|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 7, 2014 20:05:15 GMT
As regarding your last point: Employees at McDonald's have not been making $15 an hour in Seattle previously; so of course there was not this large disparity in pricing. Your observation that "the employer doesn't have to hire...but the employee has to work" neatly overlooks the fact that almost all employers would much prefer to hire, if their doing so would likely result in greater profits. But an exponential increase in wages is not likely to result in greater profitibility. Your further view that the employee must be treated as the ward of somebody--either of the employer or of the state--is also a view that I reject emphatically. The employee (or potential employee) should view himself--or herself--as an independent contractor, willing to hire himself--or herself--out to anyone willing to offer good compensation in exchange for reasonable work. (I simply never-- never--viewed myself as a mere ward of my employer; nor did I ever believe that the company was more valuable to me than I was to the company--not merely my position, but me, as a specific individual.) Essentially--and I have noted this previously--your views as concerning capitalism sound almost Marxian. After all, Marx--contrary to the popular stereotype--was not a hater of capitalism. Rather, he viewed it as a step up from feudalism--and therefore, pretty good. Just not as good as what could be in the future (i.e. socialism; and eventually, communism). Finally, Henry David Thoreau once opined that "[t]here are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." And you are ordinarily, I think, one who goes to the root of any problem. That is why I find it so bizarre that you would prefer to see a government-imposed increase in wages, rather than trying to reverse the problem of a shrinking middle class. and
Based upon "reality" TV shows (that my wife watches) that deal with experts going into failing resturants to turn the business around the costs of labor are only about 25% of gross revenue. The increase in the starting wage to $15/hr is not an exponential increase in costs relative to gross income which is the only factor related to calculations on profit.
Are you now taking the position that it's acceptable to have working Americans go hungry, have their utilities cut off, be thrown out on the streets because they can't pay their rent, and/or die while standing on the corner across the street from a hospital?
No employee voluntarily works for less than it costs them to provide all of the above for themselves. Not a single one. They work for these wages because that's all the employer is willing to pay and the employee must work for the wages offered to them or face all of the possibilities noted above.
I oppose coercion in any contract and when the employee must accept the wages or starve to death and/or be thrown out on the street there is coercion in the "employment" contract. My argument is that government needs to intervene because the employment contracts are not based upon a mutually beneficial relationship establiched by a completely voluntary contract. These cases violate the "principles" of capitalism and that is why the government needs to intervene to address them.
All you argue for is corrupt capitalism because you're willing to accept coercion in the employment contract while I don't accept it. My position is that the coercion that exists in the employment contract represents "unfair business practices" that we have laws against in our capitalistic economy. With rare exceptions we just don't have laws prohibiting these unfair business practices to it when it comes to the employment contract.
Your observation that "not a single" person chooses to work for low wages overlooks the point that some choose not to acquire those skillsets that would lift them out of such a vulnerable position. Moreover, I do not have much respect for any person who views himself (or herself) as a mere victim. (An anecdote, from about 15 years ago: When I was still working--it was not at the sort of job that has a "production quota"--the supervisor believed that I was processing materials too slowly. But I am a thorough, deliberate person. So I responded, rather calmly: "I have just three speeds: Slow; Slower; and You Don't Even Want to Hear About It. Now, which would you prefer?" He just sort of slunk away. I note this because I simply refuse--and aggressively so--to be anyone's victim. And again, I have very little respect for anyone else who allows it to happen.) Your essential position--that one must either favor having "working Americans go hungry, have their utilities cut off, be thrown out in the streets because they can't pay their rent, and/or die while standing on a street corner" or, alternatively, favor a large increase in the minimum wage, is clearly a false alternative. And an appeal to emotion, rather than to reason. (For anyone wishing to go to the root of the problem--as you claim to prefer--it would be far better, I believe, to seek to return to the model of only adolescents performing minimum-wage jobs; plus, I suppose, dead-enders, who have no serious desire to improve their skillsets.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 8, 2014 13:10:34 GMT
Your observation that "not a single" person chooses to work for low wages overlooks the point that some choose not to acquire those skillsets that would lift them out of such a vulnerable position. Moreover, I do not have much respect for any person who views himself (or herself) as a mere victim. (An anecdote, from about 15 years ago: When I was still working--it was not at the sort of job that has a "production quota"--the supervisor believed that I was processing materials too slowly. But I am a thorough, deliberate person. So I responded, rather calmly: "I have just three speeds: Slow; Slower; and You Don't Even Want to Hear About It. Now, which would you prefer?" He just sort of slunk away. I note this because I simply refuse--and aggressively so--to be anyone's victim. And again, I have very little respect for anyone else who allows it to happen.) Your essential position--that one must either favor having "working Americans go hungry, have their utilities cut off, be thrown out in the streets because they can't pay their rent, and/or die while standing on a street corner" or, alternatively, favor a large increase in the minimum wage, is clearly a false alternative. And an appeal to emotion, rather than to reason. (For anyone wishing to go to the root of the problem--as you claim to prefer--it would be far better, I believe, to seek to return to the model of only adolescents performing minimum-wage jobs; plus, I suppose, dead-enders, who have no serious desire to improve their skillsets.)
My actual position is that I believe that all employees provide a valuable skill set to the employer that is necessary for the enterprise to profit. If you con't believe this then think of the last time you went into a restroom at a business that was filthy. In that situation the "janitor" (or the lack of a janitor) is the most important employee of the company. We're always going to need someone to clean the toilet and the person willing to do this also deserves to have their "survival and comfort" provided for them based upon their labor.
While anecdotal cases are just that when I was a surfer growing up in SoCal I met a a man with a PhD in physics. It would be hard to find anyone more "qualified" to earn a high income but this was the 1960's where "money wasn't everything" and he chose to work at the Standard Oil gas station in Malibu pumping gas. Anyone could pump gas but in the 1960's a gas station paid enough in compensation to provide for the "survival and comfort" of the worker. Is pumping gas (they still do that in Oregon by law) any less valuable today than it was in the 1960's?
Some people look down their nose at the janitor or gas station attendent believing that they don't deserve compensation that provides for their "survival and comfort" but I refuse to be an elitist. I believe that everyone that busts their ass for 40hrs/wk deserves the compensation in wages and benefits that provides for their "survival and comfort" without exception. The person digging a ditch for building foundation is vital to the construction of the building. The person stocking shelves at Walmart is vital to the success of Walmart. Every single employee of the company is vital to the success of the company and all of them, at the very least, deserve the wages and benefits necessary for "survival and comfort" in their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 8, 2014 19:24:57 GMT
Your observation that "not a single" person chooses to work for low wages overlooks the point that some choose not to acquire those skillsets that would lift them out of such a vulnerable position. Moreover, I do not have much respect for any person who views himself (or herself) as a mere victim. (An anecdote, from about 15 years ago: When I was still working--it was not at the sort of job that has a "production quota"--the supervisor believed that I was processing materials too slowly. But I am a thorough, deliberate person. So I responded, rather calmly: "I have just three speeds: Slow; Slower; and You Don't Even Want to Hear About It. Now, which would you prefer?" He just sort of slunk away. I note this because I simply refuse--and aggressively so--to be anyone's victim. And again, I have very little respect for anyone else who allows it to happen.) Your essential position--that one must either favor having "working Americans go hungry, have their utilities cut off, be thrown out in the streets because they can't pay their rent, and/or die while standing on a street corner" or, alternatively, favor a large increase in the minimum wage, is clearly a false alternative. And an appeal to emotion, rather than to reason. (For anyone wishing to go to the root of the problem--as you claim to prefer--it would be far better, I believe, to seek to return to the model of only adolescents performing minimum-wage jobs; plus, I suppose, dead-enders, who have no serious desire to improve their skillsets.)
My actual position is that I believe that all employees provide a valuable skill set to the employer that is necessary for the enterprise to profit. If you con't believe this then think of the last time you went into a restroom at a business that was filthy. In that situation the "janitor" (or the lack of a janitor) is the most important employee of the company. We're always going to need someone to clean the toilet and the person willing to do this also deserves to have their "survival and comfort" provided for them based upon their labor.
While anecdotal cases are just that when I was a surfer growing up in SoCal I met a a man with a PhD in physics. It would be hard to find anyone more "qualified" to earn a high income but this was the 1960's where "money wasn't everything" and he chose to work at the Standard Oil gas station in Malibu pumping gas. Anyone could pump gas but in the 1960's a gas station paid enough in compensation to provide for the "survival and comfort" of the worker. Is pumping gas (they still do that in Oregon by law) any less valuable today than it was in the 1960's?
Some people look down their nose at the janitor or gas station attendent believing that they don't deserve compensation that provides for their "survival and comfort" but I refuse to be an elitist. I believe that everyone that busts their ass for 40hrs/wk deserves the compensation in wages and benefits that provides for their "survival and comfort" without exception. The person digging a ditch for building foundation is vital to the construction of the building. The person stocking shelves at Walmart is vital to the success of Walmart. Every single employee of the company is vital to the success of the company and all of them, at the very least, deserve the wages and benefits necessary for "survival and comfort" in their lives.
The janitor, the gas-station attendant, the ditch digger, and the shelf-stocker at Walmart (or anywhere else, for that matter) are all, indeed, performing vital services. But the ability to perform these functions is commonplace. Why would anyone wish to pay a premium for work that can be performed by just about anyone? Your (apparent) view that a decent and moral society should require this simply ignores the tradeoff in jobs. If you sincerely believe that Europe is a model to emulate--what with its perpetually high unemployment--we can have that debate. But it is my own view that democratic socialism is not a model worthy of emulation. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 9, 2014 17:49:55 GMT
The janitor, the gas-station attendant, the ditch digger, and the shelf-stocker at Walmart (or anywhere else, for that matter) are all, indeed, performing vital services. But the ability to perform these functions is commonplace. Why would anyone wish to pay a premium for work that can be performed by just about anyone? Your (apparent) view that a decent and moral society should require this simply ignores the tradeoff in jobs. If you sincerely believe that Europe is a model to emulate--what with its perpetually high unemployment--we can have that debate. But it is my own view that democratic socialism is not a model worthy of emulation.
I have never claimed that a person deserved a "premium rate" for their labor just because their labor is vital to the enterprise. A "premium rate" refers to payment above and beyond what is necessary for basic survival and comfort. It is payment "above cost" and not "at cost" for employment.
By analogy the cost of "basic survival and comfort" is no different than the rental of a basic apartment unit. A person pays a "premium" if the apartment has a pool and/or exercise room and/or if it has security provided but not for a basic apartment. Premium implies "above and beyond" the basics and I've never advocated that.
A worker providing "basic labor" is entitled to "basic" compensation but a worker has to provide "premium labor" to warrant "premium" compensation.
I claim there is no "tradeoff" in jobs if all employers ensure that the basic costs of "survival and comfort" of the employee are paid for. The only time there is a "job loss" is if someone else isn't ensuring the basic costs of "survival and comfort" of their employees because they have an unfair advantage in commerce. What is happening in practice today is that by paying less than "basic compensation" some enterprises gain a "unfair advantage" over other enterprises. These enterprises gain an unfair advantage in commerce by requiring society to carry the costs of the basic necessities for their employees. I'm opposed to this practice.
I believe we need to level the playing field for all enterprises by establishing a "basic compensation" package that all enterprise must provide for and it must be enough so that their workers are not forced to depend upon society to provide for them through private charity and government welfare assistance.
The employee should not be figuratively left to sit with a tin cup after work "begging for handouts" just to pay to put food on the table or to pay for medical services just so their employer can have an unfair competitive advantage over another enterprise that provides adequate basic compensation to their employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 9, 2014 19:56:16 GMT
The janitor, the gas-station attendant, the ditch digger, and the shelf-stocker at Walmart (or anywhere else, for that matter) are all, indeed, performing vital services. But the ability to perform these functions is commonplace. Why would anyone wish to pay a premium for work that can be performed by just about anyone? Your (apparent) view that a decent and moral society should require this simply ignores the tradeoff in jobs. If you sincerely believe that Europe is a model to emulate--what with its perpetually high unemployment--we can have that debate. But it is my own view that democratic socialism is not a model worthy of emulation.
I have never claimed that a person deserved a "premium rate" for their labor just because their labor is vital to the enterprise. A "premium rate" refers to payment above and beyond what is necessary for basic survival and comfort. It is payment "above cost" and not "at cost" for employment.
By analogy the cost of "basic survival and comfort" is no different than the rental of a basic apartment unit. A person pays a "premium" if the apartment has a pool and/or exercise room and/or if it has security provided but not for a basic apartment. Premium implies "above and beyond" the basics and I've never advocated that.
A worker providing "basic labor" is entitled to "basic" compensation but a worker has to provide "premium labor" to warrant "premium" compensation.
I claim there is no "tradeoff" in jobs if all employers ensure that the basic costs of "survival and comfort" of the employee are paid for. The only time there is a "job loss" is if someone else isn't ensuring the basic costs of "survival and comfort" of their employees because they have an unfair advantage in commerce. What is happening in practice today is that by paying less than "basic compensation" some enterprises gain a "unfair advantage" over other enterprises. These enterprises gain an unfair advantage in commerce by requiring society to carry the costs of the basic necessities for their employees. I'm opposed to this practice.
I believe we need to level the playing field for all enterprises by establishing a "basic compensation" package that all enterprise must provide for and it must be enough so that their workers are not forced to depend upon society to provide for them through private charity and government welfare assistance.
The employee should not be figuratively left to sit with a tin cup after work "begging for handouts" just to pay to put food on the table or to pay for medical services just so their employer can have an unfair competitive advantage over another enterprise that provides adequate basic compensation to their employees.
Aaaaarghhhh!!! You continue to focus upon "competition," noting that if only the government will require the same compensation to be paid by all employers, this will provide a "level playing field." But I am not concerned about a competitor's being able to put the XYZ Plumbing Company out of business. Let me say that again, so that there will be no mistake as regarding what I am (and am not) asserting. I am not saying that such government action would result in one company's being able to put another company out of business. Got that? What I am saying is that the added expense could very easily make some companies unprofitable--or, at least, so marginally profitable that it would no longer be worth the effort--so they would simply go out of business. What is so difficult to understand about that? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 10, 2014 10:52:15 GMT
Aaaaarghhhh!!! You continue to focus upon "competition," noting that if only the government will require the same compensation to be paid by all employers, this will provide a "level playing field." But I am not concerned about a competitor's being able to put the XYZ Plumbing Company out of business. Let me say that again, so that there will be no mistake as regarding what I am (and am not) asserting. I am not saying that such government action would result in one company's being able to put another company out of business. Got that? What I am saying is that the added expense could very easily make some companies unprofitable--or, at least, so marginally profitable that it would no longer be worth the effort--so they would simply go out of business. What is so difficult to understand about that?
If your plumbing breaks you're going to have to call a plumber, period. Your choice is going to be between competing enterprises based upon their service and cost, or "value" they offer compared to the other companies that do the same work. The number of "plumbers" required in the workforce does not change because the demand for people to fix the plumbing is not going to change.
Yes, there are companies that have marginal business plans that will go out of business but the "demand" for products and services remains unaffected. It is the demand for products and services that sustains and creates new jobs. If "Business A" can't compete then "Business B" will provide the goods or services. If a McDonalds goes out of business and people want to buy a hamberger someone will open a hamburder stand to replace the McDonalds.
Additionally remember one fact. If we raise wages (or overall compensation) for low income people that spend 100% of their disposable income on products and services they will still spend 100% of their disposable income on products and services. That increases the amount of money being spent in the economy and that increase demand for products and services creating more jobs. If they are provided with health insurance then they will use medical services more often creating more jobs for doctors, nurses, and medical personal (i.e. poor people create higher paying jobs by purchasing goods and services)
I'd like to refer to a couple of anecdotal cases in American history realizing the limitations of anecdotal cases. Henry Ford doubled the wage of his employees and he had several reasons for doing so. One of those reasons was that by increasing their wages it would make purchasing a Ford automobile affordable to his own employees. Walmart pays it's employess so little that they can't even afford to shop at Walmart. Just before last Christmas one Walmart actually had a food drive for it's own employees that couldn't afford food based upon their Walmart wages. McDonald's employees, for the most part, can't afford to eat at McDonalds.
That's something "conservatives" seem to not understand. Money that goes to low income households increases the demand for labor because they use 100% of their disposable income on consumption. Money that goes to the wealthy that invest it does not create consumer demand and doesn't create a demand for labor. With 95% of all of the new income since the end of the Recession in 2009 going to the top 1% it hasn't created any jobs, 13% of all middle income jobs have been lost (never to return under current policies), and "real income" for the vast majority of Americans has declined with about 30 million American families slipping into poverty.
The US economy is broken because of government economic policies. The "middle income" jobs are being lost and with them go the rungs of the economic ladder that allow people to improve their economic status. We're on an economic path to a polarized economy where the vast majority live in poverty so that a few can live in extravagant luxury. We're faced with a choice because of that.
We can redistribute wealth from the "have's" to the "have-not's" through welfare assistance or we can ensure that the worker has the minimum necessary compensation for their labor so that they don't require a "handout" just to survive.
I oppose wealth redistribution so my choice is simple. What's yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 10, 2014 23:49:02 GMT
Aaaaarghhhh!!! You continue to focus upon "competition," noting that if only the government will require the same compensation to be paid by all employers, this will provide a "level playing field." But I am not concerned about a competitor's being able to put the XYZ Plumbing Company out of business. Let me say that again, so that there will be no mistake as regarding what I am (and am not) asserting. I am not saying that such government action would result in one company's being able to put another company out of business. Got that? What I am saying is that the added expense could very easily make some companies unprofitable--or, at least, so marginally profitable that it would no longer be worth the effort--so they would simply go out of business. What is so difficult to understand about that?
If your plumbing breaks you're going to have to call a plumber, period. Your choice is going to be between competing enterprises based upon their service and cost, or "value" they offer compared to the other companies that do the same work. The number of "plumbers" required in the workforce does not change because the demand for people to fix the plumbing is not going to change.
Yes, there are companies that have marginal business plans that will go out of business but the "demand" for products and services remains unaffected. It is the demand for products and services that sustains and creates new jobs. If "Business A" can't compete then "Business B" will provide the goods or services. If a McDonalds goes out of business and people want to buy a hamberger someone will open a hamburder stand to replace the McDonalds.
Additionally remember one fact. If we raise wages (or overall compensation) for low income people that spend 100% of their disposable income on products and services they will still spend 100% of their disposable income on products and services. That increases the amount of money being spent in the economy and that increase demand for products and services creating more jobs. If they are provided with health insurance then they will use medical services more often creating more jobs for doctors, nurses, and medical personal (i.e. poor people create higher paying jobs by purchasing goods and services)
I'd like to refer to a couple of anecdotal cases in American history realizing the limitations of anecdotal cases. Henry Ford doubled the wage of his employees and he had several reasons for doing so. One of those reasons was that by increasing their wages it would make purchasing a Ford automobile affordable to his own employees. Walmart pays it's employess so little that they can't even afford to shop at Walmart. Just before last Christmas one Walmart actually had a food drive for it's own employees that couldn't afford food based upon their Walmart wages. McDonald's employees, for the most part, can't afford to eat at McDonalds.
That's something "conservatives" seem to not understand. Money that goes to low income households increases the demand for labor because they use 100% of their disposable income on consumption. Money that goes to the wealthy that invest it does not create consumer demand and doesn't create a demand for labor. With 95% of all of the new income since the end of the Recession in 2009 going to the top 1% it hasn't created any jobs, 13% of all middle income jobs have been lost (never to return under current policies), and "real income" for the vast majority of Americans has declined with about 30 million American families slipping into poverty.
The US economy is broken because of government economic policies. The "middle income" jobs are being lost and with them go the rungs of the economic ladder that allow people to improve their economic status. We're on an economic path to a polarized economy where the vast majority live in poverty so that a few can live in extravagant luxury. We're faced with a choice because of that.
We can redistribute wealth from the "have's" to the "have-not's" through welfare assistance or we can ensure that the worker has the minimum necessary compensation for their labor so that they don't require a "handout" just to survive.
I oppose wealth redistribution so my choice is simple. What's yours?
False alternative. I oppose both government-decreed redistributionism and government-mandated minimums for employees. Returning, for a moment, to the first topic, above: You appear to support the idea of the government's pushing some companies out of business, so that others may arise in their place. Whereas capitalism necessarily is all about "creative destruction," I do not believe that it should be the government's function to precipitate this, by creating some winners and some losers. And your assertion that low-income employees must --must--spend "100%" of their income on "products and services" is very questionable advice, it seems to me. You might want to ask a reputable financial advisor if he (or she) beleives that it is a good idea for even low-income Americans to spend all of their disposable income on "products and services"--including some items that bring them momentary "comfort"--rather than putting a bit of it aside; some, in a Rainy Day Fund; and some, in a retirement plan. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 11, 2014 12:33:31 GMT
False alternative. I oppose both government-decreed redistributionism and government-mandated minimums for employees. Returning, for a moment, to the first topic, above: You appear to support the idea of the government's pushing some companies out of business, so that others may arise in their place. Whereas capitalism necessarily is all about "creative destruction," I do not believe that it should be the government's function to precipitate this, by creating some winners and some losers. And your assertion that low-income employees must --must--spend "100%" of their income on "products and services" is very questionable advice, it seems to me. You might want to ask a reputable financial advisor if he (or she) beleives that it is a good idea for even low-income Americans to spend all of their disposable income on "products and services"--including some items that bring them momentary "comfort"--rather than putting a bit of it aside; some, in a Rainy Day Fund; and some, in a retirement plan.
The government would not be forcing any enterprise out of business by addressing irresponsible employment practices by enterprise.
I'm going to bring up a fact of business. All employees create enough "wealth" by their labor to provide an adequate income that will provide for their basic survival and comfort. If an enterprise fails it's not generally related to the employees not producing enough wealth for them to receive an adequate compensation package. The problem is that they may not able to produce enough wealth to cover their compensation package as well as all of the expenditures of the enterprise.
Let me provide an anecdotal example based upon the aerospace industry because I know it very well. Wages for shop labor average perhaps $30/hr but when we calculated hourly rates for production it was $100/hr because the employee produced over three-times the cost of their labor. I've also worked in small manufacturing companies and we also calculate the cost of production at three-times the cost of compensation. To be successful and to cover the other costs of the enterprise the employee had to produce three-times what they received in compensation.
If the employee doesn't produce three-times what they receive in compensation then the enterprise can fail. The employee is always 'earning' what they receive in compensation regardless of whether the enterprise succeeds or fails. It's the responsibility of management to ensure that the rest of the costs to the enterprise do not exceed three-times what the labor of the person produces in "wealth" and not the employee that has a reponsibility to produce more for less.
My assertion is NOT that a low income person chooses to spend 100% of their disposable income but instead that they must spend 100% and, in most cases, would be required to spend much more than that if they covered all of the "necessary" expenditures such as paying for their own private health insurance policies.
Think about just the "necessary" expenditure required for health insurnace that a person has but that the poor can't afford. It's about $5,000/yr and the poor don't purchase it because they can't afford to. So let's use your belief that we have people that earn more than they require for "necessary" expenditure where you want them to save the excess. Let's assume that they have $5,000 more a year than they're spending on basics like food, utilities, rent, etc, but they're not using it to purchase health insurance. Should they save that money and then depend upon us to pay for their health care if they get sick or should they spend it to purchase health insurance so we, the taxpayers, don't have to pay for their health care needs? $5,000 is a huge percentage of even a $25,000/yr gross income and yet it appears that you would rather have them "save it" as opposed to covering the necessary expenditure of "health insurance" so the taxpayer doesn't get stuck paying for their medical bills.
My concern is that even if they had the "income" they might still choose to not purchase the health insurance, spend the money (or save it) and leave me holding the bill to pay for their healthcare. That's a primary reason I advocate that health insurance be a component of their compensation package provided for by their employer. In a real sense it's exactly like funding Social Security (that I want to privatize) where the employer is responsible for 1/2 of the cost directly with the Payroll tax and the other 1/2 by providing wages to the worker to cover the FICA tax.
In both cases, retirement and medical needs, it's the "labor of the person" that ensures that they don't become a burden on society because it prioritizes how their labor provides for their needs where personal responsibility can and often does fail.
Remember that if we mandate that the employers provide health insurance (with a percentage co-pay by the employee like all group policies generally have) it could create an initial shock but within a few years it just becomes a part of doing business like the FICA/Payroll taxes we have today that are funded based upon the labor of the employee.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 11, 2014 16:51:20 GMT
False alternative. I oppose both government-decreed redistributionism and government-mandated minimums for employees. Returning, for a moment, to the first topic, above: You appear to support the idea of the government's pushing some companies out of business, so that others may arise in their place. Whereas capitalism necessarily is all about "creative destruction," I do not believe that it should be the government's function to precipitate this, by creating some winners and some losers. And your assertion that low-income employees must --must--spend "100%" of their income on "products and services" is very questionable advice, it seems to me. You might want to ask a reputable financial advisor if he (or she) beleives that it is a good idea for even low-income Americans to spend all of their disposable income on "products and services"--including some items that bring them momentary "comfort"--rather than putting a bit of it aside; some, in a Rainy Day Fund; and some, in a retirement plan.
The government would not be forcing any enterprise out of business by addressing irresponsible employment practices by enterprise.
I'm going to bring up a fact of business. All employees create enough "wealth" by their labor to provide an adequate income that will provide for their basic survival and comfort. If an enterprise fails it's not generally related to the employees not producing enough wealth for them to receive an adequate compensation package. The problem is that they may not able to produce enough wealth to cover their compensation package as well as all of the expenditures of the enterprise.
Let me provide an anecdotal example based upon the aerospace industry because I know it very well. Wages for shop labor average perhaps $30/hr but when we calculated hourly rates for production it was $100/hr because the employee produced over three-times the cost of their labor. I've also worked in small manufacturing companies and we also calculate the cost of production at three-times the cost of compensation. To be successful and to cover the other costs of the enterprise the employee had to produce three-times what they received in compensation.
If the employee doesn't produce three-times what they receive in compensation then the enterprise can fail. The employee is always 'earning' what they receive in compensation regardless of whether the enterprise succeeds or fails. It's the responsibility of management to ensure that the rest of the costs to the enterprise do not exceed three-times what the labor of the person produces in "wealth" and not the employee that has a reponsibility to produce more for less.
My assertion is NOT that a low income person chooses to spend 100% of their disposable income but instead that they must spend 100% and, in most cases, would be required to spend much more than that if they covered all of the "necessary" expenditures such as paying for their own private health insurance policies.
Think about just the "necessary" expenditure required for health insurnace that a person has but that the poor can't afford. It's about $5,000/yr and the poor don't purchase it because they can't afford to. So let's use your belief that we have people that earn more than they require for "necessary" expenditure where you want them to save the excess. Let's assume that they have $5,000 more a year than they're spending on basics like food, utilities, rent, etc, but they're not using it to purchase health insurance. Should they save that money and then depend upon us to pay for their health care if they get sick or should they spend it to purchase health insurance so we, the taxpayers, don't have to pay for their health care needs? $5,000 is a huge percentage of even a $25,000/yr gross income and yet it appears that you would rather have them "save it" as opposed to covering the necessary expenditure of "health insurance" so the taxpayer doesn't get stuck paying for their medical bills.
My concern is that even if they had the "income" they might still choose to not purchase the health insurance, spend the money (or save it) and leave me holding the bill to pay for their healthcare. That's a primary reason I advocate that health insurance be a component of their compensation package provided for by their employer. In a real sense it's exactly like funding Social Security (that I want to privatize) where the employer is responsible for 1/2 of the cost directly with the Payroll tax and the other 1/2 by providing wages to the worker to cover the FICA tax.
In both cases, retirement and medical needs, it's the "labor of the person" that ensures that they don't become a burden on society because it prioritizes how their labor provides for their needs where personal responsibility can and often does fail.
Remember that if we mandate that the employers provide health insurance (with a percentage co-pay by the employee like all group policies generally have) it could create an initial shock but within a few years it just becomes a part of doing business like the FICA/Payroll taxes we have today that are funded based upon the labor of the employee.
That "initial shock" could be sufficient to put a number of companies out of business--sometning that (evidently) does not especially trouble you. (I suppose you are a Big Picture sort of person--you believe that in the ling run, according to the Big Picture, everything will work out just fine under this proposal. Well, I am emphatically not a Big Picture sort of person.) As for that person bringing home just $25,000 per year (does his or her spouse work outside the home, thereby increasing the family's total income?), I would suggest that he or she should (1) pay for all necessities, including housing, food, clothing, and fuel; (2) purchase healthcare insurance; (3) put away at least 6 percent of his (or her) paycheck into a 401(k), in order to receive matching funds--i.e. free money; and (4) save aggressively into an Emergency Fund (a.k.a. a Rainy Day Fund)--say, at least $50 per week. Oh, since 401(k)s are tax-preferred financial instruments, taxation will be deferred until one begins withdrawals (which is typically at or after age 59 1/2); therefore, one will have less withdrawn in taxes during one's working lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 12, 2014 17:01:41 GMT
That "initial shock" could be sufficient to put a number of companies out of business--sometning that (evidently) does not especially trouble you. (I suppose you are a Big Picture sort of person--you believe that in the ling run, according to the Big Picture, everything will work out just fine under this proposal. Well, I am emphatically not a Big Picture sort of person.) As for that person bringing home just $25,000 per year (does his or her spouse work outside the home, thereby increasing the family's total income?), I would suggest that he or she should (1) pay for all necessities, including housing, food, clothing, and fuel; (2) purchase healthcare insurance; (3) put away at least 6 percent of his (or her) paycheck into a 401(k), in order to receive matching funds--i.e. free money; and (4) save aggressively into an Emergency Fund (a.k.a. a Rainy Day Fund)--say, at least $50 per week. Oh, since 401(k)s are tax-preferred financial instruments, taxation will be deferred until one begins withdrawals (which is typically at or after age 59 1/2); therefore, one will have less withdrawn in taxes during one's working lifetime.
There are ways to mitigate the "shock" of change. For example the $15/hr minimum wage for Seattle allows companies several years to bring their wages up to that level of compensation. Of note there are also some problems with the Seattle minumum wage law that I won't go into at this time.
What happens if after paying for: "(1) pay for all necessities, including housing, food, clothing, and fuel; (2) purchase healthcare insurance;" there's no money left for "(3) put away at least 6 percent of his (or her) paycheck into a 401(k), in order to receive matching funds--i.e. free money; and (4) save aggressively into an Emergency Fund (a.k.a. a Rainy Day Fund)--say, at least $50 per week." ?? Low income households can't even afford priority #1 much less, #2, #3, or #4.
It is actually a matter of personal choice as to whether 401K contributions are tax deferred or not currently and there is a limit even when deferral is choosen. In some cases tax deferral of contributions can result in higher lifetime taxation.
It is irrelevant to my proposal for privatization of Social Security and income tax proposals because there is no deferral of taxation under it. The "deferral" is a "deduction" from gross income and my tax proposal eliminates all personal tax deductions because they're replaced with the Exemption.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 12, 2014 18:34:14 GMT
That "initial shock" could be sufficient to put a number of companies out of business--sometning that (evidently) does not especially trouble you. (I suppose you are a Big Picture sort of person--you believe that in the ling run, according to the Big Picture, everything will work out just fine under this proposal. Well, I am emphatically not a Big Picture sort of person.) As for that person bringing home just $25,000 per year (does his or her spouse work outside the home, thereby increasing the family's total income?), I would suggest that he or she should (1) pay for all necessities, including housing, food, clothing, and fuel; (2) purchase healthcare insurance; (3) put away at least 6 percent of his (or her) paycheck into a 401(k), in order to receive matching funds--i.e. free money; and (4) save aggressively into an Emergency Fund (a.k.a. a Rainy Day Fund)--say, at least $50 per week. Oh, since 401(k)s are tax-preferred financial instruments, taxation will be deferred until one begins withdrawals (which is typically at or after age 59 1/2); therefore, one will have less withdrawn in taxes during one's working lifetime.
There are ways to mitigate the "shock" of change. For example the $15/hr minimum wage for Seattle allows companies several years to bring their wages up to that level of compensation. Of note there are also some problems with the Seattle minumum wage law that I won't go into at this time.
What happens if after paying for: "(1) pay for all necessities, including housing, food, clothing, and fuel; (2) purchase healthcare insurance;" there's no money left for "(3) put away at least 6 percent of his (or her) paycheck into a 401(k), in order to receive matching funds--i.e. free money; and (4) save aggressively into an Emergency Fund (a.k.a. a Rainy Day Fund)--say, at least $50 per week."?? Low income households can't even afford priority #1 much less, #2, #3, or #4.
It is actually a matter of personal choice as to whether 401K contributions are tax deferred or not currently and there is a limit even when deferral is choosen. In some cases tax deferral of contributions can result in higher lifetime taxation.
It is irrelevant to my proposal for privatization of Social Security and income tax proposals because there is no deferral of taxation under it. The "deferral" is a "deduction" from gross income and my tax proposal eliminates all personal tax deductions because they're replaced with the Exemption.
It would probably be possible to attenuate the shock a bit, also, if the minimum wage were raised to, say, $25 an hour. Or even to $30 an hour. Why not just do that, then? If there is simply "no money left" over to pay for healthcare insurance--let alone fund a 401(k) or save aggressively into an Emergency Fund--then I would strongly suggest that at least one of the marriage partners (preferably both) should do whatever is necessary to significantly increase their marketable skills.
It is my understanding that all 401(k) contributions, taken on a pre-tax basis, are tax deferred. (For two or three years--when the maximum allowable contribution, with the company for which I worked, was just 15 percent in pre-tax funds--I also contributed a bit of post-tax money. It was taxed, of course--just by definition.) I have indicated previously that your proposals as regarding the restructuring of the income tax and the privatization of Social Security seem reasonable enough; but they are very unlikely ever to become law. The Democrats have already shown their willingness--no, make that their eagerness--to demagogue the latter; and both Democrats and Republicans would very likely oppose the former, as their constituencies (which is to say, their major contributors) would not care for it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 13, 2014 10:30:24 GMT
It would probably be possible to attenuate the shock a bit, also, if the minimum wage were raised to, say, $25 an hour. Or even to $30 an hour. Why not just do that, then? If there is simply "no money left" over to pay for healthcare insurance--let alone fund a 401(k) or save aggressively into an Emergency Fund--then I would strongly suggest that at least one of the marriage partners (preferably both) should do whatever is necessary to significantly increase their marketable skills.
It is my understanding that all 401(k) contributions, taken on a pre-tax basis, are tax deferred. (For two or three years--when the maximum allowable contribution, with the company for which I worked, was just 15 percent in pre-tax funds--I also contributed a bit of post-tax money. It was taxed, of course--just by definition.) I have indicated previously that your proposals as regarding the restructuring of the income tax and the privatization of Social Security seem reasonable enough; but they are very unlikely ever to become law. The Democrats have already shown their willingness--no, make that their eagerness--to demagogue the latter; and both Democrats and Republicans would very likely oppose the former, as their constituencies (which is to say, their major contributors) would not care for it.
1) I've repeatedly stated that government interventionism needs to be based upon a compelling argument and, when supported, it should be the least possible interventionism pragmatically possible to resolve the problem identifed by the compelling argument. In a simplified form the compelling argument is that if employers don't provide the minimum necessary in compensation (wages/benefits) then it forces a financial burden on the rest of society. I would suggest that the "least possible interventionism pragmatically possible" doesn't support a call for a $25 or $30 minimum wage.
2) The "marketable skills" argument fails on several counts. The marketable skill often doesn't pay more than other low paying jobs these days. For example "assisted care givers" have a marketable skill but it still provides poverty level compensation. Becoming an expert horticulturalist may not lead to compensation greater than being a common landscaper. The "marketable skills" can generally lead to securing a job over someone that doesn't have the same skills but it doesn't necessarily lead to more compensation. With the decline in middle income jobs the gaining of skills doesn't provide much of an advantage because the rungs in the economic ladder that translate these skills into more compensation are disappearing.
3) The employee chooses whether to have their 401K funded with 'pretax' dollars when they sign-up. As I noted this is a form of tax deduction that would be eliminated under my tax proposal that has no deductions because they're replaced with an exemption.
4) I've actually gained more confidence that my income tax and Social Security proposal could be possible. Rand Paul introduced an income tax proposal that was about 1/2 of what I propose. If we could get Democrats onboard with the other 1/2 of my proposal (and they would if they knew what it was) then we have a proposal that could receive bi-partisan support.
Remember that when I developed my proposal I took the concerns of both conservatives and liberals into consideration in crafting the details of the proposal. For example I addressed why Democrats opposed previous Republican proposals for privatizing Social Security. Republican proposals weakened Social Security while my proposal makes it four-times better than it is today while also slashing the government "welfare" responsibility to virtually nothing over time. Democrats want fair taxation and Republicans want a lower tax rate and I do both while balancing the federal budget.
I actually have new hope for my proposal if I can just get people (politicians) to think about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 13, 2014 17:22:35 GMT
It would probably be possible to attenuate the shock a bit, also, if the minimum wage were raised to, say, $25 an hour. Or even to $30 an hour. Why not just do that, then? If there is simply "no money left" over to pay for healthcare insurance--let alone fund a 401(k) or save aggressively into an Emergency Fund--then I would strongly suggest that at least one of the marriage partners (preferably both) should do whatever is necessary to significantly increase their marketable skills.
It is my understanding that all 401(k) contributions, taken on a pre-tax basis, are tax deferred. (For two or three years--when the maximum allowable contribution, with the company for which I worked, was just 15 percent in pre-tax funds--I also contributed a bit of post-tax money. It was taxed, of course--just by definition.) I have indicated previously that your proposals as regarding the restructuring of the income tax and the privatization of Social Security seem reasonable enough; but they are very unlikely ever to become law. The Democrats have already shown their willingness--no, make that their eagerness--to demagogue the latter; and both Democrats and Republicans would very likely oppose the former, as their constituencies (which is to say, their major contributors) would not care for it.
1) I've repeatedly stated that government interventionism needs to be based upon a compelling argument and, when supported, it should be the least possible interventionism pragmatically possible to resolve the problem identifed by the compelling argument. In a simplified form the compelling argument is that if employers don't provide the minimum necessary in compensation (wages/benefits) then it forces a financial burden on the rest of society. I would suggest that the "least possible interventionism pragmatically possible" doesn't support a call for a $25 or $30 minimum wage.
2) The "marketable skills" argument fails on several counts. The marketable skill often doesn't pay more than other low paying jobs these days. For example "assisted care givers" have a marketable skill but it still provides poverty level compensation. Becoming an expert horticulturalist may not lead to compensation greater than being a common landscaper. The "marketable skills" can generally lead to securing a job over someone that doesn't have the same skills but it doesn't necessarily lead to more compensation. With the decline in middle income jobs the gaining of skills doesn't provide much of an advantage because the rungs in the economic ladder that translate these skills into more compensation are disappearing.
3) The employee chooses whether to have their 401K funded with 'pretax' dollars when they sign-up. As I noted this is a form of tax deduction that would be eliminated under my tax proposal that has no deductions because they're replaced with an exemption.
4) I've actually gained more confidence that my income tax and Social Security proposal could be possible. Rand Paul introduced an income tax proposal that was about 1/2 of what I propose. If we could get Democrats onboard with the other 1/2 of my proposal (and they would if they knew what it was) then we have a proposal that could receive bi-partisan support.
Remember that when I developed my proposal I took the concerns of both conservatives and liberals into consideration in crafting the details of the proposal. For example I addressed why Democrats opposed previous Republican proposals for privatizing Social Security. Republican proposals weakened Social Security while my proposal makes it four-times better than it is today while also slashing the government "welfare" responsibility to virtually nothing over time. Democrats want fair taxation and Republicans want a lower tax rate and I do both while balancing the federal budget.
I actually have new hope for my proposal if I can just get people (politicians) to think about it.
(1) This is where the importance of an upgraded skillset comes into play, rather than government interventionism. (2) What is your evidence that the "rungs in the economic ladder" are "disappearing"? How so? (3) That is certainly correct: An employee can either have 401(k) deductions taken on a pre-tax basis or on a post-tax basis; although most people choose the former, since there is a good possibility that their retirement income will be place them in a lower tax bracket. (4) I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul--and, at the opposite end of the political spectrum, for Bernie Sanders. Both are true conviction politicians. But most politicians are in Washington simply for the power and prestige attendant to the position; I have very little confidence in the likelihood that they might act with wisdom, rather than act in whatever manner is best able to advance their (political) careers. Still, I truly hope that your newfound confidence that some of your proposal, at least, might become law, is not misplaced. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 14, 2014 11:04:56 GMT
(1) This is where the importance of an upgraded skillset comes into play, rather than government interventionism. (2) What is your evidence that the "rungs in the economic ladder" are "disappearing"? How so? (3) That is certainly correct: An employee can either have 401(k) deductions taken on a pre-tax basis or on a post-tax basis; although most people choose the former, since there is a good possibility that their retirement income will be place them in a lower tax bracket. (4) I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul--and, at the opposite end of the political spectrum, for Bernie Sanders. Both are true conviction politicians. But most politicians are in Washington simply for the power and prestige attendant to the position; I have very little confidence in the likelihood that they might act with wisdom, rather than act in whatever manner is best able to advance their (political) careers. Still, I truly hope that your newfound confidence that some of your proposal, at least, might become law, is not misplaced.
(1) and (2) need to be taken together. First here's the source of the information that "middle income" jobs, that provide the "rungs on the ladder" are disappearing because it is vitally important to the issue.
finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/here-s-where-all-those-middle-class-jobs-went-113102720.html
The problem you seem to ignore is that perhaps 25% of the jobs don't provide adequate compensation and no mattter what an individual may or may not do we still end up with 25% of the population that don't have adequate compensation. The disappearing middle income jobs makes matters worse because even with improved skillsets there are few jobs for the person. If they do find a higher income job it generally results in someone else being pushed back down the economic ladder and that's a "no-win" situation. There has been a limited expansion at the top end but we really can't expect the "ditch digger" to become a "brain surgeon" and make a quantum leap in income by-passing the "middle class" which is the only way to take advantage of the small increase in upper income jobs.
Yes, most people will select pre-tax donations and they're correct because about 40% will die before retirement anyway and for about 80% they're going to have very little retirement income when they get old. Of course if they get into a financial bind, and tens of millions do, then it was a very bad choice because of the tax penality (20%) imposed on early withdrawals.
I do agree with the "power and prestige" problem because we see that the most powerful members of Congress often disregard what's best for America in their political agendas. The polarization in Congress has been very harmful to America and that is reflected by the very low "approval rating" of Congress over the last decade. We really need to stop electing the "extremists" regardless of whether they're Tea Party Republicans or the extreme "progressives" of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party only represents 30% of Americans and the Republican Party only represents 25% of Americans and we have basically small minorities ignoring what the majority of Americans want from government. We need "moderates" and not "extremists" if our government is really going to work for Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 15, 2014 1:08:48 GMT
(1) This is where the importance of an upgraded skillset comes into play, rather than government interventionism. (2) What is your evidence that the "rungs in the economic ladder" are "disappearing"? How so? (3) That is certainly correct: An employee can either have 401(k) deductions taken on a pre-tax basis or on a post-tax basis; although most people choose the former, since there is a good possibility that their retirement income will be place them in a lower tax bracket. (4) I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul--and, at the opposite end of the political spectrum, for Bernie Sanders. Both are true conviction politicians. But most politicians are in Washington simply for the power and prestige attendant to the position; I have very little confidence in the likelihood that they might act with wisdom, rather than act in whatever manner is best able to advance their (political) careers. Still, I truly hope that your newfound confidence that some of your proposal, at least, might become law, is not misplaced.
(1) and (2) need to be taken together. First here's the source of the information that "middle income" jobs, that provide the "rungs on the ladder" are disappearing because it is vitally important to the issue.
finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/here-s-where-all-those-middle-class-jobs-went-113102720.html
The problem you seem to ignore is that perhaps 25% of the jobs don't provide adequate compensation and no mattter what an individual may or may not do we still end up with 25% of the population that don't have adequate compensation. The disappearing middle income jobs makes matters worse because even with improved skillsets there are few jobs for the person. If they do find a higher income job it generally results in someone else being pushed back down the economic ladder and that's a "no-win" situation. There has been a limited expansion at the top end but we really can't expect the "ditch digger" to become a "brain surgeon" and make a quantum leap in income by-passing the "middle class" which is the only way to take advantage of the small increase in upper income jobs.
Yes, most people will select pre-tax donations and they're correct because about 40% will die before retirement anyway and for about 80% they're going to have very little retirement income when they get old. Of course if they get into a financial bind, and tens of millions do, then it was a very bad choice because of the tax penality (20%) imposed on early withdrawals.
I do agree with the "power and prestige" problem because we see that the most powerful members of Congress often disregard what's best for America in their political agendas. The polarization in Congress has been very harmful to America and that is reflected by the very low "approval rating" of Congress over the last decade. We really need to stop electing the "extremists" regardless of whether they're Tea Party Republicans or the extreme "progressives" of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party only represents 30% of Americans and the Republican Party only represents 25% of Americans and we have basically small minorities ignoring what the majority of Americans want from government. We need "moderates" and not "extremists" if our government is really going to work for Americans.
Whereas I would certainly agree that the "ditch digger" is most unlikely to become a "brain surgeon," the "bank teller, retail clerk or travel agent" mentioned in the article you cited might indeed learn to do plumbing, IT management, or journalism (in one form or another). Or any of many other possibilities. This is clearly not a matter of ideology--just a matter of getting things correct--but isn't the penalty for premature withdrawal fron a 401(k) just 10 percent (plus taxes, of course), rather than 20 percent? (True, if one is in the 10 percent tax bracket, that could amount to a total of 20 percent--although the taxes are not really a penalty, as they would have to be paid eventually, anyway.) As for our electing too many "extremists," I doubt that either Rand Paul (whom you mentioned) or Bernie Sanders (whom I mentioned) would regard themselves as extremist. People of conviction--whether on the right or the left portion of the political spectrum--are, just by definition, principled. And that is a very good thing, in my opinion. We just have too few politicians who place principle ahead of career ambitions. |
|
?? Low income households can't even afford priority #1 much less, #2, #3, or #4.