|
Welcome to The Allied States
|
| S.6 Raise Minimum Wage to Living Wage; RAISE IT | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 23 2015, 01:18 AM (2,211 Views) | |
| Wildeboden | Mar 23 2015, 01:18 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Down with the Bourgeoisie!
|
Because implementing a living wage will maximize the most amount of net benefits, I affirm the resolution that, “Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage”Since the resolution uses the term ought, which means moral obligation, I value morality. The only way to achieve morality is through utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the moral theory that is based on maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number. Thus my value criterion is maximizing the most amounts of the net benefits. Use Utilitarianism when creating policies because: a. Government policies entail tradeoffs b. public action is required from the inability of individual action to achieve certain morally desirable ends. A. A living minimum wage brings people out of poverty. According to Dube, an economist, an immediate increase in the federal minimum wage is projected to reduce the number of those living in poverty by around 6.8 million. B. A living wage will boost consumerism. raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power.¶ Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, would give an additional $51.5 billion over the phase-in period to affected workers, who would, in turn, spend those extra earnings. This projected rise in consumer spending is critical to any recovery, especially when weak consumer demand is one of the most significant factors holding back new hiring. Cooper and Hall '13 Raising the minimum wage means minimum wage workers have more money to expend which means more money ripples throughout the economy as minimum wage employees are able to spend more. -Halvorsen '14 C. Consumerism is good. Consumerism is fast emerging as an environmental force affecting major business decisions as consumers become more aware about their rights. A broad recognition and growing acceptance of consumerism makes the firms more consumer‐oriented rather than product‐oriented. It is noted that consumerism tends to serve as an opportunity for those corporate managers who are able to identify and anticipate the consumer’s problems. FOR THESE REASONS: Article 1 Section 1. Raise the minimum wage to $10/hr Edited by Wildeboden, Mar 28 2015, 10:05 PM.
|
National Role-play Committee Chairman|UEA Founder|EBank Co-Founder|Admiral of the People's Navy|General of the People's Army![]() ![]() ![]() Join the Communist Party! | |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| ILTrains | Mar 23 2015, 07:47 PM Post #71 |
![]()
I'm hungry
|
Nope. For me it's the opposite direction. |
|
Prime Minsiter Senator Former Governor of Buxton Former Secretary of the Interior WA Delegate Eye-El in a Nutshell
| |
![]() |
|
| Keventle | Mar 23 2015, 07:48 PM Post #72 |
|
Ron Reggie
|
but you just said one of the biggest liberal pushes doesn't work. You are contradicting yourself. |
LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOUNDER![]() Job Stuff thoughts
| |
![]() |
|
| Wildeboden | Mar 23 2015, 07:50 PM Post #73 |
![]()
Down with the Bourgeoisie!
|
It's not about the party, it's about your hearty! |
National Role-play Committee Chairman|UEA Founder|EBank Co-Founder|Admiral of the People's Navy|General of the People's Army![]() ![]() ![]() Join the Communist Party! | |
![]() |
|
| The Rhein States | Mar 24 2015, 04:28 AM Post #74 |
![]()
|
Uh, I did not say the minimum wage does not work. IT WORKS, MULTIPLE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT IT INCREASES HAPINESS AND DOES NOT HARM ECONOMY. Other studies about the minimum wage show that still a portion of the people will remain poor, less then before, but they will be poor. The other point, important in this discussion, is that businesses are morally and ethically responsible for their actions. Which would mean paying a sufficient amount of salary (what is sufficient?) to its employees. Minimum Wage, yes, no circular movement in thinking there but businesses must do their part too, otherwise the whole thing still fails. Like everything in government already does because nobody takes responsibility. |
|
Functions: - Director of Recruitment (March-April 2015) - Director of Communications (March 2015) - Secretary of Foreign Affairs (April-May 2015) - Owner of: Allied Public News Corporation, Rhein Industries and EasyBank | |
![]() |
|
| CDLand | Mar 24 2015, 04:56 AM Post #75 |
![]()
Senate President
|
Multiple studies have also shown that the minimum wage increases unemployment and reduces job growth. (ie Neumark & Wascher, Meer & West, etc.) I agree, Rhein States, let's move on to the ethical responsibilities of businesses. Businesses do do their part to reduce poverty: they're the reason why we have moved on from the 18th century when men's lives were "nasty, brutish, and short". When businesses employ people, they reduce poverty. When businesses sell goods and services at cheap prices to consumers, they reduce poverty. When businesses innovate, they reduce poverty. The minimum wage hampers all of this. You ask "what is a sufficient salary"? I say that a sufficient salary is one that compensates the employee for the value of the work that they provide to the employer: nothing more, nothing less. Why should businesses be forced to pay $10 for work that provides $7 in value? The extra $3 has to come from somewhere, in the form of higher unemployment and higher prices. But let's move on to the essential point, which is the question, "Do businesses have a moral obligation to do their part to better society?" Well first let remark me that the question should be rephrased "Do business managers have a moral obligation to do their part to better society in their official capacity as managers"? Only people have moral obligations, businesses do not. But I argue that managers do not have any moral obligations in their business capacity. Businesses are not charities, they exist to make money, and, in so doing, provide a benefit to the rest of us by giving us goods and services at a price mutually agreeable to both consumer and seller. That's their purpose, nothing more and nothing less. Imposing altruism on this model distorts the market with negative consequences for everyone. So instead the managers have a personal obligation to do their part to benefit society. They have a personal obligation to do community service or donate to charity or volunteer at church or whatever. Churches and charities: these are the institutions we have set up to benefit society. Allow businesses to do their part and allow charities to do theirs. The end result is better for both lower and middle income people. |
|
John Newman (LP-Buxton) First President of the Allied States Winner of the "Last to Post Wins" Contest!!!! | |
![]() |
|
| The Rhein States | Mar 24 2015, 06:42 AM Post #76 |
![]()
|
Spoken like a true libertarian. "Businesses are not charities, they exist to make money, and, in so doing, provide a benefit to the rest of us by giving us goods and services at a price mutually agreeable t oboth consumer and seller", a more dispicable answer wasn't possible. It raises a question about money creation, this, money where does it come from? Well, simply put, it comes out of nowhere! Businesses exist to make money but if everyone is trying to make money out of the same pool then businesses do the reverse thing. Instead they are withdrawing money from the economy. Okay, perhaps most of you have never know this. The only legitimate institution that may print money (coins) are Central Banks, a law created in 1840 in England prevented commercial banks to print money. Yes, before 1840 it was legitimate to print your own money, how cool is that? Times change though and another form of money was created: Electronic Money. Today, we cannot avoid electronic money. When banks got notice of this, they started to create huge amounts of "credit", it still looks like money and you can buy things with it but there is a catch almost nobody knows. 'Don't ask, Don't tell' The 1840 law that prevented banks from printing money has never been updated to electronic money and therefore banks created huge amounts of electronic money. Banks control the economy, individuals, companies, organisations and even government are all controlled by the banks because they, with their electronic money, are now also supplying to the economy. If we would have changed the law in 1975, to also include electronic money as being illegal to be created by banks and individuals, we now would not see massive inflation or deflation and we probably wouldn't be so fixed on economic figures too. As I said before, banks create 'credit'. You can buy things with credit: a house, a car, or even repay old debts. As long as the bank thinks you can repay your debts, you do not have to worry. If banks are optimistic, they will lend more money to citizens, if they are pessimistic (like in 2007-2008), they stop lending money, as we have seen. What happens is a chain that collapses. Why? You have to pay interests on the mortgage or on a loan or, and yes, that is how it is truely called, credit. Example: I take a mortgage of 100.000 dollars with 5 percent interest. What do I have to pay back? 105.000 dollars to the bank. 100.000 dollars to pay back the loan and a extra 5000 dollars for the interest. Have I invested in the economy? Nope, I am eventually withdrawing money from the economy! As long as the banks have convidence in the economy, they will lend out more money, creating more debt and a even bigger debt burden. New Loans repay Old Loans but what if not enough new loans are created to repay the old loans? Well, then not enough money will be available in the economy and groups of people will suffer. Having a financial crisis, like 2008 as response to it. It was stupid of those banks to create such unpayable amounts of debt. Banks failed and went bankrupt, but government swiftly took out massive amounts of loans to keep the banks up straight. Where have the moral obligations of the bank go? Thanks to the policy of the bank thousands of 'Businesses' have gone bust! According to you, banks and businesses alike, do not have a moral obligation, no ethical obligation. But we always want to point the finger to someone else, 'He has done it!'. Look in the mirror, I hope Ron Paul wins, or some other libertarian bloke, becuase he can then demonstrate how to fuck the whole system up, again. You are referring to the 18th century, and you want to go back to that same time. . Quoting: "It was a difficult life for poor people, THERE WAS NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE for the unemployed, and many had trouble to find their next meal or a warm place to sleep". I can agree on one thing that is certainly similar to the 18th century and the 21st century: quoting: "Many people were out of work because suddenly machines were doing their jobs". The robot rage is comming, robots are much more efficient then humans, even office jobs can be replaced by robots and super-computers. Why wouldn't those businesses? They do not have MORAL OBLIGATIONS according to you. Have a good time finding a job in 10-15 years, you certainly will not have reached retirement age then!http://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/2014/07/10/what-was-it-like-to-live-in-18th-century-england/ Socialist policies, like the minimum wage, maximum working hours, have lifted these 18th century menace to a 20th century age of prosperity, now, in the 21st we are back to a situation that is similar of the 18th century, sad but true. Edited by The Rhein States, Mar 24 2015, 06:43 AM.
|
|
Functions: - Director of Recruitment (March-April 2015) - Director of Communications (March 2015) - Secretary of Foreign Affairs (April-May 2015) - Owner of: Allied Public News Corporation, Rhein Industries and EasyBank | |
![]() |
|
| Wildeboden | Mar 24 2015, 09:09 AM Post #77 |
![]()
Down with the Bourgeoisie!
|
The studies done by n and wascher are erroneous because they do not account for heterogeneity |
National Role-play Committee Chairman|UEA Founder|EBank Co-Founder|Admiral of the People's Navy|General of the People's Army![]() ![]() ![]() Join the Communist Party! | |
![]() |
|
| CDLand | Mar 24 2015, 12:57 PM Post #78 |
![]()
Senate President
|
I'm not sure why we're going on a tangent with banks, but fine: 1. The mechanism in which banks make money is by lending their deposits. Providing credit to homeowners, small businesses, etc. is a service to the economy. 2. The central bank (Federal Reserve, a governmental agency) controls the money supply, not banks. This is still true in the modern era with electronic banking. The central bank can print money at whim by lowering the reserve requirement or buying bonds on the open market and can destroy money at whim by doing the opposite. When people take loans, they are not withdrawing money from the economy. The interest they pay is the cost of spending $100 now rather than $105 next year. There is no money being withdrawn from anywhere: the debtor gets to buy a house and the bank gets the interest money in return. Where things do get distorted is when the government steps in and supports or mandates more risk and more debt than the market would otherwise provide. This happened with the 2008 recession: the government 1) artificially lowered interest rates prompting people to take more loans, 2) pushed politically correct lending practices onto banks by encouraging them to lend to people with bad credit, and 3) through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which held many of the bad loans. It's true, financial institutions did take advantage of this situation by packaging bad loans into CDO's and dispersing it throughout the economy. Businesses respond to incentives, and the government created a situation where the incentive was to recklessly lend. Now the government probably shouldn't have bailed the banks out. In a free market they wouldn't have. Also, I did not say I wanted to go back to the 18th century. My words were that the free market allowed us to progress away from the 18th century into the modern industrial and technological age. Finally, you're probably right that a number of people will become unemployed because of the robot age. Undoubtedly a lot of hunter-gatherers became unemployed when we moved to the agricultural age and a lot of farmers became unemployed when we moved to the industrial age. But does that mean that the advance was a bad thing? Should the government have come in and propped up farmers? I don't think so. What will happen, which is what has always happened, is that the skills that people develop will adapt to fit the new needs of the new age. Skill in manufacturing will be less valued, skill in technology will be more valued. Perhaps the government may have a role in easing the transition period. But what it does not have a role in is preventing businesses from moving to the robotic age. Because when they do move, everyone will be better off. We will have cheaper and more products and a higher quality of life. |
|
John Newman (LP-Buxton) First President of the Allied States Winner of the "Last to Post Wins" Contest!!!! | |
![]() |
|
| Prince Isle | Mar 24 2015, 01:03 PM Post #79 |
![]()
Leader of the Opposition
|
Minimum wages in my opinion are both a positive and a negative to the economy. I come at this from a business perspective. Most businesses are working with slim profit margins. Minimum wages have to come from somewhere. In most instances businesses are operating at a full capacity of goods/services. Therefore business have 4 general options to deal with the increase of minimum wages: raise prices, lay off employees, reduce employee hours or close their business entirely. Lets approach minimum wages from an economical stand point. MW are a government set Price Floor, basically saying that is the absolute minimum that a business must pay for wages. Without a minimum wage, businesses will provide wages that rest at the equilibrium point of where the demand for labor and the supply of labor meet. When we add a minimum wage, it is generally above the equilibrium point from before. Therefore companies will generally demand less labor but the number of people wanting that job will increase, therefore creating a shortage of jobs. Next we look at the effects of MW on a market as a whole. In general most markets will rest at a standard equilibrium where the amount of good X and the supply of good X will meet at Price E and Quantity E. But when we add a minimum wage, this increases the costs of labor which in turn reduces the supply of good X. This in turn will increase the Equilibrium price while decreasing the Equilibrium Quantity. |
|
its just me Facts about me :)
| |
![]() |
|
| CDLand | Mar 24 2015, 01:06 PM Post #80 |
![]()
Senate President
|
Right I agree with everything you said, so how are they a positive to the economy?
|
|
John Newman (LP-Buxton) First President of the Allied States Winner of the "Last to Post Wins" Contest!!!! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Failed Legislation · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:04 PM Jul 11
|














.jpg)

. Quoting: "It was a difficult life for poor people, THERE WAS NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE for the unemployed, and many had trouble to find their next meal or a warm place to sleep". I can agree on one thing that is certainly similar to the 18th century and the 21st century: quoting: "Many people were out of work because suddenly machines were doing their jobs". The robot rage is comming, robots are much more efficient then humans, even office jobs can be replaced by robots and super-computers. Why wouldn't those businesses? They do not have MORAL OBLIGATIONS according to you. Have a good time finding a job in 10-15 years, you certainly will not have reached retirement age then!

2:04 PM Jul 11