I'm surprised it takes so long for some people to figure this out. Free Market Competition is nothing more than an advanced form of feudalism. You can look worldwide for various examples, particularly free trade zones. It's borderline slavery. For best examples, anyone curious enough can always refer back to 18902-1910s period in the US, let alone Europe 1600-1700s.
Borderline slavery? You do not have an idea about working conditions south of the border. You do not know about the contribution that US companies operating in Mexico, for example, make to local economy and national welfare. Please abandon your social-leftist-cnn-humanist focus and grow up. Borderline slavery? What is the option? Do you have any?
Raising the minimum wage would give the government an automatic increase in income. Why wouldn't they want more money to spend.
You really do not want this debate as it will be over your head. Yes I have studied, although briefly, what it is like in those Free Trade Zones that for some reason manage to enrich only the already rich. They don't call them sweatshops for nothing. Resorting to calling me labels only shows your closemindness. And there are options but they involve understanding that perpetual growth and consumerism are not exactly good things. Touch concept to swallow and an impossible for USA who relies on perpetual growth in order keep financing the debt.
Having been on both sides a social worker and no a devote capitlist, I am questioning the American pro capitalist system. I am starting to favor the Canadian system, socialism with a majority of capitalism, atleast as I understand it ( having relatives and friends in Canada). My reasoning the growing disparity between poor and rich in America. Germany and Sweden are to far to socialism from my studies, Canada seems more balanced, but that is just my opinion.
I remember reading a story about a factory where cheap labor was being utilized in the form of (predominantly) female minors. Political pressure in the U.S. caused the U.S.-based company to close the factory. A follow-up story showed that most of those girls ended up involved in prostitution.
Why isn't the minimum wage pegged to inflation? It seems to me that Cola's tend to work toward the ultimate goal of having a modest but manageable inflation rate. Better yet! Why doesn't the increase exactly at the ideal inflation rate of 2-2.5%? It seems to me that this would actually help meet that target. It may even tend to shift some of the burden a little higher up the food chain where it belongs.
Guys, it's very simple what would happen here if we raised minimum wages. The cost of goods would not go up, at least not to any real noticeable measure. What would happen is unemployment among the lowest skilled workers would double overnight. Let's say Company A has 10 employees making 5.15 an hour, all basic menial stuff. Now, let's say we were to double the minimum wage to make the math easy. Now workers are getting 10.30 an hour. But guess what, Company A is only going to hire 5 instead of 10. The 5 lowest skilled among the 10 will be out of a job and priced out of the job market completely. It would not affect most the people on this site, but among the most vulnerable among us, their lives would be ruined. This would leave these people at the mercy of the state. So now the state has to come in and keep these people alive. It totally refutes the whole idea to begin with. Why not just have the state take care of these people now? Why go through the charade? In a free market system, wages are determined entirely by replacement cost. Every single worker in this country has a replacement cost. For some people, like Albert Pujols, his replacement cost is very high. Perhaps the CEO of Goldman Sachs has a very high replacement cost. The janitor at a local high school has a very low replacement cost. If you raise his wages, in other words, by changing one of the variables in the equation, you need to change all other variables to get the same output. So a higher wage means you need to find a higher skilled worker and give them more responsibility. You can raise wages all you want. Hell, you can make minimum wage $100 an hour. All you will do is kill the low end of the workforce, the very people you are trying to help. The reason the system works in Canada and Europe is not because they pay their workers higher wages, but because you have state sponsored welfare. Once you start paying people to sit around and do nothing, nothing is what you get in return. You add zero productivity to society. There is an answer to the problem. It's not higher wages. It's better education. Instead of raising kids to work at fast food restaurants and sweep floors, you need to raise kids to become doctors, researchers, chemists, programmers, architects, teachers, nurses, engineers, etc. Of course this would require people actually working towards these goals. Both the young people in this country, their parents, and the educators.
how about an hourly wage under which most citizens would concur that it amounts to slavery... or is as harmful to the economy as some delocalisations? how about (gradually) boycotting products & services from countries where a majority of the population earns $1 / day or less... thats a lot of people btw... to the benefit of countries who (gradually) implement a minimum (survival?) rate of say $5 / day... see what happens? just a thought...