Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Nov '15 01:05
    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/11/donald-trump-insists-that-wages-are-too-high/

    I know quackquack agrees with this and thinks Americans will have to see their wages decreased to the levels of say Cambodians so that we can "compete" with the rest of the world, but do others think the Donald is right?
  2. 12 Nov '15 01:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/11/donald-trump-insists-that-wages-are-too-high/

    I know quackquack agrees with this and thinks Americans will have to see their wages decreased to the levels of say Cambodians so that we can "compete" with the rest of the world, but do others think the Donald is right?
    Wage levels can be whatever they are and it is meaningless until the relative purchasing power of the wage is taken into account (relative to the purchasing power in another or previous economy). Immediately we get into the CPI or more accurately, CPIs for different sectors.. And purchasing power is hard to compare over generations, because there are gains (and losses) in the benefits of purchased goods and services. For example, automobiles are safer than before seat belts, and there are new lifesaving medical treatments.

    But Trump is speaking to people who are ignorant of nuance, and are suspicious of people who use the word "nuance."

    [/endrant]
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Nov '15 01:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    Wage levels can be whatever they are and it is meaningless until the relative purchasing power of the wage is taken into account (relative to the purchasing power in another or previous economy). Immediately we get into the CPI or more accurately, CPIs for different sectors.. And purchasing power is hard to compare over generations, because there are gains (a ...[text shortened]... ho are ignorant of nuance, and are suspicious of people who use the word "nuance."

    [/endrant]
    Do you think that such improvements in products are not reflected in price?

    In opposing wage increases, Trump and the other Republicans are not speaking to an uneducated audience but to the audience that matters most to them; the elite class to whom higher wages for the peasants reduces the share of the economy that they can grab for themselves.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Nov '15 01:46 / 1 edit
    It also seems that Marco Rubio was wrong when he said "Welders make more money than philosophers" http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/11/philosophers_speak_up_after_rubio_debate_jab.html

    And do we really "We need more welders and less philosophers"? Can't we have more of both?
  5. 12 Nov '15 01:52
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Do you think that such improvements in products are not reflected in price?

    In opposing wage increases, Trump and the other Republicans are not speaking to an uneducated audience but to the audience that matters most to them; the elite class to whom higher wages for the peasants reduces the share of the economy that they can grab for themselves.
    I forgot about that. There are usually two audiences.

    Price is sensitive to many influences.
  6. 12 Nov '15 02:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It also seems that Marco Rubio was wrong when he said "Welders make more money than philosophers" http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/11/philosophers_speak_up_after_rubio_debate_jab.html

    And do we really "We need more welders and less philosophers"? Can't we have more of both?
    Markets generally create demand. Education creates the supply. Supply often lags behind demand.
  7. 12 Nov '15 02:26
    Originally posted by JS357
    I forgot about that. There are usually two audiences.

    Price is sensitive to many influences.
    Wages are the price of labor.
  8. 12 Nov '15 03:43
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It also seems that Marco Rubio was wrong when he said "Welders make more money than philosophers" http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/11/11/philosophers_speak_up_after_rubio_debate_jab.html

    And do we really "We need more welders and less philosophers"? Can't we have more of both?
    Every welder I've met has been a philosopher.
  9. 12 Nov '15 03:46
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/11/donald-trump-insists-that-wages-are-too-high/

    I know quackquack agrees with this and thinks Americans will have to see their wages decreased to the levels of say Cambodians so that we can "compete" with the rest of the world, but do others think the Donald is right?
    What's wrong with paying low wages?

    If people will work for you they obviously need the job.

    If they can to better elsewhere, they will.
  10. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    12 Nov '15 09:33
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Do you think that such improvements in products are not reflected in price?

    In opposing wage increases, Trump and the other Republicans are not speaking to an uneducated audience but to the audience that matters most to them; the elite class to whom higher wages for the peasants reduces the share of the economy that they can grab for themselves.
    Precisely.
  11. 12 Nov '15 13:14
    Why is it that EVERYTHING that goes on between two consenting adults is "OK" just so long as they are not agreeing to a low paying wage?
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 Nov '15 13:24
    Originally posted by whodey
    What's wrong with paying low wages?

    If people will work for you they obviously need the job.

    If they can to better elsewhere, they will.
    Tell that to a young kid on an Indian reservation looking for work.
  13. 12 Nov '15 13:46 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Tell that to a young kid on an Indian reservation looking for work.
    Well here is the thing, he can either take another job offered or attempt to seek government hand outs or he can go into business for himself.

    I don't see how working for a low wage changes any of this? Maybe he lives at home with his parents and pockets all of the money. If so, he probably end up with more money to spend than many who make a $100,000 a year and have all the money go toward paying bills.

    At least the low paying job is but one more option for him.

    But alas, socialism is about taking our options away, isn't it? It's all about thinking the same way and doing the same things cuz it makes us happy knowing there is no dissent.
  14. 12 Nov '15 13:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    What's wrong with paying low wages?

    If people will work for you they obviously need the job.

    If they can to better elsewhere, they will.
    what's wrong with only "paying" workers with room and board. if people will work for your they obviously need the job.

    if they can do better elsewhere, they will. because everyone just loves to uproot their families and just go somewhere else where the situation is the same and rely on employer decency to make a living.
  15. 12 Nov '15 13:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    what's wrong with only "paying" workers with room and board. if people will work for your they obviously need the job.
    It's what most people do today anyway.

    As taxes increase and health care costs rise, more and more of our money goes towards simply surviving.


    As I said, you could make $100,000 a year and not have any money left over for anything but surviving. It does not help with the government inflating away our wages.

    Things are so bad, more and more adults decide to remain at home in order to make ends meet. We are returning to a tribal society for survival.