I have a brilliant idea [Archive]

joft

17 Nov 2006, 05:40 AM

Lurker

17 Nov 2006, 06:23 AM

$7.25? why aim so low? Let's raise it to $100 an hour! Then EVERYONE WILL BE RICH.

*pounds fist*

Hell yeah! Greedy bastards who want a living wage, so they can, oh, eat and pay rent and stuff. Fuck the bastards for trying to cut in on corporate profit margins!

heh 7 bucks even the crappiest jobs net more than that an hour for the most part...ahh the dems...they really understand the people.

Better than you do.

Here, WalMart (not even the crappiest of crap jobs) pays $6 an hour. In small towns, pay at a fast food restaurant is $6 an hour or less. In my state, $7.25 an hour is considered "good pay" for a crappy job. And not everyone is physically able to work a "high paying" crap job like construction or painting (and you know it), so don't bother with that one.

jyakulis

17 Nov 2006, 06:45 AM

what about assembly line work...or manufacturing...you will easily be doing better than minimum wage and it is no more physically taxing than wal mart or fast food...

to me people working at wal mart or at fast food simply aren't looking hard enough for something better... i'm sorry. and in the majority of regions that aren't poverty stricken 7.25 an hour is a god damn joke. shit the people that work in the gas stations in alexandria get health care and a 401k plan and 8-9 dollars an hour.

to me you don't understand the people much. their is a good freakin portion of people that this increase will NEVER effect. just cause it helps you doens't mean it helps 50 or even 75 percent of other people.

also, you assume that construction workers jobs are crap. have you ever considered they like working with their hands and it is what they really enjoy doing? just cause you feel your job is crap and have very little direction doesn't mean that other people who you think are working "crap" jobs think the same about their job as you do.

booyalab

17 Nov 2006, 06:58 AM

have you considered the possibility that raising the minimum wage to reflect the ever-growing cost of living might actually be necessary from time to time? could it be possible that, contrary to the theories of one of school of economic thought, it won't have indirect negative effects that outweigh the benefits?

Michigan raised from 5.15 to 6.90 or something a few weeks ago, and I was working at 5.15, and now I'm getting paid almost $2/hr more, and amazingly, I didn't lose my job. They cut the per-delivery payment a little, also because gas prices have been below $3/gal for a while, but I still make more on average. They also might have to raise their prices a little, but that cost is just passed on to the fat idiots who order and eat pizza anyway, and they didn't stop ordering when they raised the prices in the past.

Yes, the cost will be paid by someone, but those someone's aren't necessarily going to be the ones it's supposed to be benefitting. Pure economic theories don't translate perfectly into the real world, firms aren't obligated to automatically kick out workers because they have to pay them more. in many places, like my own work, it's just not worth lowering the output level just because you have to pay your minimum wage workers more.

if individual people can "suck it up," businesses can too. and it's not like that money is going to disappear off the face of the Earth; it will be going to low-income people, people with extremely low (non-existent) marginal propensities to save, meaning they're going to spend it all.

did you know that the first minimum wage law, the Davis Bacon act of 1931, was passed with racist motivations? White construction workers were tired of black construction workers stealing their jobs away from them by accepting lower wages. Before that decade, every census sine 1890 showed that blacks had the same, or higher, rates of employment as whites. That's not really the case now, is it? Nationwide the unemployment rate for everyone is about 4%. For African Americans it's about 9%.

There's a reason they call economics the "science of common sense". It's one of the few sciences whose principles are readily obvious in the real world to anyone who bothers to look.

Lurker

17 Nov 2006, 07:16 AM

what about assembly line work...or manufacturing...you will easily be doing better than minimum wage and it is no more physically taxing than wal mart or fast food...

It's not more physically taxing than working at Walmart or a fast food place? That's an incredibly ignorant statement. People that work assembly lines may suffer from hearing damage, repetitive motion injuries, swollen feet and ankles, severe back pain...I mean, come on! At WalMart or fast food, you aren't held to a quota. You can move around. You can take a short break if you've been standing too long - without being bullied for holding up production. I've worked at both places as a teenager, and I've known assembly workers with broken down backs and repetitive motion injuries. I challenge you to find a diabetic with high blood pressure who can stand in one place all day, robotically repeating the same motions over and over, hour after hour while constantly being told to "speed it up" - all without suffering agonizing pain and stress.

to me people working at wal mart or at fast food simply aren't looking hard enough for something better... i'm sorry.

The old "blame the victim" routine. Very original. Believe it or not, some people are not capable of getting better jobs.

and in the majority of regions that aren't poverty stricken 7.25 an hour is a god damn joke. shit the people that work in the gas stations in alexandria get health care and a 401k plan and 8-9 dollars an hour.

Yes, $7.25 an hour isn't a living wage, I agree.

Alexandria is a very expensive place to live. Also, just what kind of healthcare do they get? How good are those medical plans, I wonder? Seems to me they are often more a gesture or symbol than any substantial benefit for workers. For instance, most only pay 50% on hospitalization. Do you think a gas station attendant can swing the other 50%?

Since you already admit that $7.25 an hour is a joke, surely $8-9 an hour isn't much better. So, following that logic, how could they keep up their rent, utilites, and food expenses AND pay 50% for hospitalization?

They can't, and hospitals usually end up eating the rest of the bill, which in turn raises health care costs - it's a vicious cycle.

to me you don't understand the people much. their is a good freakin portion of people that this increase will NEVER effect. just cause it helps you doens't mean it helps 50 or even 75 percent of other people.

My motivation isn't self-interest, it's fairness. It doesn't affect me because I already make more than that. This increase will help a lot of people - not everyone already makes $8-9 an hour, that's reality. In rural southern areas, many people make less than $6 an hour, believe it or not. An increase to $7.25 would mean a world of difference to them, even if it's small change to you. Wealth and the value of money is relative.

also, you assume that construction workers jobs are crap. have you ever considered they like working with their hands and it is what they really enjoy doing? just cause you feel your job is crap and have very little direction doesn't mean that other people who you think are working

How do you know how much direction I have? You know nothing about me. Enough with using personal judgements and attacks in an effort to undermine my position.

Sure, if they enjoy it, that's great. I was just anticipating the inevitable "yeah, but!" comeback - which came anyway, only you used assembly workers and manufacturing instead of construction and painting.

Oh well, I couldn't cover all of your counter jobs, could I.

jyakulis

17 Nov 2006, 07:35 AM

It's not more physically taxing than working at Walmart or a fast food place? That's an incredibly ignorant statement. People that work assembly lines may suffer from hearing damage, repetitive motion injuries, swollen feet and ankles, severe back pain...I mean, come on! At WalMart or fast food, you aren't held to a quota. You can move around. You can take a short break if you've been standing too long - without being bullied for holding up production. I've worked at both places as a teenager, and I've known assembly workers with broken down backs and repetitive motion injuries. I challenge you to find a diabetic with high blood pressure who can stand in one place all day, robotically repeating the same motions over and over, hour after hour while constantly being told to "speed it up" - all without suffering agonizing pain and stress.

The old "blame the victim" routine. Very original. Believe it or not, some people are not capable of getting better jobs.

Yes, $7.25 an hour isn't a living wage, I agree.

Alexandria is a very expensive place to live. Also, just what kind of healthcare do they get? How good are those medical plans, I wonder? Seems to me they are often more a gesture or symbol than any substantial benefit for workers. For instance, most only pay 50% on hospitalization. Do you think a gas station attendant can swing the other 50%?

Since you already admit that $7.25 an hour is a joke, surely $8-9 an hour isn't much better. So, following that logic, how could they keep up their rent, utilites, and food expenses AND pay 50% for hospitalization?

They can't, and hospitals usually end up eating the rest of the bill, which in turn raises health care costs - it's a vicious cycle.

My motivation isn't self-interest, it's fairness. It doesn't affect me because I already make more than that. This increase will help a lot of people - not everyone already makes $8-9 an hour, that's reality. In rural southern areas, many people make less than $6 an hour, believe it or not. An increase to $7.25 would mean a world of difference to them, even if it's small change to you. Wealth and the value of money is relative.

passing item after item over a scanner is just as repetitive as drilling screw after screw into a tv set. i've done both too. you have no experience that i don't have. they are both repetitive but managable.

i'm sorry some folk aren't capable of getting something better. i'm going to resort back to the blame game and say that's too damn bad. if they want they can form a strong union to fight for their rights or what have you. but to me it needs to be done by them and not be handed to them by the government.

not everyone makes 8-9 dollars an hour but a very large percentage do.

hospitals will eat the bills? since when????? i wish i knew that when my mother went into the hospital for an acute episode of schizophrenia which completely ate up my fathers retirement savings. wow they just take it in the ass and decide not to charge you any money?!??!!? this is all news to mE!!!! DO TELL!

Lurker

17 Nov 2006, 08:15 AM

passing item after item over a scanner is just as repetitive as drilling screw after screw into a tv set. i've done both too. you have no experience that i don't have. they are both repetitive but managable.

No, it's not. You get breaks in between customers and it's not as fast paced.

i'm sorry some folk aren't capable of getting something better. i'm going to resort back to the blame game and say that's too damn bad. if they want they can form a strong union to fight for their rights or what have you. but to me it needs to be done by them and not be handed to them by the government.

No, you aren't at all sorry. You resent the help they already get from the government - quit pretending and be honest.

Let me ask you: What do you get from the government? Did you go to a public school? Do you use government financed infrastructure? Ever borrow a book from a public library? Enjoy a public park? Ever had a Pell Grant or other form of "welfare?" If so, then stop taking government handouts! :rolleyes:

hospitals will eat the bills? since when????? i wish i knew that when my mother went into the hospital for an acute episode of schizophrenia which completely ate up my fathers retirement savings. wow they just take it in the ass and decide not to charge you any money?!??!!? this is all news to mE!!!! DO TELL!

Cry me a river. Why should I feel sympathy for your situation when you can't feel sympathy for anyone whose plight you can't relate to or understand.

Sure, they will badger you for money forever. But, in the end, if no one pays up, what happens? Like I said, they will eat the bill and lose money.

jyakulis

17 Nov 2006, 08:48 AM

No, it's not. You get breaks in between customers and it's not as fast paced.

No, you aren't at all sorry. You resent the help they already get from the government - quit pretending and be honest.

Let me ask you: What do you get from the government? Did you go to a public school? Do you use government financed infrastructure? Ever borrow a book from a public library? Enjoy a public park? Ever had a Pell Grant or other form of "welfare?" If so, then stop taking government handouts! :rolleyes:

Cry me a river. Why should I feel sympathy for your situation when you can't feel sympathy for anyone whose plight you can't relate to or understand.

Sure, they will badger you for money forever. But, in the end, if no one pays up, what happens? Like I said, they will eat the bill and lose money.

item one: he said she said. there is no basis for this you think one thing i think another. you can and will not convince me differently. again i've done both. during busy hours a cashier can even be worse than assembly line work.

what you are stating examples of is things anyone can enjoy. do i see any pay raises under a minimum wage hike? No....if anything i see some of my stocks drop. in fact probably more people see a drop in their stocks than actually see a pay increase. ( no proof here tho pure speculation)

have you ever heard of credit. it's a something having to do with payment of bills amongst other things....i'm just baffled at your response. i guess if you never want to rent an apartment buy a car get any form of credit card then not paying your hospital bill will be OK!!!!

Lurker

17 Nov 2006, 09:09 AM

item one: he said she said. there is no basis for this you think one thing i think another. you can and will not convince me differently. again i've done both. during busy hours a cashier can even be worse than assembly line work.

Yep, there's obviously no common ground to be found here. Different companies, different people. However, I will allow that being a cashier can be hard, non-stop work at times. Can you allow that assembly line work can be a terrible experience for certain people, specifically physically disabled people?

what you are stating examples of is things anyone can enjoy. do i see any pay raises under a minimum wage hike? No....if anything i see some of my stocks drop. in fact probably more people see a drop in their stocks than actually see a pay increase. ( no proof here tho pure speculation)

And here we come to the root of your anger: self-interest and greed. You are concerned about losing money in your stock investments. You say that will affect more people than a minimum wage increase, which you admit is pure speculation. So, it doesn't sound as if you are scrounging at the lowest level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, right? I mean, you have investments, so you are looking to increase your wealth so you can hit the top of the triangle and lead a good, comfortable, maybe even luxurious life. However, in terms of priorities, what comes first? I believe that everyone's basic needs should be met before anyone should be able to amass obscene wealth (not saying that you are). Huge discrepancies in wealth lead to resentment, hatred, crime, and gross inequality, and that is inhumane and illogical. A system like that will never be at peace. You may have plenty of money one day, but you will always have to watch your back, too. (Not saying that a minimum wage increase will change this - I'm talking big picture here)

At any rate, you may suffer a decrease in investment earnings. Your position is very biased for this reason.

have you ever heard of credit. it's a something having to do with payment of bills amongst other things....i'm just baffled at your response. i guess if you never want to rent an apartment buy a car get any form of credit card then not paying your hospital bill will be OK!!!!

I never said not paying a hospital bill was ok. In fact, I implicitly stated the opposite - that it is a problem built into our system by paying extremely low wages to certain people, thus hindering them from paying their bills, thus passing the higher costs to you in the long run.

jyakulis

17 Nov 2006, 09:11 AM

Yep, there's obviously no common ground to be found here. Different companies, different people. However, I will allow that being a cashier can be hard, non-stop work at times. Can you allow that assembly line work can be a terrible experience for certain people, specifically physically disabled people?

And here we come to the root of your anger: self-interest and greed. You are concerned about losing money in your stock investments. You say that will affect more people than a minimum wage increase, which you admit is pure speculation. So, it doesn't sound as if you are scrounging at the lowest level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, right? I mean, you have investments, so you are looking to increase your wealth so you can hit the top of the triangle and lead a good, comfortable, maybe even luxurious life. However, in terms of priorities, what comes first? I believe that everyone's basic needs should be met before anyone should be able to amass obscene wealth (not saying that you are). Huge discrepancies in wealth lead to resentment, hatred, crime, and gross inequality, and that is inhumane and illogical. A system like that will never be at peace. You may have plenty of money one day, but you will always have to watch your back, too. (Not saying that a minimum wage increase will change this - I'm talking big picture here)

At any rate, you may suffer a decrease in investment earnings. Your position is very biased for this reason.

I never said not paying a hospital bill was ok. In fact, I implicitly stated the opposite - that it is a problem built into our system by paying extremely low wages to certain people, thus hindering them from paying their bills, thus passing the higher costs to you in the long run.

the thing is dude... i have no stock...i own nothing of the sort. i am just trying to see it from a majority vs minority is all.

Lurker

17 Nov 2006, 09:14 AM

the thing is dude... i have no stock...i own nothing of the sort. i am just trying to see it from a majority vs minority is all.

:sadbanana: You mean I wrote all that for nothing? Damn you!

jyakulis

17 Nov 2006, 09:27 AM

:sadbanana: You mean I wrote all that for nothing? Damn you!

:wub:

Hustler

17 Nov 2006, 09:42 AM

the thing is dude... i have no stock...i own nothing of the sort. i am just trying to see it from a majority vs minority is all.
I have stock. I expect a minimum wage increase will cause it to rise more over the long term than keeping the minimum wage at the same level would.

macr0

17 Nov 2006, 02:57 PM

You gotta raise the minimum wage so you can collect more taxes.

Conan

17 Nov 2006, 03:03 PM

The strongest argument against raising the mimimum wage is that it hurts the low-wage workers more than it helps them (not to mention, price floors/ceiling increase overall inefficiency). Raising the minimum wage raises the marginal cost of labor. This gives profit-maximizing firms incentive to cut back on employment where the marginal product of labor is less than its marginal cost. The reduction in labor demand leads to increased unemployment. Sure some people will be paid more, but there will also be less available jobs overall.

I'm not sure about the validity of this argument in reality but in theory this is what would happen.

dubbeltop

17 Nov 2006, 03:17 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/16/minimum.wage.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

$7.25? why aim so low? Let's raise it to $100 an hour! Then EVERYONE WILL BE RICH.

Milton Friedman died and look what happens everybody thinks they are a genius :referee:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1749

Instead they should lower the salary in the executive rooms with $100 an hour and give free beers to all workers......

TIPTOP **Actually in a Dutch poll 60% of all workers considers good coffee an essential part of their work......?!!!*** :huh:

rainfall

17 Nov 2006, 03:51 PM

also, you assume that construction workers jobs are crap. have you ever considered they like working with their hands and it is what they really enjoy doing? just cause you feel your job is crap and have very little direction doesn't mean that other people who you think are working "crap" jobs think the same about their job as you do.

I've worked in construction for about two years.

It's a bad job.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are definitely positive aspects to it, such as decent pay. Also, I really felt like I've done something, like I really earned my money. You kinda feel proud by the end of the day. Also, when I pass by the place I've helped build/fix, and I see families living there, it just feels like I've done something.

But the negative aspects of the job...

For starters, it's a demanding physical labour. You quite often get sick because of the strain the job is putting on you.

Contracts are often job based - a set amount of money is payed when a job is done, not based on amount of time. Which means, it is us construction drones that are heavily pressured to work overtime, on holidays and weekends. Sometimes it's crazy - after working few weeks/months 6 days a week, or even 7 days a week, you start dreaming about construction every night, you quite honestly are building houses during sleep. It's a delirium, sometimes you realise you only thought you've done something, and you remember doing it, when you realise that you've only dreamt you did it. You can't help but to drink or sleep excessively to loosen up when it gets nuts like that.

Then, it's a friggin dangerous job. I've slipped off a roof once, thank god I had my harness on that time - we don't always wear it... Plywood is a treacherous skank - it bounces - and I had a co-worker's nail bounce off into my eye once... I really thought I was done for ... But thankfully it was not serious. Rooftops are icy sometimes. Sometimes scaffolding is done by lowest bidder, and it's f@#$@!$ hell walking on half assed boards with nails sticking out everywhere. When it's raining, your hands are always cold... You get sick so much...

Also, have you seen the guys who've been in construction their whole life? They're 40, they look like they're 60 !!! I don't wanna be like that when I'm 40.

htb

17 Nov 2006, 04:21 PM

Any arbitrary increase in labor costs will immediately result in less profitability, and the most direct solution is a circumscription or reduction of employment. Ethical justifications belie the small number of sole household providers in the American workforce who receive minimum wage; pay scales are simply shifted upward. At best, raising the minimum wage is cosmetic populism and at worst, an economic impediment delivered with collectivist condescension.

Conan

17 Nov 2006, 04:26 PM

macr0

17 Nov 2006, 04:29 PM

joft

17 Nov 2006, 04:35 PM

why should sole household providers set the standard? the point is, the cost of everything is always rising, and minimum wage should reflect that. should we never raise it, and keep it at 5.15, even decades in the future when 5.15 is the cost of a single can of soda?

in michigan many employers raised the wages of their workers who were making above minimum wage just to keep them relatively higher. and the economy here sucks, but they still did that. don't act like businesses can't afford it, that's bullshit. they've been raising the prices of everything else all along to match inflation, some of them just haven't voluntarily paid any of their minimum-wage workers more because they're assholes.

does anyone seriously think a graph of 2 variables with a couple lines across it will predict everyone's behavior with absolute certainty? the real world is a complex place with far many more factors to account for. for example, i imagine many minimum wage positions are in places where the managers know the workers personally, such as fast-food chains and so on. those managers are looking at numbers that only account for costs and profits and wages, but they're also human beings who most likely don't want to have to tell someone "we're gonna have to let you go because we can't afford to pay you $7/hr instead of $5/hr". most likely, if they're like the managers i've known, they're always trying to build a sense of teamwork and all that BS because they think it leads to more productivity.

btw, my work place actually hired more drivers after the minimum wage increase.

htb

17 Nov 2006, 04:44 PM

No one will work for a can of soda per hour, Joft. And unless he could operate outside of competition, no employer would try to find someone who might.

joft

17 Nov 2006, 04:57 PM

then what's wrong with changing the law? a wage floor is only effective if it's above what people are currently paying, and according to you nobody would work for that little so apparently nobody is paying that- apparently the natural forces of market competition have made them pay more... if that was true, then why would raising the minimum wage matter? if that's not true, then your special magical market forces have failed whoever it's not true for (me, for one). unless you're trying to make the point that the current wage floor is effective but won't be by the time inflation has risen enough that a can of soda will cost $5, and i'd like to see you to take that up with the people who are still making 5.15 an hour. in 1968 the national minimum wage was $1.60/hr, which is $9.12/hr in 2005 dollars. even though it was raised to $5.15 since then, if you account for inflation it's actually decreased by almost 30%.

sbw

17 Nov 2006, 04:58 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/16/minimum.wage.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

$7.25? why aim so low? Let's raise it to $100 an hour! Then EVERYONE WILL BE RICH.

:wub:

Scott

joft

17 Nov 2006, 05:01 PM

i find it typical that the OP uses the slippery slope argument. i'm sure legalizing gay marriage would also lead to mass inter-species orgies

FranG

17 Nov 2006, 05:08 PM

Give the wealth back to the people. You shouldn't be allowed to accumulate more money than you can actually spend in your lifetime while people are starving. That's criminal.

htb

17 Nov 2006, 05:12 PM

My point, Joft, is that I trust the market to instruct, motivate, or force employers to pay employees for what work is worth.

If I felt I were not making enough, I would hold myself accountable.

in 1968 the national minimum wage was $1.60/hr, which is $9.12/hr in 2005 dollars. even though it was raised to $5.15 since then, if you account for inflation it's actually decreased by almost 30%.Consider that labor compensated at the 1968 minimum might have been overvalued.

joft

17 Nov 2006, 05:35 PM

you trust the market? wow. i don't know how to reply to that.

you would hold yourself accountable? but of course, you're an INFJ. now i have to ask myself, why did i try to reason with you to begin with... :think:

sbw

17 Nov 2006, 05:43 PM

shitty wages are an incentive to acquire better job skills so as to make oneself more valuable to potential employers.

and, joft...the primary reason that "things cost more all the time" is because the fed is a buncha retards...but arbitrarily making the least valuable of the workers 'more valuable' has to contribute to the trend, no?

Scott

Conan

17 Nov 2006, 05:46 PM

and, joft...the primary reason that "things cost more all the time" is because the fed is a buncha retards...
Scott

Not really, the Fed's decision-making has been quite good since Greenspan came around. Inflation serves an important role in the economy. As long as it's limited and predictable, a certain amount of inflation a good thing. Inflation volatility, now thats a problem. But I agree, setting price floors/ceilings at least in theory doesn't make economic sense.

demagogic_schizoid

17 Nov 2006, 06:46 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/td/2006/td060930.gif

Lurker

17 Nov 2006, 07:08 PM

My point, Joft, is that I trust the market to instruct, motivate, or force employers to pay employees for what work is worth.

Like Joft, this blows me away. I wonder if you would say this had you lived in the 1930s. Government intervention is necessary to hold employers accountable; otherwise, they would be happy paying low-level employees next to nothing at all and keeping the majority of the profit for themselves. Unions aren't that effective anymore - the govenment can end strikes - plus, there are immigrants who are exploited because they are willing to work for next to nothing.

If I felt I were not making enough, I would hold myself accountable.

A fine credo, but would you say this if you were not as able as you obviously are? I believe you are comfortable with this stance because you are secure in the knowledge that you can make more money and secure a better job.

*broken record*

Not everyone is capable. What should be done with these people? If they work full time, do they deserve enough money to survive for their efforts?

demagogic_schizoid

17 Nov 2006, 07:35 PM

My point, Joft, is that I trust the market to instruct, motivate, or force employers to pay employees for what work is worth.

If employers payed employees what their work is worth, how would employers make a profit? You don't get something for nothing do you - if someone is making a profit, then someone else must be losing out somewhere along the line.

Conan

17 Nov 2006, 07:45 PM

If employers payed employees what their work is worth, how would employers make a profit?

I know this is basic economics but a better way to think of it is employers hire workers when the benefit of the labor exceeds its cost.

On the other hand, a laborer takes a job when the benefit (utility) of the work exceeds its cost (including the opportunity cost of a better paying job, cost of consuming leisure, etc...).

This labor market is a market. Thats the way markets work. The value of something is determined not only by how it benefits the buyer, but also by the willingness to sell (supply labor) by the sellers. So essentially, yes, in the free market, the employers are paying the employees exactly what they are worth.

htb

17 Nov 2006, 07:50 PM

Government intervention is necessary to hold employers accountableOutside of monopolies or strong oligopolies, competition is all that is necessary. Relocation, change of career and self-employment are more viable alternatives to unsatisfactory work than ever before, and government had little to do with that. Regulation, for its part, is often used for political leverage.

Not everyone is capable.That's nonsense, representative only if believed. Few people are likely to succeed in enterprise, but relative self-improvement is only a matter of motivation, diligence and paying no attention to assertions that one is helpless without the state.

Lurker

17 Nov 2006, 09:38 PM

Outside of monopolies or strong oligopolies, competition is all that is necessary. Relocation, change of career and self-employment are more viable alternatives to unsatisfactory work than ever before, and government had little to do with that. Regulation, for its part, is often used for political leverage.

You're going to have to back this up somehow, because simply saying it isn't enough. Give me something more than a very bold, sweeping statement on the way you believe a capitalist democracy works. While you're at it, define what "capitalist democracy" means to you. Chances are, I have a different definition.

That's nonsense, representative only if believed. Few people are likely to succeed in enterprise, but relative self-improvement is only a matter of motivation, diligence and paying no attention to assertions that one is helpless without the state.

Really? It's just nonsense? You have simplified self-improvement to motivation, diligence, and basically believing in yourself. That sounds very idealistic to me; yeah, it looks good on paper, but how does that really work out? You admit that it's relative to the individual's capacity (I think), yet you still assume that everyone has the ability to thrive in a completely unhindered capitalist society. Can you illustrate a few examples where this might not work?

Also, what about fixed constraints that one individual cannot change?

htb

18 Nov 2006, 12:14 AM

You're going to have to back this up somehow, because simply saying it isn't enough.The burden of proof is on your own claim. Contact a dozen business owners whose unskilled labor is paid above minimums and ask them why they don't simply drop the lowest offered wage to the floor. Hint: it isn't because of the law.

Can you illustrate a few examples where this might not work? Support your own argument. Start by refuting the existence of things like raises and promotions, transfers and night school; and finish by justifying rewarding the unproductive.

That sounds very idealistic to meMyers-Briggs retreats are silly. Your Ti has perfectly organized an inaccurate Ne impression, giving you a solid argument for use in Wonderland. Look, I can do it, too!

indie

18 Nov 2006, 12:54 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/16/minimum.wage.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

$7.25? why aim so low? Let's raise it to $100 an hour! Then EVERYONE WILL BE RICH.

Oh, because my dearie, you're one of the snootish white elite concubines.

Obviously you're a product of shallowness combined with perceived and wanna-be richness. . . otherwise, you'd not be Republican. But answer this question, please: how much education do you have?

I have a master's degree (going on Ph.D.) level of education, and yet because I refuse to give into or to work for these asshole white elites, I cannot get paid. That's right, I've got 19+ years of formal education (far more than you could possibly have at your age) and yet, I should somehow be forced or resigned to work for this depriving wage of $2.xx per hour!?

I think not. . . you mock a "minimum wage" because it threatens your livelihood and because you know people more intelligent than you are able to threaten you personally, vis-a-vis for something like intelligence more than beauty. Get a life! People (young people) may be getting more superficially 'attractive' overall, but they sure as hell aren't getting any more intelligent. . . Only more VAIN, as your parade of picture-show "look at me I'm booya" has shown.

Show me a Republican who has ever worked for minimum wage (paystubs necessary evidence) and maybe we can talk.

Ferrus

18 Nov 2006, 01:06 AM

It's one of the few sciences whose principles are readily obvious in the real world to anyone who bothers to look.
Ever studied econometrics?

Hustler

18 Nov 2006, 01:18 AM

shitty wages are an incentive to acquire better job skills so as to make oneself more valuable to potential employers.

Or they are an incentive to go into a life of crime. You can turn this argument on its head and say that an increase in wage is an incentive to get employers to use their resources more efficiently and to invest more in technology. Maybe that technology is ultimately used to do jobs that people were doing, but so what? I'm all for advances in technology.

Las Vegas is a very interesting case study in a lot of these areas. First, for a city of its size, it has a remarkably low crime rate, trailing well behind demographically similar cities like Dallas or Phoenix. The most generally accepted theory (by people who think about these things) is that the presence of so many relatively high-paying jobs for unskilled laborers is what keeps it safe. It is simply not worth it for a guy to go out and commit a crime which jeopardizes his freedom and ability to make a living when he is making $15/hour at a job which would either doesn't exist anywhere else or which would pay a lower rate anywhere else. Somewhere else, it would be, because he's only making $7/hour or maybe just can't find work at all. An acquaintance of mine is a bartender at a casino. Casinos have among the highest profit margins of any companies in America. He gets paid $17/hour + tips + insurance benefits. I defy you to find me another place in the country where bartenders get that kind of hourly rate and benefits from their employers on top of their tips. Most places, bartenders are paid at or below minimum wage by their employers, with tips compensating so that the wage still ends up being decent. It doesn't seem to hurt the casinos' ability to earn to have stable, happy employees. Maybe it's getting taken from someone in upper or lower management to compensate, but the point is that all the people at the bottom are being paid well and the casinos are making a killing, year after year. This is just an interesting counterexample to prevailing theory. Take it for what it's worth.

My reason for supporting a hike in the minimum wage is one of general economic health. Because we don't live in a free market, and because criminal activities are part of the "market" in America, arguments that the market will right itself are not valid. Perhaps they will be someday. For the time being, I would prefer to see money dispersed a little more evenly to promote more economic activity and less stagnation. When someone accumulates a fortune and it just sits there, it does nothing for the rest of us. When a bunch of people get a little more money, it gives these people more opportunities to exercise ingenuity and contribute more to society. People can save in order to start new businesses and create entire new areas of the market which didn't even exist before. With this comes more technological development, and an improvement of the human existence across the board, getting us ever close to the point where technology relieves us of things like poverty and scarcity of basic resources. This sparks more economic growth, and my stocks keep going up as the health of the economy stays on the rise. This is, of course, just a theory (as with nearly everything in economics), but it fits with my worldview that in general change > stagnation.

sbw

18 Nov 2006, 01:40 AM

Oh, because my dearie, you're one of the snootish white elite concubines.

Obviously you're a product of shallowness combined with perceived and wanna-be richness. . . otherwise, you'd not be Republican. But answer this question, please: how much education do you have?

I have a master's degree (going on Ph.D.) level of education, and yet because I refuse to give into or to work for these asshole white elites, I cannot get paid. That's right, I've got 19+ years of formal education (far more than you could possibly have at your age) and yet, I should somehow be forced or resigned to work for this depriving wage of $2.xx per hour!?

I think not. . . you mock a "minimum wage" because it threatens your livelihood and because you know people more intelligent than you are able to threaten you personally, vis-a-vis for something like intelligence more than beauty. Get a life! People (young people) may be getting more superficially 'attractive' overall, but they sure as hell aren't getting any more intelligent. . . Only more VAIN, as your parade of picture-show "look at me I'm booya" has shown.

Show me a Republican who has ever worked for minimum wage (paystubs necessary evidence) and maybe we can talk.

umm, I'm a libertarian....which is what republicans used to be...and I worked for minimum wage. in high school. like everyone else.

if you can't make bank with a masters then you deserve your misery.

Scott

edit: I just re-read the thing I quoted; you're a bitch on top of being massively ignorant. you should apologize to boo.

sbw

18 Nov 2006, 01:48 AM

Or they are an incentive to go into a life of crime.

word! now that is a worthwhile counter-argument, even though I'm still generally on booya's side here, as denoted by a :wub: earlier.

Las Vegas is a very interesting case study in a lot of these areas. First, for a city of its size, it has a remarkably low crime rate, trailing well behind demographically similar cities like Dallas or Phoenix. The most generally accepted theory (by people who think about these things) is that the presence of so many relatively high-paying jobs for unskilled laborers is what keeps it safe. It is simply not worth it for a guy to go out and commit a crime which jeopardizes his freedom and ability to make a living when he is making $15/hour at a job which would either doesn't exist anywhere else or which would pay a lower rate anywhere else. Somewhere else, it would be, because he's only making $7/hour or maybe just can't find work at all. An acquaintance of mine is a bartender at a casino. Casinos have among the highest profit margins of any companies in America. He gets paid $17/hour + tips + insurance benefits. I defy you to find me another place in the country where bartenders get that kind of hourly rate and benefits from their employers on top of their tips. Most places, bartenders are paid at or below minimum wage by their employers, with tips compensating so that the wage still ends up being decent. It doesn't seem to hurt the casinos' ability to earn to have stable, happy employees. Maybe it's getting taken from someone in upper or lower management to compensate, but the point is that all the people at the bottom are being paid well and the casinos are making a killing, year after year. This is just an interesting counterexample to prevailing theory. Take it for what it's worth.

vegas has a few variables which don't apply elsewhere...but servers and bag sluts fucking rake where I live. which also benefits from some variables which don't exist elsewhere. poor people, move to south florida or vegas, for chrissakes! thats what my parents did; I was very fortunate. I might be selling snowblowers and drinking scotch in the morning right now if they hadnt taken advantage of the opportunities presented by the market...even if its not as "free" as is desirable, as hustler points out below.

My reason for supporting a hike in the minimum wage is one of general economic health. Because we don't live in a free market, and because criminal activities are part of the "market" in America, arguments that the market will right itself are not valid. Perhaps they will be someday. For the time being, I would prefer to see money dispersed a little more evenly to promote more economic activity and less stagnation. When someone accumulates a fortune and it just sits there, it does nothing for the rest of us. When a bunch of people get a little more money, it gives these people more opportunities to exercise ingenuity and contribute more to society. People can save in order to start new businesses and create entire new areas of the market which didn't even exist before. With this comes more technological development, and an improvement of the human existence across the board, getting us ever close to the point where technology relieves us of things like poverty and scarcity of basic resources. This sparks more economic growth, and my stocks keep going up as the health of the economy stays on the rise. This is, of course, just a theory (as with nearly everything in economics), but it fits with my worldview that in general change > stagnation.

so you think we're not totally fucked?

Scott

Hustler

18 Nov 2006, 01:52 AM

so you think we're not totally fucked?

If someone as great as me can exist, and I'm not even the best of the best, how could humanity possibly be fucked? That's just needlessly pessimistic.

demagogic_schizoid

18 Nov 2006, 03:29 AM

I know this is basic economics but a better way to think of it is employers hire workers when the benefit of the labor exceeds its cost.

On the other hand, a laborer takes a job when the benefit (utility) of the work exceeds its cost (including the opportunity cost of a better paying job, cost of consuming leisure, etc...).

This labor market is a market. Thats the way markets work. The value of something is determined not only by how it benefits the buyer, but also by the willingness to sell (supply labor) by the sellers. So essentially, yes, in the free market, the employers are paying the employees exactly what they are worth.

That only works if you believe that the employers meet the employees on equal terms, even though one owns the means of production and one doesn't.

Stoic

18 Nov 2006, 03:33 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/16/minimum.wage.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

$7.25? why aim so low? Let's raise it to $100 an hour! Then EVERYONE WILL BE RICH.

I don't think you have a real point. When we raise the min. wage, the people at the top of the food chain will have a little less, while the middle and bottom feeders will have more.

It makes sense, and it hasn't been raised in so long.

sbw

18 Nov 2006, 03:46 AM

If someone as great as me can exist, and I'm not even the best of the best, how could humanity possibly be fucked? That's just needlessly pessimistic.

:lol:

actually, I meant "the united states as predominant economic power" rather than "humanity." but your bravado is appreciated.

Scott

Lurker

18 Nov 2006, 05:38 AM

The burden of proof is on your own claim. Contact a dozen business owners whose unskilled labor is paid above minimums and ask them why they don't simply drop the lowest offered wage to the floor. Hint: it isn't because of the law.

Yeah, I'll get right on that and report back to you in a week. As if I would consult a frigging business owner and expect them to tell me the truth anyway. :rolleyes: But at any rate, here's a single case study for you (although my position is not as extreme as yours, so it certainly seems like most of the onus is on you)...Ok, here goes. Ever heard of being paid "under the table?" Why on earth would a legitimate business do that? To avoid the minimum wage, among other reasons (taxes, insurance, etc.) So, anyway, there was a Mom and Pop's business in a small town where I live called Nana's Restaurant. This is exactly what they did: paid $5 an hour, under the table. Keep in mind this is a very small town, and there are few employers in the area. I am friends with an individual who does not have a car because hers blew up - see, she did the good all-American work hard and save thing, only to have a dealership rip her off. Whatever. At any rate, this is the only employer within walking distance, so she worked there for shit wages. The business was going bankrupt, but they didn't tell her until the day before they closed. So, now, she is out of a job. No bus systems, mind you. Before you say that all she needs to do is move to a more populous area, think twice. It takes money to move, and she needs to use her measly $300 to eat and support her son. So, are you going to tell me that it's all her fault because she didn't make the "right" decisions in the first place? Don't bother, really. She has severe epilepsy which has made it very hard for her to work at all. Her life has been a series of misfortunes - yes, out of her control! - so she was never able to go to college or start a business. The best way for her to make money is to sell drugs, because believe me, that's a sure fire way to make money in a small, dead town with a lot of bored teens and twenty-somethings. If she goes for it, she could make more money in two days than she made slaving away for her corrupt employers for a week.

Now, sure, you're going to try to pin the blame on her for her shitty situation, but don't bother because I won't hear you. I know the circumstances that got her where she is, and you don't.

So, let's hear it for a free market, unhampered by any of those pesky govenment laws. Give me a reason. Apparently, it's the best system, and anyone can thrive under it with diligence and hard work. I want some examples out of you to support your extreme claim. After all, it sounds like you're more right wing than most Republicans! The government should not have intervened in the Depression, according to your crackpot statement.

Start backing up your extreme generalizations with examples, statistics, something, or simply shut up and bow out of this discussion.

Support your own argument. Start by refuting the existence of things like raises and promotions, transfers and night school; and finish by justifying rewarding the unproductive.

The devil is in the details. Sure, these things exist, but are they accessible to everyone? What about those people who go to night school, work during the day, graduate, and still can't find work? Or do these situations even exist to you?

Rewarding? Fucking rewarding? Do you believe that all human beings have the right to be compensated fairly for their work? If an individual works 40 hours a week, they should have a living wage. Period. They should be able to eat, pay rent, utilities, hell, maybe even buy some clothing! Human rights, dear. Check into it. Even $7.25 an hour isn't a living wage, yet you would deny them even that, saying that it's their own fault they aren't doing better. Get off your self righteous, narrow minded high horse. Obviously, you are doing quite well for yourself because circumstances allowed you to. You have an able body, a good mind, probably didn't come from a dirt poor family...what about people who aren't able to work anything but shit jobs? What about them? What do they deserve?

Funny how no one will answer this question.

Answer my questions, or don't flood the thread with your useless idealized generalizations. With a position as extreme as yours, you better back it up. A lot.

Myers-Briggs retreats are silly. Your Ti has perfectly organized an inaccurate Ne impression, giving you a solid argument for use in Wonderland. Look, I can do it, too!

I didn't take that route - anyone can make an idealized statement, right? I didn't know they were restricted by MBTI type.

So, I've put more effort and thought into this single post than you have given all of your posts in this thread put together. Quit throwing a bunch of thesis sentences out and actually back one of them up for a change.

In...TP

18 Nov 2006, 05:43 AM

The death knell of penny

Lurker

18 Nov 2006, 05:58 AM

if you can't make bank with a masters then you deserve your misery.

Scott

edit: I just re-read the thing I quoted; you're a bitch on top of being massively ignorant. you should apologize to boo.

Actually, her post was dead on. No one deserves to scrounge for the bare essentials of life. I believe in basic human rights - in my definition, that includes food, decent shelter, clothing, good health care, and money for contingencies.

And no, she's not a bitch. I think it's a lot more "bitchy" to deny people fair compensation for their labor in order to keep all the money at the top. Face it, that's what this boils down to - keeping more money for the wealthy, because they are inherently "more deserving" than the lower class. At least be honest about it.

jittus rye

18 Nov 2006, 06:54 AM

I'm anti raising of the minimum wage. Yeah, I know people like be able to work for a living wage, but if they really wanted to, they could 'kill themselves' by working a harder job that pays more money, or work more than 40 hours a week.

One of the bothersome things about raising the minimum wage is that the difference is more significant to the person who had a job decently above the minimum wage, feeling a bit good about themselves and making a little bit of money, since that's all they know how to do, or can currently do. Now that person's value is being undercut and their wage will not adjust to compensate for this. Ideally a minimum wage might express an 'innate value of labor (or clocked in time),' therefore raising it decreases the value of work that was just above minimum wage previously (which I've now stated twice).

That pisses me off.

To compensate for under the table foolery, I propose the death penalty for tax evasion, and the elimination of paper currency. I hate people that pay under the table, they deserve nothing but death.

Although I'm for a variety of economic changes as well.

indie

18 Nov 2006, 10:37 AM

umm, I'm a libertarian....which is what republicans used to be...and I worked for minimum wage. in high school. like everyone else.

if you can't make bank with a masters then you deserve your misery.

Scott

edit: I just re-read the thing I quoted; you're a bitch on top of being massively ignorant. you should apologize to boo.

You talk too soon, my friend; believe it or not, I'm libertarian, too. (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=449717&postcount=44) The difference, I think, is that you're a dude and I am a chick.

I think if a minimum wage had never been initiated, that would be ideal, but guess what, it was.

And *because* it was we have this massive gap between the rich and the poor, especially between men and women. Nowhere is this more obvious to me than here, in Utah, where I'm surrounded by idiot Republicans.

Oh, look at you 'lil sweet thing, answer this here telephone, refill this here drink, vacuum this here floor, that's right, we pay ya a whole 50 cents more than the minimum wage! That's a real good deal, sweetie, a real good deal.

As for you calling me a "bitch" thanks. . . I'll take it as a compliment that you can't come up with any actual factual reason to refute my arguments; that you resort to ad hominem and profanities and such is quite humorous. :wahmbulance:

I'm ethical. I'm an advocate. I fight the good fight and I do not endorse lazy white dudes being lazy white dudes.

Actually, her post was dead on. No one deserves to scrounge for the bare essentials of life. I believe in basic human rights - in my definition, that includes food, decent shelter, clothing, good health care, and money for contingencies.

And no, she's not a bitch. I think it's a lot more "bitchy" to deny people fair compensation for their labor in order to keep all the money at the top. Face it, that's what this boils down to - keeping more money for the wealthy, because they are inherently "more deserving" than the lower class. At least be honest about it.

Well, I don't entirely agree with you, but thanks for sticking up for me! And hey, isn't it interesting, this FACT (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71153-0.html?tw=rss.technology) that we in the US have a class of educated, techno-savvy homeless people!

The article discusses people who are homeless, but who have email addresses.

Here is a fact:

"More [homeless people] have e-mail than have post office boxes," Stoops said. "The internet has been a big boon to the homeless."

Okay, so what does this imply? These people are homeless. . . um, why? People who can operate computers and check email and who are obviously literate are homeless . . . why? Like me, they just "deserve their misery," eh, Scott?

I think not. They're homeless because the people at the "top of the food chain" (wealthy Republicans and real estate agents) bitch and moan because they have to pay people *something* to do work they're not willing to do.

Oh, look at you 'lil sweet thing, answer this here telephone, refill this here drink, vacuum this here floor, that's right, we pay ya a whole 50 cents more than the minimum wage! That's a real good deal, sweetie, a real good deal.

When there's no standard of minimum wage, this "something" is a fair and equitable "market standard," a competitive market wage with no bottom and no limit. If nobody is willing to vacuum a floor, for the person who is willing and able, that person's time should, technically, be just as or more valuable than a $600K executives' time (he who is not willing). Do you disagree?

But when there IS a standard of minimum wage, this "something" is neither fair nor equitable, a totally indecent "market standard," a non-competitive wage that makes it almost impossible for a person to survive. I know; I've worked for minimum wage *after* high school. . .. That's right, Scott/sbw. . . most people in University have to work for minimum wage *while* in University. Take an ethics course. Work for minimum wage for 4-6 months. See what it's like on the other side.

sbw

18 Nov 2006, 02:14 PM

But when there IS a standard of minimum wage, this "something" is neither fair nor equitable, a totally indecent "market standard," a non-competitive wage that makes it almost impossible for a person to survive. I know; I've worked for minimum wage *after* high school. . .. That's right, Scott/sbw. . . most people in University have to work for minimum wage *while* in University. Take an ethics course. Work for minimum wage for 4-6 months. See what it's like on the other side.

I worked for minimum wage--then 10 cents above, then 35 cents above, then right back to minimum wage when they raised it--for 3 years, at mcdonalds, during high school. thats the only damn time that a relatively intelligent person should have to work for minimum wage. (ok college too--but college students by definition are working towards greater employability)

what percentage of people, in your estimation, are entirely incapable of acquiring job skills and thus not having to work for minimum wage? I'm curious about this part--I'm trying to figure out if you are advocating assistance for low-IQ/mentally handicapped/etc people that can't do a better job than grocery store bagger; this is a position that I would support and agree with. because with your masters and your 19 years of formal schooling--interesting how the mention of all those things squares with crying "elitist" at everyone who disagrees with you--you shouldnt need to be protected from the market. you, more than most, should be benefitting.

my 'attack', if you re-read it, was not a product of sputtering anger, but a suggestion regarding another member...because thats where you started the name calling. but it wasnt nice, so I apologize.

Scott

edit: here's my outside-the-box solution...make the minimum wage 15 dollars per hour, but only people with IQ<85 or medically-recognized mental/emotional handicap qualify. I do believe that its on everyone else to make their own way; we may fundamentally disagree on this point...but it could be an interesting topic nonetheless.

Conan

18 Nov 2006, 02:16 PM

Now if this system worked like its supposed to, these unskilled workers complaining about not making enough money would simply pack their bags and head over to Vegas where they'd be getting paid "what they're worth"... Another argument against minimum wage, the misallocation of resources.

sbw

18 Nov 2006, 02:24 PM

vegas has a few variables which don't apply elsewhere...but servers and bag sluts fucking rake where I live. which also benefits from some variables which don't exist elsewhere. poor people, move to south florida or vegas, for chrissakes! thats what my parents did; I was very fortunate. I might be selling snowblowers and drinking scotch in the morning right now if they hadnt taken advantage of the opportunities presented by the market

Now if this system worked like its supposed to, these unskilled workers complaining about not making enough money would pack their bags and head over to Vegas where they'd be getting paid "what they're worth"... Another argument against minimum wage, the misallocation of resources.

:joft:

Scott

Conan

18 Nov 2006, 02:37 PM

edit: here's my outside-the-box solution...make the minimum wage 15 dollars per hour, but only people with IQ<85 or medically-recognized mental/emotional handicap qualify. I do believe that its on everyone else to make their own way; we may fundamentally disagree on this point...but it could be an interesting topic nonetheless.

I'm with you. There is no reason (excuse me, good reason) anyone with two hands and a functional brain needs to be making minimum wage. I promise the opportunities are there if people would just stop their bitching and just get off their ass and do something about it. Not only will you be better off, but so will the economy as a whole.

Earl_of_Burl

18 Nov 2006, 02:58 PM

Actually, her post was dead on. No one deserves to scrounge for the bare essentials of life. I believe in basic human rights - in my definition, that includes food, decent shelter, clothing, good health care, and money for contingencies.

And no, she's not a bitch. I think it's a lot more "bitchy" to deny people fair compensation for their labor in order to keep all the money at the top. Face it, that's what this boils down to - keeping more money for the wealthy, because they are inherently "more deserving" than the lower class. At least be honest about it.

Is it my responsibility to provide decent shelter, good health care and money for contingencies for people who fail to plan accordingly? Only a foolish person would say "yes". Why should the successful be punished for being successful?

I started out as a minimum wage worker and quickly realized that $5.15/hr barely paid for gas, insurance, etc. I made the decisions to improve my quality of life. Yes, it's all about choices. I know you won't admit it but it all comes down to choices. You can choose to work a minimum wage job or you can choose to better your financial position. Either way, it's up to you, not me.

Your argument is full of holes and is excuse after excuse as to why a certian sect of people can't "get ahead". Really, I don't care if minimum wage is raised as long as all other wages go up the same percentage. =))

sbw

18 Nov 2006, 04:12 PM

The government should not have intervened in the Depression, according to your crackpot statement.

I don't know who said that--probably 'no one', given the source--but I think there are more than a few economists who think the government caused or at least exacerbated the depression via faulty monetary policy.

Scott

Conan

18 Nov 2006, 04:37 PM

I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that government action taken in response to the onset of the depression deeply exacerbated economic conditions. Now this doesn't necessarily imply the government should not have intervened at all, however given the ways in which it did act, everyone would have been better off had the government not done anything at all.

Lurker

18 Nov 2006, 05:08 PM

I don't know who said that--probably 'no one', given the source--but I think there are more than a few economists who think the government caused or at least exacerbated the depression via faulty monetary policy.

Scott

htb

Is it my responsibility to provide decent shelter, good health care and money for contingencies for people who fail to plan accordingly? Only a foolish person would say "yes". Why should the successful be punished for being successful?

Yeah, yeah, more self-serving tired bullshit.

I started out as a minimum wage worker and quickly realized that $5.15/hr barely paid for gas, insurance, etc. I made the decisions to improve my quality of life. Yes, it's all about choices. I know you won't admit it but it all comes down to choices. You can choose to work a minimum wage job or you can choose to better your financial position. Either way, it's up to you, not me.

*cheers*

Good for you!!!

Are you copying and pasting this shit from a site on "The American Dream" or something? It's incredibly predictable.

Your argument is full of holes and is excuse after excuse as to why a certian sect of people can't "get ahead". Really, I don't care if minimum wage is raised as long as all other wages go up the same percentage. =))

But your argument is airtight. :lol:

Certain people can't get ahead. It's a reality. Face it or not, whatever.

sbw

18 Nov 2006, 05:12 PM

Certain people can't get ahead. It's a reality. Face it or not, whatever.

ummmm, I addressed this very component of the topic--even proposing a higher minimum wage just for these very people of which you speak.

you have contributed the dumbest opinions thus far. your argument seems to rest upon obliterating the relationship between wages and demand, i.e. a job can't pay well if every single member of the work force is capable of performing that job.

Scott

edit: further, the people of which you speak that "cant get ahead" are a very small percentage...I believe that charitable donations are at an all-time high in this country, but I would have to look it up to be certain. and when all else fails, "these" people just continue living with parents or siblings.

Lurker

18 Nov 2006, 05:40 PM

ummmm, I addressed this very component of the topic--even proposing a higher minimum wage just for these very people of which you speak.

you have contributed the dumbest opinions thus far. your argument seems to rest upon obliterating the relationship between wages and demand, i.e. a job can't pay well if every single member of the work force is capable of performing that job.

Scott

You originally called me "stupid" - before you edited your post - and I want to say that coming from you, that's a compliment. I never remember much of anything you post, except that you swap jofticons all the time with Esteban.

I'm not going to bother debating with you because you seem to be just a typical greedy, spoiled little frat boy type, from what I know of you. Also, quit kissing up to the "Big Man on Campus." It's embarrasing. Early on in this thread, I stated that large discrepancies in wealth can lead to crime...and voila, a little later Hustler states basically the same thing, only specifically in reference to minimum wage...and here you are, sucking up.

In response to Hustler's statement on crime:

word! now that is a worthwhile counter-argument, even though I'm still generally on booya's side here, as denoted by a :wub: earlier.

Oops! :joft: That was covered earlier, you groveling dipshit.

From Post 13:

Huge discrepancies in wealth lead to resentment, hatred, crime, and gross inequality, and that is inhumane and illogical. A system like that will never be at peace.

PS - Oh, I was going to comment on your idea of who is and isn't worthy of a living wage as utter bullshit that borders on fascism.

Earl_of_Burl

18 Nov 2006, 09:44 PM

htb

Yeah, yeah, more self-serving tired bullshit.

*cheers*

Good for you!!!

Are you copying and pasting this shit from a site on "The American Dream" or something? It's incredibly predictable.

But your argument is airtight. :lol:

Certain people can't get ahead. It's a reality. Face it or not, whatever.

Answer the questions instead of deflecting...

Predictable? It wasn't supposed to be a revelation.

Honestly, if you'd pull your head out of your ass long enough to think about what I wrote you may see the other side of the argument, maybe, just maybe...

Are you bitter because you have made shitty decisions and they have come back to bite you in the ass? Again, let's go back to choices...

Let me sum up your attitude: Willful ignorance.

C.J.Woolf

18 Nov 2006, 09:57 PM

$7.25? why aim so low? Let's raise it to $100 an hour! Then EVERYONE WILL BE RICH.
Shorter booyalab:

"Let them eat cake!"

= troll post. indiejade gave it the flame it was asking for.

Okay, so the minimum wage is theoretically bad for the economy and for the people it's intended to help. But it isn't. I guess it works like the bumblebee, which theoretically cannot fly.

I notice that all the people who are against the minimum wage can't imagine that they themselves would ever have to work for minimum wage. "I'm too smart/hard-working/resourceful/whatever." But shit happens in this life. You might lose your health, or some limbs, or a piece of brain function, or something less drastic. Not everyone is equally employable. And it's not always their fault.

People who are against the social safety net think, "This could never happen to me." People who are for it think, "There but for the grace of God go I."

MacGuffin

18 Nov 2006, 11:22 PM

LOCKED

Now UNLOCKED

formerly known as

19 Nov 2006, 02:52 PM

indie

22 Nov 2006, 02:50 AM

I worked for minimum wage--then 10 cents above, then 35 cents above, then right back to minimum wage when they raised it--for 3 years, at mcdonalds, during high school. thats the only damn time that a relatively intelligent person should have to work for minimum wage. (ok college too--but college students by definition are working towards greater employability)

The problem with this example is that. . .well, it's McDonalds. Ask yourself how and why McDonalds became the global empire it is today. McDonalds became the global empire it is by exploiting the very notion of a "minimum wage." About how many eager-to-earn-a-wage high-school students do you think it employs?

A "minimum wage," by definition, creates both a par of standard and a "minimum par of standard". Also is there the "high volume/low quality" aspect of markets to consider; McD's fits very well in this section because it exploits a high-volume market (eager high-school students) to create what essentially amounts to a low-quality product (freeze-dried rainforested South-American beef patties, iceberg lettuce, genetically-engineered tomatoes and some "enriched" white hamburger buns).

The profit margin McD's has been surfing on for decades is basically derived from

A: abundance of workforce working @ a pre-defined "minimum wage" AND
B: ability to exploit material from an environment (any non-US country is privvy to this: think about the external vs. non-external costs of South-American beef) AND
C: excess wealth where time = money; essentially laziness. . .

It's quite obvious that minimum wage standards HURT PEOPLE.

what percentage of people, in your estimation, are entirely incapable of acquiring job skills and thus not having to work for minimum wage? I'm curious about this part--I'm trying to figure out if you are advocating assistance for low-IQ/mentally handicapped/etc people that can't do a better job than grocery store bagger; this is a position that I would support and agree with. because with your masters and your 19 years of formal schooling--interesting how the mention of all those things squares with crying "elitist" at everyone who disagrees with you--you shouldnt need to be protected from the market. you, more than most, should be benefitting.

If you're asking me to define what percentage of the population I assume to be "unemployable idiots" I cannot do that . . .

BUT, I think I understand the essence of your question.

I'm wanting to stay in a realistic realm at this time. I think, I've lived many years and in many states in these United States; I've been subjected to both extreme poverty and wealth; the people who are the wealthiest get ATTITUDE, such as booya's attitude. Because they've been cozily ensconced in their little realms for so long, they fall into elitist traps, and thus they fail to realize how difficult it can be for people who are not them. They mock the poor, directly attributing factors which are related to statuses of poverty as somehow "direct" factors; that those who are living in poverty somehow and for some reason "deserve to be".

People cannot forget their roots. This is why people like booya make me sick: they mock what they do not understand; they don't understand because they've never experienced life outside their little elitist realm.

SensEye

22 Nov 2006, 03:40 PM

It's quite obvious that minimum wage standards HURT PEOPLE.
It's not to me. I believe wages would be lower without a minimum wage standard. Whether that hurts or helps depends on who we are talking about.

They mock the poor, directly attributing factors which are related to statuses of poverty as somehow "direct" factors; that those who are living in poverty somehow and for some reason "deserve to be".
I hope you are not arguing people are poor completely by accident. Most of the poor people I know are guilty of a series or poor life choices.

Jacque

25 Nov 2006, 06:39 PM

I'm late to the thread, but minimum wage standards DO hurt workers. Not in the sense that it gives businesses a legitimate starting point, therefore institutionalizing poverty as an economic entry point, but in a sense that it prempts social unrest and dissastifaction. Though the minimum wage standard exists and we must deal with it, by raising it we're buying more of the rope from which to hang ourselves.

By that it undercuts the labor movement, organization on the individual level, if these changes are being led by wealthy politicians who have no other interest in mind save their own re-election and preservation. If you're familiar with Max Weber, you'll understand that these fufillments are neither meaningful or lasting. That is how they fell into disrepair in the first place. Labor should fight their own battles and let the economic conditions do their own recruiting.

That being said, money only does so much in buying happiness, giving people what they crave. In absolute terms that dollar amount is far above the poverty line, yet humbly below the middle class. Pass that point happiness becomes relative. It evolves from needs to wants. What was once a material complaint of food, shelter, time, health, and happiness becomes a relative complaint of size, affluence, and luxury. For most us rising through the ranks of society, it is easy to confuse our wants with their needs.

As Booyalab demonstrated, why ask for $8 when you can have $100. The poor dad wishes to care for his family, whereas the rich dad wishes to impress his friends. Here the innocence of the human condition betrays itself. We are more honest in recovering that which we dare to lose (our family and well-being) versus the very uncertain company of that which we never had (rich friends).

ajblaise

25 Nov 2006, 09:11 PM

I'm late to the thread, but minimum wage standards DO hurt workers.

Show me the stats.

If 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth, why can't a few more bones be tossed to wage workers?

sbw

2 Dec 2006, 04:58 PM

according to a new Pew Research Center report (which I heard about at reason.com), 83% of americans favor raising the minimum wage by $2.00 per hour. these americans are officially aiding the process of their working- and middle-class jobs being transferred to the first available asian. morons.

Scott

Jacque

3 Dec 2006, 08:43 PM

Yes, Free Trade would seem incompatible with the minimum wage, but only for the industrial sector. Agriculture and some service jobs can't be moved, hence they are the ones most likely to benefit in the short run. Even with its immense supply of sweatshop labor, arable land isn't something China can conjure up.

Also, what middle class jobs are at the minimum wage? Funny too...was it lower class that started calling themselves working class or did it come from the other classes--cause we all work just as hard...

macr0

3 Dec 2006, 10:17 PM

And *because* it was we have this massive gap between the rich and the poor, especially between men and women. Nowhere is this more obvious to me than here, in Utah, where I'm surrounded by idiot Republicans.

Did you know there are 8,000,000 millionaires in the United States?

One in 11 of those millionaires inherited a significant sum, if not all of their money. 91% of all millionaires started with essentially nothing and yet became millionaires. The majority of those did so before they came to "retirement age." That's some LEISURE CLASS.

Get off of your "rich people holding me down" crap. Do you know how many people I know that came to America from some other country who could barely speak English, didn't have a pot to piss in and "made it big" (millionaires)? Four. 1 lawyer, 2 doctors and an entrepreneur. At the university I went to, there are hundreds of similar stories.

Heck, my grandmother's husband went to college after he got kicked out of his house with only the coat on his back. He became a circuit court judge.

You need to realize that there are still many people all over the world that still think America is the place where dreams come true. They come here to fulfill those dreams.

It's the dumb ass Americans that think it sucks so much and whine about it. Minimum wage? I worked on min wage for about 6 years. (13-19 years old). I slide under the radar because they don't care about minimum age laws in Florida that much. I think I started off at $4.00/hr. bagging ice for a grocery store.

My other set of grandparents made minimum wage their working life. They had two new cars, a decent little house on the beach, went out to eat once a week and were able to buy a pop up camper to travel the country for a few weeks a year. They've never had a mortgage, ever.

Someone like Dave Ramsey could help: http://www.daveramsey.com He also has a radio show.

In America, the only person someone can blame for being a bum is themselves. Worst case scenario...move somewhere else.

If I had to blame anything, it would be the massive consumerism and instant gratification culture we live in that is to blame for a lot of the problems people have. When you're faced with facts like the average American has a $8000 credit card debt, then...well...there you go.

Conan

3 Dec 2006, 10:47 PM

In 1950 some 35 percent of dwellings lacked full indoor plumbing. Many families still did not have telephones or cars. And of course very few people had televisions. A modern American family at the 12th percentile (that is, right at the poverty line) surely has a flushing toilet, a working shower, and a telephone with direct-dial long-distance service; probably has a color television; and may well even have a car. Take into account improvements in the quality of many other products, and it does not seem at all absurd to say that the material standard of living of that poverty-level family in 1996 is as good as or better than that of the median family in 1950.

What do we mean by this? We mean that if you could choose between the two material standards of living, other things being the same, you might well prefer the 12th percentile standard of 1996 to the 50th percentile standard of 1950. But does that mean that most people were poor in 1950? No--because man does not live by bread, cars, televisions, or even plumbing alone.

Imagine that a mad scientist went back to 1950 and offered to transport the median family to the wondrous world of the 1990s, and to place them at, say, the 25th percentile level. The 25th percentile of 1996 is a clear material improvement over the median of 1950. Would they accept his offer? Almost surely not--because in 1950 they were middle class, while in 1996 they would be poor, even if they lived better in material terms. People don't just care about their absolute material level--they care about their level compared with others'.

I know quite a few academics who have nice houses, two cars, and enviable working conditions, yet are disappointed and bitter men--because they have never received an offer from Harvard and will probably not get a Nobel Prize. They live very well in material terms, but they judge themselves relative to their reference group, and so they feel deprived. And on the other hand, it is an open secret that the chief payoff from being really rich is, as Tom Wolfe once put it, the pleasure of "seeing 'em jump." Privilege is not merely a means to other ends, it is an end in itself.

My fellow Slate columnist Robert Wright would undoubtedly emphasize that our concern over status exists for good evolutionary reasons. In the ancestral environment a man would be likely to have more offspring if he got his pick of the most fertile-seeming women. That, in turn, would depend on his status, not his absolute standard of living. So males with a predisposition to status-seeking left more offspring than those without, and the end result is Bill G-g-g---I mean, Ronald Perelman.

Is my license as a practicing economist about to be revoked? Aren't we supposed to believe in Economic Man? And doesn't admitting that people care about fuzzy things like status undermine the whole economic method? Not really: Homo economicus is not a central pillar of my faith--he is merely a working assumption, albeit one that is extremely useful in many circumstances.

But admitting that people's happiness depends on their relative economic level as well as their absolute economic resources has some subversive implications. For example: Many conservatives have seized on the Boskin report as a club with which to beat all those liberals who have been whining about declining incomes and increasing poverty in America. It was all, they insist, a statistical hoax. But you could very well make the opposite argument. America in the 1950s was a middle-class society in a way that America in the 1990s is not. That is, it had a much flatter income distribution, so that people had much more sense of sharing a common national lifestyle. And people in that relatively equal America felt good about their lives, even though by modern standards, they were poor--poorer, if Boskin is correct, than we previously thought. Doesn't this mean, then, that having a more or less equal distribution of income makes for a happier society, even if it does not raise anyone's material standard of living? That is, you can use the fact that people did not feel poor in the 1950s as an argument for a more radical egalitarianism than even most leftists would be willing to espouse.

You could even argue that American society in the 1990s is an engine that maximizes consumption yet minimizes satisfaction. In a society with a very flat distribution of income and status, nobody feels left out. In a society with rigid ranks, people do not expect to rise above their station and therefore do not feel that they have failed if they do not rise. (Aristocrats are not part of the peasants' reference group.) Modern America, however, is a hugely unequal society in which anyone can achieve awesome success, but not many actually do. The result is that many--perhaps even most--people feel that they have failed to make the cut, no matter how comfortable their lives. (In a land where anyone can become president, anyone who doesn't become president is a failure.) My European friends always marvel at how hard Americans work, even those who already have plenty of money. Why don't we take more time to enjoy what we have? The answer, of course, is that we work so hard because we are determined to get ahead--an effort that (for Americans as a society) is doomed to failure, because competition for status is a zero-sum game. We can't all "get ahead." No matter how fast we all run, someone must be behind.
Just an interesting article.

kendoiwan

3 Dec 2006, 10:59 PM

Milton Friedman died and look what happens everybody thinks they are a genius :referee:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1749

Instead they should lower the salary in the executive rooms with $100 an hour and give free beers to all workers......

TIPTOP **Actually in a Dutch poll 60% of all workers considers good coffee an essential part of their work......?!!!*** :huh:

Best suggestion in this whole bloody mess of a thread... :theclap:
Hustler has the best grasp on the reality of the issue...:reading:
Sbw, you know you're my brother from another mother, but we will NEVER see eye to eye on economics it seems...:joft:

Hustler

3 Dec 2006, 11:34 PM

Did you know there are 8,000,000 millionaires in the United States?

One in 11 of those millionaires inherited a significant sum, if not all of their money. 91% of all millionaires started with essentially nothing and yet became millionaires. The majority of those did so before they came to "retirement age." That's some LEISURE CLASS.

These are dubious numbers. The estimates of number of millionaires in the United States varies widely, and you seem to have read the study which gives the highest estimate. I prefer the methodology of the estimates by Merrill Lynch and Capgemeni (cited at Wikipedia), and their study suggests the number of millionaires in 2005 was 2.9 million. If you assume a 6.5% growth rate between then and now, you're still only at ~3.1 million millionaires, which is far from the 8 million figure you get. The Merrill Lynch/Capgemeni report suggests a total figure of 8.7 million millionaires in the world. It also suggests that the majority of millionaires are retirees. So, at the very least, there is so much uncertainty in these figures, that it's intellectually irresponsible to start throwing them out like they actually mean something as significant as you want them to.

All that said, you're making a fallacious argument anyway. You don't define "essentially nothing" in your argument. As far as we know from how you've paraphrased your source, "essentially nothing" just means a person didn't start out in life as a millionaire through inheritance. It doesn't mean he started in poverty and worked his way up to becoming a millionaire. Yet, you go on to imply that with the following:

Get off of your "rich people holding me down" crap. Do you know how many people I know that came to America from some other country who could barely speak English, didn't have a pot to piss in and "made it big" (millionaires)? Four. 1 lawyer, 2 doctors and an entrepreneur. At the university I went to, there are hundreds of similar stories.

Yeah, that's great. So what? For every one of those people you know who went from poverty to being a millionaire, how many people out there started in poverty and are still there? 13% of Americans live below the poverty line. That's 39 million. Do you think 13% of the 91% of millionaires who didn't inherit their fortune (according to your numbers) started out in life under the poverty line? I doubt it and, even if they did, that's 946,000 millionaires who were once living in poverty compared to 39 million people who still are living in poverty. But, the reality for the person born into poverty is probably significantly worse than a ~1 in 39 chance of becoming a millionaire.

The rest of your post is just as riddled with anecdote as the above, so I'm not going to bother. If you want to make a case for your beliefs, that being poor doesn't keep someone down, then you have to show that someone who starts life out in poverty (in America or who immigrates to America out of poverty) has just as good a chance of ending up a millionaire as someone who starts life out in the middle or upper classes. I think you're going to have a hard time showing that, because I don't think it's true. Just look at the most basic line of argument to see why: in America, someone born into poverty has a lower life expectancy than someone born into wealth. Why is that, and what does it say about their relative chances of ending up as millionaires?

sbw

4 Dec 2006, 12:11 AM

I slide under the radar because they don't care about minimum age laws in Florida that much. I think I started off at $4.00/hr. bagging ice for a grocery store.

I started at $4.25 at mickey d's when I was almost 14.

Scott

macr0

4 Dec 2006, 12:17 AM

...SNIP pointless jaded slicing and meaningless rebuke...

If you want to make a case for your beliefs, that being poor doesn't keep someone down, then you have to show that someone who starts life out in poverty (in America or who immigrates to America out of poverty) has just as good a chance of ending up a millionaire as someone who starts life out in the middle or upper classes. I think you're going to have a hard time showing that, because I don't think it's true. Just look at the most basic line of argument to see why: in America, someone born into poverty has a lower life expectancy than someone born into wealth. Why is that, and what does it say about their relative chances of ending up as millionaires?

You are operating on a completely different wavelength than me on this one. As such, there is no resolution. [insert wit here]

I got my source from the "The Millionaire Mind" for the numbers if you feel like tearing that a new one.

Razor blade scrutiny aside, the point is not that someone poor has as much chance of becoming a super millionaire as the child of an upper-middle class family. The point is that if someone wants to make it bad enough, they can make it. Defining "making it" is not my job. And that doesn't mean throwing realistic expectations and common sense out the window either.

The kicker is, even if someone dies trying to make it and never does, then they still did the best thing.

You speak as if anecdotal information is meaningless, pointless and worthless. Of all of the things that could possibly be taboo, I find that to be the most laughable. Even more so in something so media-whored, sound-byte riddled and academically pandered as poverty.

Unfortunately, in this matter, I have nothing else to offer you except for anecdotes.

I could tell you about known struggles with poverty, failures in it and successes from it.

But, since we all die as numbers in the census and government-funded research studies, then I guess it doesn't really matter. [insert wit here]

macr0

4 Dec 2006, 12:19 AM

I started at $4.25 at mickey d's when I was almost 14.

Scott

lol, you know..now that I think of it, I might have actually been paid under minimum wage because I wasn't "legal" yet. Hmm...wow...

sbw

4 Dec 2006, 12:30 AM

Sbw, you know you're my brother from another mother, but we will NEVER see eye to eye on economics it seems...:joft:

I'm trying to help--education has failed on a lot of levels in america, and its seems like the only plausible way to fix anything. by "fix anything" I mean make it so more poor kids of every color--cuz there are a lot of poor white people in this country--are able to make their way to jobs that are more specialized and consequently better paid than minimum wage jobs.

I have told everyone I know that if I accidentally get Fuck You Rich (unlikely given my modest aims) I will spend my superfluous millions putting up charter schools in the ghettoes of america because thats almost the only thing I can think of that might help even a little bit. one of my uncles is a retired high school principal who teaches (I don't know if its volunteer or what) at a charter school in detroit.

read something--anything--by milton friedman about how the existence of the minimum wage creates more unemployed poor people--just the other day I read a friedman article linked by lee in another thread where he specifically pointed to blacks puerto ricans and teenagers of every color as groups of americans who face higher unemployment rates as a direct consequence of minimum wage legislation.

Scott

kendoiwan

4 Dec 2006, 12:40 AM

Hustling, Hustling, Hustling....

indie

4 Dec 2006, 02:19 AM

Did you know there are 8,000,000 millionaires in the United States?

One in 11 of those millionaires inherited a significant sum, if not all of their money. 91% of all millionaires started with essentially nothing and yet became millionaires. The majority of those did so before they came to "retirement age." That's some LEISURE CLASS.

One out of eleven millionaires from a population of eight million? Do the math. Compare that number with the number of people living in / below poverty not just in the US, but all over the world. Also take note and/or consideration of how these supposed "millionaires" have exploited the resources of those in poverty in countries that are not the US.

Get off of your "rich people holding me down" crap. Do you know how many people I know that came to America from some other country who could barely speak English, didn't have a pot to piss in and "made it big" (millionaires)? Four. 1 lawyer, 2 doctors and an entrepreneur. At the university I went to, there are hundreds of similar stories.

Heck, my grandmother's husband went to college after he got kicked out of his house with only the coat on his back. He became a circuit court judge.

You need to realize that there are still many people all over the world that still think America is the place where dreams come true. They come here to fulfill those dreams.

Hey and STFU, I love my grandma, too. I never said I disagree with the notion that America is a place "dreams come true." I've noted very many times (maybe not here on INTP Central) that first-generation immigrants are almost always the ones who do best in this country and, especially *surprise, surprise* when their livelihood is in question. I do, however, disagree with your rant that there's no significant difference between people starting from nothing/negative/poverty VS people who are well-off from the get-go.

Survivalism. Think about it. Especially think about how generations who have lived with and become accustomed to a standard of well-being tend to take on the notion or false pretention of sainthood. . . makes them feel good about themselves when they tell themselves they're somehow "to thank" for providing for others. Complete BS. Economic realities explain the selfish nature of humans.

It's the dumb ass Americans that think it sucks so much and whine about it. Minimum wage? I worked on min wage for about 6 years. (13-19 years old). I slide under the radar because they don't care about minimum age laws in Florida that much. I think I started off at $4.00/hr. bagging ice for a grocery store.

My other set of grandparents made minimum wage their working life. They had two new cars, a decent little house on the beach, went out to eat once a week and were able to buy a pop up camper to travel the country for a few weeks a year. They've never had a mortgage, ever.

Someone like Dave Ramsey could help: http://www.daveramsey.com He also has a radio show.

In America, the only person someone can blame for being a bum is themselves. Worst case scenario...move somewhere else.

If I had to blame anything, it would be the massive consumerism and instant gratification culture we live in that is to blame for a lot of the problems people have. When you're faced with facts like the average American has a $8000 credit card debt, then...well...there you go.

I have no idea where you're getting these statistics, but wouldn't you agree that the ulitmate answer depends upon what that $8000 credit card debt has funded? Assume that $8000 is not a specific number at all, but that it's actually a symbolic representation of the amount of economic surplus that funded its beginnings. Imagine that this debt has been attained not from a result of need, but rather from want of people who are well-off, especially (psychologically) those who've been born into wealth and are therefore more immature and more needy than their survivalist counterparts.

The entire ideal that "credit card debt" can even exist implies an existing wealth which with to begin.