Free Market vs Socialism

[Arta]

I don't think that holds true when you have lots of companies requiring unskilled staff (McDonald's, meatpacking companies...) and lots of disorganised (by which I mean not unionised), unskilled people willing to work for very little.

[quasi-modo]

If they are unskilled and do not do much work then getting payed 2 bucks an hour might be the equilibrium for their ammount of work.

[Arta]

Well, great. Doesn't matter that they can't afford food and health insurance, as long as the equilibrium is ok.

[muert0]

I don't think that holds true when you have lots of companies requiring unskilled staff (McDonald's, meatpacking companies...) and lots of disorganised (by which I mean not unionised), unskilled people willing to work for very little.

Unskilled staff? If you had untrained workers in meatpacking plants there wouldbe outbreaks of Ecoli everywhere... but I guess that's kind of off topic.

If they are unskilled and do not do much work then getting payed 2 bucks an hour might be the equilibrium for their ammount of work.

People with the kind of jobs that y'all are talking about usually do a lot more work than people sitting at desks in the A.C. all day long. You really think someone who busts their ass all day long for one person or a group of small people to get rich really deserves a pay cut?

[quasi-modo]

I never said the deserve a paycut, but the market will reach equilibrium. Its all about what people are willing to work for. If the company is having trouble finding employees that will work for 4 dollers an hour they can raise the pay to 5 dollers an hour to get more until they have just the right number of workers. There are also other issues like if you pay more the quality of work might be better too. But it all has to do with what kind of job it is, obviously you can pay less for people bagging groceries because a teen can do it, and also the teen can work for less because he does not have to live off of his money. If he can get more at taco bell then he can get more at taco bell, but it is going to all even out. What really complicates it is when you think about the illegal immigrants who really cant work at most places and do get forced to work for pitiful wages illegally, but speaking from an everything  is legal aspect it is all going to even out.

[MyndFyre]

I don't think that holds true when you have lots of companies requiring unskilled staff (McDonald's, meatpacking companies...) and lots of disorganised (by which I mean not unionised), unskilled people willing to work for very little.

Unskilled staff? If you had untrained workers in meatpacking plants there wouldbe outbreaks of Ecoli everywhere... but I guess that's kind of off topic.

There would be, but by "unskilled" I think Arta means that, for example, people who don't require training outside of the normal training required for a job.  Example: you probably don't need a college degree to get a job at a meat packing plant, or to hold the "Slow" sign at a construction site.

The value of a job is inversely proportional to the number of people who can adequately perform that job.  That's why computer programming and network maintenance salaries have gone down in the last few years: everybody and their brother is getting the certifications/degrees because they saw that the jobs used to pay handsomely well.  Now an MCSE or CNA/CNE is a dime a dozen.  The next big thing was Cisco technician, but now even they are becoming less valuable.

[muert0]

People that don't require training outside of the normal training of a job is any and all jobs.

I never said the deserve a paycut, but the market will reach equilibrium. Its all about what people are willing to work for. If the company is having trouble finding employees that will work for 4 dollers an hour they can raise the pay to 5 dollers an hour to get more until they have just the right number of workers. There are also other issues like if you pay more the quality of work might be better too. But it all has to do with what kind of job it is, obviously you can pay less for people bagging groceries because a teen can do it, and also the teen can work for less because he does not have to live off of his money. If he can get more at taco bell then he can get more at taco bell, but it is going to all even out. What really complicates it is when you think about the illegal immigrants who really cant work at most places and do get forced to work for pitiful wages illegally, but speaking from an everything is legal aspect it is all going to even out.

So while people wait for this equilibrium to happen most will become homeless and not have money to feed and clothe their families. Most of these people already don't have health insurance so that's not a factor that they will miss out on. But it would be very American to just drop minimum wage completely and enslave people to the system a little more.

[quasi-modo]

muert0... no. I said earlier that to touch the minimum wage would create a nasty correction period. There should have never been minimum wage to begin with. People will not become homeless either, if they are not getting paid for their work they can stop working at that firm and persue other careers.

Also muert0, I am sure that many of the people on minimum wage are on welfare if they have to support a family, which was also said earlier in this thread, so no they will not become homeless. If the person wants to loose his job and pocket some more cash he can always try to get himself fired and reap state/fed unemployment compensation too, but that is just a side note (some people really do that so I thought I would point it out).

One more thing, a lot of people do not have health insurance because they are not willing to pay for it when they can infact afford it according to a lot of numbers I have seen.

[Adron]

The problem is that people aren't actually needed enough to motivate their existence. You may already have enough meatpackers for your plant, and you don't need to hire that extra guy.

[muert0]

muert0... no. I said earlier that to touch the minimum wage would create a nasty correction period. There should have never been minimum wage to begin with. People will not become homeless either, if they are not getting paid for their work they can stop working at that firm and persue other careers.

Also muert0, I am sure that many of the people on minimum wage are on welfare if they have to support a family, which was also said earlier in this thread, so no they will not become homeless. If the person wants to loose his job and pocket some more cash he can always try to get himself fired and reap state/fed unemployment compensation too, but that is just a side note (some people really do that so I thought I would point it out).

One more thing, a lot of people do not have health insurance because they are not willing to pay for it when they can infact afford it according to a lot of numbers I have seen.

What do you think happens while they are looking for a new job now and aren't making money to pay their bills. You think they will just get to sit in the places that they can't pay for and just wait for this equilibrim that you speak of. If so your head is full of nonsense.

Do you know how long the process is to get unemployment. This whole process wouldn't do anything but put the country in even more debt. And minimum wage was put into play because people were being taken advantage of and it would just open that back up.

Show me some of these numbers that you have seen. A plan that a person that makes lets say 5.50 an hour and works 40 hours a week and never takes a day off can afford and pay rent, utilities and food. Don't even think about clothes or anything extra because there's no way you can fit that into play. And a decent plan too.

[quasi-modo]

muert0... no. I said earlier that to touch the minimum wage would create a nasty correction period. There should have never been minimum wage to begin with. People will not become homeless either, if they are not getting paid for their work they can stop working at that firm and persue other careers.

Also muert0, I am sure that many of the people on minimum wage are on welfare if they have to support a family, which was also said earlier in this thread, so no they will not become homeless. If the person wants to loose his job and pocket some more cash he can always try to get himself fired and reap state/fed unemployment compensation too, but that is just a side note (some people really do that so I thought I would point it out).

One more thing, a lot of people do not have health insurance because they are not willing to pay for it when they can infact afford it according to a lot of numbers I have seen.

What do you think happens while they are looking for a new job now and aren't making money to pay their bills. You think they will just get to sit in the places that they can't pay for and just wait for this equilibrim that you speak of. If so your head is full of nonsense.

Like I said before, there is something called welfare, especially if the person has a family. Also, like I said THERE WILL BE AN ADJUSTMENT PERIOD IF IT WERE SUDDENLY DROPPED. If there had been no minimum wage we would be sitting in equilibrium at this point in time.

Do you know how long the process is to get unemployment. This whole process wouldn't do anything but put the country in even more debt. And minimum wage was put into play because people were being taken advantage of and it would just open that back up.

Muerto, people are not going to be willing to work for p-nuts if they are doing a lot of work. Also how many times have I said there will be an adjustment period but I am talking about in normal circumstances if we are sitting in an environment with no minimum wage. If there were no minimum wage to begin with there would be no massive sudden drop in wages, it would also not be in the company's best interest to drop wages down to nothing all at once.

Show me some of these numbers that you have seen. A plan that a person that makes lets say 5.50 an hour and works 40 hours a week and never takes a day off can afford and pay rent, utilities and food. Don't even think about clothes or anything extra because there's no way you can fit that into play. And a decent plan too.

Most of the people in the country are not living on minimum wage, so most of the people in the country can afford insurance.

[hismajesty]

muert0... no. I said earlier that to touch the minimum wage would create a nasty correction period. There should have never been minimum wage to begin with. People will not become homeless either, if they are not getting paid for their work they can stop working at that firm and persue other careers.

Also muert0, I am sure that many of the people on minimum wage are on welfare if they have to support a family, which was also said earlier in this thread, so no they will not become homeless. If the person wants to loose his job and pocket some more cash he can always try to get himself fired and reap state/fed unemployment compensation too, but that is just a side note (some people really do that so I thought I would point it out).

One more thing, a lot of people do not have health insurance because they are not willing to pay for it when they can infact afford it according to a lot of numbers I have seen.

What do you think happens while they are looking for a new job now and aren't making money to pay their bills. You think they will just get to sit in the places that they can't pay for and just wait for this equilibrim that you speak of. If so your head is full of nonsense.

Do you know how long the process is to get unemployment. This whole process wouldn't do anything but put the country in even more debt. And minimum wage was put into play because people were being taken advantage of and it would just open that back up.

Show me some of these numbers that you have seen. A plan that a person that makes lets say 5.50 an hour and works 40 hours a week and never takes a day off can afford and pay rent, utilities and food. Don't even think about clothes or anything extra because there's no way you can fit that into play. And a decent plan too.

There's always spots open in the armed forces.

[muert0]

Yeah I'm about to start talking to the USMC but I don't think people should have to resort to that just to live.

[hismajesty]

They pay for you to study what you want to so when your service is up you can get a good civilian job. They take care of their own, this girl in my PE class - her brother is in the Navy and they bought him a car and everything.

[Arta]

Just the small disadvantage of being sent to kill people.