How Rich are You on a Global Scale?

[binary solo]

DonFerrari said:

binary solo said:

DonFerrari said:

zehh25 said:

I wouldn't say its is better being poor in US than being middle class in Brazil, but maybe being a lower middle class here is indeed worse than being poor there. I think with our minimum wage it would be impossible to live in US to be honest, although it seems acceptable in any South American country (excluding Brazil, ironically, and maybe Chile). But I believe that increasing it too much would result in more unemployment and inflation in a short period, maybe in 15-20 years it will be in a better situation.

Minimum wage is a useless concept, but I won't enter in that. There are a lot of people in USA that would be considered poor in USA standard that would have basic sanitary, eletricity, a house and two cars while the middle class here can't (the one defined by the government by having per capita income of 200,00 to 500,00 dollars a month... over that it's upper class). As I said, people think they are poorer than they are.

Why not? This thread is meant to stimulate discussion about wealth, economic systems and such. The concept of minimum wage (for or against) is part of economic thinking and has an impact on wealth distribution and living standards. A lot of developed countries are moving beyond minimum wage and are now thinking in terms of "living wage", which is a calculation of how much a person needs to meet the basic necessities of life in their locality. Where I live a calculation of a living wage comes in at $17.50/hr for a 40 hr week. Current minimum wage is $14.75. So it's clear that even for a single person with no dependants the minimum wage is insufficient to have a reasonable standard of living here. It is always the case that minimum wage lags behind cost of living increases, so people on minimum wage are always falling furhter and further towards or below the poverty line. A living wage is always being recalculated to ensure it remains a minimum viable level of income. 

Peronsally my radical theory that requires no need to force employers to pay a minimum or living wage is for the govt to not try to force people into work and to pay people who choose not to work the minimum necessary to live to a minimum standard. That way, people can confidently opt out of crappy soul-destroying low paid work without having to worry about how they will feed themselves / their family. This means employers have to compete against being paid for not working, which means they will pay higher than the minimum needed for basic living, and thus a minimum wage does not need to be legislated.

The vast majoiry of people want to be productive, and so the vast majoriy of people will prefer to do paid work that is above the non-working minimum. And morden economies require at least 4-4.5% of people to be out of work anyway, so even if 4% of people are total lazy arses the end result isn't actually that big of a burden on govt expenditure. Plus there are other benefits to govt expenditure in healthcare and crime, because people will generally be happier with life.

Because when you force a minimum wage you can remove steps on the ladder... if I live with my parents and want to learn a profession that for several months I won't be generating profit for the person teaching me then if he doesn't need to pay me a minimum he can be able to hire and teach me, if the governement demand that he pay me a minimum he'll opt to not hire me.

The idea of paying a minimum wage for someone after the first steps is just because of people lazyness and lack of interest of really progressing in their life.

And if you see americas today and how much the social benefits distribute you'll see it is much beyong 4-5% of the population and if you would count all the benefits the real income of those people are above the living wage. In Brazil our brilliant government said in 2012 that unemployment was under 5%, but curiously enough the Bolsa Familia that would be paid for the famine was reaching more than 15% of the population. They love to make up the statistics.

That's not really true in all cases where there is minimum wage. Often the minimum wage regulations take account of training / internship situations where you are not properly qualified for the job, hence the employer doesn't have to pay you minimum wage and either you are considered to be effectively a student for half the time you are working, or the government uses its education / training budget to top you up to minimum wage.

Also thinking that someone won't employ a person because they have to pay minimum wage is false. Employment rates never go down in relation to upward adjustments or implementation of minimum wages unless there are other factors that are causing increased unemployment. If someone needs to employ a person in order for the busness to work at optimal effectiveness then they will do so, and if they have to employ a person who is under-qualified or lacks experience because no one better is available then they will hire the best person they can. If they can make more money off that person's work than they have to pay then they will do hire them, and even if initially the person has negative productivity if raw output is important to achieve for business growth / success then as long as the employer can see a quick transition into positive productivity then the periood of negative productivity is simply a necessary investment in future profits.  

Also in most countries there's no law against doing voluntary, unpaid work for the purposes of training if that's what you want to do as an investment in your future.