"We set the bar at half of what a typical American household earns. "
Yeah, relative income isn't really a good measure. You want to raise the floor for people, not (necessarily) narrow the gap between rich and poor.
America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
31–40 of 238 posts
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#32As an (in)famous philosopher said recently, if you workers are not bone-skinny it means you are doing Capitalism wrong and are paying them too much.
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#33>If the U.S. changed some policies – such as increasing the federal minimum wage – 46 million people could earn enough to rise above that fair pay line. You can't just raise minimum wage and expect people to make more money since businesses need to fire everyone who aren't worth the new minimum wage and then those newly unemployed people will depress wages for other jobs since there is more labor on the supply side.
> You can't just raise minimum wage and expect people to make more money since businesses need to fire everyone who aren't worth the new minimum wage [...] This way of thinking is what's wrong with USA (among many other things). You don't (or at least shouldn't) hire lots of people because it's cheap.
It's a voluntary agreement between people. It's not immoral to pay minimum wage to someone when they both agree. I find it to be immoral for the government to force themselves into the agreement.
Only ~1% of people in the US make federal minimum wage. ~58% of that 1% are serving related occupations who collect tips that are not counted in BLS wage data.
You need to use median wage - which is ~$24 for all occupations.
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#34"We set the bar at half of what a typical American household earns. " Yeah, relative income isn't really a good measure. You want to raise the floor for people, not (necessarily) narrow the gap between rich and poor.
Wealth inequality itself causes a great number of ills in this country. We should absolutely aim to lower this gap as a goal in itself.
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#35>If the U.S. changed some policies – such as increasing the federal minimum wage – 46 million people could earn enough to rise above that fair pay line. You can't just raise minimum wage and expect people to make more money since businesses need to fire everyone who aren't worth the new minimum wage and then those newly unemployed people will depress wages for other jobs since there is more labor on the supply side.
> You can't just raise minimum wage and expect people to make more money since businesses need to fire everyone who aren't worth the new minimum wage [...] This way of thinking is what's wrong with USA (among many other things). You don't (or at least shouldn't) hire lots of people because it's cheap.
If that way of thinking is wrong, why not just make the minimum wage a million an hour and let everyone be mega wealthy? What do you think would happen if we passed that?
Edit: to the down voters, what is your answer to the question?
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#36That's why they let in massive number of immigrants from poor countries.
We should really be letting in an order of magnitude more if we don't want our economy to drive off a cliff
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#37> We measure resources by using per capita gross domestic product – the amount of money in a country evenly divided among its entire population. GDP is not "the amount of money in a country". GDP is the monetary value of goods and services produced within a country during a given period (a flow, measured in dollars-per-year). The amount of money in a country is a measure at a point in a time (a stock, measured in dol…
Also a great number of those services are valueless bullshit. It's much closer to the sum of all transactions.
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#38"We set the bar at half of what a typical American household earns. " Yeah, relative income isn't really a good measure. You want to raise the floor for people, not (necessarily) narrow the gap between rich and poor.
Wealth inequality itself causes a great number of ills in this country. We should absolutely aim to lower this gap as a goal in itself.
Wealth inequality doesn't cause ills, envy does. Envy should be regarded as a character defect, a sin, not something to be elevated to policy. You're not poorer because someone's richer than you, and indeed policies aimed to reduce wealth inequality will actually make you poorer, that's why average European salaries are much lower than US ones.
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#39>If the U.S. changed some policies – such as increasing the federal minimum wage – 46 million people could earn enough to rise above that fair pay line. You can't just raise minimum wage and expect people to make more money since businesses need to fire everyone who aren't worth the new minimum wage and then those newly unemployed people will depress wages for other jobs since there is more labor on the supply side.
Check out https://arindube.substack.com/p/a-minimum-wage-natural-exper... , very good post comparing states with minimum wage and without, that seem to go against this often repeated argument.
Then why not raise minimum wage to $100? Obviously there's a limit.
Re: America pays workers just 27% of what its wealth allows – the worst in the OECD
#40As somebody living outside the US, I would find moving to the states highly undesirable even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens. To me, it would mean a significant reduction in quality of live and I am low-key scared of all the ingredients and additives in food that are pretty much banned everywhere else. Not to mention all risks regarding healthcare.
It very much depends on life situation. For instance, if you are less than 50 and on private health care through your employer than you're very likely going to have better healthcare access than anywhere in Europe and Canada. I am able to see my PCP and dentist within a week if I want. I read a statistic that in Europe and Canada you have to make those kinds of routine appointments months in advance. Also, my father-…
UK: A dentist will see you for an emergency appointment pretty quickly. I can usually get a routine appointment within a few weeks, but if it's a routine check-up I don't mind scheduling it for a few weeks/a month out. If I'm going private I can usually get a routine appointment same week.
For more urgent enquiries with an NHS doctor I can usually get a phonecall next day, and they'll ask me to come in if it's serious. For routine/non-urgent stuff you might wait a week or two.
Obviously this is going to vary depending on where you live, and the NHS is not without it's problems... But it's essentially free and a wonderful thing.