Rick wrote: How does this fit into any modern liberal economic thought?
It doesn't. I didn't provide it to show that it does. Rather, it was provided as a "contrast", if you will.
I don't argue that Keynesian economics is more "liberal" in its orthodoxy because to me, it really doesn't matter. There are things I agree with in Keynesian economics. There are things I agree with in Chicago economics (the Friedman orthodoxy). Both have what I consider to be good and not so good methodologies.
May I ask why it appears to be so important for you to prove good vs bad in this and to "assign" them to being liberal and/or conservative?
RenegadeCJ wrote: What you aren't getting ZHawke, is that artificially raising a wage past the point where the business owner is not getting value for that wage, forces the employer to do one of two things. Raise the price of the final product to facilitate the additional costs, or (and more likely) find a way to get rid of that job all together thru robotics, computers, or yes, maybe outsourcing. I don't know your experience in owning a business, but in mine, there is a limited amount we can charge for our product. People don't just willingly pay more "just because".
There is no free lunch here.
What you, and others in this thread, apparently aren't getting is that I DO, in fact, get where you're coming from. Once again, the issue I'm trying to present is with regard to companies, like McDonalds, as just one example, who've been documented counseling their lowest wage earning employees to either go on the public dole to help make ends meet, or as is the case specifically with McDonalds, to get a second or third job to do the same. To me, this is just wrong on so many levels. That's all I'm trying to say.
And, for the record, when a company CEO is paid in the multi-millions per year,like McDonalds, and the company profits are in the billions per year, like McDonalds, it seems a bit disingenuous that a company like McDonalds can put it out there that their lowest wage earners should look for second and third jobs or to go on the public dole to supplement their McDonalds income. The same could also be applied to some of the other low wage employers out there, as well.
It can all be summed up by this..WALK A MILE IN ANOTHER'S MOCASSINS...Undercover Boss is an
Excellent example of just how DISCONTINUED "the people in the ivory towers" can be. Truly good
people out there that just need a little extra help. Case in point, did you know Whoppi Goldberg was on
public assistance at one point in her life? She GOT the "hand up" and then moved on with her life.
Rick wrote: How does this fit into any modern liberal economic thought?
It doesn't. I didn't provide it to show that it does. Rather, it was provided as a "contrast", if you will.
I don't argue that Keynesian economics is more "liberal" in its orthodoxy because to me, it really doesn't matter. There are things I agree with in Keynesian economics. There are things I agree with in Chicago economics (the Friedman orthodoxy). Both have what I consider to be good and not so good methodologies.
May I ask why it appears to be so important for you to prove good vs bad in this and to "assign" them to being liberal and/or conservative?
When you said this, I had to respond and you finally admitted it in your above post.
ZHawke wrote: Please provide a definition of Keynesian Economics as being economics of the Left.
Full circle finally complete
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
If you own a company and you pay your employees a salary above the minimum wage, no matter how much above that wage, what's the beef regarding a minimum wage. It's only those companies who pay a wage below poverty level that arguably have a beef with raising them above that poverty level. And the current minimum wage has been amply proven to be below poverty level.
Rick wrote: How does this fit into any modern liberal economic thought?
It doesn't. I didn't provide it to show that it does. Rather, it was provided as a "contrast", if you will.
I don't argue that Keynesian economics is more "liberal" in its orthodoxy because to me, it really doesn't matter. There are things I agree with in Keynesian economics. There are things I agree with in Chicago economics (the Friedman orthodoxy). Both have what I consider to be good and not so good methodologies.
May I ask why it appears to be so important for you to prove good vs bad in this and to "assign" them to being liberal and/or conservative?
When you said this, I had to respond and you finally admitted it in this post.
ZHawke wrote: Please provide a definition of Keynesian Economics as being economics of the Left.
If you own a company and you pay your employees a salary above the minimum wage, no matter how much above that wage, what's the beef regarding a minimum wage. It's only those companies who pay a wage below poverty level that arguably have a beef with raising them above that poverty level. And the current minimum wage has been amply proven to be below poverty level.
You don't see the big picture. The "beef" is that the gov't has no idea how your business runs or how much a forced wage increase will affect your hiring practices. And if I'm currently paying $9 for burger flippers, $13 an hour for assistance managers, and $17 an hour for managers - what happens when the government forces me to pay a $11 minimum to the burger flippers? I would have to then raise the wages of everybody else who EARNED their increase wage. It all sounds like an easy math problem to the left unless you own that business ad have to decide whether or not to raise prices, lay off workers, or put more on part time.
I just don't understand the "logic" that every job out there must pay a "living wage". We need to keep incentives in place which force people to strive for more instead of rewarding people for staying on the bottom. As a compromise that could actually work, I would rather force employers to put money into an education fund for low paid workers which would be matched by government subsidies (tax deduction) if that employer stuck with the job long enough to earn it and use it. These employees could then climb the ladder and would be a great asset to the employer. I haven't thought that out much but at least it would give min. wage workers something to strive for other than a couple extra bucks per hour that will not make a difference in their futures.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Rick wrote: You don't see the big picture. The "beef" is that the gov't has no idea how your business runs or how much a forced wage increase will affect your hiring practices. And if I'm currently paying $9 for burger flippers, $13 an hour for assistance managers, and $17 an hour for managers - what happens when the government forces me to pay a $11 minimum to the burger flippers? I would have to then raise the wages of everybody else who EARNED their increase wage. It all sounds like an easy math problem to the left unless you own that business ad have to decide whether or not to raise prices, lay off workers, or put more on part time.
I just don't understand the "logic" that every job out there must pay a "living wage". We need to keep incentives in place which force people to strive for more instead of rewarding people for staying on the bottom. As a compromise that could actually work, I would rather force employers to put money into an education fund for low paid workers which would be matched by government subsidies (tax deduction) if that employer stuck with the job long enough to earn it and use it. These employees could then climb the ladder and would be a great asset to the employer. I haven't thought that out much but at least it would give min. wage workers something to strive for other than a couple extra bucks per hour that will not make a difference in their futures.
I could say the same about you (big picture), but that wouldn't accomplish anything. Not too long ago, your idea was actually floated out there regarding education funds with government subsidies (I'll need to do the research to try to find it again - please be patient). That's something we could agree on. There are companies right now that do this - pay for employee schooling while working for those companies. It does, in fact, pay off for both the employer and employee - a win-win scenario.
My thrust in this debate is that keeping wages artificially "low" to supplement a company's bottom line is counter to employee morale, employee longevity, and similar employee disincentives. I do get the posit you put forward regarding raising everyone's wages if the minimum is raised. That may, in fact, hurt some companies, but it may also help them in the long run depending upon which side of the economics debate one falls on. Using the government as a scapegoat because they don't understand how your business works is not an argument I will ever buy into.
