regulation.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'm still appalled that anyone would say that if you work a job with a minimum wage it's welfare.

 

[Kulindahr]

If employers truly valued their workers they would already be paying them better instead of finding ways not to in order to keep the profit margin up.

Yep. And the same is true if employers really valued prosperity.

Henry Ford would be appalled at today's big corporations: he understood that paying employees as much as possible built prosperity for everyone. If just half of the increased revenues from increased productivity were directed to worker pay the U.S. economy would have been the envy of the world.

 

[peeonme]

Yep. And the same is true if employers really valued prosperity.

Henry Ford would be appalled at today's big corporations: he understood that paying employees as much as possible built prosperity for everyone. If just half of the increased revenues from increased productivity were directed to worker pay the U.S. economy would have been the envy of the world.

Henry Ford understood that if you paid an employee enough to buy the product that the employee built that you would have consumers. Today we have cheap inferior goods being produced by truly underpaid workers who are all but slaves on foreign soil being sold in America and other countries to people that delight in cheap goods and really don't care if workers at Walmart are being supplemented by the government. Henry Ford didn't pay workers $5.00 per day out of his bleeding heart, he understood the need to have a market place that could afford his car. Build in America and buy in America and we will see an upwardly mobile work force that doesn't need the federal government to run their lives.

 

[peeonme]

If employers truly valued their workers they would already be paying them better instead of finding ways not to in order to keep the profit margin up.

You really don't seem to understand labor and management. The two are diametrically opposed. Taking it to the base value, an employer wants to get the maximum amount of product with the fewest cheapest man hours. An employee wants to make the most that he or she can with the least amount of effort. Some employers are more generous and some employees are more willing to produce. Like it or not it's about money. It's about accruing wealth.
Some workers are content with the basics and others want more, both types will work to their desired comfort zone and ability. Some employers will expand and employ more workers and value them others will cheat lie and steal, I have worked for both kinds.

When I knew that I wanted to make more than the average worker I studied math and learned a skill set as a machinist. Even in that environment it wasn't uncommon to find people that didn't apply themselves. Nor was it uncommon to find the most dread types of business owners. With knowledge, training and tools I was able to move on from cheap lying employers. The fact that these small business owners were dependent upon trained skilled workers kept them in line for the most part. They couldn't hire just anyone.

The economy is not a warm fuzzy place, it's based upon need, need for goods and need for workers to make those goods. The more skill you have the more that you make. The more you pay the better the work force that you have. If you have people lined up to take jobs that require little skill you can pay less. If you need skilled workers you have to pay more.

This provides an incentive for people to better themselves and move up the ladder. If you subsidize poverty you create more poverty. The truth hurts at times.

 

[opinterph]

You really don't seem to understand labor and management. The two are diametrically opposed. Taking it to the base value, an employer wants to get the maximum amount of product with the fewest cheapest man hours. An employee wants to make the most that he or she can with the least amount of effort. Some employers are more generous and some employees are more willing to produce. Like it or not it's about money. It's about accruing wealth.

The primary objective of management is to increase the value of the common stock (owners’ equity). Some managers understand that happy labor is more productive. Some employees understand that the value they add to the company must be greater than the value they take from it. When all the elements of a business enterprise are properly engaged, the resulting synergy of the labor force increases the value of labor’s inputs and justifies a higher wage.

The more you pay the better the work force that you have.

Rate of pay is only a tool. It doesn’t necessarily predict the quality of the workforce.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

You really don't seem to understand labor and management. The two are diametrically opposed. Taking it to the base value, an employer wants to get the maximum amount of product with the fewest cheapest man hours. An employee wants to make the most that he or she can with the least amount of effort. Some employers are more generous and some employees are more willing to produce. Like it or not it's about money. It's about accruing wealth.
Some workers are content with the basics and others want more, both types will work to their desired comfort zone and ability. Some employers will expand and employ more workers and value them others will cheat lie and steal, I have worked for both kinds.

When I knew that I wanted to make more than the average worker I studied math and learned a skill set as a machinist. Even in that environment it wasn't uncommon to find people that didn't apply themselves. Nor was it uncommon to find the most dread types of business owners. With knowledge, training and tools I was able to move on from cheap lying employers. The fact that these small business owners were dependent upon trained skilled workers kept them in line for the most part. They couldn't hire just anyone.

The economy is not a warm fuzzy place, it's based upon need, need for goods and need for workers to make those goods. The more skill you have the more that you make. The more you pay the better the work force that you have. If you have people lined up to take jobs that require little skill you can pay less. If you need skilled workers you have to pay more.

This provides an incentive for people to better themselves and move up the ladder. If you subsidize poverty you create more poverty. The truth hurts at times.

I do understand actually, which is why I have a problem with it.

You think that people should be paid upon the measure of their skill, I do not think that. I think a person should be paid a livable wage because they are human beings and deserve to be treated better than just a cog in the machine that serves capital. I do not think people should have to "better themselves" in order to make a living, I don't think people should have to work their lives away just to support themselves.

You constantly talk about a ladder, but that ladder does not exist for your average American worker. Should these people not be paid a livable wage because of that? Again we talk about "low effort/skill jobs", yet these jobs were the ones that had to be open during a global pandemic for our beloved and sacred economy. These people are risking their health in these "low effort/low skill" jobs and yet apparently they still don't deserve to make a livable wage because of the good ole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" rhetoric.

I know how our current workforce and economic system work. My problem is not understanding it, my problem is that I think it is fragile and doesn't work in the best interests of the working class. If the workforce can't support the working class and what they are worth, I see it as a failure of the system and that we need to do better.