Increase fast food wages? [Archive]

Animeniax

Tue, 01-21-2014, 02:25 PM

Do you support a raise in fast food worker pay, or are you against it?

I'm against it. I hear the sob stories about people not being able to make a living off their current wages, and it's some utter nonsense. Who's choice was it for you to have a family, live in an expensive city, get your hair done, get your nails done, and have cheese and bacon on your sammiches? If you can't afford that shit on the wages you make, that's your poor planning. Higher wages for the most menial of work will cause prices to rise for the rest of the working classes. Fast food companies won't eat the costs of higher wages, they will pass them on to their customers. I don't typically eat fast food so I'm neutral and therefore objective in that regard.

UChessmaster

Tue, 01-21-2014, 02:55 PM

I`m not familiar with the wages in USA, how many people can you sustain realistically with fast food wage?

Ryllharu

Tue, 01-21-2014, 03:43 PM

I`m not familiar with the wages in USA, how many people can you sustain realistically with fast food wage?
Less than one if solo. I suppose it is doable, though not fun, if there are two minimum wage earners per household.

$7.25/hr. A fast food worker will be lucky to get 40 hours, most won't. So that's at most $1160 a month, before taxes. Assume the worker has to pay for food and rent (utilities probably not included). Average 2012 rent in the US was around $850 a month.
If they're part-timers, they won't get benefits.

I'm not going to get into the economics of raising the wage or not, because I argued that position once on IRC and got my ass handed to me. Economics is not my forte.

UChessmaster

Tue, 01-21-2014, 04:01 PM

Seems like they should increase if you ask me then.

Carnage

Tue, 01-21-2014, 07:26 PM

Ryllharu

Tue, 01-21-2014, 07:50 PM

I don't disagree that there should be a stronger emphasis on trades for high school students, as well as reducing the stigma against Tech Schools being branded as "not good enough for real high school" by public opinion, but...someone has to do the jobs in the service and restaurant sectors.

Countries that can't staff those businesses end up hiring foreign workers. That sends money out of the country. Look at the UAE or Qatar. Something like 90% of the country aren't citizens. Kuwait isn't so bad, they're at 60%. Good article in National Geographic about that disparity.

Animeniax

Tue, 01-21-2014, 08:46 PM

Their wages are that low because their job doesn't require skills worth paying more for.

http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/22/robot-serves-up-340-hamburgers-per-hour/

America should be worried about educating its work force so that it doesn't need to fast food jobs, not complaining about how little they're paid. If they were worth more than the wage they are getting then they could strike or walk out, but the problem is that the job is so unskilled there's probably a vast number of people ready to take their jobs. Walmart has an acceptance rate of ~3% for its jobs.

Exactly. I learned the problem is especially bad in the inner cities, where fast food jobs (the only jobs really available to the unskilled) are high demand and high stress because there are so many applicants who want the job. With that kind of demand, the economics of paying them more doesn't add up for the companies. Only public opinion will sway them, and public opinion is often flawed and uneducated.

Countries that can't staff those businesses end up hiring foreign workers. That sends money out of the country. Look at the UAE or Qatar. Something like 90% of the country aren't citizens. Kuwait isn't so bad, they're at 60%. Good article in National Geographic about that disparity.
With our laws as they are I don't see that being a major problem here in the US, though there are plenty of non-citizens being paid off the books. UAE is ridiculous. I don't think it's quite 90% but maybe 75% are foreign nationals who are there to work. The problem is that the 25% who are citizens are oil rich and it is beneath them (and their sons and daughters) to work the menial jobs that they hire foreigners for.

Ryllharu

Tue, 01-21-2014, 09:03 PM

UAE is ridiculous. I don't think it's quite 90% but maybe 75% are foreign nationals who are there to work. The problem is that the 25% who are citizens are oil rich and it is beneath them (and their sons and daughters) to work the menial jobs that they hire foreigners for.I said 90% because it is 90%. In 2010 it was 87%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uae#Demographics) National Geographic's website site is walled off now, though they don't show the infographic online anyway. Don't make me scan it. The article is "Far From Home" in the January 2014 issue.

Please don't make shit up when you don't know. It's a waste of time for the both of us. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't have something to back it up with.

Animeniax

Tue, 01-21-2014, 09:08 PM

I said 90% because it is 90%. In 2010 it was 87%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uae#Demographics) National Geographic's website site is walled off now, though they don't show the infographic online anyway. Don't make me scan it. The article is "Far From Home" in the January 2014 issue.

Please don't make shit up when you don't know. It's a waste of time for the both of us.

I posted "I don't think it's quite 90%" so that disclaimer indemnifies me from your bitchy angst. Plus it went from 16.5% in 2009 to 13% in 2010, so it was probably closer to 20-25% when I was there in 2007.

Ryllharu

Tue, 01-21-2014, 09:20 PM

Xelbair

Tue, 01-21-2014, 09:32 PM

Less than one if solo. I suppose it is doable, though not fun, if there are two minimum wage earners per household.

$7.25/hr. A fast food worker will be lucky to get 40 hours, most won't. So that's at most $1160 a month, before taxes. Assume the worker has to pay for food and rent (utilities probably not included). Average 2012 rent in the US was around $850 a month.
If they're part-timers, they won't get benefits.

I'm not going to get into the economics of raising the wage or not, because I argued that position once on IRC and got my ass handed to me. Economics is not my forte.

that's way above average wage in here.

Sapphire

Tue, 01-21-2014, 10:01 PM

Their wages are that low because their job doesn't require skills worth paying more for.

This.

Seems like they should increase if you ask me then.

Or the people complaining could graduate from high school (generalization assuming signif amt of FF workers are in HS) and get a better job, or live in a house with lots of roommates, or move to a new town if need be, right? There are plenty of people willing to work for less than this, and plenty of people totally jobless/homeless/experience-less with $0/hr willing to work for $7.25/hr (like me lol, experienceless-ish), so why?

(to clarify, I agree w Carnage in saying the complete restructuring of various institutions (like education) are better/more useful for the poor than simply increasing wages. give a man a fish...)

I said 90% because it is 90%....

Please don't make shit up when you don't know. It's a waste of time for the both of us. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't have something to back it up with.

roflll!

Animeniax

Tue, 01-21-2014, 10:12 PM

You're worse than the scumbag excuses for journalists who like to headline every article with a question mark to avoid charges of libel while writing pure fabrication. FoxNews, CNN, or the worst tabloids, makes no difference.

"I don't think it's [cited fact], but [I'm going to make up an arbitrary anecdotal non-truth instead, and then after I get called out on it, I'll either reverse my position, attack my accuser's character, or extrapolate on my bad anecdote]."

I guess the key point for what or how you post is in bold.

Yeah posting on a forum with 10 regulars is worse than running national headlines with misleading titles. Hyperbole much?

Plus you forgot about the "maybe 75%" which further nullifies your argument.

This.

Or the people complaining could graduate from high school (generalization) and get a better job, or live in a house with lots of roommates, or move to a new town if need be, right? There are plenty of people willing to work for less than this, and plenty of people totally jobless/homeless/experience-less with $0/hr willing to work for $7.25/hr, so why?

roflll!
I'm actually surprised at your stance on this issue. And please don't laugh at Ryll, he's touchy.

Buffalobiian

Wed, 01-22-2014, 03:32 AM

I'm actually surprised at your stance on this issue. .

Why? She's all about removing useless government intervention.

Edort4

Wed, 01-22-2014, 06:50 AM

More like removing all useless (from her point of view) human beings if you ask me. Even in countries with +40% tertiary education graduates service sector is above 60-70% and 5-10% is agriculture. Its more like a "trend" (dont know what word to use). Usually advanced countries are the ones with more graduates and the more advanced a country is the more dependant is on service sector. So you end up having lots of ppl with phd serving burgers, giving masssages or dog walking.

Its a race of rats if you ask me. Sometimes I think that its better to be ignorant so you cant see how you are being explotied and lied by every wealthy/lucky human being in the planet. 40% of ppl for 25% of "true" jobs (in the best case scenario) and if you dont make it "you should had worked harder or got into another career". If this really was a true Darwinist race we should be allowed to use any means to achieve our goals but most of those that already made it there guard/shield/arm themselves with rules/laws/states/system.

Animeniax

Wed, 01-22-2014, 07:46 AM

Why? She's all about removing useless government intervention.

If that's true it's even weirder. Considering her background, she'd typically be a liberal progressive. They tend to favor government intervention, social welfare programs, and some redistribution of wealth. They also tend to favor this call for increase in the minimum wage for fast food workers.

Buffalobiian

Wed, 01-22-2014, 07:55 AM

More like removing all useless (from her point of view) human beings if you ask me.

I think that our world is overpopulated. We're missing the means to ethically reduce this number. We're also missing a way of doing this without suddenly creating an aging population that can't be supported by fewer taxpayers.

Edort4

Wed, 01-22-2014, 08:44 AM

I think that our world is overpopulated. We're missing the means to ethically reduce this number. We're also missing a way of doing this without suddenly creating an aging population that can't be supported by fewer taxpayers.

Im pretty sure you mean that some parts of the world are overpopulated am I right? I believe that problem will sort itself out by wars, pandemics, over explotation of fertile soil and finally hunger. I dont see the world reaching a consensus over population control.

1º world countries "need" (for devaluation of labor force purposes basically) inmigrants so even if they had achieved some kind of "greedy equilibrium" (ppl doesnt want to be hindered with responsabilities/family etc when they live like kings) theirpopulation will steadly increase. In China fro example they tried with laws/repression and it didnt work very well so imho I think it will end in the hands of entropy. Of course in the process there will be lots of hurt, missery, pain etc. Its the only way we have learned to do anything as a species.

Buffalobiian

Thu, 01-23-2014, 06:22 AM

I mean the world in general since we're all globalized and stuff

Shadow Skill

Thu, 01-23-2014, 07:53 AM

The wage increase is due to higher cost of living. Prices have gone up over the decade(s). Rent, Groceries, Utilities and wages have stayed at the same level. Not just in America, Canada as well, just Canada's wages have kept pace with the cost of living, I think it's by law they have to. Plus taxes will play a huge roll as well. The more a person makes the more taxes they also pay as well. I think Canada is better off with our higher wages per hour than America. Pus we get an annual cost of living increase as well, 2 % in most places, which helps on our wages.

It's a catch 22.

The 7.50 to $15 from what I read is a lot... I could see 10-11 dollars per hour. It's America... so I don't expect much to be done.

Animeniax

Thu, 01-23-2014, 09:05 AM

That is a factor Shadow Skill, but it's the prevailing mindset in the US that jobs that pay minimum to low wages are not meant to support a person into adulthood, regardless of changes to the cost of living. These fast food jobs are no different from any other low-skill low-pay job, but people who start there as teens get comfortable and continue on into their 20s and 30s working the same job. They don't improve themselves or get promoted to higher paying jobs, and the skills they learn on the job won't help them find better paying jobs. Yet now they want to be paid more so they can support themselves while doing the same shitty job (pun intended) they've been doing. Too bad for them, if they refuse to work for those minimum wages, a less jaded and probably more energetic and dedicated teenager will take the job.

Sapphire

Thu, 01-23-2014, 10:26 AM

More like removing all useless (from her point of view) human beings if you ask me.

Not quite sure why my post came across to u that way~ :( :( :( :(

Fast food jobs are meant for high schoolers or people who need quick money in a pinch (or people who are unfortunately @ the lowest rung of education/skills for whatever reason and need a foot in the door). If you're a PhD working in McDs (getting paid $7.25-9 instead of the $40-50 you theoretically should be) the least you should be doing is living in some kind of shared living establishment and not the $800/mo apt. numbers Haru is throwing around. If worst comes to worst, at that point you should also more or less have the intelligence/abilities to create a niche market for yourself with some demand after scrimping, working extra jobs, or educating yourself in a field that's in demand for a few years. Prices are supposed to reflect supply & demand, not "cost of living". You all realize living comfortably/"cost of living" is subjective? Artificially controlling prices masks the real value of products (in this case, the product is your labor) and starts fucking up the economy (pushing and pulling) because no one knows the true worth of anything anymore. <--- important (PS - Artificially protecting jobs that should fall away over time due to technological advance/lack of demand is also bad for this same reason. Like, do we still need horse carriage builders?)

I'm also confused about why people are so entitled. The company doesn't have to hire people in the first place, but how much they pay you how many hours they give you needs to be regulated by random numbers because it's currently "not enough"? For example, I work for a small business for free right now just because the experience is just that valuable. If/when I do get paid for my hours, it would be below minimum wage cuz that's all she can afford. But if everyone went around demanding minimum wage (or heaven forbid, raising it) I know 99% of us wouldn't be able to work there at all, thus learning opportunity (and any extra bucks I can get) lost. Like Ani said, I'd expect raising minimum wage to actually cause layoffs.

(I'm surprised I actually agree w Carnage & Ani [in general] lol. Great article carnage actually it relates to the last vid I posted.)

Most importantly, minimum wage/government meddling is the main reason why people in America are unemployed right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6G1rq5LdA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U4R36WjFCI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7feNWRwig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO_kjoKkhv8

-

@24:00: "Raising minimum wage (let's say $2/hr) is an unrecoverable disaster for the poor".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0UsUG0g1QE

Edort4

Thu, 01-23-2014, 02:40 PM

I have read about those wage theories quite a bit. Some of them are so well thought and written that you cant help but nod. Then you go to the real world and you find countries with high minimum wages with low unemployment and countries with low minimum wages or not a minimum at all and they have lots of unemployment.

Whatever I discuss I always look at the real world, and more the world around me. In the last decade or 2 the wages for blue collar workers (cannon fodder) have declined or lost pruchase power due to inflation. And in some places/works that lost has been huge. Not long ago I read that in 1968 part time minimum wage workers earned more than nowadays 40% of workers.

So I cant see how today with all time minimum wages and lots of tertiary education graduates we can still repeat this dogmas.

"If X didnt work is because you didnt have enough X!" Replace X for whatever poison of choice you like. Wage reduction, high education, comunism, capitalism, liberalism,socialism, cronysm etc.

KrayZ33

Thu, 01-23-2014, 05:47 PM

Or the people complaining could graduate from high school (generalization) and get a better job, or live in a house with lots of roommates, or move to a new town if need be, right? There are plenty of people willing to work for less than this, and plenty of people totally jobless/homeless/experience-less with $0/hr willing to work for $7.25/hr, so why?

holy shit, where do I even start? thats so china

long live the social market economy

what happens to the people over there when they reach old age or get ill - if 7.25/hr isn't even enough right now?
poor wages lead to -> poor job quality -> poor social security -> no further education/ postgraduate training -> old age poverty (so the next generation has to compensate that) -> and most of all depletion of the national economy

the "eat shit or die" or "faber est suae quisque fortunae" mindset is disgusting
people (including me) can't even imagine how horrible it must be to live as a working-poor

Xelbair

Thu, 01-23-2014, 09:03 PM

19.52% - retirement insurance(half by you, half by the company you are working at) - ponzi scheme, it is collapsing now - you won't get any of that money back.
8% - rent insurance(1.5% you, 6.5% company)
2.45% - sickness insurance (all by you)
0.67% to 3.86% - accident insurance
9% - health insurance(1.25% you, 7.75% comes from income tax)
2.45% - work fund(all by company)
0.1% - another work fund(all by company)

now income tax
below 85525 pln yearly - 18%
above that - 18% of 85525 AND 32% of the rest

so total:
60.09 - lowest accident insurance
63.28 - highest accident insurance
that is assuming 18% income tax

now there is also a VAT - 23% - you have to pay that with every transaction - including resale of used goods!

with VAT added: from 83.09% to 86.28% of our earnings in here is taken by taxes.
Some of those taxes are paid by your employer - but realistically speaking - it will be taken out of your earnings.

Glory to the godly Polish taxes.

increasing minimum wages seems like a dumb idea - no one will get any bit richer - it will just lower the value of the currency - everyone knows that min wages are up + employers will have to pay more -> so they have to earn more somewhere else -> price rise.

Lowering minimum wages won't help that much either - i doubt that prices will go down, due to typical human greed - people were ready to pay for it that much so why lower the price? At least in here prices tend to just rise - despite lowering the costs. It might be different in more capitalist country like USA though.

Abolishing minimum wages doesn't seem like a good idea too - if employer can hire one person to do the job for, lets say 7.5$/h or hire two people to do the same job, for half of that 7.5$/hr - the 2 ppl will get the job obviously, because they will be doing in a bit faster. With no minimum wages same amount of cash would be just spread out on more people.

the key is to find a balance(Y will hate me for that, but fuck him :P) - set minimum wages as low as possible to prevent exploitation of employee - and set it as high as possible so it won't increase the overall prices of goods.

also - i suck at anything related to economy so i might be wrong.

Sapphire

Thu, 01-23-2014, 11:09 PM

holy shit, where do I even start? thats so china

long live the social market economy

lol... Bro... My posts/views are so anti-socialist that they make our current US democracy look like socialism. D: :( BTW regulating prices/people/markets/businesses/etc. is like the MO of socialism so I think your post is in opposite land...

---

@Xel: Good post. I think lowering taxes and putting certain (if not all) things in the hands of the private sector would increase general flow of wealth. For one, there would be more efficient use of expenses due to a more Darwinian environment where people are held accountable for failed plans. Not only could you lose your job for doing unnecessary things/making mistakes (not easy to lose your job if you work in the government), but also tank your business if you own it. Significant increase in private jobs/decrease of government control => less taxes. Businesses having to pay lower or no taxes can in turn afford to hire more employees.

I didn't address all your points cuz I'm lazy, sorry lol

also - i suck at anything related to economy so i might be wrong.

Seemed like a good post to me.

Shadow Skill

Fri, 01-24-2014, 12:39 AM

Lets say a person earns $7/hour part time being 32 hours or less. Nobody can live on that, not even in America, lol. Full time, every 2 weeks. A person has, water, rent, power, (Guessing no house insurance)and that's not all the uitlities mentioned. Very little food, unless they get a discount or freebies where they work. $560 every 2 weeks, depending on how much they are taxed. I heard and don't know if true, the IRS taxes you to hell and back regardless of how much you earn or how little. So.... just a shot in the dark that it's nearly impossible to live on $7/h or $7.50/h.

This is what happens when corporations try and get away with paying very little despite making billions a year and they act as though a wage increase will make them go bankrupt (It wont). A profit is and always will be a profit, whether it's 5 Billion or 500 million. The cost of paying said workers probably only amount to a few 10s of millions or less. Just greed and not wanting to pay their workers enough to survive on. Then when they have zero workers and then make 0 profit, then they eventually wake up and are ready to negotiate and in the US it always comes to that, which is a shame.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out in the US in the coming weeks or months.

Animeniax

Fri, 01-24-2014, 12:59 AM

Few try to make a living off $7/hr part time as an adult (or whatever minimum wage is where they are at). They start in high school working that job then continue on into adulthood working the same job for the same pay and realize it's not enough to support themselves. So they end up working multiple jobs or they settle for what their part time minimum wage job can provide for them. Only now in the age of social media and liberal progressiveness do these same people have a voice to air their ridiculous lack of planning or ambition.

Solidarity in the face of not having any money for food and rent will not hold. It's not like these are unionized factory workers with a solid paycheck up until the time they decide to strike. As has been said, if the current workers strike and refuse to work, the companies will hire any of the thousands who will take the job (only to protest about low wages and working conditions in the future).

Xelbair

Fri, 01-24-2014, 09:22 AM

lol... Bro... My posts/views are so anti-socialist that they make our current US democracy look like socialism. D: :( BTW regulating prices/people/markets/businesses/etc. is like the MO of socialism so I think your post is in opposite land...

---

@Xel: Good post. I think lowering taxes and putting certain (if not all) things in the hands of the private sector would increase general flow of wealth. For one, there would be more efficient use of expenses due to a more Darwinian environment where people are held accountable for failed plans. Not only could you lose your job for doing unnecessary things/making mistakes (not easy to lose your job if you work in the government), but also tank your business if you own it. Significant increase in private jobs/decrease of government control => less taxes. Businesses having to pay lower or no taxes can in turn afford to hire more employees.

I didn't address all your points cuz I'm lazy, sorry lol

Seemed like a good post to me.

I'm kinda against total lack of laws dealing with min wage, unions and all of that - it would just lead to another industrial era-like situation where workers are paid as low as possible... with additional trend to greatly increase pay of executives. Remember that now the companies do not need to sell the product to their own employees - they can export it to any developing country.

the key is to find the balance.

also - if changing, or abolishing minimum wages does nothing good, or nearly nothing good then problem lies elsewhere.

KrayZ33

Fri, 01-24-2014, 10:46 AM

lol... Bro... My posts/views are so anti-socialist that they make our current US democracy look like socialism. D: BTW regulating prices/people/markets/businesses/etc. is like the MO of socialism so I think your post is in opposite land...

the "long live the social market economy" is my view on things
its basically the same as a free market, but without (or "less") the negativ aspects

Animeniax

Fri, 01-24-2014, 11:46 AM

Business including competition and wages need regulation, same as populations. Given the chance, humanity grows out of control until it crashes and then retracts back to equilibrium.

But back on topic, if fast food workers get their pay raise to $15/hr, who will be next to demand a similar COLA? And will companies just raise prices so that the increase in worker pay is nullified as far as purchasing power?

KrayZ33

Fri, 01-24-2014, 12:24 PM

And will companies just raise prices so that the increase in worker pay is nullified as far as purchasing power?

thats one outcome

another (positive) one would be:

increased propensity to consume -> increase in sales -> more investions to satisfy demand -> more jobs

Carnage

Fri, 01-24-2014, 07:59 PM

thats one outcome

another (positive) one would be:

increased propensity to consume -> increase in sales -> more investions to satisfy demand -> more jobs

Although you're right Animeniax's is just one outcome, your rosy picture is probably unlikely.

If GDP = C + I + G (+Net Exports), increasing the number of McDonalds jobs by taking money away from Corporate profits increases C while proportionately decreasing I. Money isn't going towards job that produce innovation or improvement, its being siphoned from just that (I) into the act of producing more of the same quality shitty food (C).

So although there's more production an people have jobs, the rate of economic improvement will decline and the standard of living will remain the same / improve at an even slower pace. It all basically boils down to fast food employees having worthless skills and not contributing anything of much importance.

It's not entirely their fault, the education system should be better to encourage people and produce more productive occupations. At the same time, people are too stupid to vote in a government that actually serves their interests, so I guess the fault again does rest on the people.

Animeniax

Fri, 01-24-2014, 08:03 PM

Although you're right Animeniax's is just one outcome, your rosy picture is probably unlikely.

If GDP = C + I + G (+Net Exports), increasing the number of McDonalds jobs by taking money away from Corporate profits increases C while proportionately decreasing I. Money isn't going towards job that produce innovation or improvement, its being siphoned from just that (I) into the act of producing more of the same quality shitty food (C).

So although there's more production an people have jobs, the rate of economic improvement will decline and the standard of living will remain the same / improve at an even slower pace. It all basically boils down to fast food employees having worthless skills and not contributing anything of much importance.

It's not entirely their fault, the education system should be better to encourage people and produce more productive occupations. At the same time, people are too stupid to vote in a government that actually serves their interests, so I guess the fault again does rest on the people.

I think he's saying that the benefit will be these workers will spend the additional money they receive, which in turn will improve sales for other businesses. This additional consumption will help the economy and offset loss of I(nvestment) from the higher wages the fast food companies have to pay. It's something I didn't factor in, but my main point is still the philosophical quandary of paying people more for doing the same shit job.

Buffalobiian

Fri, 01-24-2014, 08:28 PM

Gold is running out, isn't it? If our world isn't getting any richer (but our population keeps getting larger), why would its people?

That's what I mean by our world being overpopulated.

Carnage

Fri, 01-24-2014, 08:35 PM

Animeniax

Fri, 01-24-2014, 09:01 PM

By taking away a portion of a year's profit from McDonalds, you've taken away a portion of investment gains of the following year:

If I grows by 3%, then taking away 20% of I affects growth by .2I*.03 = .06I. In that same time span, the increase in C is offset by the decrease in I, so in effect you've only decreased total production Y by .06I. Any benefits of increased demand will be seen in the next year after the new profits of McDonalds from an expanded customer base. But there would have been more capital to use to invest had you just kept the money in I in the first place.

tl;dr money is naturally already siphoned into industries that actually improve our conditions, with the exception of useless shit like yacht production and the like. By putting it in the hands of people who dont actually contribute, you're taking away from better sources of growth.

Yeah but society isn't judged by how rich your businesses get while your population stagnates and wallows in poverty. There has to be a healthy balance and right now there is too much poverty for the people and too much wealth for the rich (companies). It needs equilibrium, even if that means a hit to investment from business and a loss of overall GDP. I don't think paying higher wages to fast food employees is the answer though.

Ryllharu

Sat, 01-25-2014, 06:52 AM

Xelbair

Sat, 01-25-2014, 09:15 AM

Gold is running out, isn't it? If our world isn't getting any richer (but our population keeps getting larger), why would its people?

That's what I mean by our world being overpopulated.

like gold has anything to do with value of currency...

@Ani:

I like how you use "the companies" instead of "the corporations" to keep your head juuuuust above the delusional libertarian wackjob waters flooding this thread.

+50 Exp to your Rhetoric Skill

I don't think that monetary system can be fixed in any way - despite what you do it will continue to make rich richer and poor poorer - you'll just slightly adjust the rate. I'm all for balancing things so everyone can get most long-term profit... tbh i would prefer Venus Project like system(that uses no money) but that's just an utopia.

Ryllharu

Sat, 01-25-2014, 09:39 AM

I don't think that monetary system can be fixed in any way - despite what you do it will continue to make rich richer and poor poorer - you'll just slightly adjust the rate. I'm all for balancing things so everyone can get most long-term profit... tbh i would prefer Venus Project like system(that uses no money) but that's just an utopia.
What the hell does what I posted have anything to do with what you posted?

Complete non sequitur.

Animeniax

Sat, 01-25-2014, 10:07 AM

@Ani:

I like how you use "the companies" instead of "the corporations" to keep your head juuuuust above the delusional libertarian wackjob waters flooding this thread.

+50 Exp to your Rhetoric Skill

I like how you read that much into my word choice, when I didn't differentiate between the two in my own mind. Company, corporation, business... it's all the same to me. To be honest, I don't know what Libertarians stand for.

Ryllharu

Sat, 01-25-2014, 10:11 AM

To be honest, I don't know what Libertarians stand for.
Neither do they.

And it was a compliment, you should have taken it as such.

Sapphire

Sat, 01-25-2014, 10:27 AM

Pssssttttt Haru! You're griping {since your second post}!

In a srs thread like this, stuff some counterpoints in there, at least. You also claim to know nothing about economics anyway, so like, why w the attitude! lol :(

PS— Am I included as one of the delusional Libertarians? If so, it's cute that you called me a Libertarian. <3 <3.

Ryllharu

Sat, 01-25-2014, 10:54 AM

I believe the words I used were, "delusional libertarian wackjob waters". It referred to the line of discussion and the rhetoric used, not the people conducting it.

I think it is cute you think this thread is a serious discussion, and not the same kind of drivel one hears at Starbucks or in a university discussion class.

edit:
Want some counterpoints to discuss?

'If people want to earn more money, they should go to school.' [as in universities]
- If people can. There are many min wage workers that have learning disabilities or are outright mentally handicapped but otherwise fantastic food service sector workers. What about them?
- Yes, all Americans should attend university and get saddled with $35,000 in loans. Great idea for empowering all Americans. Cripple them with debt.

'If they want to earn money, there are plenty of high demand careers out there like Engineering.'
- Most students who enter engineering and other "high demand" career path curricula drop out. Why? "Because STEM majors are hard (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)." Anecdotally, my major in college went from well over 300 to a mere 80 across four years, and we were the largest class of all time at my school. The preceding year was around 40, and the following year way something around 60.

'But if they can make it through a hard major, there are plenty of opening for them! High-demand career and whatnot.'
- Except it isn't. There is no crisis or high demand for those in STEM majors (http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth). It was as hard during the financial crisis to find an engineering job, tech sector, or science job as any other. It was fiercely competitive for about three years to find a job, same as any other area.

The whole subject is a lot more complicated that anything discussed thus far.