If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
MichaelC wrote:
Would you trade minimum wage laws for a complete removal of all illegal immigrant labor in this country? Think carefully before you answer. "Icono Clast" wrote: Different issues. Not a fair question. MichaelC wrote: Same issue. Illegal immigrant labor floods the labor market with a low cost labor "product", which pulls down wages for the entire labor "food" chain. Take out "illegal immigrant" and I don't disagree but I maintain: It is an employer paying less than ought be to the people a few hours away from [select starvation eviction water/gas/electricity cut off out of gasoline etc? /select] who "pulls down wages for the entire labor 'food' chain". If a dirty job at an illegal wage is all that's available to keep you from [see above], you do it and give your child a glass of milk. .. . . and not the desperate, at fault. Sorry, but there's no room to disagree here -- this is Econ 101 from any college in the country. There exists a free market for labor just as there eixsts a free market for goods and services. The greater the number of applicants for a given job, the less the employer has to pay to get the guy/gal he wants. Yeah. No problem with that. When it comes to illegals, they get plugged into jobs where the employer can fudge the system, low-trained US workers have to take other jobs (fast food) and because there's a dozen applicants for the burger flipping job, the empllyer could pay whatever he wants. The legal status of a job seeker is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if there's a thousand incipient 'burger flippers, the employer is still required to abide by the law. Now, if you pull the illegals out of the equation, everyone moves up the food chain, and the same worker applies for jobs and McD, Wendys, and BK, and if he's the only competent applicant, picks the one paying the most, thus forcing the employer to "buy" him with higher wages. We have more than enough desperately poor people without "illegals" to accept Minimum Wage jobs. "Illegals" are irrelevant. If the labor supply was constrained, this "living wage" b**s**t wouldn't even be under discussion. The BK on Geary would have to either pay the buy 10 bucks an hour, or offer him full time full benefits, to get him. Well of course: Supply/Demand - it's a law! Think though that process the next time you go to the polls. If you remove illegals from the equation, the real cost to hire an employee willing to flip a burger on Geary Street might very well reach or exceed $8.50 per hour. "Illegals" are irrelevant. A living wage should be the right of any and every fully-employed person any and every where. Might be $8.50 in San Francisco and $3.50 in East Saint Louis, $0.25 in Peking; doesn't matter. The "illegals" are the scofflaw employers, not those desperate for work . . . If you're talking about people who have entered the country without going through the proper channels, there is no difference. They're all effectively undocumented. Doesn't matter where the come from, does it? As a conservative/libertarian (or whatever), I object to laws designed to fix problems that other laws (or, in this case, lack of enforcement thereof) cause. That's correct. If you know of an employer who hires, for example, undocumented Canadians to do a job for which US citizens are qualified and available, call your local Department of Labor. The times I've done so (for other reasons), I've been impressed by how quickly, well, and effectively they responded. Sure, but there is anecdotal evididence that the Feds only spank the employer and release the illegal. Without consequences, law is meaningless. Yes. Who's at fault for that? What about the 90% of the workplace regulations that *don't* increase risk to rank and file life and limb? I've not read them in so long that I don't know to what you refer. The laws of which I'm aware are legislated recognition of some of the conditions won by the deaths of striking workers. SEC regs, affirmative action regs, eeoc regs, american with disabilites regs, etc..........etc.....etc...... All of them have good purpose, That's good enough for me. The reasons those laws exist, even if they're burdensome, is because of the historic abuses of employees. but amount to us loading Lance Armstrong down with a fifty pound weight and telling him to win the next Tour de France. I don't understand the analogy. Yes, I know who Lance is. Forbes estimates that the cost of compliance with regulations in this country (the most expensive regs are usually those involved with EEO compliance, next to safety) is three million jobs per year. Three million jobs added to the equation would take the unemployment rate to replacement levels (2-2.5%) and, like the illegals question above, would increase the cost of your Geary Street burger flipper to your hypothetical living wage. If those three million jobs would be with long hours at sub-standard wages in an unsatisfactory working environment, t'hell with 'em. In 2008, the wave of retirees which constitutes 1/3 of the workforce (in total) will retire. The younguns might be nice, but I doubt they'll be willing to work tripleshifts to compensate for the retirees who want to go fish. We old people'l out-vote 'em! Actually, we likely will, refusing to deal with the reality that saddleing them with our retirement is unethical. All of us who were employed after 1937 were saddled with the burden of supporting retirees. Had the gummint handled the funds honestly and competently, there would be no problem. The problem with Social Security is that the revenue collected goes into the General Fund rather than being kept separate as it ought. The "solutions" proposed by the idiot in the White House are neither sound nor realistic. I don't like the solutions either, but the system is failing. If it contained a private component when it was created, we wouldn't have this problem right now. The simplest fix is that Social Security contributions be levied upon all wages earned. During the ten years that I maxed out my contributions, I received a "bonus" check or two at the end of the year. I think it ought not be possible to max out one's contribution. Yes, that would be unfair to those who have high wages. So what? They have more money! Bottom line is that available jobs will, in the near future, *far* exceed the labor force, and again, this talk of greed and living wage will be moot. Looks that way. Yuppies/Boomers have proved to be the most selfish, self-centered, inconsiderate, and short-sighted of generations. I believe their social and economic attitudes bear a significant responsibility for the demise of union membership and organized work places as well as the acceptance of a greater than normal work weeks and lesser than livable wages. It is my hope that the generation now entering the work force will see the errors of the Yuppie/Boomer generation and demand the kinds of working conditions, and wages, that I had for most of my working life. They won't have to "demand" anything, and employers will be offering working scenarios that not even the most creative unionist could imagine. Stay tuned. Yup. __________________________________________________ _________________ A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union! http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/ ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Rich256" wrote in message ... "MichaelC" wrote in message . .. Sorry, but there's no room to disagree here -- this is Econ 101 from any college in the country. There exists a free market for labor just as there eixsts a free market for goods and services. The greater the number of applicants for a given job, the less the employer has to pay to get the guy/gal he wants. When it comes to illegals, they get plugged into jobs where the employer can fudge the system, low-trained US workers have to take other jobs (fast food) and because there's a dozen applicants for the burger flipping job, the empllyer could pay whatever he wants. Now, if you pull the illegals out of the equation, everyone moves up the food chain, and the same worker applies for jobs and McD, Wendys, and BK, and if he's the only competent applicant, picks the one paying the most, thus forcing the employer to "buy" him with higher wages. If the labor supply was constrained, this "living wage" b**s**t wouldn't even be under discussion. The BK on Geary would have to either pay the buy 10 bucks an hour, or offer him full time full benefits, to get him. Think though that process the next time you go to the polls. Several years ago my son worked his way through school. One summer he was laying foundations (convinced him to become a lawyer, not a trial type - and a successful one at that - getting top grades in math and science he could have done well in engineering too but it would not have paid as well). Today he would not be able to get that job. Why hire a rather skinny school kid when you can get an adult, used to working in the hot sun, for even less wages? And we old guys criticize the youngsters for not getting a job like we did. Sure. My wife and I are currently traveling back from Western New York where I was raised, and I was telling her (driving south on 5 through Lackawanna) about how when i was a kid-kid (8ish) all the older kids would get summer jobs at Bethlehem Steel, paying (late 60's) almost 20 bucks an hour (gross, net that against taxes and union dues). Pretty heady for a 17 year old kid. Now, opportunities to work an industrial job at adult wages are pretty much gone. Even back in the 70's, any summer job that paid over minimum was considered pretty damn good. Mike |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Icono Clast" wrote in message news:1123673172.ad97d07ac6f3d95bdc9253e0864db994@t eranews... MichaelC wrote: Would you trade minimum wage laws for a complete removal of all illegal immigrant labor in this country? Think carefully before you answer. "Icono Clast" wrote: Different issues. Not a fair question. MichaelC wrote: Same issue. Illegal immigrant labor floods the labor market with a low cost labor "product", which pulls down wages for the entire labor "food" chain. Take out "illegal immigrant" and I don't disagree but I maintain: It is an employer paying less than ought be to the people a few hours away from [select starvation eviction water/gas/electricity cut off out of gasoline etc? /select] who "pulls down wages for the entire labor 'food' chain". If a dirty job at an illegal wage is all that's available to keep you from [see above], you do it and give your child a glass of milk. And I maintain that the employer's reponsibility, in a capitalist system, is to the business, not the employee. If you want the employer to take the actual needs of the worker into account when setting wages, that's your perogative, but you no longer have capitalism, you have a variant of Marxism that, over time, will not maintain the standards of living of the area nearly as well as the capitlalist program. And, how can you "take out" *illegal immigrant* when they are the cause of the wage deflation causing people to fall below what you have decided is the "living wage." ISTM that you want your cake and eat it too -- let the illegals work, when the going wage then depresses below "living", force the employer to pay more, and ***WHEN*** the employer goes out of business, blame it on.....who? (Bush, I suppose.) . . . and not the desperate, at fault. Just because somebody is desparate doesn't mean they can't be at fault. That's a "feely-good" political axiom which has no basis in economic reality. Sorry, but there's no room to disagree here -- this is Econ 101 from any college in the country. There exists a free market for labor just as there eixsts a free market for goods and services. The greater the number of applicants for a given job, the less the employer has to pay to get the guy/gal he wants. Yeah. No problem with that. When it comes to illegals, they get plugged into jobs where the employer can fudge the system, low-trained US workers have to take other jobs (fast food) and because there's a dozen applicants for the burger flipping job, the empllyer could pay whatever he wants. The legal status of a job seeker is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if there's a thousand incipient 'burger flippers, the employer is still required to abide by the law. The legal status of the job seeker is indeed irrelevant in the economic equation, but *not* in the current implementation of that equation in the US. There are some millions of illegals in the country working. There are some millions of Americans out of work. If you enforce the law, you will replace *A* with *B*. Simple. Now, if you pull the illegals out of the equation, everyone moves up the food chain, and the same worker applies for jobs and McD, Wendys, and BK, and if he's the only competent applicant, picks the one paying the most, thus forcing the employer to "buy" him with higher wages. We have more than enough desperately poor people without "illegals" to accept Minimum Wage jobs. "Illegals" are irrelevant. That's an assertation which is false until you prove it otherwise. In fact, one of the reasons we have "desparately poor" people is that jobs that they would otherwise have have been taken by illegals who are better workers, and capitalist market efficiency takes over, where amongst the unskilled labor poor, the most efficient worker keeps the job, while the less efficient does not. Now, I like the last part of that (no problem with the the more efficient working while the less efficient does not) except that it creates an economic problem for the cities, states, and feds wherein the best solution is simply to enforce existing law. If the labor supply was constrained, this "living wage" b**s**t wouldn't even be under discussion. The BK on Geary would have to either pay the buy 10 bucks an hour, or offer him full time full benefits, to get him. Well of course: Supply/Demand - it's a law! Think though that process the next time you go to the polls. If you remove illegals from the equation, the real cost to hire an employee willing to flip a burger on Geary Street might very well reach or exceed $8.50 per hour. "Illegals" are irrelevant. A living wage should be the right of any and every fully-employed person any and every where. Might be $8.50 in San Francisco and $3.50 in East Saint Louis, $0.25 in Peking; doesn't matter. Then you don't value efficiency in the work force. A "living wage" means that I legally have to pay inefficient workers more than they deserve. Because I have to stay in business, I then compensate by paying efficient workers less than they deserve. The law makes me screw one to pay another. It also increases the number of living wage workers I have, because instead of rewarding efficient workers with raises, I still have maintain the proper salary/revenue ratio in order to keep my business going. The living wage is simply a welfare program where the goverment pawns off its social responsibilities on the business owner. If the goverment would clean up its regulatory morass, enforce the immigration laws, fix it's own budgetary messes, and fix the corrupt taxation system, the economy would jump to even higher levels than it's operating now, and all this "living wage" horsehockey would go away. Employers wouldn't be able to pay enough to keep good workers, and profits would support them. The "illegals" are the scofflaw employers, not those desperate for work . . . If you're talking about people who have entered the country without going through the proper channels, there is no difference. They're all effectively undocumented. Doesn't matter where the come from, does it? As a conservative/libertarian (or whatever), I object to laws designed to fix problems that other laws (or, in this case, lack of enforcement thereof) cause. That's correct. If you know of an employer who hires, for example, undocumented Canadians to do a job for which US citizens are qualified and available, call your local Department of Labor. The times I've done so (for other reasons), I've been impressed by how quickly, well, and effectively they responded. Sure, but there is anecdotal evididence that the Feds only spank the employer and release the illegal. Without consequences, law is meaningless. Yes. Who's at fault for that? The Fed and State goverments. What about the 90% of the workplace regulations that *don't* increase risk to rank and file life and limb? I've not read them in so long that I don't know to what you refer. The laws of which I'm aware are legislated recognition of some of the conditions won by the deaths of striking workers. SEC regs, affirmative action regs, eeoc regs, american with disabilites regs, etc..........etc.....etc...... All of them have good purpose, That's good enough for me. The reasons those laws exist, even if they're burdensome, is because of the historic abuses of employees. but amount to us loading Lance Armstrong down with a fifty pound weight and telling him to win the next Tour de France. I don't understand the analogy. Yes, I know who Lance is. Compliance with regulations costs money. Real money. Example: Enron defrauded investors. How? By gaming a corrupt financial reporting and tax system that confuses the hell out of everyone. So, the goverment's "fix" is Sarbanes-Oxley, which codifies financial reporting standards. Sounds like a good idea to prevent another Enron, right? Wrong. Sarbanes Oxlely will cost tens of BILLIONS of dollars to comply with. Where does buiness come up with that money? They cut their payrolls, either by withholding wages or firing people. They decrease budgets for R*D, making them less competitive with other countries abroad. They postpone or cancel plans for expansion. They outsource jobs to India or China. Like any of those? EVERY REGULATION COSTS MONEY which invariably gets passed on to a "little guy", sometimes in the form of increased costs of goods and services, but usually by firing the little guy, not hiring little guys they expected to hire, or sending the little guy's jobs overseas. That's the 50 lb weight. And, in an international market, where companies in the developing nations get to play under much looser regulatory guidelines, out companies are uncompetitive because of the weight of the regulatory burden. Forbes estimates that the cost of compliance with regulations in this country (the most expensive regs are usually those involved with EEO compliance, next to safety) is three million jobs per year. Three million jobs added to the equation would take the unemployment rate to replacement levels (2-2.5%) and, like the illegals question above, would increase the cost of your Geary Street burger flipper to your hypothetical living wage. If those three million jobs would be with long hours at sub-standard wages in an unsatisfactory working environment, t'hell with 'em. Well, if you don't care about jobs, that's your perogative. In 2008, the wave of retirees which constitutes 1/3 of the workforce (in total) will retire. The younguns might be nice, but I doubt they'll be willing to work tripleshifts to compensate for the retirees who want to go fish. We old people'l out-vote 'em! Actually, we likely will, refusing to deal with the reality that saddleing them with our retirement is unethical. All of us who were employed after 1937 were saddled with the burden of supporting retirees. Had the gummint handled the funds honestly and competently, there would be no problem. The "gummit" handled the funds in precisely the way the system permitted them to. The system was *always* pay-as-you-go, designed so that the overage would flow into the general fund, to be paid back later. SS is probably the most "honest and competent" system ever created by the Feds. It's problem is *structural* in that it never expected to find itself in a situation where the US fertility rate was so low. The problem with Social Security is that the revenue collected goes into the General Fund rather than being kept separate as it ought. The "solutions" proposed by the idiot in the White House are neither sound nor realistic. I don't like the solutions either, but the system is failing. If it contained a private component when it was created, we wouldn't have this problem right now. The simplest fix is that Social Security contributions be levied upon all wages earned. During the ten years that I maxed out my contributions, I received a "bonus" check or two at the end of the year. I think it ought not be possible to max out one's contribution. Yes, that would be unfair to those who have high wages. So what? They have more money! That won't come close to fixing the problem, although it is a well publicized mythological fix promoted by AARP. The fiscal imbalance over time is 8 Trillion Dollars. 8 Trillion. (Some, like Alan Greenspan, say 10T, but that's a difference in accounting methodologies.) Don't let anyone (especially a politician or lobbying organization) tell you it is anything less. The "eliminate the cap" trick will "fix" about 2% of that 8T. You still have the rest to deal with. I am a relative younun of 50. I expect to be alive in 2041. My financial planning *expects* a 27% decrease in SS benefits in 2041, just like it says on the front of my SS annual statement, because I figure if the politicos don't even have the balls to use the same numbers the economists agree on WRT the SS fiscal imbalance, what hope do we have of ever finding a "fix."? Mike |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"Icono Clast" wrote:
It is an employer paying less than ought be to the people a few hours away from [select starvation eviction water/gas/electricity cut off out of gasoline etc? /select] who "pulls down wages for the entire labor 'food' chain". If a dirty job at an illegal wage is all that's available to keep you from [see above], you do it and give your child a glass of milk. MichaelC wrote: And I maintain that the employer's reponsibility, in a capitalist system, is to the business, not the employee. I believe an employer's responsibility is to the business, the employees, and the customers. None can survive without the other two. If you want the employer to take the actual needs of the worker into account when setting wages, that's your perogative, No, I don't and have quite specifically stated the contrary! but you no longer have capitalism, you have a variant of Marxism that, over time, will not maintain the standards of living of the area nearly as well as the capitlalist program. We disagree. And, how can you "take out" *illegal immigrant* when they are the cause of the wage deflation causing people to fall below what you have decided is the "living wage." It matters little whether an immigrant has documents. All immigrants, as do all births, contribute to the labor pool. ISTM that you want your cake and eat it too -- let the illegals work, No, I said employers ought not hire them. Legally they should not. Of course, in fact, they do. when the going wage then depresses below "living", force the employer to pay more, and ***WHEN*** the employer goes out of business, blame it on.....who? (Bush, I suppose.) If all employers paid a living wage, those earning that small amount would be able to support themselves. That means, of course, that they'd have the means to spend what's necessary to survive. How would that be harmful for businesses? An employee with a living wage might, after completing the shopping list at a market, buy a bottle wine to go with the ground meat. Just because somebody is desparate doesn't mean they can't be at fault. That's a "feely-good" political axiom which has no basis in economic reality. It is my belief. The legal status of a job seeker is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if there's a thousand incipient 'burger flippers, the employer is still required to abide by the law. The legal status of the job seeker is indeed irrelevant in the economic equation, but *not* in the current implementation of that equation in the US. There are some millions of illegals in the country working. There are some millions of Americans out of work. If you enforce the law, you will replace *A* with *B*. Simple. Let's DO it! We don't disagree that employers ought not hire workers who are in a country illegally We have more than enough desperately poor people without "illegals" to accept Minimum Wage jobs. "Illegals" are irrelevant. That's an assertation which is false until you prove it otherwise. You know I can't prove it. But you also know that taking a look out the window, or the passengers on a city bus, reveals such people, or people who appear to be, in abundance. In fact, one of the reasons we have "desparately poor" people is that jobs that they would otherwise have have been taken by illegals who are better workers, and capitalist market efficiency takes over, where amongst the unskilled labor poor, the most efficient worker keeps the job, while the less efficient does not. I disagree. The desperately poor have always been among us. They were here before, during, and since the Depression. Now, I like the last part of that (no problem with the the more efficient working while the less efficient does not) except that it creates an economic problem for the cities, states, and feds wherein the best solution is simply to enforce existing law. If the labor supply was constrained, this "living wage" b**s**t wouldn't even be under discussion. The BK on Geary would have to either pay the buy 10 bucks an hour, or offer him full time full benefits, to get him. Well of course: Supply/Demand - it's a law! Think though that process the next time you go to the polls. If you remove illegals from the equation, the real cost to hire an employee willing to flip a burger on Geary Street might very well reach or exceed $8.50 per hour. "Illegals" are irrelevant. A living wage should be the right of any and every fully-employed person any and every where. Might be $8.50 in San Francisco and $3.50 in East Saint Louis, $0.25 in Peking; doesn't matter. Then you don't value efficiency in the work force. A "living wage" means that I legally have to pay inefficient workers more than they deserve. Because I have to stay in business, I then compensate by paying efficient workers less than they deserve. Yes. I worked with people who received scale who were hardly worth it. My employer recognized that I was worth more than scale and paid me more. But the other employees received a living wage for what they did and were not fired because they did enough. [I'm very proud of the fact that I out-produced, with equal or better quality, my co-workers. I didn't do it as much with speed as with efficiency. At one time, I was rumored to be among the top two hundred of the more than three thousand people doing similar work.] [Gotta git t'bed!] __________________________________________________ _________________ A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union! http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/ ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net The law makes me screw one to pay another. It also increases the number of living wage workers I have, because instead of rewarding efficient workers with raises, I still have maintain the proper salary/revenue ratio in order to keep my business going. The living wage is simply a welfare program where the goverment pawns off its social responsibilities on the business owner. If the goverment would clean up its regulatory morass, enforce the immigration laws, fix it's own budgetary messes, and fix the corrupt taxation system, the economy would jump to even higher levels than it's operating now, and all this "living wage" horsehockey would go away. Employers wouldn't be able to pay enough to keep good workers, and profits would support them. The "illegals" are the scofflaw employers, not those desperate for work . . . If you're talking about people who have entered the country without going through the proper channels, there is no difference. They're all effectively undocumented. Doesn't matter where the come from, does it? As a conservative/libertarian (or whatever), I object to laws designed to fix problems that other laws (or, in this case, lack of enforcement thereof) cause. That's correct. If you know of an employer who hires, for example, undocumented Canadians to do a job for which US citizens are qualified and available, call your local Department of Labor. The times I've done so (for other reasons), I've been impressed by how quickly, well, and effectively they responded. Sure, but there is anecdotal evididence that the Feds only spank the employer and release the illegal. Without consequences, law is meaningless. Yes. Who's at fault for that? The Fed and State goverments. What about the 90% of the workplace regulations that *don't* increase risk to rank and file life and limb? I've not read them in so long that I don't know to what you refer. The laws of which I'm aware are legislated recognition of some of the conditions won by the deaths of striking workers. SEC regs, affirmative action regs, eeoc regs, american with disabilites regs, etc..........etc.....etc...... All of them have good purpose, That's good enough for me. The reasons those laws exist, even if they're burdensome, is because of the historic abuses of employees. but amount to us loading Lance Armstrong down with a fifty pound weight and telling him to win the next Tour de France. I don't understand the analogy. Yes, I know who Lance is. Compliance with regulations costs money. Real money. Example: Enron defrauded investors. How? By gaming a corrupt financial reporting and tax system that confuses the hell out of everyone. So, the goverment's "fix" is Sarbanes-Oxley, which codifies financial reporting standards. Sounds like a good idea to prevent another Enron, right? Wrong. Sarbanes Oxlely will cost tens of BILLIONS of dollars to comply with. Where does buiness come up with that money? They cut their payrolls, either by withholding wages or firing people. They decrease budgets for R*D, making them less competitive with other countries abroad. They postpone or cancel plans for expansion. They outsource jobs to India or China. Like any of those? EVERY REGULATION COSTS MONEY which invariably gets passed on to a "little guy", sometimes in the form of increased costs of goods and services, but usually by firing the little guy, not hiring little guys they expected to hire, or sending the little guy's jobs overseas. That's the 50 lb weight. And, in an international market, where companies in the developing nations get to play under much looser regulatory guidelines, out companies are uncompetitive because of the weight of the regulatory burden. Forbes estimates that the cost of compliance with regulations in this country (the most expensive regs are usually those involved with EEO compliance, next to safety) is three million jobs per year. Three million jobs added to the equation would take the unemployment rate to replacement levels (2-2.5%) and, like the illegals question above, would increase the cost of your Geary Street burger flipper to your hypothetical living wage. If those three million jobs would be with long hours at sub-standard wages in an unsatisfactory working environment, t'hell with 'em. Well, if you don't care about jobs, that's your perogative. In 2008, the wave of retirees which constitutes 1/3 of the workforce (in total) will retire. The younguns might be nice, but I doubt they'll be willing to work tripleshifts to compensate for the retirees who want to go fish. We old people'l out-vote 'em! Actually, we likely will, refusing to deal with the reality that saddleing them with our retirement is unethical. All of us who were employed after 1937 were saddled with the burden of supporting retirees. Had the gummint handled the funds honestly and competently, there would be no problem. The "gummit" handled the funds in precisely the way the system permitted them to. The system was *always* pay-as-you-go, designed so that the overage would flow into the general fund, to be paid back later. SS is probably the most "honest and competent" system ever created by the Feds. It's problem is *structural* in that it never expected to find itself in a situation where the US fertility rate was so low. The problem with Social Security is that the revenue collected goes into the General Fund rather than being kept separate as it ought. The "solutions" proposed by the idiot in the White House are neither sound nor realistic. I don't like the solutions either, but the system is failing. If it contained a private component when it was created, we wouldn't have this problem right now. The simplest fix is that Social Security contributions be levied upon all wages earned. During the ten years that I maxed out my contributions, I received a "bonus" check or two at the end of the year. I think it ought not be possible to max out one's contribution. Yes, that would be unfair to those who have high wages. So what? They have more money! That won't come close to fixing the problem, although it is a well publicized mythological fix promoted by AARP. The fiscal imbalance over time is 8 Trillion Dollars. 8 Trillion. (Some, like Alan Greenspan, say 10T, but that's a difference in accounting methodologies.) Don't let anyone (especially a politician or lobbying organization) tell you it is anything less. The "eliminate the cap" trick will "fix" about 2% of that 8T. You still have the rest to deal with. I am a relative younun of 50. I expect to be alive in 2041. My financial planning *expects* a 27% decrease in SS benefits in 2041, just like it says on the front of my SS annual statement, because I figure if the politicos don't even have the balls to use the same numbers the economists agree on WRT the SS fiscal imbalance, what hope do we have of ever finding a "fix."? Mike -- http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/ ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Icono Clast" wrote in message news:1123761157.b9c29b94eb57083d3383ed1444f11859@t eranews... "Icono Clast" wrote: It is an employer paying less than ought be to the people a few hours away from [select starvation eviction water/gas/electricity cut off out of gasoline etc? /select] who "pulls down wages for the entire labor 'food' chain". If a dirty job at an illegal wage is all that's available to keep you from [see above], you do it and give your child a glass of milk. MichaelC wrote: And I maintain that the employer's reponsibility, in a capitalist system, is to the business, not the employee. I believe an employer's responsibility is to the business, the employees, and the customers. None can survive without the other two. Quite so. However, there is a "chain" of causal events that must be maintained. The business owner prices the product at the highest price that will result in sufficient sales to keep the concern going. Out of profit, he figures what he needs to reinvest into the business, and out of that, he pays first himself (and rightly so) and then pays the employees what he must to keep turnover low. The employee is the low man on the food chain, and must be in order for the business to survive. If you want the employer to take the actual needs of the worker into account when setting wages, that's your perogative, No, I don't and have quite specifically stated the contrary! OK. but you no longer have capitalism, you have a variant of Marxism that, over time, will not maintain the standards of living of the area nearly as well as the capitlalist program. We disagree. How can we disagree? Marxism is, by definition, a system where capitalism is inverted, and the needs of the worker are placed above the needs of the business. It has precisely *no* track record of improving standards of living. Where's the disagreement? And, how can you "take out" *illegal immigrant* when they are the cause of the wage deflation causing people to fall below what you have decided is the "living wage." It matters little whether an immigrant has documents. All immigrants, as do all births, contribute to the labor pool. I've already acknowledged that. ISTM that you want your cake and eat it too -- let the illegals work, No, I said employers ought not hire them. Legally they should not. Of course, in fact, they do. OK. when the going wage then depresses below "living", force the employer to pay more, and ***WHEN*** the employer goes out of business, blame it on.....who? (Bush, I suppose.) If all employers paid a living wage, those earning that small amount would be able to support themselves. That means, of course, that they'd have the means to spend what's necessary to survive. How would that be harmful for businesses? An employee with a living wage might, after completing the shopping list at a market, buy a bottle wine to go with the ground meat. If the need to pay a living wage (this same argument can be made for minimum wage, it should be pointed out) constrains available capital, then the business goes into an undercapitalized condition where they cannot meet their financial obligations and must close their doors. That's the obvious part. Your "example" above assumes that the business is properly capitalized and can afford the increase in the payroll line. That may or may not be the case. However. there is a much, MUCH larger concern. You're aware, I assume, that 80% of the employed workers in the country work for small businesses. The dynamism (and the persistence) of the US economy is explained largely by the fact that there is a constant stream of new busineses coming online, growing, hiring people, creating wealth for the business owners......and then. at the end of the cycle, the business is sold or closes, never becoming a going concern that spans generations, and is replaced by a couple of *NEW* small businesses just beginning their cycle. Small businesses in startup phase are notoriously undercapitalized. If you place capital demands on them in excess of what they can meet (living wages, employee benefits, onerous safety regulations, high taxes,etc.) then the businessman will find something better to do with his or her money, and we end up like Old Europe, a conglomeration of microbusinesses and large companies, with nothing dynamic in between, a stagnant economy, and doubledigit inflation. Bad mojo. I suggest to you that the sole entity that is responsible for insuring that the worker makes a "living wage" is the worker him/herself. Unless there is a very large change in the system of corporate taxation in this country, unskilled/lowskilled jobs are going to continue to be in short supply; we simply cannot support the same percentage of low/unskilled laborers at decent wages as we have in the past. Retrain and educate. Clinton put a huge box of money into retraining programs at the Communithy College level for just this purpose, and GWB put even MORE money into that box back in 2002. Just because somebody is desparate doesn't mean they can't be at fault. That's a "feely-good" political axiom which has no basis in economic reality. It is my belief. OK. The legal status of a job seeker is irrelevant. Doesn't matter if there's a thousand incipient 'burger flippers, the employer is still required to abide by the law. The legal status of the job seeker is indeed irrelevant in the economic equation, but *not* in the current implementation of that equation in the US. There are some millions of illegals in the country working. There are some millions of Americans out of work. If you enforce the law, you will replace *A* with *B*. Simple. Let's DO it! We don't disagree that employers ought not hire workers who are in a country illegally. I concur. Let every voter vote immigration reform and border enforcement as a litmust test in 2006, for a start. We have more than enough desperately poor people without "illegals" to accept Minimum Wage jobs. "Illegals" are irrelevant. That's an assertation which is false until you prove it otherwise. You know I can't prove it. But you also know that taking a look out the window, or the passengers on a city bus, reveals such people, or people who appear to be, in abundance. There's no shortage of poor people. The point is that many are poor because of the unenforcement of the border. If I can hire a carpenter at 5 bucks an hour, what do I care if he doesn't speak much English? If I CAN'T hire hm because my business risk is high, then I hire the US citizen at at LEAST minimu wage, probably more. In fact, one of the reasons we have "desparately poor" people is that jobs that they would otherwise have have been taken by illegals who are better workers, and capitalist market efficiency takes over, where amongst the unskilled labor poor, the most efficient worker keeps the job, while the less efficient does not. I disagree. The desperately poor have always been among us. They were here before, during, and since the Depression. So says the Bible as well. Are we talking about the fact that there are poor, or the reasons WHY they are in the situation they are in? Now, I like the last part of that (no problem with the the more efficient working while the less efficient does not) except that it creates an economic problem for the cities, states, and feds wherein the best solution is simply to enforce existing law. If the labor supply was constrained, this "living wage" b**s**t wouldn't even be under discussion. The BK on Geary would have to either pay the buy 10 bucks an hour, or offer him full time full benefits, to get him. Well of course: Supply/Demand - it's a law! Think though that process the next time you go to the polls. If you remove illegals from the equation, the real cost to hire an employee willing to flip a burger on Geary Street might very well reach or exceed $8.50 per hour. "Illegals" are irrelevant. A living wage should be the right of any and every fully-employed person any and every where. Might be $8.50 in San Francisco and $3.50 in East Saint Louis, $0.25 in Peking; doesn't matter. Then you don't value efficiency in the work force. A "living wage" means that I legally have to pay inefficient workers more than they deserve. Because I have to stay in business, I then compensate by paying efficient workers less than they deserve. Yes. I worked with people who received scale who were hardly worth it. My employer recognized that I was worth more than scale and paid me more. But the other employees received a living wage for what they did and were not fired because they did enough. [I'm very proud of the fact that I out-produced, with equal or better quality, my co-workers. I didn't do it as much with speed as with efficiency. At one time, I was rumored to be among the top two hundred of the more than three thousand people doing similar work.] Which is the way it should be. Unions constrain the free market for labor intentionally to create benefits for their members. As long as they provide value-add to the employer (standardized skill through standarized training, substitutte workers should the primary worker be ill, etc.) they have a place in the labor market. Mike .. [Gotta git t'bed!] __________________________________________________ _________________ A San Franciscan who's stickin' t'the union! http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/ ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net The law makes me screw one to pay another. It also increases the number of living wage workers I have, because instead of rewarding efficient workers with raises, I still have maintain the proper salary/revenue ratio in order to keep my business going. The living wage is simply a welfare program where the goverment pawns off its social responsibilities on the business owner. If the goverment would clean up its regulatory morass, enforce the immigration laws, fix it's own budgetary messes, and fix the corrupt taxation system, the economy would jump to even higher levels than it's operating now, and all this "living wage" horsehockey would go away. Employers wouldn't be able to pay enough to keep good workers, and profits would support them. The "illegals" are the scofflaw employers, not those desperate for work . . . If you're talking about people who have entered the country without going through the proper channels, there is no difference. They're all effectively undocumented. Doesn't matter where the come from, does it? As a conservative/libertarian (or whatever), I object to laws designed to fix problems that other laws (or, in this case, lack of enforcement thereof) cause. That's correct. If you know of an employer who hires, for example, undocumented Canadians to do a job for which US citizens are qualified and available, call your local Department of Labor. The times I've done so (for other reasons), I've been impressed by how quickly, well, and effectively they responded. Sure, but there is anecdotal evididence that the Feds only spank the employer and release the illegal. Without consequences, law is meaningless. Yes. Who's at fault for that? The Fed and State goverments. What about the 90% of the workplace regulations that *don't* increase risk to rank and file life and limb? I've not read them in so long that I don't know to what you refer. The laws of which I'm aware are legislated recognition of some of the conditions won by the deaths of striking workers. SEC regs, affirmative action regs, eeoc regs, american with disabilites regs, etc..........etc.....etc...... All of them have good purpose, That's good enough for me. The reasons those laws exist, even if they're burdensome, is because of the historic abuses of employees. but amount to us loading Lance Armstrong down with a fifty pound weight and telling him to win the next Tour de France. I don't understand the analogy. Yes, I know who Lance is. Compliance with regulations costs money. Real money. Example: Enron defrauded investors. How? By gaming a corrupt financial reporting and tax system that confuses the hell out of everyone. So, the goverment's "fix" is Sarbanes-Oxley, which codifies financial reporting standards. Sounds like a good idea to prevent another Enron, right? Wrong. Sarbanes Oxlely will cost tens of BILLIONS of dollars to comply with. Where does buiness come up with that money? They cut their payrolls, either by withholding wages or firing people. They decrease budgets for R*D, making them less competitive with other countries abroad. They postpone or cancel plans for expansion. They outsource jobs to India or China. Like any of those? EVERY REGULATION COSTS MONEY which invariably gets passed on to a "little guy", sometimes in the form of increased costs of goods and services, but usually by firing the little guy, not hiring little guys they expected to hire, or sending the little guy's jobs overseas. That's the 50 lb weight. And, in an international market, where companies in the developing nations get to play under much looser regulatory guidelines, out companies are uncompetitive because of the weight of the regulatory burden. Forbes estimates that the cost of compliance with regulations in this country (the most expensive regs are usually those involved with EEO compliance, next to safety) is three million jobs per year. Three million jobs added to the equation would take the unemployment rate to replacement levels (2-2.5%) and, like the illegals question above, would increase the cost of your Geary Street burger flipper to your hypothetical living wage. If those three million jobs would be with long hours at sub-standard wages in an unsatisfactory working environment, t'hell with 'em. Well, if you don't care about jobs, that's your perogative. In 2008, the wave of retirees which constitutes 1/3 of the workforce (in total) will retire. The younguns might be nice, but I doubt they'll be willing to work tripleshifts to compensate for the retirees who want to go fish. We old people'l out-vote 'em! Actually, we likely will, refusing to deal with the reality that saddleing them with our retirement is unethical. All of us who were employed after 1937 were saddled with the burden of supporting retirees. Had the gummint handled the funds honestly and competently, there would be no problem. The "gummit" handled the funds in precisely the way the system permitted them to. The system was *always* pay-as-you-go, designed so that the overage would flow into the general fund, to be paid back later. SS is probably the most "honest and competent" system ever created by the Feds. It's problem is *structural* in that it never expected to find itself in a situation where the US fertility rate was so low. The problem with Social Security is that the revenue collected goes into the General Fund rather than being kept separate as it ought. The "solutions" proposed by the idiot in the White House are neither sound nor realistic. I don't like the solutions either, but the system is failing. If it contained a private component when it was created, we wouldn't have this problem right now. The simplest fix is that Social Security contributions be levied upon all wages earned. During the ten years that I maxed out my contributions, I received a "bonus" check or two at the end of the year. I think it ought not be possible to max out one's contribution. Yes, that would be unfair to those who have high wages. So what? They have more money! That won't come close to fixing the problem, although it is a well publicized mythological fix promoted by AARP. The fiscal imbalance over time is 8 Trillion Dollars. 8 Trillion. (Some, like Alan Greenspan, say 10T, but that's a difference in accounting methodologies.) Don't let anyone (especially a politician or lobbying organization) tell you it is anything less. The "eliminate the cap" trick will "fix" about 2% of that 8T. You still have the rest to deal with. I am a relative younun of 50. I expect to be alive in 2041. My financial planning *expects* a 27% decrease in SS benefits in 2041, just like it says on the front of my SS annual statement, because I figure if the politicos don't even have the balls to use the same numbers the economists agree on WRT the SS fiscal imbalance, what hope do we have of ever finding a "fix."? Mike -- http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/ ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helena, Montana travel question | Brian Wasson | USA & Canada | 3 | June 29th, 2004 02:58 PM |
Travleing to Bozeman Montana! | BozemanNative | USA & Canada | 1 | November 7th, 2003 12:35 AM |