[Poll] Should the minimum wage be raised?

[niothor]

Simple increasing of average wage won't change anything, because this action will cause proportional jump of inflation.

And it will make a lot of business either shut down , go to the black market or move out of the country which will lead to less taxes and less jobs .

[bryant.coleman]

Simple increasing of average wage won't change anything, because this action will cause proportional jump of inflation.

Definitely. Unemployment will increase by many times as well.

And it will make a lot of business either shut down , go to the black market or move out of the country which will lead to less taxes and less jobs .

Either the businesses will shut down, or they will be forced to employ illegal immigrants.

[DooMAD]

How do you think they're going to pay for it? Higher taxes and when they can't squeeze more money out of people, hyperinflation and more borrowing, you have people cheer leading this but they have clearly never considered the mathematics behind this.

Actually, when you consider the mathematics, if people are being paid more, it stands to reason that more tax revenue would be generated.  You wouldn't need to raise the levels of tax.  Also, the more disposable income people have, the more they will spend, hence more money circulating in the economy.

All this Austerity nonsense we have at the moment is contributing towards the stagnation of our economy.  If people are relying on food banks because they can't afford to buy food, that means less people are buying food.  Less money being spent means less money circulating in the economy.  While a wealthy minority (who wouldn't be able to spend the same proportion of their overall wealth if they tried) just end up accumulating and hoarding their money, so again there's less money in circulation.  

A healthy economy doesn't have skyrocketing disparity between rich and poor.  If you think the current "trickle down" theory we use today actually works, you've got it all backwards, I'm afraid.

When have I ever said I support trickle down economics? Way to go with your rant against an imaginary version of myself, do you even understand how money printing works? In an economy where we don't have money printing yes, tax revenue would go up, but the point is people barely have any money as it is now, if you raised the minimum wage then the government would be forced to print more and devalue the currency to support it. Then that would push up the prices of everything, then that would mean that the minimum wage raise would do absolutely nothing for your average person and in fact make their lives worse because you just pushed everything up and made them have to work longer for less.

This isn't a matter of 'tax the rich' and to be fair, I don't really give a crap much about corrupt and rich CEO's, they're a different matter entirely, what I'm talking about are the average businesses out there that are struggling, if the minimum wage was raised and they couldn't afford it, they'd be put out of business and that's a mathematical fact, you can't ignore that just because it's inconvenient to your world view.

As I said before, your conclusion completely ignores hyperinflation, you need to go and read up on it, as for trickle down economics, that's just made up bullshit created by Aristocrats and Oligarchs to justify them stealing from people through hyperinflation and they've used tricks like this for centuries, it's the equivalent of having a feast at a table and then giving their employees the leftovers and saying that their employees are benefiting from their kindness while of course always keeping the majority of the food for themselves.

They didn't have to print money out of thin air to introduce the minimum wage in the first place, nor did they have to increase taxation.  Your argument that more money would have to be printed in order to raise it is a reasonably baseless assumption.  Also, I don't it's logically possible to occupy two stances at once by saying that the current system we have boils down to stealing using hyperinflation, while also stating that doing the opposite and transferring wealth back down to the bottom of the pyramid would cause hyperinflation as well.  Which is it?  Or do you think hyperinflation happens either way?  I'd argue the current system is more likely to cause hyperinflation because it effectively excludes people from the economy by pricing them out of it. 

As for SMEs not being able to afford it, I'm sure I recall hearing the same argument every time someone proposes a raise to minimum wage (although obviously the figure of $100 in the OP is silly).  A larger amount of capital flowing around the system effectively pays for itself.  More people with disposable income means more consumption.  More consumption means companies make more money.  When there is less consumption, companies need to raise prices to continue to make the same amount of money.  The more people we drive into poverty, the less consumption there will be and the higher prices will get.  Ergo, higher base wages would cause the exact opposite of inflation.

[Schleicher]

People generally underestimate the complexity of this issue.
There's a whole network of cause and effect relationships that's really hard to understand by the average person.

[devthedev]

There's pros and cons to raising minimum wage. If minimum wage is increased, business owners can suffer too...
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #3vhvmlWWC6uYA1Ed

[Lethn]

How do you think they're going to pay for it? Higher taxes and when they can't squeeze more money out of people, hyperinflation and more borrowing, you have people cheer leading this but they have clearly never considered the mathematics behind this.

Actually, when you consider the mathematics, if people are being paid more, it stands to reason that more tax revenue would be generated.  You wouldn't need to raise the levels of tax.  Also, the more disposable income people have, the more they will spend, hence more money circulating in the economy.

All this Austerity nonsense we have at the moment is contributing towards the stagnation of our economy.  If people are relying on food banks because they can't afford to buy food, that means less people are buying food.  Less money being spent means less money circulating in the economy.  While a wealthy minority (who wouldn't be able to spend the same proportion of their overall wealth if they tried) just end up accumulating and hoarding their money, so again there's less money in circulation.  

A healthy economy doesn't have skyrocketing disparity between rich and poor.  If you think the current "trickle down" theory we use today actually works, you've got it all backwards, I'm afraid.

When have I ever said I support trickle down economics? Way to go with your rant against an imaginary version of myself, do you even understand how money printing works? In an economy where we don't have money printing yes, tax revenue would go up, but the point is people barely have any money as it is now, if you raised the minimum wage then the government would be forced to print more and devalue the currency to support it. Then that would push up the prices of everything, then that would mean that the minimum wage raise would do absolutely nothing for your average person and in fact make their lives worse because you just pushed everything up and made them have to work longer for less.

This isn't a matter of 'tax the rich' and to be fair, I don't really give a crap much about corrupt and rich CEO's, they're a different matter entirely, what I'm talking about are the average businesses out there that are struggling, if the minimum wage was raised and they couldn't afford it, they'd be put out of business and that's a mathematical fact, you can't ignore that just because it's inconvenient to your world view.

As I said before, your conclusion completely ignores hyperinflation, you need to go and read up on it, as for trickle down economics, that's just made up bullshit created by Aristocrats and Oligarchs to justify them stealing from people through hyperinflation and they've used tricks like this for centuries, it's the equivalent of having a feast at a table and then giving their employees the leftovers and saying that their employees are benefiting from their kindness while of course always keeping the majority of the food for themselves.

They didn't have to print money out of thin air to introduce the minimum wage in the first place, nor did they have to increase taxation.  Your argument that more money would have to be printed in order to raise it is a reasonably baseless assumption.  Also, I don't it's logically possible to occupy two stances at once by saying that the current system we have boils down to stealing using hyperinflation, while also stating that doing the opposite and transferring wealth back down to the bottom of the pyramid would cause hyperinflation as well.  Which is it?  Or do you think hyperinflation happens either way?  I'd argue the current system is more likely to cause hyperinflation because it effectively excludes people from the economy by pricing them out of it. 

As for SMEs not being able to afford it, I'm sure I recall hearing the same argument every time someone proposes a raise to minimum wage (although obviously the figure of $100 in the OP is silly).  A larger amount of capital flowing around the system effectively pays for itself.  More people with disposable income means more consumption.  More consumption means companies make more money.  When there is less consumption, companies need to raise prices to continue to make the same amount of money.  The more people we drive into poverty, the less consumption there will be and the higher prices will get.  Ergo, higher base wages would cause the exact opposite of inflation.

Who's 'they'? And it's not a baseless assumption it's a fact, because America doesn't have another source of income to tax as they've raised the taxes as high as people can pay without just making everybody unemployed, other countries have managed to install a minimum wage because they've mathematically calculated what they can actually afford, mind you, the situation is still fucking ridiculous and hasn't stopped them from printing money to pay for everything.

When it comes to your comments about consumption, no, more consumption doesn't make more money, especially if a government is using a devalued currency in order to get people to consume because that means that the company is actually earning less since the prices for everything they're going to buy rises. As for your comment about my two stances? It is actually exactly the fucking same, I make no distinctions between the wealthy and the poor, stealing is stealing, I don't care if you borrow, print, tax in order to do it, in the end your just stealing from both groups and if you don't think it's stealing then it's clear you're just going to keep talking to yourself for the next several pages.

[DooMAD]

How do you think they're going to pay for it? Higher taxes and when they can't squeeze more money out of people, hyperinflation and more borrowing, you have people cheer leading this but they have clearly never considered the mathematics behind this.

Actually, when you consider the mathematics, if people are being paid more, it stands to reason that more tax revenue would be generated.  You wouldn't need to raise the levels of tax.  Also, the more disposable income people have, the more they will spend, hence more money circulating in the economy.

All this Austerity nonsense we have at the moment is contributing towards the stagnation of our economy.  If people are relying on food banks because they can't afford to buy food, that means less people are buying food.  Less money being spent means less money circulating in the economy.  While a wealthy minority (who wouldn't be able to spend the same proportion of their overall wealth if they tried) just end up accumulating and hoarding their money, so again there's less money in circulation.  

A healthy economy doesn't have skyrocketing disparity between rich and poor.  If you think the current "trickle down" theory we use today actually works, you've got it all backwards, I'm afraid.

When have I ever said I support trickle down economics? Way to go with your rant against an imaginary version of myself, do you even understand how money printing works? In an economy where we don't have money printing yes, tax revenue would go up, but the point is people barely have any money as it is now, if you raised the minimum wage then the government would be forced to print more and devalue the currency to support it. Then that would push up the prices of everything, then that would mean that the minimum wage raise would do absolutely nothing for your average person and in fact make their lives worse because you just pushed everything up and made them have to work longer for less.

This isn't a matter of 'tax the rich' and to be fair, I don't really give a crap much about corrupt and rich CEO's, they're a different matter entirely, what I'm talking about are the average businesses out there that are struggling, if the minimum wage was raised and they couldn't afford it, they'd be put out of business and that's a mathematical fact, you can't ignore that just because it's inconvenient to your world view.

As I said before, your conclusion completely ignores hyperinflation, you need to go and read up on it, as for trickle down economics, that's just made up bullshit created by Aristocrats and Oligarchs to justify them stealing from people through hyperinflation and they've used tricks like this for centuries, it's the equivalent of having a feast at a table and then giving their employees the leftovers and saying that their employees are benefiting from their kindness while of course always keeping the majority of the food for themselves.

They didn't have to print money out of thin air to introduce the minimum wage in the first place, nor did they have to increase taxation.  Your argument that more money would have to be printed in order to raise it is a reasonably baseless assumption.  Also, I don't it's logically possible to occupy two stances at once by saying that the current system we have boils down to stealing using hyperinflation, while also stating that doing the opposite and transferring wealth back down to the bottom of the pyramid would cause hyperinflation as well.  Which is it?  Or do you think hyperinflation happens either way?  I'd argue the current system is more likely to cause hyperinflation because it effectively excludes people from the economy by pricing them out of it.  

As for SMEs not being able to afford it, I'm sure I recall hearing the same argument every time someone proposes a raise to minimum wage (although obviously the figure of $100 in the OP is silly).  A larger amount of capital flowing around the system effectively pays for itself.  More people with disposable income means more consumption.  More consumption means companies make more money.  When there is less consumption, companies need to raise prices to continue to make the same amount of money.  The more people we drive into poverty, the less consumption there will be and the higher prices will get.  Ergo, higher base wages would cause the exact opposite of inflation.

Who's 'they'?

I'm hoping we're on the same page here.  I'm talking about the same 'they' as you are.  I'm working under the assumption that you're talking about your own domestic government, or at the very least governments in general:

How do you think they're going to pay for it? Higher taxes and when they can't squeeze more money out of people (...)

That 'they'.

And it's not a baseless assumption it's a fact, because America doesn't have another source of income to tax as they've raised the taxes as high as people can pay without just making everybody unemployed, other countries have managed to install a minimum wage because they've mathematically calculated what they can actually afford, mind you, the situation is still fucking ridiculous and hasn't stopped them from printing money to pay for everything.

When it comes to your comments about consumption, no, more consumption doesn't make more money, especially if a government is using a devalued currency in order to get people to consume because that means that the company is actually earning less since the prices for everything they're going to buy rises. As for your comment about my two stances? It is actually exactly the fucking same, I make no distinctions between the wealthy and the poor, stealing is stealing, I don't care if you borrow, print, tax in order to do it, in the end your just stealing from both groups and if you don't think it's stealing then it's clear you're just going to keep talking to yourself for the next several pages.

Perhaps I'm not explaining this right.  I'll give it one more try before giving up.  If someone is making $50,000 a year, that person will be paying a larger amount in tax and will have more disposable income to spend than someone making $10,000 a year.  There would be no need to increase taxes or dilute the value of money by printing more.  It has nothing to do with 'stealing' from anyone.  It's called paying people a fair wage for the work they do.  People who earn a decent wage will pay a higher amount of money in tax and spend a higher amount of money back into the economy than those on very low incomes.  Are you with me so far?

Right now you have an increasing number of people falling under the poverty line.  Those people are not able to put a great deal of money back into the economy, but it is pretty much the entire proportion of what little income they have that gets fed back into the system.  They're not holding on to any of their money because they can't afford to.

Right now you have an increasing number of millionaires.  The definition of a millionaire is someone who has at least $1,000,000 in their possession.  It doesn't mean someone who had a million and then spent it back into the economy.  They're good at holding on to that money and finding creative ways to pay very little tax on it.  Millionaires are only spending a small proportion of their overall worth.  The rest of society and the economy in general doesn't receive a great deal of benefit from this.

That's not a recipe for a healthy economy.  What you actually need is more people making a good, solid, average wage.  Not so much that it creates excess extravagance and not so little that someone can't afford to live.  A rise in minimum wage would help slow the rate at which more people are falling under the poverty line, which in turn means more people would have a disposable income to spend back into the economy and generate more tax money for infrastructure.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with money printing.  That's a completely separate issue and it will continue to happen anyway, whether you raise the minimum wage or not.  You can easily have higher wages without printing money.  That seems to be the point we're stuck on here and I'm sorry if you can't see that.  

Finally, there seems to be some confusion here on the difference between asset inflation and wage inflation.  These two are separate things.  You already have increasing asset prices, but not a corresponding increase in wages to support it.  If this continues, the outcome will unequivocally be more people falling under the poverty line because they don't earn enough to be able to pay for the things they need to live.  That means less taxes are collected and there will be less spending back into the economy.  Wages need to increase to make the economy sustainable for everyone, or all that will happen is an increasing burden of poverty and economic stagnation.

If that still doesn't make sense, then yes, I'll agree that I'm clearly talking to myself and I'll move on.


//EDIT:  I'll leave this here as well as a final thought:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

[Lethn]

They've already done what you've said it hasn't worked and as I said before, no matter what you try to call it all these methods are stealing and if you're going to run around posting videos, you desperately need to look at this one, the problem of wages is something that is much deeper than simple tax rates or the minimum wage, you can't just point a gun at somebody and order them to pay their employee a certain amount.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

Wages don't increase because that's businesses trying to save essentially so that they can afford to buy assets ( as you call them ) or even just basic supplies you can't just force the wages up, then that's going to put them out of business because they won't be able to cope with rising asset prices and wages at the same time. I was talking about the U.S government and giving an example of minimum wage here in the UK as I understand both, you think that we don't have problems? Trust me, it's all just as bad, low wages are a result of inflation.

When I talk about inflation, I talk about inflation of the money supply, I'm not confusing anything, asset prices and wages are a symptom of inflation, you use goods that have value to measure how much currency is being created, why do you think Bitcoins are worth so much now?

Here are two things that happen when a standard business that doesn't commit fraud goes along with your idea:

1. They increase the wages, pay their employees what the government calls 'fair' wages and go out of business quickly because they can't afford to pay the employees because of rising costs

2. They keep the wages the same to try and postpone the inevitable, asset prices increase, keep increasing until even the business can't afford to pay their employees

Inflationary economies are doomed to failure because of these reasons.

[Ron~Popeil]

If I own a business and hire people to work for me at a wage we both agree on it is no ones business what that wage rate is. The work performed and the amount paid should be a private transaction. If I am paying more than the market average i get a better choice of employees that stay to work for me for a longer period of time. If I pay less than the market average I only attract low skill workers that only stay long enough to hone some skills so they can go look for higher wages. The market works if government keeps its money grubbing fingers out of it. It is completely contrary to the principles of freedom and the sovereignty of the individual to use violence or the threat of violence to force businesses to pay a wage that the government deems acceptable.

[DooMAD]

They've already done what you've said it hasn't worked and as I said before, no matter what you try to call it all these methods are stealing and if you're going to run around posting videos, you desperately need to look at this one, the problem of wages is something that is much deeper than simple tax rates or the minimum wage, you can't just point a gun at somebody and order them to pay their employee a certain amount.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0

Wages don't increase because that's businesses trying to save essentially so that they can afford to buy assets ( as you call them ) or even just basic supplies you can't just force the wages up, then that's going to put them out of business because they won't be able to cope with rising asset prices and wages at the same time. I was talking about the U.S government and giving an example of minimum wage here in the UK as I understand both, you think that we don't have problems? Trust me, it's all just as bad, low wages are a result of inflation.

When I talk about inflation, I talk about inflation of the money supply, I'm not confusing anything, asset prices and wages are a symptom of inflation, you use goods that have value to measure how much currency is being created, why do you think Bitcoins are worth so much now?

Here are two things that happen when a standard business that doesn't commit fraud goes along with your idea:

1. They increase the wages, pay their employees what the government calls 'fair' wages and go out of business quickly because they can't afford to pay the employees because of rising costs

2. They keep the wages the same to try and postpone the inevitable, asset prices increase, keep increasing until even the business can't afford to pay their employees

Inflationary economies are doomed to failure because of these reasons.

I've read the Bank of England paper explaining money creation, so I don't need a 30 minute youtube video to spoon-feed the concept to me, thanks.  I get how that works and agree that it's a problem that needs looking at.  However, wealth inequality is still an issue, even once you've sorted out the entirely separate issue of money itself.  

We'll forget the US for a bit, since I'm a Brit too.  The fact that we already have a minimum wage here demonstrates that you can force a company to pay their employee a certain amount and we didn't have to point a gun to their head to achieve that.  You'll have noticed an increase in the UK in things like zero-hour contracts.  This is a deliberate attempt to undermine the concept behind minimum wage.  There's also an increase in the number of people pushed into the 'Workfare' scheme which is another deliberate (and more direct) attempt to undermine the minimum wage.  Some companies are shedding their regular paid staff and taking on workfare claimants for a fraction of the cost.  It's actually causing unemployment, but the government get to fudge the figures because they class people on workfare as being in employment, even though they're technically working for unemployment benefit.  

Most of the companies utilising these two measures can easily afford to pay the current minimum wage, but if they have a way to increase profits, they'll happy take that path, even if it means driving an increasing number of people into poverty.  In the long term, this will be disastrous for the wider economy, but fantastic for the people who own those companies and can make a few extra million in profits.  If you say you don't support trickle down theory, you've got a funny way of showing it.  The minimum wage runs in direct contrast to the principles of trickle down, so if anything, you should be arguing for an increase like I am and speaking out against any attempts to undermine it, but instead you have this rather strange idea that the minimum wage is 'stealing', which doesn't actually make any sense.

Also, if a company can't come up with a sustainable business model that doesn't effectively rely on slave labour, it stands to reason they haven't got a good business model.  If your profits depend on paying peanuts for your workforce, you're going to have an unhappy and unproductive workforce.  It also stands to reason that if such workers are living under the poverty line, they're more likely to suffer with their health, which means more time taken off sick and more lost productivity.  This is what will continue to worsen if we carry on along the current path we're heading down.

I'm in a position where I'm fortunate enough not just to have a job, but one that pays above minimum wage and even earns me a little commission on top, so this is nothing to do with me wanting something for nothing or trying to steal anyone else's money.  I keep a close eye on the deteriorating standards of living in this country which are being whitewashed over by manipulated government figures while they try to leech more money from those who have the least.  Almost all the political parties in the UK support this right-wing neo-liberal farce of a system, which only serves to transfer wealth to the top.

As stated by this recent BBC article, the Office of National Statistics themselves have provided figures showing how inflation has eroded the value of pay over the last six years.  While earnings rose by 8.6% since July 2008, consumer prices rose by 16.9%.  It will be several years yet before real wages are back to the level they were before the financial crisis.  The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that real incomes will not return to their 2009-10 levels until 2018 at the earliest.  And since the start of the financial crisis, real pay has fallen by a 10%.  That is said to be the biggest fall in any five-year period since the 1920s.  Is that really what you want to argue in favour of?  

[practicaldreamer]

I reckon part of the problem is the ease with which capital can flow across national borders - it wasn't always thus.

In years gone by cheap labour could be imported - look at West Yorkshire for eg. and the mills, as recently as the 50's 60's. Today its easier and more profitable to take the mills to the cheap labour.



Further, and complimentary to the above, as soon as a company is "publicly" floated in todays world, and as soon as enough companies are so floated, it seems to me that control of the economy by the national Govt./citizens of the country is proportionately diminshed. And seeing as how the ownership of UK listed companies is extremely difficult to pinpoint, you have to ask the question, who owns and runs the UK economy ?

[Lethn]

Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply
as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’
central bank money to create new loans and deposits.

You've just been feeding yourself central bank propaganda, the video I posted explains that's exactly what happens in a central bank and with our current economy, good day.

[DooMAD]

Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply
as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’
central bank money to create new loans and deposits.

You've just been feeding yourself central bank propaganda, the video I posted explains that's exactly what happens in a central bank and with our current economy, good day.

On the contrary, it's the first time a central bank has been honest about it.  If you're having difficulty understanding what it actually says, there's a helpful column here that explains it in plain English.  Good day to you too.

[commandrix]

While I can understand the disgruntlement of the fast food workers who staged a one-day strike not that long ago, I've always kinda assumed that community colleges and government-backed student loans existed for a reason. If nothing else, go freelance. If enough people get out of the fast food industry, places like McDonalds will basically be forced to either pay their workers better or automate the job.

[bryant.coleman]

While I can understand the disgruntlement of the fast food workers who staged a one-day strike not that long ago, I've always kinda assumed that community colleges and government-backed student loans existed for a reason. If nothing else, go freelance.

Education is being valued less less these days. But unemployment is also at record highs, as a lot of jobs are being moved to countries such as China and other Asian / African nations due to higher taxes.

[u9y42]

While I can understand the disgruntlement of the fast food workers who staged a one-day strike not that long ago, I've always kinda assumed that community colleges and government-backed student loans existed for a reason. If nothing else, go freelance. If enough people get out of the fast food industry, places like McDonalds will basically be forced to either pay their workers better or automate the job.

I don't think most people grow up dreaming of being a McDonald's employee; but life happens, and especially if you have a family to feed, you might not have that many options of where to work. Often times this is true even for people with college degrees, sadly enough. And needless to say that going freelance isn't always an option, and when possible can still be a huge risk.

[commandrix]

While I can understand the disgruntlement of the fast food workers who staged a one-day strike not that long ago, I've always kinda assumed that community colleges and government-backed student loans existed for a reason. If nothing else, go freelance. If enough people get out of the fast food industry, places like McDonalds will basically be forced to either pay their workers better or automate the job.

I don't think most people grow up dreaming of being a McDonald's employee; but life happens, and especially if you have a family to feed, you might not have that many options of where to work. Often times this is true even for people with college degrees, sadly enough. And needless to say that going freelance isn't always an option, and when possible can still be a huge risk.

That is true. When you go freelance, you probably still won't be able to quit your day job for a while until you build up your reputation. But there are benefits, including the fact that many freelancers don't need to commute.

[BitBlitz]

Sub poll:
   How many libertarians and anarchists voted "yes"?

[u9y42]

Sub poll:
   How many libertarians and anarchists voted "yes"?

Whatever the result, the number would likely be higher if the poll values were realistic to being with... one might be libertarian/anarchist and still look to a gradual change in the system towards their ideal, even if just by freeing people from the misery they're in.

[bryant.coleman]

Sub poll:
   How many libertarians and anarchists voted "yes"?

Very few. I could count only 6 YES votes out of 100+. Considering the fact that at least half of all the Bitcointalk users are Libertarians, that represents only a very small minority.