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

[peeonme]

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.

So, how do we decide how much to pay a person? If not based upon skill set and need then what? Should all make the same? Why study to be a doctor if you make no more than a person that stocks the shelves at a store?
I believe that a person working a full time job should make a living. They should have food, clothing, shelter and health care. An economic system that is healthy would afford these things. Along with that their would be opportunities to advance. Having the government subsidize a workers pay is a temporary solution. I am all for helping folks during a disaster or pandemic, but creating a class of workers that have to rely on government as a permanent way to survive will make folks more and more dependent rather than self sufficient.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

Who said I was asking your average American worker to make as much as a Doctor? I am saying that at base level jobs the minimum wage should what is needed to meet the basic needs of living. You don’t need to make as much as a Doctor in order to do that.

The only reason the Government is stepping in right now is because the workforce itself is not. The Government shouldn’t have to step in but it is because the cost of living keeps going up but wages are not. This is a problem with the workforce that is not paying employees for what they are worth, which is at the very least and income that one can live off of.

 

[peeonme]

So, what then are the basic needs of living? I had said in the post #82 that a person should be paid enough to have food, shelter, clothing and health care. Your solution seems to be to make an employer pay a certain amount to an employee. The cost of basic living varies greatly depending upon the area. The basics in California cost far more than in Arkansas. I believe in an economy that needs workers thereby making them of more value. This can be done by setting regulations on trade with countries that have an immense trade imbalance with the US.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

Workers shouldn't be seen as a "value", they're human beings. Using terminology like that dehumanizes them. The minimum wage needs to meet the basic needs of living depending on the area. Yes, a roof over your head, food, healthcare, etc. I do not believe in this economy, it has failed so many times before and will again because it isn't sustainable unless we literally have people put their health at risk for the sake of it, which is literally what has been happening.

 

[TX-Beau]

So, what then are the basic needs of living? I had said in the post #82 that a person should be paid enough to have food, shelter, clothing and health care. Your solution seems to be to make an employer pay a certain amount to an employee. The cost of basic living varies greatly depending upon the area. The basics in California cost far more than in Arkansas. I believe in an economy that needs workers thereby making them of more value. This can be done by setting regulations on trade with countries that have an immense trade imbalance with the US.

Protectionism and tariffs - LOL. That Dickens joke seems to be spot on.

 

[TX-Beau]

Who said I was asking your average American worker to make as much as a Doctor? I am saying that at base level jobs the minimum wage should what is needed to meet the basic needs of living. You don’t need to make as much as a Doctor in order to do that.

The only reason the Government is stepping in right now is because the workforce itself is not. The Government shouldn’t have to step in but it is because the cost of living keeps going up but wages are not. This is a problem with the workforce that is not paying employees for what they are worth, which is at the very least and income that one can live off of.

The government has to be involved because contrary to the wild flights of supply side fantasy in here, if you don't force the issue, the cost of labor races to the bottom in the name of profit and the safety f workers gets tossed out.

His fantasy that somehow there's a "natural" process that will stabilize the cost of labor at what it's actually worth (every penny of profit and exorbitant executive salary for a start) is just bunk. Capitalism rigs the game. Without a brake on it, it devolves quickly into monopoly and abuse, not fair labor value.

 

[ClubLevelVegan]

^Pretty much.

 

[opinterph]

Protectionism and tariffs - LOL. That Dickens joke seems to be spot on.

Wanna share?

#1 Was Charles Dickens an idiot for believing the same thing that most southerners do?

#2 If the northern states fought the war because they were so humane, why did they go wipe out the American Indians in the 1870's?

Thanks for your input Mr. Charles Dickens, but I'm sure your opinion means as much to the northern historians as it does to some alien from Mars.

Slavery vs. Tariff: From a neutral standpoint (Tim Kent’s Civil War tales); August 2012

 

[TX-Beau]

Wanna share?

You're way overthinking things. There's no nee to go any deeper than Ebenezer.

 

[opinterph]

You're way overthinking things. There's no [need] to go any deeper than Ebenezer.

Okay.

Despite his transformation at the end of the story, the character is remembered as the embittered miser and not as the reformed sinner …

Ebenezer Scrooge (Britannica)

 

[Kulindahr]

You really don't seem to understand labor and management. The two are diametrically opposed.

Not intrinsically -- employers paying generous wages increase what customers can buy, so if all employers worked together it would be in their interest to pay high wages. Similarly, it is in the interest of workers for their employers to be productive so that there will be things to buy with their wages.

This balance is somewhat broken in the U.S. due to jobs having moved overseas, but it is still in the interest of employers in the U.S. to pay higher wages. Unfortunately that's also broken because corporations have learned that they can pay little and let their employees essentially leech off government aid -- making those employers de facto parasites using their employees as tools to suck profits from the taxpayers. If corporations are going to act that way, they should be taxed heavily enough to pay for the benefits their employees need because of their low wages.

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.

But that approach -- minimizing wages to maximize profits -- is in fact not the best way to accrue wealth: high wages means more spending money means selling more, and that raises prosperity for everyone. It's the flip side of the union problem in the past: extorting ever-higher wages from a employer will kill the flow of money, but being miserly on wages does the same in the long run. The trick is maximizing wealth for both by maximizing the two functions together.

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.

But it doesn't have to work that way -- Germany is a fine example of how labor and management can work together so both benefit.

Making the economy "not... a warm fuzzy place" is part of the problem in the U.S.: we make so many things adversarial, it's not surprising that people shoot each other more often than in countries where people are more interested in working together!

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

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

Important word!

Back in my university days I argued that the reason those with higher incomes should pay higher taxes is that wealth production is not a matter of mere arithmetic but that synergy is involved, and due to the pyramid-type structure of incomes much of the wealth that flows to higher layers is due to synergy -- and what arises from synergy should logically be used to benefit everyone.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

The "ladder" in the U.S. has been a fable for several decades:

The U.S. keeps falling in economic mobility -- it's not in the top ten among all nations, and it's not in the top ten among developed nations. In fact "U.S. mobility is among the lowest of major industrialized economies".

https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/

 

[TX-Beau]

Okay.

What exactly is the point of this? That you think peeonme is going to be altered by ghosts? OR are you just reacting out of personal pique?

 

[Kulindahr]

The government has to be involved because contrary to the wild flights of supply side fantasy in here, if you don't force the issue, the cost of labor races to the bottom in the name of profit and the safety f workers gets tossed out.

His fantasy that somehow there's a "natural" process that will stabilize the cost of labor at what it's actually worth (every penny of profit and exorbitant executive salary for a start) is just bunk. Capitalism rigs the game. Without a brake on it, it devolves quickly into monopoly and abuse, not fair labor value.

And Adam Smith, the champion of free markets, saw that. Really read Smith, and not just quote-mine, and it's clear that capitalism is antithetical to free markets.

 

[opinterph]

What exactly is the point of this? That you think … OR are you just reacting …?

You’re way overthinking things. It means that I’m going to give up trying to understand the original point to which I responded and just dismiss it as a moment of frolic.

 

[peeonme]

Not intrinsically -- employers paying generous wages increase what customers can buy, so if all employers worked together it would be in their interest to pay high wages. Similarly, it is in the interest of workers for their employers to be productive so that there will be things to buy with their wages.

This balance is somewhat broken in the U.S. due to jobs having moved overseas, but it is still in the interest of employers in the U.S. to pay higher wages. Unfortunately that's also broken because corporations have learned that they can pay little and let their employees essentially leech off government aid -- making those employers de facto parasites using their employees as tools to suck profits from the taxpayers. If corporations are going to act that way, they should be taxed heavily enough to pay for the benefits their employees need because of their low wages.



But that approach -- minimizing wages to maximize profits -- is in fact not the best way to accrue wealth: high wages means more spending money means selling more, and that raises prosperity for everyone. It's the flip side of the union problem in the past: extorting ever-higher wages from a employer will kill the flow of money, but being miserly on wages does the same in the long run. The trick is maximizing wealth for both by maximizing the two functions together.



But it doesn't have to work that way -- Germany is a fine example of how labor and management can work together so both benefit.

Making the economy "not... a warm fuzzy place" is part of the problem in the U.S.: we make so many things adversarial, it's not surprising that people shoot each other more often than in countries where people are more interested in working together!

Sounds good except that the goods being sold in our market are being produced by in large in China and other nations. Low priced goods sold to low wage earners will bring in a profit if the wages of those who produced the goods are even lower than those buying them. China didn't create a middle class of consumers that are buying the goods that they produce. China used the money to build a massive military and an impressive infrastructure. Multi national corporations have made huge profits as well. The price of the goods being sold have remained low enough so that low wage earners in the US can buy the basics with some help from the federal government.

Again, I submit that a need for workers in the US will bring wages up. If we tax corporations to recoup the cost of supplementing workers they will pass the cost on to the market place. The idea of a kumbaya moment where we all
work together in brotherhood sounds great. All we will have to do is overcome the nature on man which shows that we can be quite evil and mean to those of our species as well as other species.