If you really want to end Poverty, Focus on Labor Unions

[Xelsis]

Certainly it is. Every choice has some sort of alternative to it. It is a voluntary decision to diet even if the alternative is obesity and health issues (and a voluntary choice that many do not take). They had the opportunity to accept or reject the offer, and to seek elsewhere for other jobs-and ultimately decided to select this one, which they may (in most cases barring contracts) leave whenever they wish.

As for competition leading to better offers-it is true that for no-skill jobs, you'll find less competition, because, as you say, everyone can do them. The impetus, then, is for the worker to acquire or develop skills to compete for those more lucrative jobs, remaining skilless in a high-skilled economy will get you near-nowhere.

Fixing the education system is, of course, an important step in making that easier.

But under your system of my wage keeping me barely alive, how exactly will I get time and money to acquire these skills? This is why higher minimum wages would be needed in order to make that system work. Under the status quo, you tell me "you could acquire skills and improve!", but I don't actually get the chance to do so. It's as if you made me do a bike race on an old rusty city bike against someone on a new high-end race bike and tell me "you could have trained for it!".

We happen to have a system of education that provides you free skill-training for some twelve years or so-I would imagine that's a good place to start.

Your proposition of hiking the minimum wage does indeed help some to have a chance to gain better skills-while tossing others, the least-skilled, out of a job entirely, and putting them in an even worse situation.

[Savojarna]

Okay, so nobody has to do stupid work behind Wal-Mart counters anymore. Isn't that a good thing? Now imagine we somehow pay these suddenly unemployed people enough that they have the time and money to get a decent education and get better jobs. You have suddenly kind of solved the problem we had in the first place.

Enlarged for emphasis.

"Somehow" doesn't cut it. It would be great if we "somehow" do a lot of things-but this is the real world, which means if you want something, you need a plan to get there.

There are plans, I just didn't list any because I don't care which one we take. UBI, a Swedish model, Danish/Swiss Flexicurity... make your pick.

Also, we can, as I said, use the heightened productivity and efficiency (if that wasn't there, again, no need to automatise in the first place) to reduce working hours and everyone gets two more hours of free time. This makes everyone happier, and also gives them more time for the consumption your economic model relies on so much.

Before I respond-are these mandatory hours of free time? Are you being forced to take them?[/quote]

In the same way that you are mandated (at least over here, is the US different?) to not make your employees work more than 8.5 hours a day. Most countries have a work time per day that is defined as "full time" (and usually is between 8 and 9 hours), and that's your work day. I want to redefine that from 8-9 to 6-7 hours. If you work more than this new definition, it's overtime and your boss is (technically) mandated to compensate it, either through extra holidays or money.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Its not my job to validate competition between two businesses.
Its my job to force both businesses in competition for resources and employees and customers, to obey my laws.

So they are in competition for employees? When there's near full employment, that's true. But businesses don't need to compete so much for employees when there is considerable unemployment. As I said already, you cannot have it both ways. They can't simultaneously be able to hire whomever they want and be in competition for employees.

Your laws are completely imbecilic.

anti discrimination, minimum wage laws and worker's rights isn't my laws.
Its the laws of the United States, the state laws, and the laws of every first world country.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

His ideas have had workers, working for over 24 hours.

[Xelsis]

Enlarged for emphasis.

"Somehow" doesn't cut it. It would be great if we "somehow" do a lot of things-but this is the real world, which means if you want something, you need a plan to get there.

There are plans, I just didn't list any because I don't care which one we take. UBI, a Swedish model, Danish/Swiss Flexicurity... make your pick.

Do you want to know something interesting about Denmark, Sweeden, and Switzerland? None of them have a minimum wage at all.

Interesting, no?

Before I respond-are these mandatory hours of free time? Are you being forced to take them?

In the same way that you are mandated (at least over here, is the US different?) to not make your employees work more than 8.5 hours a day. Most countries have a work time per day that is defined as "full time" (and usually is between 8 and 9 hours), and that's your work day. I want to redefine that from 8-9 to 6-7 hours. If you work more than this new definition, it's overtime and your boss is (technically) mandated to compensate it, either through extra holidays or money.

So you will then force people, currently, as you say, barely making by, to work less hours, and receive less income. That hardly seems a solution.

[Xelsis]

So they are in competition for employees? When there's near full employment, that's true. But businesses don't need to compete so much for employees when there is considerable unemployment. As I said already, you cannot have it both ways. They can't simultaneously be able to hire whomever they want and be in competition for employees.

Your laws are completely imbecilic.

anti discrimination, minimum wage laws and worker's rights isn't my laws.
Its the laws of the United States, the state laws, and the laws of every first world country.

Sweeden, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Iceland, Italy. None have a minimum wage. Are they third-world countries?

[Savojarna]

But under your system of my wage keeping me barely alive, how exactly will I get time and money to acquire these skills? This is why higher minimum wages would be needed in order to make that system work. Under the status quo, you tell me "you could acquire skills and improve!", but I don't actually get the chance to do so. It's as if you made me do a bike race on an old rusty city bike against someone on a new high-end race bike and tell me "you could have trained for it!".

We happen to have a system of education that provides you free skill-training for some twelve years or so-I would imagine that's a good place to start.

Your proposition of hiking the minimum wage does indeed help some to have a chance to gain better skills-while tossing others, the least-skilled, out of a job entirely, and putting them in an even worse situation.

That's why you don't just hike up minimum wages randomly but accompany it with a decent unemployment security net (and by "decent" I really just mean lowest Western European standards, even though I'd prefer the Scandi understanding of "decent").

About the first part, I assume this is taking place in the USA, in which case: There's a reason why the rest of the world perceives Americans as stupid. Hint: it's a fucked education system for a lot of people. If your education system was good enough to provide everyone, even people from poor areas, with good education, I'd give you that point. But given that all my friends who went to exchange to the US (and were not in the worst schools) came back complaining that they felt like being thrown back three years...

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

But under your system of my wage keeping me barely alive, how exactly will I get time and money to acquire these skills? This is why higher minimum wages would be needed in order to make that system work. Under the status quo, you tell me "you could acquire skills and improve!", but I don't actually get the chance to do so. It's as if you made me do a bike race on an old rusty city bike against someone on a new high-end race bike and tell me "you could have trained for it!".

We happen to have a system of education that provides you free skill-training for some twelve years or so-I would imagine that's a good place to start.

Your proposition of hiking the minimum wage does indeed help some to have a chance to gain better skills-while tossing others, the least-skilled, out of a job entirely, and putting them in an even worse situation.

Your idea assumes that children are born knowing what the right choices are, and are willing to dissatisfy their parents and their friends... and (otherwise) ALWAYS makes the right choices even with the right guidance.
And you assume that people born with disabilities are just as highly functioning as children, as they are later on.

[Savojarna]

There are plans, I just didn't list any because I don't care which one we take. UBI, a Swedish model, Danish/Swiss Flexicurity... make your pick.

Do you want to know something interesting about Denmark, Sweeden, and Switzerland? None of them have a minimum wage at all.

Interesting, no?

In the same way that you are mandated (at least over here, is the US different?) to not make your employees work more than 8.5 hours a day. Most countries have a work time per day that is defined as "full time" (and usually is between 8 and 9 hours), and that's your work day. I want to redefine that from 8-9 to 6-7 hours. If you work more than this new definition, it's overtime and your boss is (technically) mandated to compensate it, either through extra holidays or money.

So you will then force people, currently, as you say, barely making by, to work less hours, and receive less income. That hardly seems a solution.

No, they will receive the same income they receive for 8 hours now for 6 hours afterwards. Hourly wage rises, weekly stays the same.

And you don't need to lecture me about Switzerland, I live there, and you're wrong. There is no federal minimum wage. Multiple cantons have one and most people work in fields with collective agreements, which do include a minimum wage. As far as I know, DK and Sweden work similar.

[Xelsis]

That's why you don't just hike up minimum wages randomly but accompany it with a decent unemployment security net (and by "decent" I really just mean lowest Western European standards, even though I'd prefer the Scandi understanding of "decent").

Because the United States is already twenty trillion dollars in debt, with over a hundred trillion in liabilities from our current security net, and the highest corporate tax rate in the free world.

About the first part, I assume this is taking place in the USA, in which case: There's a reason why the rest of the world perceives Americans as stupid. Hint: it's a fucked education system for a lot of people. If your education system was good enough to provide everyone, even people from poor areas, with good education, I'd give you that point. But given that all my friends who went to exchange to the US (and were not in the worst schools) came back complaining that they felt like being thrown back three years...

A great many Europeans will still cross the pond to come to U.S. colleges-but our lower-level education systems, especially in low-income and high-minority areas, is rather terrible.

Your idea assumes that children are born knowing what the right choices are, and are willing to dissatisfy their parents and their friends... and (otherwise) ALWAYS makes the right choices even with the right guidance.

Er, no, it doesn't.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Do you want to know something interesting about Denmark, Sweeden, and Switzerland? None of them have a minimum wage at all.

Interesting, no?




So you will then force people, currently, as you say, barely making by, to work less hours, and receive less income. That hardly seems a solution.

No, they will receive the same income they receive for 8 hours now for 6 hours afterwards. Hourly wage rises, weekly stays the same.

And you don't need to lecture me about Switzerland, I live there, and you're wrong. There is no federal minimum wage. Multiple cantons have one and most people work in fields with collective agreements, which do include a minimum wage. As far as I know, DK and Sweden work similar.

He doesn't care about that.
His response to that is, "go move to Switzerland".
That's what kind of a freak that you are talking to.
lol

[Xelsis]

No, they will receive the same income they receive for 8 hours now for 6 hours afterwards. Hourly wage rises, weekly stays the same.

You'll then increase the price of labor, reduce employment, and raise the price of goods, a general slash to productivity.

And you don't need to lecture me about Switzerland, I live there, and you're wrong. There is no federal minimum wage. Multiple cantons have one and most people work in fields with collective agreements, which do include a minimum wage. As far as I know, DK and Sweden work similar.

Collective agreements are a far better way to create a minimum wage than federal mandate, as are local minimum wages. I'm aware that many of those nations rely on a bargaining method for a minimum wage-and that is a better method.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

No, they will receive the same income they receive for 8 hours now for 6 hours afterwards. Hourly wage rises, weekly stays the same.

You'll then increase the price of labor, reduce employment, and raise the price of goods.

And you don't need to lecture me about Switzerland, I live there, and you're wrong. There is no federal minimum wage. Multiple cantons have one and most people work in fields with collective agreements, which do include a minimum wage. As far as I know, DK and Sweden work similar.

Collective agreements are a far better way to create a minimum wage than federal mandate, as are local minimum wages. I'm aware that many of those nations rely on a bargaining method for a minimum wage-and that is a better method.

the USA's workers are one of the first world's least well equipped and work in worse working conditions.

[Savojarna]

That's why you don't just hike up minimum wages randomly but accompany it with a decent unemployment security net (and by "decent" I really just mean lowest Western European standards, even though I'd prefer the Scandi understanding of "decent").

Because the United States is already twenty trillion dollars in debt, with over a hundred trillion in liabilities from our current security net, and the highest corporate tax rate in the free world.

About the first part, I assume this is taking place in the USA, in which case: There's a reason why the rest of the world perceives Americans as stupid. Hint: it's a fucked education system for a lot of people. If your education system was good enough to provide everyone, even people from poor areas, with good education, I'd give you that point. But given that all my friends who went to exchange to the US (and were not in the worst schools) came back complaining that they felt like being thrown back three years...

A great many Europeans will still cross the pond to come to U.S. colleges-but our lower-level education systems, especially in low-income and high-minority areas, is rather terrible.

That's my point. If me asking for decent welfare (which you seem to see as completely impossible for the US, even though it works for literally every other developed country) is "not living in the real world", nor is your vision of a good US education system.

Also, how many people from low socio-economic backgrounds go to these colleges a great many Europeans come to? Not even mentioning that quite a few of them just attract many Europeans because the US are seen as "glorious" and "cool" by a lot of Europeans and wouldn't do so if they were in the UK, or Germany, or New Zealand. Finally, the people we talk about here don't typically have (or at least don't need) college education. I'm praising my own country here, but take a look at the Swiss model - that's quite helpful to illustrate what I mean by that last point.

[Xelsis]

You'll then increase the price of labor, reduce employment, and raise the price of goods.




Collective agreements are a far better way to create a minimum wage than federal mandate, as are local minimum wages. I'm aware that many of those nations rely on a bargaining method for a minimum wage-and that is a better method.

the USA's workers are one of the first world's least well equipped and work in worse working conditions.

So perhaps we should follow the example of the Nordic countries and Switzerland and abolish our minimum wage, no?

[Savojarna]

No, they will receive the same income they receive for 8 hours now for 6 hours afterwards. Hourly wage rises, weekly stays the same.

You'll then increase the price of labor, reduce employment, and raise the price of goods, a general slash to productivity.

And you don't need to lecture me about Switzerland, I live there, and you're wrong. There is no federal minimum wage. Multiple cantons have one and most people work in fields with collective agreements, which do include a minimum wage. As far as I know, DK and Sweden work similar.

Collective agreements are a far better way to create a minimum wage than federal mandate, as are local minimum wages. I'm aware that many of those nations rely on a bargaining method for a minimum wage-and that is a better method.

It's also the effect of "focusing on unions", as the OP suggested. Yes, New Britannia then advocated doing it by law, but I am not NB.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

the USA's workers are one of the first world's least well equipped and work in worse working conditions.

So perhaps we should follow the example of the Nordic countries and Switzerland and abolish our minimum wage, no?

They don't have a Minimum wage, they have a living wage.

[Xelsis]

]

That's my point. If me asking for decent welfare (which you seem to see as completely impossible for the US, even though it works for literally every other developed country) is "not living in the real world", nor is your vision of a good US education system.

How so? My vision of a good U.S. educational system is a school-choice based one cutting back on the centralized bureaucracy and union control of the current system, that has so badly screwed with the poorest neighborhoods and schools.

Also, how many people from low socio-economic backgrounds go to these colleges a great many Europeans come to? Not even mentioning that quite a few of them just attract many Europeans because the US are seen as "glorious" and "cool" by a lot of Europeans and wouldn't do so if they were in the UK, or Germany, or New Zealand. Finally, the people we talk about here don't typically have (or at least don't need) college education. I'm praising my own country here, but take a look at the Swiss model - that's quite helpful to illustrate what I mean by that last point.

Few? I don't see your point-when people have the resources, many come here.

The Swiss model is one of the better ones-though aided by several factors that the U.S. doesn't have. Comparing far smaller, less populous, and more homogeneous European nation to the United States is not a 1:1 deal.

You still haven't addressed my point about why we don't create a massive expansion of the welfare system.

[Fireye]

A Dangerous Pit bull - Between FREE and $300 for a Puppy.

Pit bulls are no more dangerous inherently than any other breed.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

A Dangerous Pit bull - Between FREE and $300 for a Puppy.

Pit bulls are no more dangerous inherently than any other breed.

That's bullshit

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

]

How so? My vision of a good U.S. educational system is a school-choice based one cutting back on the centralized bureaucracy and union control of the current system, that has so badly screwed with the poorest neighborhoods and schools.

Few? I don't see your point-when people have the resources, many come here.

The Swiss model is one of the better ones-though aided by several factors that the U.S. doesn't have. Comparing far smaller, less populous, and more homogeneous European nation to the United States is not a 1:1 deal.

You still haven't addressed my point about why we don't create a massive expansion of the welfare system.

The idea that you cant have a system that cares, because some people are black and others white, and some brown and some yellow and some red... is racism.

[Big Jim P]

A Dangerous Pit bull - Between FREE and $300 for a Puppy.

Pit bulls are no more dangerous inherently than any other breed.

They are only dangerous when evil humans train them to be so.

[Xelsis]

]

Few? I don't see your point-when people have the resources, many come here.

The Swiss model is one of the better ones-though aided by several factors that the U.S. doesn't have. Comparing far smaller, less populous, and more homogeneous European nation to the United States is not a 1:1 deal.

You still haven't addressed my point about why we don't create a massive expansion of the welfare system.

The idea that you cant have a system that cares, because some people are black and others white, and some brown... is racism.

We are back to that "What are you talking about?" side of things. The U.S. spends more on welfare per capita than any European country save Norway. The nation is twenty trillion dollars in debt, with a hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities from that welfare coming due, and we already have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world.

What room is there for this massive expansion of the welfare system?

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

Pit bulls are no more dangerous inherently than any other breed.

They are only dangerous when evil humans train them to be so.

They're banned in a lot of European countries because what you said is bullshit.

[The United Republic of New Britannia]

The idea that you cant have a system that cares, because some people are black and others white, and some brown... is racism.

We are back to that "What are you talking about?" side of things. The U.S. spends more on welfare per capita than any European country save Norway. The nation is twenty trillion dollars in debt, with a hundred trillion in unfunded liabilities from that welfare coming due, and we already have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world.

What room is there for this massive expansion of the welfare system?

The reason why the USA spends so much per capita on welfare is because of ideas like yours among business owners.
The USA is forced to provide through taxes.