Minimum Wage

Post Reply New Topic

Right, and if we subsidize it then the people who were iffy on it and didn't care so much might have a bigger chance of going into it when it might not be of best benefit for them or society for them to do so. Really, considering that college pays for itself in many cases and that we would be or should be giving money to the poor in order to increase social mobility, I think that complete subsidization wouldn't necessarily be beneficial.


The question this begs is whether the more expensive schools really do give the highest quality post-secondary educations. I went to UC Berkeley as an undergrad, and that school is widely known for its academic programs, here in the US and internationally. However its California-resident tuition (the economic obstacle as far as the student is concerned) is much lower than those of most private schools. Yes, the government and other organizations foot the rest of the bill for the tuition at this school and at other schools. However, I wonder if the US system really has the most efficient way of converting funds invested into education quality and quantity. That I could not answer without having a better sense of how much other countries invest in their education systems.[/quote] That is true, part of the bill for that college is paid for the student, some argue the virtues of that and some argue the problems with that. I just cannot see total subsidization of all schools to necessarily be a good thing, and would argue that colleges should be free to emerge privately anyway. I know that many good schools are public schools and that those schools have a low tuition, the big question just ends up being to what end are they low? The subsidy is unnecessary for the rich or other groups but they would receive that subsidy if they went to your school, really, there is a big question on school finance, and I cannot say if it is the most efficient way but it isn't the worst.

Your opinion and you have a right to it. Of course it could be argued that it would be inefficient to necessarily have this happen and to have this would lead to questions on distribution of income as if employees were not needed then who would decide their share of the reward? After all, just giving them money for nothing would then discourage success from certain members of the population who have jobs we cannot replace with a machine yet or ever. After all, many people going into technology fields do so because they think that they will get more money, if they find out that resources are free then they won't desire work and progress will stagnate where it is. Slow progress is bad but it really depends on what one would like to look at.

Some do like technocracy, I believe that Thorstein Veblen, an economist of the Institutional school was a fan. Although, technically speaking it still has a money though, it has energy credits, which serve as currency and money and currency are essentially interchangeable terms. I will admit that I am not a fan of their ideas and I view their claims to be untrue, but that is just me. I really don't feel like turning this thread one of x economic system vs y.

Most managers would agree that its competition and drive the promotes productivity, not financial gain.

Look at professional sports teams - they used to be competitive, now, contracts are worth millions and the value has declined - there is no competition. Thats why they say the "playoffs" are a different season then the actual 'season' was because the players are NOW playing for the championship, before, it was money.

Not impressed? Look at international hockey. Now they are playing for their country (none of them are getting paid) yet, they ALL fight for a spot on that particular team. Personal challenge?

My point is that people getting into jobs because of money will mean they won't be as productive as if they were getting into that job if they loved it. I would poor my heart and soul into something I love (dont know what that is (psychology?)) versus whatever job pays me a lot. Yes, money is super because its a requirement to live and having more is more secure but I'm concerned about the 'now' and 'happiness' and not 'security' with the 'stress' a crappy job brings. Remove money, remove a lot of crappy jobs (from banking to insurance).

Of course, I'm living in a world of personal fantasy where people do what they strive for and arent hindered by the high costs to obtain it. Again, my whole universe summed up into a few paragraphs... People think money brings them happiness, that greed is what will buy them joy - they are wrong, unfortunately.

You've completely missed the point I was making; perhaps I didn't make myself clear. What I'm trying to get across is that at some point you end up educating people beyond what is necessary. This can be a manifestation of political will, not a manifestation of market forces. I'll give you a very simple example of how people can be over educated: if two people apply for a job and they both appear equally suited to that position, then the employer might take a look at their qualifications (even though they both have sufficient to do the job they've applied for) and make a decision based on what they have over and above the minimum that's been stipulated. Let's say it's an engineering type position designing widgets, and the market for these widgets is in the same country as these applicants live. If, as well as their mechanical engineering degrees, both the applicants have a qualification in a language, say French, then that's not going to help them designing the widgets. However, if one of the applicants also has a qualification in German, then all other things being equal, he will most likely get the post (He has two additional qualifications, as opposed to one). The employer has differentiated between the applicants using a criterion over and above what's required to do the job. You can run with that argument ad infinitum; adding more and more qualifications and still the person who gets the job, all other things being equal, is the one who has one extra qualification that has absolutely no relevance to the job he's applying for! Do you see what I mean?


That's interesting you say that. My general experience, in the days when I had the misfortune to have to work with others, was the complete opposite. Perhaps that reflects the difference between education in our two countries. Moreover, and to further disparage the British education system, most were semi-numerate and barely literate. They'd gone to university purely because they'd been duped into believing a degree was essential, and were competing in a subtler form of the type of pointless race I've outlined at the end of my first paragraph.


Really? Go on then, give it a go. I'd like to see your argument in relation to that!


But i've tackled this in a previous post. Some people have no chance of getting above a very basic level of skill. Like I said, even the US military don't recruit people with an IQ below 85 because they're so difficult to train. Indeed, we are all limited by the relative strength of our cognitive attributes. You've fallen for the deception that's peddled by politicians that anyone can get a decent wage through hard work. It just doesn't work like that! Yes, working hard will maximise your income, but if you've an IQ of 80 then that income is likely to be the minimum wage. Even with an IQ dead on the mean, your options are rather limited: you ain't going to be the next Bill Gates. And do you expect those people to be capable of understanding everything that goes on in the world? It is the fault of the system. It is not, generally speaking, the fault of the people. That's not to say that I know how to change the system for the better. Perhaps it's just a lesser of evils kind of thing; but if it is to be improved, the problems need to be recognised, not just glossed over because it offends certain peoples sensibilities as regards discussing intelligence, or ignored because to tackle it would be for politicians to admit that some of the basic ideals that Western society is founded on are deeply flawed.

Most economists would argue that it is financial gain that determines many corporate decisions and therefore productivity from that end. Of course, individuals are work towards whatever goals that they have and the average worker isn't necessarily aiming for the top dollar, however, even rewards such as a dinner or a bonus still have financial cost to the company and are tools used to recognize work done. As well, corporate decisions on programs to motivate and incentives to be employed at a company and things of that nature are driven by monetary gain. Not only that but enticement into certain fields often requires kind favors by corporations onto job holders.
True, the first is probably a sign of distorted incentives while for the latter the entire reason for a lot of this action is out of pride. Now for the former this did not happen because football managers desired it, but possibly because players desired it, I know that in certain sports the teams have unionized and lobbied for better wages despite the already high pay.
True, but that does not mean that they would serve society better doing what they loved either. We all would do better at things we love, the only issue is that a lot of us love things that serve no value or purpose to society. Most people recognize that life occurs beyond now and that is how they often times live, otherwise we would all party every night and every day. The crappy jobs mentioned are necessary to a great extent, insurance provides people with security and banking co-ordinates capital to allow it to go towards where it is valued.

Right, personally, I dislike fiction. I think that money does bring people better lives, and if we say that better lives are happier lives then money makes them happier. Now the issues with money then end up being ones of trade-offs as what you dislike about crappy jobs is selling off certain elements of what pleases us for money, especially if taken to an extreme. I essentially argue that every human being will end up making these trade-offs as a large number of us prefer non-valuable activities to valuable ones and that the extent to which the trade-off is made really depends on individual preferences.

I was the third vote to abolish the minimum wage. I am open to change my mind however based on my reading (largely from the economist Thomas Sowell) is that while well intentioned, the minimum wage ultimately causes employers to lay off employees because they can't afford to pay them.

Providing dinners or prizes only works because of the 'caring' factor. How many companies do this everyday? If they did it everyday, are they now not supporting the people working? Most people who are not on the top only work for money because of the way society is designed. I've been in 3 different jobs now, from retail to office, and I've concluded one thing - people don't care. In retail, they dont care if a customer gets what they want, they just want to stop the bitching. Money is only motivation in the fact the if you have none, you'll die - in this case it is FEAR driving productivity, not money. Many do not give a rats ass about their job < -- that 'not caring' will result in poor production and/or quality. If its not yours, who cares? You know why my McDonalds sandwich was made without care? Because there WAS no care in it. The OWNER of McDonalds DOES care because its HIS business.

Productive areas in the last 100 years were not financially forced but 'fearfully' forced:
- WW2 - saw dramatic increase in computer technology (the start), planes, vehicles, weaponry, etc., etc., etc.,
- Cold War - Competition between Russia and U.S. for #1 in the world status - saw dramatic increases in aviation, space technology, computer technology, science technology, health (I assume), etc.

If MONEY spawned this advancement then it would be a steady increase and wouldnt have stopped at 'landing a man on the moon' < -- no more competition.

Now, pharmaceutical companies are cashing in - incentive? Yup, cash in - guess what - its not HONEST. You want truth, well, the truth of the matter is there are natural remedies that cost NOTHING that will fix a lot of problems. My heartburn medication would cost over 100 a month but relaxation techniques not only helped heartburn but prevented it. Reduced my stress, anxiety, depression, etc. Financial gain for others? 0 - happiness for me? You've no idear.



I think its because the players are locked into a contract and get paid regardless of effort. You will notice that when a players contract is near completion, they may become more competitive (if their level has dropped) - the reason being is that no one will want to sign on a deadbeat player who wasnt worth his last contract - its only then they realize the trouble they face. Jaromir Jagr openly stated that his level of play was not where it could be and he has since bettered that dramatically. YOU set your worth but others are the ones who are willing to pay it. At one time, NHL players had a part time job on top of playing professionally - they wanted to. Kids dont get paid until they are older, they just love it.

A goalie came up from the minor league last year. Tim Thomas, he plays for Boston. The guy was 34-36 and never played in the NHL - you damn well believe he bloody tried his heart out! He just wanted IN! Any player will struggle and strive just to make it but once they do that drive is gone. They are still in the same loving game they were always in but something happened. As well, there is NO money being the reason the players are competing for a spot in the NHL (that comes after). They are competing to be in the top league. Its competition that makes people strive to be their best, NOT money. Money is merely the tool that compensates that 'strive.' Money is not in the picture, at the beginning, and when it is, people often whine and complain about the job itself. If you get into a job for money then you will most likely be unhappy while at work (if you dislike the field) but if you joined because you loved it, money becomes secondary.

At work, we had a 'food' drive. We had 4 different teams. Last year, they had no competition. After a few days, nothing happened, then one team donated a ton. Next thing you know, the next team donated 5 times that. Then the 3rd team rebounded and brought in 7 times. Then on the last day, team 4 blitzed and won the whole competition. We donated 800 pounds of food when our goal was 100 (taken from the year before). Competition was the difference between the small amount they donated last year compared to this year - as well, we were SPENDING money, not gaining it. Competition (can be either against self (proving you can do it) or against others). Money is simply a tool.



Insurance provides security and banks coordinate everything because thats the way society is set up. Insurance exists because of greedy people - no one gets bare compensation, they want MILLIONS of dollars. They suffered in life and want a pay off. All anyone wants is more and more but as they obtain it, they are still wanting more and more. Its an illusion - want, greed, addiction?



So, by your theory, I need only look to 'rich' people to find happiness. Business Executives look like a lot of fun. They are always smiling, laughing, having a good time, helping others, etc. You're right.

Actually, I just reread that and your definition is light years away from what happiness is - happiness doesnt derive from a number posted on a piece of paper, it derives from personal satisfaction derived from doing good. You know how you feel good when you help someone but that feeling isnt there when you step over someone? What IS that feeling? Why do you GET that feeling? Better = happier? Dude, rethink this reasoning through a bit more as its about a simplistic as 1+1=2; you've taken in NO variables outside of money. You just see 'rich' and 'good living' which results in 'happiness.' If you want to discuss happiness, then this is now a philosophical discussion and you're best to view the teachers in meditation - they are the absolute truths (ignore Buddhism and its stones and crap - it needs an update, in my opinion). BTW, my view on this takes in a lot more then what I'm able to type here - it takes in personal responsibility, accountability, and 'mind' to just name a few.

HAPPY people are productive people.

Bonus' work for the short term, but people lose sight of it.

I will admit money brings happiness but only to offset sadness that money will and can also bring (living pay to pay is sad because its not enough - happiness would derive from not having to do that (although, better saving techniques can also apply). After all, people in Africa are poor and most likely unhappy so you could conclude its because of money - I would conclude its because of something else. After all, America, richer, isnt necessarily the definition of happiness

Living in a moneyless world is like sushi:
You love it or you hate it (but instead, the phrase would be 'You understand it or you dont')

I've a friend who just questions EVERYTHING about what I say.. everything - but one question leads to another answer but then another question. I believe in solutions, not problems. If you cannot understand or get puzzled on how something could work in a moneyless society - figure it out - find a solution! Reason out how YOU could live in one

We ALL know this society and most of us agree that it sucks (I think we agree, not sure). what DO people want from it? (probably to be handed everything like they are now )

I understand perfectly what you mean. But if everything being equal (which is a huge if that practically never happens in real life), one person having proficiency in three languages vs. another person having proficiency in two languages, I would still hire the person with proficiency in three languages. This is even if proficiency in only one language is required for the job. Why? They both have the same basic skill needed to do the job competently. They both are willing to do the work for the same amount of money. Then why should I pick the person with proficiency in fewer languages? As far as my business is concerned, I would pick the person who is more versatile, even if the versatility is not required for the job. It costs me the same to hire both people anyway, why should I settle for something less? In theory the process could go ad infinitum, that much you are correct about, but in reality people have finite amounts of time and therefore cannot know everything, thus it is impossible for it to go infinitely.

When you say that education is largely a waste, I think that at its worst, education can be wasted. But education can provide a hecka lot of good. Being educated is certainly not going to hurt a person. That's the point that I wanted to make, it's one of the few things on this planet that won't put a person at a disadvantage on its own accord.


Possibly it really is due to the difference in the education systems. From what I have seen of most European universities, they do not provide liberal arts educations. They teach strictly the major field of interest (e.g. Chemistry) and that's it. They don't require science students to take classes in Asian literature or Latin American history or sociocultural anthropology. Liberal arts institutions in the United States do require such breadth classes, and by taking those classes, yeah I do think those graduates have a more well-rounded knowledge of things. In terms of math and English/language ability, quality of education from school to school does vary, yes, but that's immediately one thing people think about when people see on resumes the name of the university the applicant graduated from. However, my own personal outlook on that sort of thing, I don't immediately discount applicants if they graduated from a school with a lower reputation. I take reputation with a grain of salt, basically. I can tell if the applicant is literate or not just by interviewing the person. I myself have interviewed people for subordinate positions and have been able to find qualified applicants who went to schools of lower repute. On the flip side, I have also seen unqualified applicants who went to schools of world-recognition. Standardization of education in the various universities is a problem but is its own separate issue altogether.


Actually, I already have given it a go, and in my personal experiences, education does improve work productivity. I used to work in a variety of random jobs while in high school, including working in a printing shop, doing data entry, telemarketing, taking care of patients in rest homes, doing janitorial work, working in a bakery... it's no surprise that employers ask for grade point averages (GPA) when getting high school and college students for various job positions. Although this might have more to do with the notion that people with higher GPAs might be more responsible than those with lower GPAs, and not so much the education itself. Either way, the fact that somebody commits to education does demonstrate a dedication to the person's own development, regardless of whether the education is directly related to the work or not.


I have fallen for no such thing. If you look in my previous posts, I have said that the free-market system with no minimum wage would theoretically seem ok for those people who are able to work to their full productive capacity. When you try to give counterexamples about people with genetically-determined low IQs, then you are actually giving an example to support what I am saying. How? Because those people fall under the category of "people who cannot work to full productive capacity," at least compared to the average person. The same would be true for the elderly. And it was for those cases, that I actually expressed doubt about that free-market system, and that's when I posited that perhaps that's where the role of minimum wage (or some other government intervention) lies.

If people do not learn about what goes on in the world around them, if they don't learn about the big picture of reality, who is to blame? Is it truly a matter that they are incapable of learning, if given the tools to learn? Or is it that they don't want to learn despite having the tools available? Yeah, some people may be discouraged from learning because of the excuse that the "tools" themselves are of poor quality, and that's why I said in the first place,

IMPROVE PUBLIC EDUCATION!! !

but regardless, if those people do not even bother trying to use mediocre tools (since it is still possible to make something out of such tools, and note that I said "mediocre," I don't mean "abjectly bad quality"), does that mean they really are biologically incapable of understanding? I would think that it's more likely that for those people, for those that focus only on their day-to-day life and say, "why should I care about what happens in South Korea, or Darfur, or Antarctica," it's more of an issue of a lack of desire to learn, and not incapability. But honestly we won't really know what is the case, as long as people make the excuse that public education quality sucks. Hence even more of a reason to improve it.

delete

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 16 Jan 2007, 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thomas Sowell isn't a bad source of information so long as one accepts that he is going to lean towards conservative thought.
It works because people like recognition to some extent of course but still relates to human actions. I really don't know, valuable employees can get a lot of stuff from their companies though. Well, it can be argued that people act out of the fear of loss but still this is based off of the desire for money and the coordinating aspect that money takes a place in, not only that but it is not that people only seek to avoid the bottom line, they also seek to live better as well than their minimum would give them, people change from lower to higher paying jobs for that reason, enterprises stock new equipment and go for new ventures for that reason, economic choices work for the reason that people want better if they can reasonably get better. Few people really care if their sandwich had care in it so long as it was done efficiently, I mean, we eat McDonalds because it is reasonably tasty and reasonably priced, not because of McLove.

I don't deny that government can play a role in technological development, but corporate R&D, which is motivated by selfish interests to a good extent, also plays a part in our technological growth. You are right that it wasn't the action of individuals that spawned a lot of that but the action of governments though.

There are of course many ways to get to the same objective. Problems are that not all people trust natural remedies as those tend to be associated with quackology in the minds of the average person, with pharmacy we are more assured that it works but with the other stuff we aren't certain. Some people like relaxation, some people would rather do without it, as well, you found a cheaper solution to deal with your problem, financial gain for you > 0.

Ok, so what? People use money to work on their own aims, this does not mean that people don't seek money or even that seeking money is an evil. Money is a tool, anyone would tell you that, it is a medium of exchange. The only issue is that money can be important for people to maintain their personal stability, improve their lives, etc. To seek more tools for your causes is not evil.

Insurance exists because people have problems and they don't want to trust fate or statistics on their life. Not only that but insurance companies can in some cases help people achieve their ends better. It has little to do with millions and most people don't receive millions from their insurance policy, you are likely thinking of lawsuits. I don't see illusion or addiction in the institutes you speak of though, they are relatively tame.

That is a ridiculous claim I have never made. However, some business execs enjoy their lives. I doubt that business execs are just lonely horrible people whom nature rejects as well I only stated that they should be free to make their own choices in this matter.

Happiness is derived from one's life conditions, this includes all of the numbers. Many people have their happiness decreased due to numbers and what they mean, just look at how people react when they find out they have high cholesterol, nothing might have changed except that this number was found. As well, you also assume that people's interests are uniform, some people do get pleasure at seeing the suffering of others, after all, slapstick comedy came from somewhere didn't it? There is even a term now in popular culture because of that, Schadenfreude.
Of course I didn't look at non-monetary variables, I was isolating a variable. Whenever you seek one part of something you look only at the part that is necessary. I didn't deny a larger equation as you claim, I looked at a part of it. Frankly though, most people don't get their joy in life from meditation they get it from action and this must be looked at. It does not require personal responsibility or accountability to be happy, just look at the joy of a frat boy, he has neither and that is why he is happy.

That is why there are bonuses, vacations, lunches and stuff like that thrown about at the most needed of workers. Businesses throw money to keep happy their most valuable workers.

The happiness that money brings does not have much to do with the sadness, living pay to pay is because of the nature of how money is spent. Poor people in Africa are unhappy due to money and America, despite whatever dislike of it you have does a fine job with happiness considering that according to a report by the Economist, America was ranked 13th in the world.

It is an unattainable goal in a large scale society. Advanced structures require money to allow them to exist and the claim that all of us who think that a moneyless society are the ones wrong is ridiculous. Economic coordination requires money, money from buyers so that way they can choose the pink dress over the blue, money to sellers so that they can keep in touch with their consumers and costs. Money is required to account for costs and things like that. The thing is that I do not live in a moneyless society and I could not work within a moneyless society due to the fact that basic structures that we take for granted would not be capable of existence. A man on an island needs no exchanges and hence no money, a larger societal structure does.

To be honest, I think that the modern world is one of the greatest human achievements and am in awe of all that we have accomplished. People would like something for nothing though, I know I would.

Ya, but you said their living would make them happy. You generalized and then I went from there.



Yes, people who see the suffering of their own are "sick." You can call that simply a "difference in pleasure" but if you're talking about allowing murderers to 'murder' then thats a bit sick. If you don't allow them to murder then they don't have the same rights to happiness we do. Please clarify. Besides - murder is illegal now! What would change there?

As for slapstick - slapstick is fake - thats why people laugh (jokes are "truth" of 'life' and the accompanying "pain" (its a way to "deal with it," so to speak)). If a barrel falls on an actors head and he screams obscenities its funny. If it happens at work to a colleague, different story. Thats the difference between fantasy and real life (I thought you weren't a fan of fiction? Guess you are). I would love to have a discussion on humour (anything to do with the 'mind' are interests of mine - its why I say most of the problems in society start here)



Most people cannot stand to be alone WITH their own thoughts for longer then 2 seconds. I had an 'NT' friend breakup with his girl friend. He was out of his house everynight, after that, for a week. You know what he said to me? "Man, I can't be alone right now. I don't want to think of it" He can't be alone because he'll have to face his thoughts and he is afraid - most people ARE afraid to face themselves - its why the truth sucks so much to people. I believe the reason these people run around so much is because they either CARE about what they do (so a job (my uncle puts in like 15 hour days)) or because they need to keep their mind occupied with everything except reality. My friend wanted to do anything to keep his mind off his girlfriend. If he let the thought go and play through, then he'd be able to deal with it. Instead, he just suppressed it. And I'll tell you, my friend didn't care about what it was we did - as long as it was something. But I think we are discussing minimum wage lol

As for the Frat boy, ask him if he really IS happy. Frat boy who drinks all day is setting himself up for failure. Happiness is a bit more controlled then wreckless drinking. Who is to say he might not get drunk and kill himself?



But they will always want more. This is the issue! If you started your own business, at 21 say, you would LOVE to be successful. Now, lets say you are brilliantly successful and you have stores everywhere. In Hamilton, Ontario, you hire a cashier who is 21 and starting her career. Do you REALLY think that she cares if you make money or not versus you? Now, compare the efforts you put in. You strived, probably worked long hours. She? She calls in sick because she is hung over. Pay or not.

Now, my example used money as the motivating factor in that example (did you catch it). That stuff doesnt exist in a "moneyless" society.

If you're arguing how to motivate people to do a crappy 'job' then money is a good way but is it the best?



Ya, I mean, Detroit's a fine city. I wouldn't understand why ANYONE would be depressed in that pit. Hurricane Katrina revealed how great New Orleans was. You know, when you can actually see parts of "Africa" IN America, it makes me question what their government actually does. But again, off topic and something I'm kind of tired arguing over with people, believe it or not.



What do you want? What would you like to buy?

I have the money I do because I know I won't use anything I DO buy. I have a friend with no job who spends more then I do! He lives at home! He is in debt! Credit companies feed off of friends like that one I have here. He was happy that they raised his credit limit.



I merely said 'understand' and not 'right or wrong.' There is are a lot of things that accompany this side of the "debate" that I haven't even begun to touch on.

Imagine there's no possessions - it's easy if you try.

I would like something for nothing, as well, but we don't have the technology for that, yet. Maybe if we all worked hard we could obtain it - no one gains any money but we all gain time

Totally true! There was another thread that discussed something like "Should I play WoW?" and there was a comic in that thread about people going crazy addicted because of the game. Some people said that it was just a joke comic for those people who played the game, even though I maintained that the comic was actually reflective of a serious thing that does happen (how things approaching virtual reality can interfere with actual reality). Part of the goal of humor is to trivialize a serious event, so that people can deal with it more easily. That mere fact should not diminish the original gravity of the event. Just felt like saying it, since that "Should I play WoW?" comment the other person made bugged me to high hell. Oh well, totally off-topic, but most of my posts in this thread had more to do with education than minimum wage anyway, heh.

Ya, me and awesome are off topic, as well. But I guess, are we *REALLY* off topic? I mean these things DID come up. Well, the WoW comment is off topic and not related, but a lot of this stuff kind all is. Its life, ain't it?

OK, maybe we are just OFF topic lol

haha

At least we all recognize that a matter such as minimum wage is extraordinarily complicated, and not just, "oh yeah I support it, that way I can bring home more money each paycheck" like a lot of people do.

delete

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 16 Jan 2007, 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.