By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Lower wages = Lower unemployment benefits

scottie said:

First of all, the reason very few countries have as large a labor force as the US is because they have smaller populations. How is total labor force an indicator of anything?

 

Assuming you're talking about labor force participation rate, higher is not better in this case (obviously it is better if you are a millionaire seeking to extort as much money from people as you can, but it isn't actually better for the country or its population). The way I am reading it, if you want a high participation rate, you should knock down all your educational instituions and kill off the young and the old. How is that a good comparison tool?


You start off by cherry picking and now you resort to an appeal to ridicule ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule ) ...

Now, no one has determined what the ideal labour force size is (obviously relative to population) but we have seen countries (like France) which have raised minimum wages to the extent that the employment prospects of young visible minority youths that it takes very little to motivate them to rioting in the street and burning cars. By increasing minimum wages to an unreasonable level you eliminate the opportunities of those individuals you're trying to help by increasing minimum wages.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel said:
scottie said:

First of all, the reason very few countries have as large a labor force as the US is because they have smaller populations. How is total labor force an indicator of anything?

 

Assuming you're talking about labor force participation rate, higher is not better in this case (obviously it is better if you are a millionaire seeking to extort as much money from people as you can, but it isn't actually better for the country or its population). The way I am reading it, if you want a high participation rate, you should knock down all your educational instituions and kill off the young and the old. How is that a good comparison tool?


You start off by cherry picking and now you resort to an appeal to ridicule ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule ) ...

Now, no one has determined what the ideal labour force size is (obviously relative to population) but we have seen countries (like France) which have raised minimum wages to the extent that the employment prospects of young visible minority youths that it takes very little to motivate them to rioting in the street and burning cars. By increasing minimum wages to an unreasonable level you eliminate the opportunities of those individuals you're trying to help by increasing minimum wages.

Sorry, that was not meant as an appeal to ridicule or to strawman your argument. I am merely pointing out that the participation rate is a poor monitor of how good an economic system is. In Australia we are seeing an ageing population, which means that our participation rate is uselss for comparing between countries, or even comparing Australia now to Australia at a different point in time.

 

Regards the France point, read 1984 and you will see that you were so close to the truth, but you drew the wrong conclusion.



So you compare our unemployment to Asian and African countries as if you want us to be like them?  Do you really want the US to be like them, because according to our standards, many of those same countries have GDP per capita under $5,000, including China.  If you really think the housing will become cheaper, you have to become aware that the only way that will happen is if the provided housing becomes shittier/cheaper to provide for the providers.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

scottie said:

As an addependum to the whole 'getting your facts right when trolling' thing, your entire premise is incorrect.

 

There is no correlation between lack of a fair minimum wage and employment rate.

                                                                                  Unemployment rate (%)

 Zimbabwe 95.0 2009 (June)[130]
 Nauru 90.0 2004[3]
 Liberia 85.0;[77] 88% among young Liberians[78] 2009 (July)
 Vanuatu 78.21 1999[124]
 Turkmenistan 70.0 2008 (November)[117]
 Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia) 60.0 2000[3]
 Mozambique 60.0 2009
 Tajikistan 60.0 2008 (August)[112]
 Djibouti 59.0 2007[3]
 Namibia 51.2 2008[3

 

Zimbabwe has no minimum wage

Naura has no minimum wage

Liberia (minimum wage 20 US cents/hour)

I could go on, but there is no point, you and I both know that your argument is bogus.

 

Fact is, minimum wage and unemployment benefits give people disposable income, which they spend on products and services. In order to sell these products and provide these services, more people need to be employed, reducing unemployment. Unions and minimum wage are required to reduce unemployment.

Let's raise Zimbabwe's minimum wage to 15.50 USD.

Lets see how much better employment gets...

This is the silliest use of statistics i've seen in a while, i can only hope your not being serious.



Lostplanet22 said:
Joelcool7 said:

 

1)we would become like China where children would have to start working so the families could get by. Giant factories could open and yes we'd manufacture more stuff here in NA but the quality of life would be shot.

My province has the lowest minimum wage in Canada, at 8$ an hour. But with rising gas, food and rental prices even that isn't enough. So if you give people jobs where they earn 4$-6$ an hour or so, how will they break even or make a living? Right now I'm on welfare so to speak because I can't find work, but I'd make less with a job like your suggesting then I would on welfare, infact I wouldn't be able to survive if I worked full time for a job less then minimum wage.

Example I spend nearly 400$ a month on groceries, after my rent is taken I am actually in debt, luckily I got a credit card before loosing my job. But what if we didn't get minimum wage, heck it would be impossible to survive.

So yes unemployment would drop, but so to would the income of people meaning more poverty. 2)Also unemployment last I checked in Canada was almost back at 8% like it used to be, that isn't that bad considering countries like China, India etc...etc... with low income jobs have much higher unemployment rates.

In the end it would be a short term fix, it would harm the population and would increase the poverty rate. Nothing good would come from it.

1)You know no one of my family or friends or all the people I met ever have to do this for their family..You are generalizing something that only counts for a small part ...How small/big it exactly is no idea but you almost sound like the China of the early 90's...

2) What information are you checking?  If you checked a site like CIA world Fact book you see the last years the unemployment numbers are around 4-4,5%...(Talking about China)


Umm alright so China has a 4% higher rate of employment, do you really think 4% is worth cutting people's living conditions? You fail to read about how drastically a change in living conditions would occur if we got rid of our minimum wages. 8% is pretty low compared to other countries and honestly those who can't find work can always apply for welfare which is funded by tax dollars.

Children are working in China, at least according to the documentaries I watch on CNN, CBC, BBC. or the dozens of activists who talk about the factory conditions in China. Buisnesses have to charge less money for the products they sell. People can't afford much they live like crap (Outside of the major cities).

Do you honestly think 4% unemployment is worth the dive in quality of life that such drastic action would cause?

I myself can barely get by on minimum wage and now welfare. I can only imagine how hard it would be to get by if minimum wages were any lower. Fact is homeless rates would grow which would lead to higher unemployment unless the Government stepped in and spent more tax dollars to assist people.

Trust me lowing minimum wages would only harm the general population, especially in a first world country!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Around the Network

If anything, I'd support a cap on salary.

In that, the top paid cannot be 20 times more than the lowest paid employee.

That way, they'd have less incentive to stick it to the lowly guy getting peanuts for pay while the top gobble up all the cash. It should include bonuses, too.

And bonuses don't exist if the company goes in the red.



Galaki said:

If anything, I'd support a cap on salary.

In that, the top paid cannot be 20 times more than the lowest paid employee.

That way, they'd have less incentive to stick it to the lowly guy getting peanuts for pay while the top gobble up all the cash. It should include bonuses, too.

And bonuses don't exist if the company goes in the red.

If that happened 1 of 2 things would happen.


A)  Anyone who could get paid higher would just leave the country.

B) the lower guys getting peanuts wouldn't be hired by the company.  Instead they would be hired by a "talent" company, and do the work through that company... and ultimately be paid less because that company would charge for it's existance.

 

As for no bunuses if your in the red.... that would just be the doom of dieing companies, I mean, what Ceo is going to want to jump in to try and save a company midway if he's not going to get a bonus because of the previous guys incompetance.  It takes a while to build back a company.



Kasz216 said:

A)  Anyone who could get paid higher would just leave the country.


I am sure someone else could the the same job and will be satisfied with the pay.

I'll definitely take up the job that allows me to watch porn 8 hrs a day on a 200k salary... even if I run the risk of turning bi.



Galaki said:
Kasz216 said:

A)  Anyone who could get paid higher would just leave the country.


I am sure someone else could the the same job and will be satisfied with the pay.

I'll definitely take up the job that allows me to watch porn 8 hrs a day on a 200k salary... even if I run the risk of turning bi.


But would they do it as well?

I'd guess not.  Generally Ceo's and other execs get paid what they are worth... because if they were getting paid too much, they'd be replaced.

Like you said, there are plenty of people willing to do the job.



Kasz216 said:
Galaki said:
Kasz216 said:

A)  Anyone who could get paid higher would just leave the country.


I am sure someone else could the the same job and will be satisfied with the pay.

I'll definitely take up the job that allows me to watch porn 8 hrs a day on a 200k salary... even if I run the risk of turning bi.


But would they do it as well?

I'd guess not.  Generally Ceo's and other execs get paid what they are worth... because if they were getting paid too much, they'd be replaced.

Like you said, there are plenty of people willing to do the job.

May or may not. Who knows if it would until it's tried, right?

The replacement could do better, too.