Silver below $16

[spdrun]

FlyerInHI: My standards are low. A $3000 used Miata makes me perfectly happy. Spending $50,000+ on a car would mean either another loan or having to work like a fucking slave. No fucking thanks. I prefer to contribute as little as possible to things like “society” and “economy” as possible, while coasting through life.

livinincali: If employers are required to give x amount of time off to all employees, then the standard is the same for everyone. This reduces the incentive of employers to compete by racing to the bottom.

Same deal as employers working with asbestos or coal dust aren’t allowed to save money and get ahead by not purchasing protective equipment for their workers.

If the minimum standards are the same for everyone, people can still get ahead within the standards. We’ve had worker health and safety standards for years. Our country hasn’t collapsed because of them. The world won’t end if people are guaranteed a humane amount of time off to spend with their families, despite what the conservatards will say about it.

[FlyerInHi]

Spd, you’re showing your humane side even though you often talk about pouncing like vulture.

Practically though, you’re better off designing your own lifestyle in the USA than in Europe. Here you can work less because housing, food and all the daily needs are cheaper. In Europe, only established families live well. The people who don’t have much struggle to afford decent housing which so much more than here. Even if they want to work hard, they cannot because of lack of jobs.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=The-Shoveler]I would agree We definitely need much high minimum wage link to inflation so it does not run backwards like it has for the last 30 years.[/quote]

That would create more consumer spending and a better economy for everyone.

[spdrun]

Spd, you’re showing your humane side even though you often talk about pouncing like vulture.

Nah, it’s my selfish side. If I ever went W-2, I wouldn’t want to be in jail for kicking the crap out of my boss after they told me that I can’t take any time off this year.

[FlyerInHi]

As someone who’s had the good luck to travel all over the world, I often pondered what it means to live well.

spd, you obviously have your perspective and I used to be more critical like you.

But, overall, compared to the rest of the world, I think the USA has achieved a good balance of money, material goods, and leisure and family time. I’m talking as a whole here. You may not like what you see, but consider the population median.

If you’re an architect who’s studied good design, you may expect a well-designed house. But you can’t expect the average person to share your interests.

When I’m in Vegas, I look at the sprawl, the cookie cutter houses, the lack of public transport, the fake everything. That can be depressing. But then on the bright side, pretty much everyone has a comfortable house with A/C, new cars… they enjoy cheap food, grand shopping center, cheap clothing, plenty of affordable restaurants, ski slopes nearby, etc… Who needs Paris, Venice, or Rome? It’s all here, only better!! That’s all the “average person” ever needs or wants.

40 million tourists a year visit, many from Canada (the biggest portion of foreign tourists), EU, Australia, etc… they all love the American lifestyle.

You know, Canadians are the biggest buyers of real estate in the American sunbelt. Why? because they love the sprawl, the gated communities, the golf courses, the “resort” feel that they don’t have back home.

[spdrun]

Buying a vacation home is very different from wanting to live somewhere full-time. How many Canadians are buying with intent to move to the US long-term vs having a winter vacation home? A lot of Americans also buy in Mexico — it doesn’t inherently make the Mexican political and financial system better than ours!

Same goes for tourists. I’d love to visit Moscow, Beijing, and Cape Town as a tourist. It doesn’t mean that I’ll be applying for a work visa tomorrow.

And immigraiton into the US is stymied by a large, obnoxious bureaucracy. I’m a citizen. I was coming from Canada and the US border guard in Podunk, VT gave me a hard time and practically treated me as a foreigner (actually asked me more questions than many border guards abroad asked me as a visitor). I can only imagine how unpleasant it is to non-citizens.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]
If the minimum standards are the same for everyone, people can still get ahead within the standards. We’ve had worker health and safety standards for years. Our country hasn’t collapsed because of them. The world won’t end if people are guaranteed a humane amount of time off to spend with their families, despite what the conservatards will say about it.[/quote]

The problem is there’s always going to be exceptions. Are you limited in the a amount of hours you can work if your self employed. What about Doctors, Police, Lawyers and all kinds of professions where there’s some sort of looming deadline to get things done. There will always be exceptions and when there’s exceptions there’s loopholes. France has attempted to erect those standards and results leave something to be desired.

In addition if on net you lose productive hours, there’s fewer goods and services for people to consume. Therefore your standard of living in terms of goods and services is limited. Can you afford to take a vacation if there’s fewer hours being worked in the hospitality industry. It does come down to supply and demand.

[spdrun]

And there are exceptions now. If you’re self-employed and choose to work with harmful solvents unprotected or stand on the top step of a ladder, probably no one will care. Not a big deal. Most workers are W-2.

Should we throw workplace safety rules out the window because self-employed people might ignore them? I think not.

Even members of professions with deadlines should be entitled to reasonable time off if they’re full-time jobs. Either have adequate staffing or hire a locum for the vacation time of the permanent employee. Goes for lawyers and doctors. Police? Hmm. Maybe some cuts in time worked could be made if so much time weren’t wasted investigating victimless crimes like drug use by consenting adults or prostitution involving the same.

You’re also assuming that there will be fewer hours worked IN TOTAL, vs per person, with lower unemployment. If you offload the costs of providing benefits like health care and retirement onto the government, it becomes less costly to hire 1.1-1.2 employees with adequate working hours and time off for every one that’s worked like a slave. Besides, if hiring costs go up a bit, cry me a river.

Assuming productivity drops, of course, which isn’t a given, since healthy and well-rested people tend to be more efficient.

Lastly, about vacations: they don’t have to be a big dog and pony show involving flying to Vegas or France. Nothing wrong with having the time to take one’s family hiking in the national park 50 miles away for a few days. Not much consumption or many services involved with that.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter] but then interest rates would go down again if money flows to bonds.[/quote]

Yes, that’s why I don’t expect high interest rates on the horizon. Cheap money in Europe, China, Japan would cause a carry trade to the US where there’s security.

So they people who said that Fed easing would cause skyrocketing interest rates were wrong. They’ve been wrong since 2008.

Fed and stimulus policies were actually very appropriate in the aftermath of the financial crisis. If anything, the Federal government was too timid. If we had fought the 2008 financial crisis like we fought WWII we would now have a modern network of new airports and high speed rail.

A friend of mine went of China for the first time… He came back very impressed with the infrastructure. Didn’t realize that China was that advanced. The trip changed his mind about our need for better infrastructure.

CAr, one reason there is speculation in assets and commodities is because there is a dearth of productive assets to invest in (factories, infrastructure, etc…)[/quote]

Disagree that the Fed’s actions were appropriate, but agree that the govt was too timid (and corrupt, IMO).

Also agree that there is a dearth of productive assets in which to invest, AND that there is too much money at the top just sloshing around the world looking for places to speculate…while the world’s working people are being squeezed from both ends (lower and lower wages — real and nominal, in many cases — in an environment of rising prices).

This is a direct result of “trickle-down” economic policies and our upside-down tax policies that favor gambling over productivity. These are the leading causes of our growing wealth and income disparities; and I don’t think it will end well. You can’t have the top 1% living off the backs of the 99% for very long.

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali][quote=spdrun]
If the minimum standards are the same for everyone, people can still get ahead within the standards. We’ve had worker health and safety standards for years. Our country hasn’t collapsed because of them. The world won’t end if people are guaranteed a humane amount of time off to spend with their families, despite what the conservatards will say about it.[/quote]

The problem is there’s always going to be exceptions. Are you limited in the a amount of hours you can work if your self employed. What about Doctors, Police, Lawyers and all kinds of professions where there’s some sort of looming deadline to get things done. There will always be exceptions and when there’s exceptions there’s loopholes. France has attempted to erect those standards and results leave something to be desired.

In addition if on net you lose productive hours, there’s fewer goods and services for people to consume. Therefore your standard of living in terms of goods and services is limited. Can you afford to take a vacation if there’s fewer hours being worked in the hospitality industry. It does come down to supply and demand.[/quote]

Regarding the stores closing early, etc., there’s an easy solution: staggered work hours. You can easily run an operation 12-24 hours/day by just shifting staff around. If people work fewer hours, you just hire more people. As Spdrun noted, in countries where pensions, healthcare, etc. are managed by the govt, businesses can be free to concentrate on business. There would be less of a disincentive to hiring because the employer wouldn’t have to bear the burden of those non-wage benefits.

Here’s a great article comparing the wages and benefits of Burger King workers in the US and Denmark. What so many brainwashed people in the US don’t seem to understand is that corporate profits come from workers and consumers. THAT is the “redistribution of wealth” that people should be angry about. We need to make sure that the profits are shared more equally among all stakeholders, with a special emphasis on those who create the profits in the first place — workers.

Companies in this country did wonderfully when CEO/worker compensation was more in line, when the wealth/income gaps were much smaller, when taxes were higher, and when companies felt that they had a moral and ethical responsibility to their workers and society, in general. This same pattern can be seen in economies across the globe, and throughout history.

You can compare the numbers for the “socialist” Nordic and Germanic countries vs. the US. I have yet to see any evidence that our type of economic policies are any better; as a matter of fact, they tend to be worse.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
Regarding the stores closing early, etc., there’s an easy solution: staggered work hours. You can easily run an operation 12-24 hours/day by just shifting staff around. If people work fewer hours, you just hire more people. As Spdrun noted, in countries where pensions, healthcare, etc. are managed by the govt, businesses can be free to concentrate on business. There would be less of a disincentive to hiring because the employer wouldn’t have to bear the burden of those non-wage benefits.

Here’s a great article comparing the wages and benefits of Burger King workers in the US and Denmark. What so many brainwashed people in the US don’t seem to understand is that corporate profits come from workers and consumers. THAT is the “redistribution of wealth” that people should be angry about. We need to make sure that the profits are shared more equally among all stakeholders, with a special emphasis on those who create the profits in the first place — workers.
[/quote]

The problem is it’s extremely difficult to regulate how profits are distributed. We cite how burger king pays their employees much more in Denmark but there’s also far fewer Burger Kings in Denmark. Only the most profitable locations can be opened because anything at the margin isn’t worth opening. So there’s were the rub lies. Countries that have have greater worker protections tend to have slower business creation.

There is a disincentive to start and open a company in a country with very strong worker protections. It should be obvious from looking at Europe. Italy and France with very strong worker protections have shrinking economies while those that have worker protections but not nearly as strong are still growing. A global software company isn’t going to open an office in France. They might do it in Ireland, UK, or Germany but they won’t do it in France. There’s a balance between regulation and business. So far I’ve yet to see a western government implement policy that favors strong worker protections and spurred an economic boom. Those two things seem to compete against each other. Maybe where we are here with the economy is the best that can be achieved. More regulation probably isn’t going to stimulate growth less regulation might stimulate some growth but comes with the negative consequences of more exploitation of labor.

[spdrun]

Not having Bugger Kings and fast dogfood available to every fatass with $8 in their pockets is part of the solution. Not the problem.

BTW – I’m not advocating Danish-type minimum wages, just a healthy amount of time off for all workers.

[moneymaker]

I was comtemplating on a similar topic while driving home. Does the world need any more fast food restaurants or another DQ (love the French Silk Blizzard) or another price gouging 7-11. Even in my business it is sometimes a stretch to say we need twice as much or twice as many. So what constitutes a morally concious business. Do we need any more cell phone manufacturers? If I were to start my own business it would be very hard to find a business that everyone would agree benefits society. Time to pour a glass of wine and think on this for a while.

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali]

The problem is it’s extremely difficult to regulate how profits are distributed. We cite how burger king pays their employees much more in Denmark but there’s also far fewer Burger Kings in Denmark. Only the most profitable locations can be opened because anything at the margin isn’t worth opening. So there’s were the rub lies. Countries that have have greater worker protections tend to have slower business creation.

There is a disincentive to start and open a company in a country with very strong worker protections. It should be obvious from looking at Europe. Italy and France with very strong worker protections have shrinking economies while those that have worker protections but not nearly as strong are still growing. A global software company isn’t going to open an office in France. They might do it in Ireland, UK, or Germany but they won’t do it in France. There’s a balance between regulation and business. So far I’ve yet to see a western government implement policy that favors strong worker protections and spurred an economic boom. Those two things seem to compete against each other. Maybe where we are here with the economy is the best that can be achieved. More regulation probably isn’t going to stimulate growth less regulation might stimulate some growth but comes with the negative consequences of more exploitation of labor.[/quote]

As spdrun and MM already noted, “growth for the sake of growth” is not a good thing. It results in more environmental damage, a greater consumption culture (which I think is a huge negative), and puts everyone on the corporate hamster wheel where everyone keeps running faster and longer without actually getting anywhere.

As for countries that have seen economic improvements after implementing greater worker protections…can you point to examples where worker protections and compensation were reduced, and the economy thrived as a result? More importantly, has this shift toward a more capital-friendly economy benefited a greater number of people in a more positive way than a more labor-friendly economy?

You’ll have to look up the information on the links I’ve provided above to see how different countries compare. From what I can see, the countries with the greatest labor protections, highest relative wages, and higher (almost always progressive) taxes tend to have the strongest economies and best quality of life for the greatest possible number of people.

And while there might not be as many Burger Kings in Denmark, their unemployment rate is lower than ours, so somebody is employing these people. AND they have healthcare, pensions, five weeks paid vacation(!), and a happier population of workers. I’d much rather have that than have a fast-food restaurant on every corner, to be sure.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/unemployment-rate

Just some info to ponder regarding labor vs. capital:

In the U.S., right-to-work laws (which tend to have some of the lowest wages in the nation):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/10/how-right-to-work-laws-could-reshape-michigans-economy/

http://news.illinois.edu/news/14/0828right_to_work_RobertBruno.html

————

And I’m sure you’ve heard about the “trickle-down” economic reforms in Kansas…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/29/kansass-mid-term-elections-are-a-referendum-on-supply-side-economics/

[Whoops! Yet ANOTHER example to show what an utter failure trickle-down really is; as if we really need another example.]

And in places where they’ve raised the minimum wage, often to some of the highest levels in the country…the calamity predicted by all of the right-wing economists didn’t happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-no-calamity-yet-as-seatac-wash-adjusts-to-15-minimum-wage/2014/09/05/d12ba922-3503-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html

From the Dept of Labor:

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

——————

As for countries seeing economic growth after instituting labor-friendly reforms, we can look at France after the revolution:

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~jorob/FrenchRevolution21.pdf

And if you look at most countries where labor-led revolutions have happened, you’ll usually see a significant improvement in the economy and in the well-being of the general population IF the revolution happens in a unified and effective manner with strong leadership afterward, and IF other (usually capitalist) governments don’t try to thwart the efforts of the revolutionaries (which is what often happens, unfortunately).

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
And in places where they’ve raised the minimum wage, often to some of the highest levels in the country…the calamity predicted by all of the right-wing economists didn’t happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-no-calamity-yet-as-seatac-wash-adjusts-to-15-minimum-wage/2014/09/05/d12ba922-3503-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html
[/quote]

I read the article and it seems fairly inconclusive to me. Only 1,600 people received wages and it’s a small community. Just because a hotel tries to expand to make up for the increased expense doesn’t necessarily mean it will work out. It could work but it’s too early to know. I think different parts of the country can withstand higher minimums and other parts might not. Seattle’s a fairly wealth place it might be able to withstand $15/hr, or maybe not I’m not really sure but I’d like to see the results. And not the results 6 months into it, more like 3 or 4 years.

It’s easy to say let’s help those poor workers with higher wages but ignore the possible unintended consequences. I want to understand those consequences. There’s definitely numerous factors in play fore any economy. Tax rates, natural resources, number of established businesses, weather/living conditions, wage rates, quality of talent etc. Opening a venture capital software company might not makes a lot of financial sense in the bay area due to tax laws, but it might make sense for other reasons. It hard to account for all that other stuff when looking at one input factor like minimum wage.

The only thing that really matters with minimum wage policy is can you shrink profit margin of the business paying minimum wage, without causing business closure and a loss of jobs.

[Author]

Posts