The reality of a minimum wage

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Shootin 4 Fun

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
17,852
Reaction score
1,103
Location
Bixby
what's really sad about this statement, in my opinion anyway, is that i've worked minimum wage jobs and seen my co-workers live in their automobiles or have two full-time jobs. I've seen my co workers use food stamps and WIC. the personal poverty i experienced as a child put aside, i experience and am more familiar with poverty than a great many people twice or three times my age.

Some guy who grew up in a wealthy family and had their lives and college paid for (Trump, haha.) know less about poverty than i. and yet you assume my experience based on my perceived age. I think that's a mistake.

Also, you turned a discussion about the reality of minimum wage onto a personal attack against me, my age and experience, which i believe is a mistake.
Personal attack? This is why I love millennials.
 

doctorjj

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
7,041
Reaction score
1,178
Location
Pryor
Nice genetic fallacy. You wanted claims supported by evidence, and I posted the evidence. If that evidence, that completely delegitimizes the original study, is problematic, then let's see it. For the original study to have *any* validity, we'd first need a justification and validation about the 40% of the workforce that was excluded. There's certainly other issues to overcome, but it's never coming out of the trashcan without that.
From Mr. Genetic Fallacy himself. Bwahahaha!!
 

okierider

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Supporting Member
Special Hen Moderator Moderator Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2016
Messages
8,722
Reaction score
12,877
Location
OKC
Nobody is talking about the "lap of luxury" (which is a moving target anyway). As it is, a substantial portion of the world--and especially Americans--already enjoys a standard of living that would have been unavailable even to heads of state as recently as a century ago.

I didn't say it was our job to bring them out, merely that refusing to trade with them--or refusing to allow them to use their competitive advantage--artificially maintains them in poverty when they could get out

"Competitive" advantage it is not! We cannot compete with $1.00 a day wages. Who artificially maintains the poverty is the government of those countries not taking care of the people they govern. I am saying it is not Americas job to keep letting them put Americans out of work with the low wage and **** work environment that their governments allow. Our job is to take care of America first and if along the way we help other countries who actually compete fairly so be it.
These trade practices have been going on for years and while it has helped in a small way some of these countries, it has had a decidedly negative effect on the America..
 

Dave70968

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,619
Location
Norman
"Competitive" advantage it is not!
What is 'Competitive Advantage'
Competitive advantages are conditions that allow a company or country to produce a good or service at a lower price or in a more desirable fashion for customers. These conditions allow the productive entity to generate more sales or superior margins than its competition. Competitive advantages are attributed to a variety of factors, including cost structure, brand, quality of product offerings, distribution network, intellectual property and customer support.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/competitive_advantage.asp

Really, if you don't even know what the term means, I don't know how you can discuss it rationally.

Who artificially maintains the poverty is the government of those countries not taking care of the people they govern.
artificially ar·ti·fi·cial··ly adverb 1. by means of human intervention rather than naturally.

How is not imposing legislative or other wage standards "artificial?" If anything, we're the ones artificially distorting the market.

Words have meanings. Learn them. Use them.

I am saying it is not Americas job to keep letting them put Americans out of work with the low wage and **** work environment that their governments allow. Our job is to take care of America first and if along the way we help other countries who actually compete fairly so be it.

These trade practices have been going on for years and while it has helped in a small way some of these countries, it has had a decidedly negative effect on the America.
It has had some negative effects. It has also had a lot of positive effects--chiefly, an increased standard of living across the board through the availability of all sorts of products, from consumer goods to durable goods to means of commercial and industrial production at much lower costs than if they were all manufactured at prevailing "all-American" costs. Where are your clothes made? Five'll get you ten a significant portion of your wardrobe was made abroad...and before you start telling tales about how that's your only option, I'd point out that http://store.americanapparel.net/en/ has a full-line of made-in-USA clothes, from socks and underwear to shirts, pants, and shorts. Don't like that brand? Here's a list of fourteen American-made brands: http://www.thegoodtrade.com/features/american-made-clothing-brands . A few more? Sure: http://www.ibuyamericanstore.com/?module=Directory&event=View&comID=4 has a list, including http://www.allamericanclothing.com/ . Go ahead, post pictures of the tags in your clothes showing us how you "take care of America first" instead of taking advantage of the lower costs. Put your money where your mouth is.

As for the "low wage and **** work environment," it's decidedly better than what a lot would have in the absence of such jobs. Think subsistence-level (or less) farming. I'm not saying it's our duty to raise them up, but trade--absent coercion--only occurs when both sides value what they're getting more than what they're giving up; otherwise, why would they make that choice? We trade because we get something out of it; they trade for the same reason, and both sides are better off for it. Such has been the case since Og first said to Thag "you give me berries, me give you meat." Yes, it means some people who have made their lives doing one thing, and are now undercut by somebody working cheaper, are going to have to adjust to that change, but change is the only constant in the universe. Nobody has a right to pick something as a career, then demand to make a living at it for forty or fifty years without adapting to the world around him.
 

Frederick

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
2,744
Reaction score
2,323
Location
Oklahoma City
I think regulated capitalism and free trade with equally prosperous countries is better for all of us in the long-term.

In the short term, permitting unrestricted trade with poorer countries brings exploitation and a depressing of wages in the richer country for obvious reasons. We need graduated regulations on such trade until they have reached a similar level of development, in order to prevent exploitation of foreigners and our own workers.

It all went down hill in the '70s when we let China into the WTO and created NAFTA with Mexico. It hurt our jobs and economy.

Over time, when Mexico and China and other third world countries become more prosperous, wages and expectations increase, i think we'll see our economy have a huge net benefit from such trade.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom