Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 28, 2013 13:27:21 GMT -5
and its not a myth that raising the minimum wage will raise unemployment
if the free market isn't the decider of the wage raise and it is arbitrarily imposed by an entity (the government) the result will be higher unemployment
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 28, 2013 13:31:58 GMT -5
According to Google, 1 Australian dollar equals .93 US Dollar. I meant buying power not exchange rate....what does their minimum wage but there versus what our minimum wage buys in the US?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 14:29:15 GMT -5
The free market isn't the decider though... Those social programs allow companies to pay lower wages and still stay in business... Absent those programs, the system would not continue at that wage point...
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 28, 2013 14:54:24 GMT -5
and its not a myth that raising the minimum wage will raise unemployment if the free market isn't the decider of the wage raise and it is arbitrarily imposed by an entity (the government) the result will be higher unemployment So I'm still waiting for an explanation why Australia has lower unemployment with a higher minimum wage.
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 28, 2013 15:02:35 GMT -5
The free market isn't the decider though... Those social programs allow companies to pay lower wages and still stay in business... Absent those programs, the system would not continue at that wage point... I'm not sure what you mean by "absent those programs the system would not continue at that wage point".... Are you saying if there were no social programs that the people currently working at wal mart for minimum wage or whateverlow wage would quit their job?
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 28, 2013 15:13:22 GMT -5
and its not a myth that raising the minimum wage will raise unemployment if the free market isn't the decider of the wage raise and it is arbitrarily imposed by an entity (the government) the result will be higher unemployment So I'm still waiting for an explanation why Australia has lower unemployment with a higher minimum wage. I have no idea why, do you? I don't know anything about Australia's economy to be honest with you although I am not certain whether that is true not, like Miss T was asking what is their standard of living for their minimum wage vs. ours? one reason could be that even though Australia has a "higher" minimum wage (mandated by the gov) could be that market forces actually dictate the wage to be that way for example lets look at Nebraska, even though the minimum wage is very low, the market forces actually dictate a higher wage since the unemployment rate is in the 3-4 percent rate. If Nebraska now all of a sudden raised their minimum wage, it wouldn't effect unemployment much since market forces already dictate the wages should be higher than the current minimum wage. So if Nebraska did raise their minimum wage rate you couldn't really look to that to really have any relationship to the unemployment rate since market forces already dictate wages should be higher. So maybe the same thing can explain Australia-it's a possible explanation, but I'm no Australia expert hopefully this reply wasn't too long of a wait......
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 16:03:37 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 16:13:00 GMT -5
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 28, 2013 16:15:15 GMT -5
So I'm still waiting for an explanation why Australia has lower unemployment with a higher minimum wage. I have no idea why, do you? I don't know anything about Australia's economy to be honest with you although I am not certain whether that is true not, like Miss T was asking what is their standard of living for their minimum wage vs. ours? one reason could be that even though Australia has a "higher" minimum wage (mandated by the gov) could be that market forces actually dictate the wage to be that way for example lets look at Nebraska, even though the minimum wage is very low, the market forces actually dictate a higher wage since the unemployment rate is in the 3-4 percent rate. If Nebraska now all of a sudden raised their minimum wage, it wouldn't effect unemployment much since market forces already dictate the wages should be higher than the current minimum wage. So if Nebraska did raise their minimum wage rate you couldn't really look to that to really have any relationship to the unemployment rate since market forces already dictate wages should be higher. So maybe the same thing can explain Australia-it's a possible explanation, but I'm no Australia expert hopefully this reply wasn't too long of a wait...... Or it is simply that when confronted with an example that contradicts your theory, you try to find explanations that will support your theory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 16:16:52 GMT -5
Basically everything I find on the internet seems to point at: - yes their minimum wage is higher - but so is everything else - It is a VHCOLA
So the question is: you make $9/hr and your rent is $500; are you that much better off if you make $16/hr and your rent is $1,500?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 16:29:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 16:29:54 GMT -5
The free market isn't the decider though... Those social programs allow companies to pay lower wages and still stay in business... Absent those programs, the system would not continue at that wage point... I'm not sure what you mean by "absent those programs the system would not continue at that wage point".... Are you saying if there were no social programs that the people currently working at wal mart for minimum wage or whateverlow wage would quit their job? Absent the social programs, people could not both continue to work for the same wage and maintain their standard of living. They would have to demand more, or they would have to stop shopping at walmart, etc. Walmart is the beneficiary of social programs which allow their low wage employees to still afford to purchase their wares... At no point can the influx of public money into that equation allow for the classification of 'free market' determination.
|
|
mtman
Familiar Member
Banned 01.20.14
Joined: Oct 29, 2011 9:53:04 GMT -5
Posts: 506
|
Post by mtman on Sept 28, 2013 16:41:30 GMT -5
Tipping is really getting out of hand.....Used to be a tip was for exceptional service......Now we are expected to pay extra just to get them to do their job. Well then don't tip them. I rarely tip outside of sit down restaurant service. I also only tip at local restaurants.....If I'm traveling no......I'll never see them again......Screw em.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 28, 2013 16:47:44 GMT -5
Well then don't tip them. I rarely tip outside of sit down restaurant service. I also only tip at local restaurants.....If I'm traveling no......I'll never see them again......Screw em. The more I read your posts the more I realize you have to be a troll. That is the only way I can keep any shred of faith in humanity
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 28, 2013 16:55:38 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean by "absent those programs the system would not continue at that wage point".... Are you saying if there were no social programs that the people currently working at wal mart for minimum wage or whateverlow wage would quit their job? Absent the social programs, people could not both continue to work for the same wage and maintain their standard of living. They would have to demand more, or they would have to stop shopping at walmart, etc. Walmart is the beneficiary of social programs which allow their low wage employees to still afford to purchase their wares... At no point can the influx of public money into that equation allow for the classification of 'free market' determination. I don't think higher wages would be the result of killing social programs. I actually think killing social programs would increase the number of people willing to work for almost anything because something is better than nothing and they will more desperate to earn an income. Also consider the number of teens willing to work for low wages that don't need high income to support any standard of living. Right now teens have a very high unemployment rate and would easily take min wage work. The supply of people willing to work for low pay is just too high with or without social programs to inflate wages. And the only reason employers would increase wages is because that is what it takes to get a good employee.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 17:02:22 GMT -5
And if they worked for less, they would be down to paying basic needs... No more money for shopping at Walmart... Walmarts sales are impacted, etc... The whole current system does not reflect free market determination... And it's naive to suggest 'the poor' are more the benefit of that system than Walmart...
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 28, 2013 17:31:02 GMT -5
Sorry, gone for the day. Actually, it was a friend of mine who lives there that says its very spendy to live there, crime is very high, and good jobs that pay decently are very hard to come by. Also, that they import people like nurses because when they no longer need them, their visas are bye bye and they don't have to continue to support them. That 5.8 is a nice figure but guess what? It's skewed just like ours is to sound better than it is.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 28, 2013 19:08:42 GMT -5
Yes - before we had many of the social programs, people had to take whatever jobs were available to eat, they couldn't draw UE and wait for a better job. And there are many jobs that aren't worth $8/hr to a business owner so he will do without (eg, sweeping the floors & the sidewalk every few hours) - but he'll pay $3 to $5 for that function to give somebody a job (and a start).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 19:22:35 GMT -5
Still missing the point...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 28, 2013 19:36:32 GMT -5
Still missing the point... That they wouldn't shop at Walmart? Walmart is going to be the only place they could possibly afford to shop. Grocery stores overall will probably sell slightly less without food stamps, but they won't raise wages as a result of lower sales. If you arent selling enough to support the staff you have, then you dont opt to pay them more, you lay some folks off and don't give out raises.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 28, 2013 19:52:28 GMT -5
Sorry, gone for the day. Actually, it was a friend of mine who lives there that says its very spendy to live there, crime is very high, and good jobs that pay decently are very hard to come by. Also, that they import people like nurses because when they no longer need them, their visas are bye bye and they don't have to continue to support them. That 5.8 is a nice figure but guess what? It's skewed just like ours is to sound better than it is. And your friend's opinion carries more weight than actual statictics because?
|
|
DVM gone riding
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:04:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,383
Favorite Drink: Coffee!!
|
Post by DVM gone riding on Sept 28, 2013 20:00:36 GMT -5
Honestly? We get to judge people based on their 1700s ancestors now... Prisoner ships brought early Americans too... Anything to detract from the simple fact that Australia's minimum wage is over $16/hr and their unemployment rate is 5.8% - thus debunking the oft asserted myth that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. BUT don't forget they have SS AND mandatory 401k likeish retirement savings. They take home a lot less of their $16/hr than someone in the US would. But if that keeps them off government assistance besides what everyone gets and it lowers the corporate tax rate because the people are paying for more of their own services rather then the corporations then I don't see that as a problem. (I have no idea if $16/hr is enough to have a "living" in Australia and receive no extra government assistance or not) In the US the corps already figure they pay for their employees to receive government aid in that that is what the majority of the taxes come from and go towards so higher profits means more taxes which the government is going to spend on aid to the "poor" so why should corps pay better
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 28, 2013 20:04:02 GMT -5
Uh, because she actually lives and works there and statistics are easily manipulated.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 28, 2013 22:09:23 GMT -5
Um, I have a neighbor who believes the aliens are out to get us and I'm going to believe him because " he actually lives here"....
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 29, 2013 1:38:22 GMT -5
I have no idea why, do you? I don't know anything about Australia's economy to be honest with you although I am not certain whether that is true not, like Miss T was asking what is their standard of living for their minimum wage vs. ours? one reason could be that even though Australia has a "higher" minimum wage (mandated by the gov) could be that market forces actually dictate the wage to be that way for example lets look at Nebraska, even though the minimum wage is very low, the market forces actually dictate a higher wage since the unemployment rate is in the 3-4 percent rate. If Nebraska now all of a sudden raised their minimum wage, it wouldn't effect unemployment much since market forces already dictate the wages should be higher than the current minimum wage. So if Nebraska did raise their minimum wage rate you couldn't really look to that to really have any relationship to the unemployment rate since market forces already dictate wages should be higher. So maybe the same thing can explain Australia-it's a possible explanation, but I'm no Australia expert hopefully this reply wasn't too long of a wait...... Or it is simply that when confronted with an example that contradicts your theory, you try to find explanations that will support your theory. Well can you explain it? Do you know what the unemployment rate was BEFORE they raised the unemployment rate in Australia? Do you know what economic forces were at work before that? Did they strike oil? A tech innovation boom? A natural disaster? Anything? Other posters have asked you rabout how does their minimum wage compare to ours, and no repsonse yet. If you're so positive Australia just raised their minimum wage and magically they all lived happily ever after, how about some supporting evidence? It's easy to take a news article that proves a point you want to make and just put it out there without doing your own analysis on it (or making sure the authors of said article did their own analysis of it) all I did was try to answer your question, so I gave you a "possible" explanation, again not an expert on Australia and I didn't put Australia out there, you did, so you should be able to help answer the questions we are posing......
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 29, 2013 3:06:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean by "absent those programs the system would not continue at that wage point".... Are you saying if there were no social programs that the people currently working at wal mart for minimum wage or whateverlow wage would quit their job? Absent the social programs, people could not both continue to work for the same wage and maintain their standard of living. They would have to demand more, or they would have to stop shopping at walmart, etc. Walmart is the beneficiary of social programs which allow their low wage employees to still afford to purchase their wares... At no point can the influx of public money into that equation allow for the classification of 'free market' determination. If social programs went away it would be an initial shock to the economi system, and you are right that Wal-Mart would initially suffer (among other stores / industries - especially crab legs------Ok I kid on the crab legs , but other things would be affected to) But with less social programs more people would keep more of their money (less taxes they have to pay to support social programs) and money and demand and things would shift in the economy also some charities would rise to fill some of the gap of the loss of social programs As a result of these changes, some businesses would have to change thier business model or die (just like during any economic times, companies must always be analizing market forces and companies core competencies, etc.....and adapt or die-----ex. IBM started as a computer company and now are mainly a consulting company and this had nothing to do with social programs, just showing in general companies must adapt or die based on their strength, economic forces, etc.) so to answer your question- does Wal Mart benefit from social programs? I am sure they do, as do many other businesses / industries. would wal-mart suddenly fail or lose a tremendous profit if social profits suddenly went "poof"? maybe, depending on how the elimination of social programs was implemented. If it was a surprise elimination of social programs of course it would be a shock and wal mart defintitely would be hurt---I would argue the economy as a whole would feel the effects if this were the case. But wal mart still could adapt and change their business model just like IBM did (or they could not, maybe they have bad management or mis-read their strengths, etc. and fail --entirely possible too) but if they knew it was coming and they could prepare, it might have no effect on Wal-mart. let's assume things happen just like you said and now the normal wal mart customy can only afford "the bare necessities"--maybe wal mart now decides they will only carry the "bare necessities" and they do this and continue to be profitable. maybe they decide now that the "middle class" has more money (less taxes paid towards social programs), maybe wal mart decides to target these customers and tries to sell more "higher end, middle class type items". or maybe they find somehting else that works.......at its heart, my oppinion, Wal Mart's core competency is logistics, so maybe they totally change their business and go into something related to that or maybe they fail because they can't adapt but Wal Mart is not necessarily dependent on social programs, their current strategy probably takes social programs into account (as I am sure other companies do) and to not take social programs into account would foolish since they do exist. But the end of social programs would not necessarily mean there would be an end of wal mart shoppers or to wal mart itself--it would probably mean a change
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 29, 2013 6:20:01 GMT -5
Change toward personal responsibility is the last thing politicians want.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Sept 29, 2013 7:57:59 GMT -5
Given they are on a island (everything needs to be shipped) and have extreme climate/water supply issues (can they really farm?) I would assume things cost more there. I think it is too simplistic to compare entire govt/economic systems based on such few stats, though. How is their health care/retirement handled? What is there tax structure like? What about education? So many things factor into affordability besides groceries/rent and minimum wage.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 7:34:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2013 8:08:37 GMT -5
Mr Bill, I agree it would be a larger economic/ industry issue than just wal mart. There are also then social and economic I pats to all the potential modifications you listed. The outcomes far reaching and transformational... Our economic and social systems would change radically. I do not see how a democratic republic is sustainable to that end...
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 29, 2013 10:09:32 GMT -5
Ok you totally lost me now, I have no idea what you mean or what you are arguing about....
you do know we somehow survived economically in the US before social programs were enacted....
|
|