all 10 comments

[–]PanDariusKairos 8 points9 points  (0 children)

People don't care...until they're personally affected by it.

How many celebrities created or donated to redearch or charities only after they contracted the disease the research is studying?

How many people get involved in anti drunk driving or anti gun movements only after they lose someone they love?

We are where we are because most of us, rich, poor and middle class, are miserable, selfish little shits.

I have little faith in humanity. Maybe AI will be better.

[–]rinnip -1 points0 points  (8 children)

Who's claiming that you're supposed to be able to live on minimum wage. It was designed for teenagers still living at home. If your work is only worth minimum wage, you're going to have a very hard time making it in the US.

[–]theblindsilenceEmployment Avoidance Specialist: 6 Years of Experience. 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Who's claiming that you're supposed to be able to live on minimum wage. It was designed for teenagers still living at home.

No it was not.

[–]rinnip 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It was never intended to provide a living. I worked for minimum as a young man, and I couldn't have paid rent.

[–]valeriekeefe25% of Per Capita GDP, indexed to blend of growth and inflation 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Old Economy Steve, everyone.

Actually, minimum-wage-to-GDP-per-hour-worked ratios have been consistently falling since the late 60s.

[–]theblindsilenceEmployment Avoidance Specialist: 6 Years of Experience. 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Technically you are correct. But with that being said, the question is what exactly is the point of jobs and wages if one primarily gets a job to pay for the cost of living, regardless of ones age, if that wage is not enough to live on, through no fault of their own?

I live in England so the history of the implementation of our own National Minimum Wage is different to the history of your own. Quite recently, in the last year or two, the National Minimum Wage was re-branded to the National Living Wage, it is no such thing of course but the idea behind the change in name was that the government wanted to be seen as doing something, to attempt to pacify the masses perhaps?, at a time when wages were stagnant and the cost of living keeps increasing. They were doing this at precisely the same time when their welfare cuts (or reform as they call it) were starting to kick in coincidently. Still the NLW is not enough to live on and this is a problem, age of a recipient is irrelevant.

[–]adrilazzaro 6 points7 points  (1 child)

This is a ridiculous arguments. The entire nation of people working on minimum wage is meant to be teenagers still living at home? All the cashier's, burger flippers, delivery guys, newspapers, cretail, etc. JUST for teenagers still living at home? Do pray tell then who is supposed to man these positions, which are vital to our everyday economy, when most if not all these teenagers ARE IN SCHOOL DURING THE MOST IMPORTANT BUSINESS HOURS OF THE DAY.

Moving on, minimum wage had always been increased to match the inflation, in fact all wages increase to match inflation, otherwise your wages are literally decreasing due to their loss of buying power. Shouldn't then the minimum wage increase accordingly to inflation? The fact is it did before, but the right wing frenzy America has had for the past couple decades has left that minimum wage static, ignoring inflation. This actually means the minimum wage is worth LESS than it was 15 years ago.

How would you feel if your employer refused to increase your wage to match inflation? Just so that it's worth the same as it did when you started. For years and years your buying power would only get worse.

Usually the USA fiscal policy Aimee for a healthy 2-3% inflation but the Trump administration has increased that number in the name of a 'weak dollar policy', in the hopes that it'll increase exports, we'll see how that works out for him. The point is wages should match inflation, the longer an employer waits to do this the less buying power and the less his wage is worth.

[–]smegko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a 'weak dollar policy',

Notice how the dollar was highest when Reagan was running unprecedented deficits? Also notice that the dollar has gotten stronger since the Fed expanded world dollar reserves and lowered interest rates since 2008 ...

The dollar is strong because world private firms prefer the US dollar as the unit for settlement. The private consensus on the dollar has much more influence on the dollar's value than any state. The private consensus has persisted at least since World War II, despite the Nixon Shock and the 2008 financial crisis.

For significant periods of time including the last decade, it has been the case that the more dollars there are, the stronger they get.

Tl;dr: the dollar's value is psychological, largely determined by the whims of private sector firms, who like that the Fed printed a lot in 2008 to backstop all the credit they themselves had created by circulating promises.

[–]TiV3 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Even if it's worth more, it might only pay minimum wage or close to it. Short of much greater union bargaining fighting for occupation or employer specific tariffs that maximize industry output (and fair distribution of markups at maximum output), the minimum wage is an increasingly popular all purpose solution (which it clearly isn't suited for, indeed).

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)


In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (mónos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnía) "purchase") is a market structure in which only one buyer interacts with many would-be sellers of a particular product. In the microeconomic theory of monopsony, a single entity is assumed to have market power over terms of offer to its sellers, as the only purchaser of a good or service, much in the same manner that a monopolist can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers.

The most commonly researched or discussed monopsony context is that with a single buyer of labor in the labor market. In addition to its use in microeconomic theory, monopsony and monopsonist are descriptive terms often used to describe a market where a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services.

[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28