Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Norstal]

What's the lowest level possible without a minimum wage? A few dollars an hour?

If workers are allowed to Unionize, and the state keeps its ugly hand out of the situation, employees are paid better than in places with a minimum wage...for example, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

Except for those teachers union amirite.

[Molerats]

My guesses :
Pure luck (or lack of ) in some cases
Personality (that the environment influences it is obvious )
Education
Lack of resources
Good looks (or lack of )
And I think the list goes on. The fact is there are a lot of things that can influence this but if you are born poor you must go up the social ladder while someone born rich only has to maintain his rank (more or less ). I doubt there's a single "most important" cause of poverty. Sure, education plays a big role a lot of the time, but I doubt it's the only (or even the most important ) one

[Norstal]

poor people are poor because the don't have enough money. the reason for that tends to vary from person to person.

there is no reason why we cant have education through college for free. there is no reason we cant have a higher minimum wage. there is no reason we can't have more training programs for work skills. there is no reason we cant stop turning victimless crimes into felonies that follow you for the rest of your life.

there is nothing wrong with allowing people to become rich but there needs to be a mechanism for the rest of us to be able to get by. regulated capitalism is a good system.

Capitalism of any sort isn't "good", it is one of the main problems. It is incompatible with a morally just society and must be destroyed in all of its forms.

So everytime I code I have to open-source it on GitHub? Fuck that.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Anyways, the latter paragraph is untrue. The rich don't steal their wages, and though some middle class people ignore them, others don't, and work hard for charitable organizations and the like. The government, or most civilized, first world governments, give the poor benefits, and don't make them pay taxes, which is a good thing.

Thank you.

Throwing baseless accusations at the rich does not solve anything. It just deepens the social divide between classes and scares away middle class people. The middle class has something to lose if you overthrow the existing economic system and start over from scratch, and because they have something to lose, they tend to be wary of class warfare. When people use exaggerated rhetoric, like saying the rich steal the wages of the poor, I can't be their political ally because I don't trust them to respect my property rights.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Sorry, it seemed like you thought I was agreeing with TLT. My apologies.

Anyways, the latter paragraph is untrue. The rich don't steal their wages, and though some middle class people ignore them, others don't, and work hard for charitable organizations and the like. The government, or most civilized, first world governments, give the poor benefits, and don't make them pay taxes, which is a good thing.

Your apology is accepted.

However, it's true. Rents are maybe 10% of a person's income, which rich landlords take.

If you don't want to pay rent, don't live on their property.

Even at a low-paying job, it is not that difficult to save up enough to buy a piece of land. Houses are expensive, but you can always just buy a piece of land and build your own house, right? You should come out ahead by spending your time building a house instead of working a day job. After all, now you get to keep the fruits of your labor!

If you can't be bothered to build a house from scratch, that's all well and good. Just accept responsibility for your decision. Don't blame your landlord.

Also, rent is usually more than 10% of income. Or at least mine always has been. If it's only 10%, you have a lot left over to save up for your own house.

[Welsh Bristolia]

If you are genuinely interested in this topic, I would suggest anyone that is read Thomas Pikkety's 'Capital in the twenty-first century'. It is perhaps the most comprehensive explanation of (rising) inequality that has ever been published.

[Oba Shembo]

The poor are poor because there will always be somebody who is not poor. And for as long as somebody is not poor, they will look at the poor and see them as (surprise, surprise) poor. Unless everybody had exactly the same amount of money, and never went a *currency* over or under, there will always be poor people.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Lord heavens no. Minimum wage should always remain at or right above the livable wage. Excessive minimum wage would be detrimental to the economy.

No it wouldn't. It would mean there are more people with more money, those people would spend the extra money they have thus stimulating the economy.

That would cause rapid inflation.

[Nekoargentina]

There *always* will be poor and rich people under a capitalist system, simply because "rich" and "poor" are relative, and not absolute terms. Take any middle class person of the modern world and their possessions - modern cellphones, medicine, cars, 75/80 year lifespans - to the 19th century, and they will be rich, compared to the 55 year old lifespans and carriages of the average person of that time. What matters is not poor and rich, but the gap between them, and to make sure we have *equality of opportunity* which is what every nation should aspire to. In fact, it is a good thing there are actually poor and rich people, because it strives us to be better through hard work and competition. But the important thing is to make sure everybody starts from the same point in life and with the same opportunities to succeed, which presently does not happen in most countries. A strong, public and free education system, a low gap between rich and poor, and easy access to technology and knowledge are the keys to a prosperous society, where everyone has the chance to suceed. Of course, nobody should ever, ever starve or suffer from preventable diseases as it sadly happens in many very poor countries, there should be a baseline standard of living that should be guaranteed for everyone.

[Nazi Flower Power]

How does the minimum wage keep wages artificially low? Employers can pay more if they wish.

Indeed, however, because there is little to no negation between employer and employee on the subject of initial wages, and the Employer can defer the employees wage immediately to the lowest possible, it keeps wages low.

In other words, companies will start employees off at a low wage, with no negotiation, and this is the state's fault.

Minimum wage does not prevent people from negotiating if they wish to.

[JJ Place]

Capitalism of any sort isn't "good", it is one of the main problems. It is incompatible with a morally just society and must be destroyed in all of its forms.

nah

capitalism creates wealth and prosperity. that's why north America and Europe are more prosperous than the former USSR and communist china. no one wants to go back to the days of a stupidly controlled economy.

It's really a compiling effect of factors that leads to economic success, capitalism is only one. Geography is a major reason the West and the East do well; they're really well connected to one another, and trade is healthy between all regions, both by land (Asia and Eastern Europe), and by water (America, China, and Western Europe). Really, capitalism only works so far as other factors allow it to work. Take geography and the other combination of effects, and capitalism really doesn't work. Capitalism's only the indication and partial mechanism of wealth and prosperity in a region. If you tried to implement the same capitalism in a formerly isolated environment, Islands of the Pacific, or geographically different regions, Sub-Saharan Africa, you won't really get all the compiling benefits of capitalism, and you'll tend to have a fairly negative bag of effects.

You're all quite right; capitalism defiantly is a very good economic system, but it's not really the driving force itself.

[Ardoki]

No it wouldn't. It would mean there are more people with more money, those people would spend the extra money they have thus stimulating the economy.

That would cause rapid inflation.

No it wouldn't, there would be the same amount of money, just the rich would have to pay the poor more. Currently there is billions of US dollars in the US alone which isn't spent but just kept in bank accounts not being used. If that money was given to people who could use it the economy would vastly improve.

[Divair2]

That would cause rapid inflation.

No it wouldn't, there would be the same amount of money, just the rich would have to pay the poor more. Currently there is billions of US dollars in the US alone which isn't spent but just kept in bank accounts not being used. If that money was given to people who could use it the economy would vastly improve.

You realize there's no such thing as money just sitting around? Money kept in bank accounts is still being used.

[Ardoki]

No it wouldn't, there would be the same amount of money, just the rich would have to pay the poor more. Currently there is billions of US dollars in the US alone which isn't spent but just kept in bank accounts not being used. If that money was given to people who could use it the economy would vastly improve.

You realize there's no such thing as money just sitting around? Money kept in bank accounts is still being used.

Most of it is just building up interest in offshore accounts. The amount which is invested in stock would be better used by people who need it.

[Divair2]

You realize there's no such thing as money just sitting around? Money kept in bank accounts is still being used.

Most of it is just building up interest in offshore accounts. The amount which is invested in stock would be better used by people who need it.

Why would a bank let money sit around and accumulate interest? That is a net loss. Don't be silly. The only possible way money could be left unused is if you literally hid it in your house. Nobody does that.

[Ardoki]

Most of it is just building up interest in offshore accounts. The amount which is invested in stock would be better used by people who need it.

Why would a bank let money sit around and accumulate interest? That is a net loss. Don't be silly. The only possible way money could be left unused is if you literally hid it in your house. Nobody does that.

The money technically does not stay in the bank (to the owner of the money it appear that way), the bank uses that money in different ways (e.g. giving out loans, buying other banks, paying it's costs, etc.), however the way the bank uses it is not beneficial to society, it would be better used by people who need it than just giving out loans which will earn the bank alone money.

Your second point is a blatant lie, I have money in my house (sure most of it is in a bank account), so therefore you lied by saying no one has money in their house.

[Divair2]

The money technically does not stay in the bank (to the owner of the money it appear that way), the bank uses that money in different ways (e.g. giving out loans, buying other banks, paying it's costs, etc.), however the way the bank uses it is not beneficial to society, it would be better used by people who need it than just giving out loans which will earn the bank alone money.

Except loans don't just help the banks, they help the people who need the loans. Which is a huge chunk of companies and individuals. Drastically cutting banks' abilities to loan out money would destroy the economy.

Your second point is a blatant lie, I have money in my house (sure most of it is in a bank account), so therefore you lied by saying no one has money in their house.

Some cash, sure. But hundreds? Even thousands? Nobody sane keeps that much money sitting around.

[Brickistan]

Let private corporations build roads! It's not like they'd turn them into toll roads...

And so what? Toll roads are great and many cases probably better maintained. You get what you pay for. I mean realistically, toll roads are likely a better way to collect revenue than excise tax, after all you don't use a lawn mower on the the highway but yet, the gas you buy to but in that lawnmower is used to pay to maintain the roads.

And some of my taxes goes to public schools even though I don't have kids. But you know what? I don't mind, educating the kids is good for all of society, myself included.

Pay-as-you-go might work on an individual level, but not for society at large.

So social darwinism.
Good pick, now I know who never to debate with.

Also, you're wrong, poor people have less resources to get decent education.
Education and intelligence although slightly related, are not the same.

Then you just proved it right there. It doesn't take much of an education to be wise with your money. It may help, but if you are buying 52" screen TVs and yet are poor, then you aren't that smart at all. (As an example). But if you are careful with your money and work fairly hard, then you can probably avoid starving. Probably.

And what about those who cannot find work? The sad fact is that, as more and more production is either automated or outsourced, there simply isn't enough work to go around.

As for TV's and such things, I agree with your point, but I can understand why they're doing it. Having been getting by, though sometimes only just, for many years as a student, I often found myself spending whatever money I could get as fast as I could get it. Thing was that I had a lists of I-Wants as long as the Nile and got very little of it. So even though I know it was stupid, whenever I could I would buy something from that list. Whatever it took to sweeten my life, even at a big cost in the long term, I would do it. Being poor is no fun, and that TV might be the only joy in an otherwise dreary life.

As I said, it's stupid. But I can understand why they're doing it.

While the rich have gotten richer, so have the poor. They have access to air conditioning, clothes, and clean water among countless other luxuries that were not afforded to commoners for countless generations past. According to the World Health Organization Coronary artery disease (listed as Ischaemic heart disease) and stroke were the two leading causes of death in 2000 and 2011. Associated risk factors for both include obesity and sedentary lifestyles which are significant health concerns in much of the developed world. Originally the poor suffered from too little food, but now many suffer from too much. An ever increasing proportion of the labor force is employed in the service sector performing simple office related tasks that can hardly be considered laborious. Much of the world remains undeveloped, however these trends are on the rise in developing nations.

Is there poverty? Sure. However one must bear in mind that certain technological advancements, most of which were encouraged by market forces, have made the world a far more agreeable place to live and work for all levels of society.

Not too much food, just the wrong kind of food.

As a student, I often looked longingly at those nice low-fat-all-natural-ingredients sausages, but I never bought one as the price of just one could by me a whole package of cheap filled-to-the-brim-with-fat-and-artificial-additives sausages. It's not that I wanted to eat all that fat, it's just that the only food I could afford was generally high-fat-low-quality stuff.

Why do poor people go to McDonalds? Because a dollar meal is probably the only thing they can afford that day. Not to mention that, for some, getting proper food can be difficult and time consuming - particular if you live in one of the so-called "food deserts".

There are poor people because there are rich people.

Some succeed. Others don't. It's not the fault of capitalism.

It is the nature of capitalism, to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of a small elite, and to continually impoverish an increasing number of people outside that elite.

all true.

The way it works is this, in an over simplified way:

100 poor people makes 1 rich people.
Because 100 poor people buys Domino Pizza... and Domino Pizza is owned by Mr.Domino.

But poor people really really like Domino Pizza.
They just hate the fact that Mr.Domino become rich as a result.

No, what they hate is that when Mama Rosa tries to get rich herself by doing what Mr. Domino did, Mr. Domino launches an add-campaign saying that Mama Rosa uses rat meat in her pizzas and lobbies the politicians to outlaw pizzerias in the street where Mama Rosa lives.

And what they hate even more is that, now that Mama Rosa is out of business, the only place they can work is at Mr. Domino's place. And that he pays so little that they can't even afford to buy the pizzas they make.

I don't understand why there are poor people in the United States of America. I would like to know the reason and would like to know what the poorest person in America could do to get rich. If everyone were billionaires and wanted yachts would there there wouldn't be enough to make them all. I want to know why the public school system is bad or even if it is bad.

I want to know why universities aren't free to attend.

Tell me why we can't all be Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller.

Should anyone be rich to begin with?

Is state capitalism the best economic system?

What is anarcho-socialism?

What is anarcho-capitalism?

Which one of these is more practical?

Is the Zeitgeist Movement/ Venus Project a good idea?

The poor are poor, because it seems as though they can't manage their own affairs properly. We've already seen a study on NS which proves this.

Education costs money. Education isn't free.
Because they worked to where they are at. With a little luck.
Yes, of course.
Corporatism is.
Anarcho socialism is a system by which workers own the means of production with a lack of state
Anarcho Capitalism is a system by which idividuals own the means of production with a lack of state
Anarcho Capoitalism is much much much more moral.
No.

Why is it more moral for one person to own the factory rather than the factory being owned by the workers?

All businesses should be owned by society while run by the workers.

That is disgusting. Keep your dirty paws off of others property. That is greedy and is nothing more than a wish to take other's property away from them.

Really?

What's the difference between a man and his wife having joint ownership of their home and that man and his two pals having joint ownership of their company?

For that matter, is it then immoral to float a company on the stock marked, seeing as it's now effectively owned by a group of people - namely the shareholders?

"Should" could simply be a long-term ideal and not involve taking property.

It's still a disgusting concept regardless if this is a long term goal or not. Workers shouldn't own business.

OH NO!

GOOD GRIEF!

Those damn, disgusting, dirty, foul-smelling peasants are actually having aspirations of nobility...

PREPOSTEROUS!





Wait a minute...

I actually thought the idea of capitalism was that everyone should be allowed to succeed in life? Guess I was wrong there...

Indeed, however, because there is little to no negation between employer and employee on the subject of initial wages, and the Employer can defer the employees wage immediately to the lowest possible, it keeps wages low.

In other words, companies will start employees off at a low wage, with no negotiation, and this is the state's fault.

No, if there was no minimum wage people would be payed a lot less because the business can pay them as little as they like.
What is to stop employees demanding wages higher than the minimum wage? Nothing but the businesses which are greedy and shall be taken over by the workers.

Indeed.

Minimum wages are there to establish a basic livable income that all workers should be given as compensation for their work. They may be given more, of course, and indeed they often are, but they cannot be given less.

On the contrary, with no such laws in effect, the companies will tend to press the wages downwards, as low as they possibly can, in order to increase profit.

Given what's being going on in America over the last few decades, I'm honestly surprised to see that people still believe that unregulated business will just magically do the best for everyone.

No, if there was no minimum wage people would be payed a lot less because the business can pay them as little as they like.
What is to stop employees demanding wages higher than the minimum wage? Nothing but the businesses which are greedy and shall be taken over by the workers.

Bullshit. That would result in massive strikes, It's utterly imperative for companies to pay employees a living wage. Employees, with the right to unionize, improve their situation much better without intervention by the state.
Nothing, that is the function of the union, businesses are necessarily greedy? That is there function, an employee owned company is also greedy. Business shouldn't be employee owned.

For once, I actually agree with you.

Strong unions can act as an effective counterfoil to big business. Just too bad that they have been vilified and marginalized in America to the point where their power is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent on the national level.

It must be said though, that it doesn't always work. Years ago, for example, we had a string of very high-profile strikes which nearly brought Denmark to a complete standstill. And guess what happened? The companies simply twiddled their thumps, waited for the unions to run out of money, and eventually the government was forced to step in and the companies got what they wanted anyway. And worse, after those strikes, the unions were completely exhausted, forced to raise union dues to refill their accounts, and were generally unable to do much for years as 1) they couldn't launch any strikes due to the aforementioned lack of money and 2) there was a sense that, no matter what they did, the government would simply side with big business again - for the best of society, of course.

I was working as an apprentice back then, and believe me, the workers were mad as hell. But there wasn't anything they could do.

And, in a sense, the unions have never really recovered. It wasn't nearly as bad as when Thatcher broke their backs in England, but it's bad enough.

All of which is already done and yet we still see many people in desperate poverty. Government programs to help the poor are simply an efficient use of resources as the money used to help the poor means a lot more to them than it does to the rich as to have so little of it. It's a simple case of diminishing marginal utility.

But it doesn't. Billions of dollars have gone into feeding and clothing the poor, and yet poverty has only grown worse. In America, nothing in the constitution authorizes mass scale redistribution on the government's part. People can't even watch track of their own budgets, yet such programs take a small amount of their money anyway to save other people's. In the long run, it won't make anyone richer. Who heard of getting richer by losing money to help millions of other people you've never met or heard of? I sure haven't. The rich and middle class, some of whom who built it up themselves, who have plenty of money, already share the greater burden of taxes and some of the richest 1% (e.g. Bill Gates) donate millions of dollars to charity all voluntarily. Yet you say this is not enough and demand more money. How much is there to give when a lot is already given, and so little progress is shown?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorf ... -the-poor/

Given that the one percent owns just about forty percent the total wealth in America, I'd say there's a lot more that can be given.

Thing is, government programs cannot work as long as there's so much wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. It's like pouring money into a black hole - it will just disappear, eventually reappearing in the hands of the wealthy.

The only way forward now is to break the stranglehold the rich have on politics and economy. You need to recreate a strong middle class in order to get money circulating again. All those money that the one percent has stashed away in offshore tax heavens won't help anyone. But get that money back in the hands of the general population and you'll see results.

[Ardoki]

The money technically does not stay in the bank (to the owner of the money it appear that way), the bank uses that money in different ways (e.g. giving out loans, buying other banks, paying it's costs, etc.), however the way the bank uses it is not beneficial to society, it would be better used by people who need it than just giving out loans which will earn the bank alone money.

Except loans don't just help the banks, they help the people who need the loans. Which is a huge chunk of companies and individuals. Drastically cutting banks' abilities to loan out money would destroy the economy.

The majority of loans are not re-payed and the bank repossesses the victims assets. Loans are bad unless they are interest free (which most aren't) because it is unfair and silly.

It may damage a capitalist economy, but capitalism is bad and will collapse eventually. Now we should be constructing a socialist economy with the eventual move towards communism. Those problems you outlined would not be problems in a socialist economy.

Your second point is a blatant lie, I have money in my house (sure most of it is in a bank account), so therefore you lied by saying no one has money in their house.

Some cash, sure. But hundreds? Even thousands? Nobody sane keeps that much money sitting around.

In the great depression sane people kept millions in their house.

[Nazi Flower Power]

That would cause rapid inflation.

No it wouldn't, there would be the same amount of money, just the rich would have to pay the poor more. Currently there is billions of US dollars in the US alone which isn't spent but just kept in bank accounts not being used. If that money was given to people who could use it the economy would vastly improve.

Inflation is not only driven by the amount of currency in circulation.

Let's say I run a restaurant called Nazi Burger Power. People don't complain about the Nazi name because the burgers are just that fucking awesome. I pay my employees $8 an hour and I sell burgers for $10. If the minimum wage is raised and I have to pay my workers $20, I can either raise the price of a burger to cover the cost, or I can go out of business. The meat packing plant where I get my beef and the bakery that makes the buns also had to raise the wages of their workers, so now I am spending more on food cost as well as the added wages for my workers. Fortunately, the raised minimum wage means there are more people who can afford to spend $20 on a burger. So now I'm charging $20 for a burger instead of $10.

Same thing happens at other businesses.

[Nekoargentina]

No it wouldn't, there would be the same amount of money, just the rich would have to pay the poor more. Currently there is billions of US dollars in the US alone which isn't spent but just kept in bank accounts not being used. If that money was given to people who could use it the economy would vastly improve.

Inflation is not only driven by the amount of currency in circulation.

Let's say I run a restaurant called Nazi Burger Power. People don't complain about the Nazi name because the burgers are just that fucking awesome. I pay my employees $8 an hour and I sell burgers for $10. If the minimum wage is raised and I have to pay my workers $20, I can either raise the price of a burger to cover the cost, or I can go out of business. The meat packing plant where I get my beef and the bakery that makes the buns also had to raise the wages of their workers, so now I am spending more on food cost as well as the added wages for my workers. Fortunately, the raised minimum wage means there are more people who can afford to spend $20 on a burger. So now I'm charging $20 for a burger instead of $10.

Same thing happens at other businesses.

Money creation has to remain on par with money demand so that there is no inflation. Meaning the Central Bank has to create money only in the necessary amount that a growing economy would need it for transactions. Whenever the Central Bank creates excess money (either through human error - it's very hard to calculate precisely - or through a deliberate attempt to finance the government and destroy the currency), the end result is inflation. Money creation is not the only factor in generating inflation, there are other issues with supply and demand, but it's definitively one of the main ones.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Except loans don't just help the banks, they help the people who need the loans. Which is a huge chunk of companies and individuals. Drastically cutting banks' abilities to loan out money would destroy the economy.

The majority of loans are not re-payed and the bank repossesses the victims assets.

Source?

Loans are bad unless they are interest free (which most aren't) because it is unfair and silly.

If it's interest-free, then what motivation does anyone have to loan money? If you don't like the terms of a loan, don't borrow the money.

It is not silly. Sometimes people have a legitimate reason for taking out a loan such as buy a house or starting a business.

[JJ Place]

Source?

Some interesting sauce for you.

And this.

I looked over your sources, to the best of ability.

The first source's title is a bit, incorrect. Dorfman cites a lot of technically accurate statistics
Dorfman quotes the labor productivity in comparison to the minimum wage. Dorfman cites that labor productivity in fast food has shown no improvement in productivity since 1987, but the minimum wage has increased from $3.35 to $7.25. He cites that worker productivity has risen 0.6% for other service industries, which would make the raises in minimum wage six times more than would is justified. The problem is with that argument is that the CPI (the consumer price index, how we calculate inflation) has risen from $1000 in 1987 to $2,080.04. Under that concept, the minimum wage should have risen to $6.70 for fast food. Dorfman also cites that 1/3 of all people on minimum wage are teenagers, or the secondary or tertiary wage earner in a household. That's also right, and definitely is a valid point.

Dorfman uses a lot of loaded language, and really tries to point out anyone for raising the minimum wage as an adversary or someone else. Dordman tries to make a connection that this is class warfare by redistributing wealth, but that's a pretty extraordinary point, and, from my view, that doesn't seem to be any more than a mis-thought out point that sounds good that many people can get behind, but really is much different when you look at a broader picture of the situations.

Dorfman makes the point that the minimum wage significantly hurts the country, and economy, and consumers, but I find that a really extraordinary point, and he only really uses thought evidence, they'rs no real proof, at least not in that article.

Dorfman does make an excellent point, in that there certainly is a much better alternative to the minimum wage, but that's a very complex issue, and Dorfman really doesn't add up the argument, or an understanding of the broader picture for that issue.

The general problem is that Dorfman seems to be a bit disconnected from what life is like on minimum wage, Dorfman really doesn't seem to feel the reason for raising the minimum wage, providing more income for a number of people. Dorfman really doesn't make the economic argument for anything against the minimum wage, and Dorfman's other arguments don't really bad up or have a lot of the feelings or reasons or logic behind them.



The second article is well written, popularly drafted, concise, easy to read and understand, but it lacks substantiation; it's just a collection of thoughts, and they're largely incorrect with a larger picture of the economic and social workings.

[Divair2]

The majority of loans are not re-payed and the bank repossesses the victims assets.

Source.

Loans are bad unless they are interest free (which most aren't) because it is unfair and silly.

They're not unfair at all.

It may damage a capitalist economy, but capitalism is bad and will collapse eventually.

No, it won't.

Now we should be constructing a socialist economy with the eventual move towards communism.

No thanks.

Those problems you outlined would not be problems in a socialist economy.

What problems?

In the great depression sane people kept millions in their house.

The Great Depression was 80 years ago.

[Viritica]

Some interesting sauce for you.

And this.

I looked over your sources, to the best of ability.

The first source's title is a bit, incorrect. Dorfman cites a lot of technically accurate statistics
Dorfman quotes the labor productivity in comparison to the minimum wage. Dorfman cites that labor productivity in fast food has shown no improvement in productivity since 1987, but the minimum wage has increased from $3.35 to $7.25. He cites that worker productivity has risen 0.6% for other service industries, which would make the raises in minimum wage six times more than would is justified. The problem is with that argument is that the CPI (the consumer price index, how we calculate inflation) has risen from $1000 in 1987 to $2,080.04. Under that concept, the minimum wage should have risen to $6.70 for fast food. Dorfman also cites that 1/3 of all people on minimum wage are teenagers, or the secondary or tertiary wage earner in a household. That's also right, and definitely is a valid point.

Dorfman uses a lot of loaded language, and really tries to point out anyone for raising the minimum wage as an adversary or someone else. Dordman tries to make a connection that this is class warfare by redistributing wealth, but that's a pretty extraordinary point, and, from my view, that doesn't seem to be any more than a mis-thought out point that sounds good that many people can get behind, but really is much different when you look at a broader picture of the situations.

Dorfman makes the point that the minimum wage significantly hurts the country, and economy, and consumers, but I find that a really extraordinary point, and he only really uses thought evidence, they'rs no real proof, at least not in that article.

Dorfman does make an excellent point, in that there certainly is a much better alternative to the minimum wage, but that's a very complex issue, and Dorfman really doesn't add up the argument, or an understanding of the broader picture for that issue.

The general problem is that Dorfman seems to be a bit disconnected from what life is like on minimum wage, Dorfman really doesn't seem to feel the reason for raising the minimum wage, providing more income for a number of people. Dorfman really doesn't make the economic argument for anything against the minimum wage, and Dorfman's other arguments don't really bad up or have a lot of the feelings or reasons or logic behind them.



The second article is well written, popularly drafted, concise, easy to read and understand, but it lacks substantiation; it's just a collection of thoughts, and they're largely incorrect with a larger picture of the economic and social workings.

Hm, well, thank you for reading them over. I felt that the first article made a lot of good points and used facts and statistics to back them up. A bit complicated, but I could understand it.

The second article is from an organization dedicated to the protection of small business. That's the reason why I found it fairly reliable.