Minimum Wage Increase

Would society be better off if minimum wage was 30 dollars an hour?

How do you measure society? In terms of quality of life or standard of living?
And what economic structure are we to suppose?

Given an open market, prices would just inflate in proportion with the increase. There’s no permenant fix in trying to make an open market fair, “the market” (directed by those with economic power) makes sure of that.

Given a fair economic system, for example one without private ownership of the means of production, this inevitable inflationary reactionism would not have to occur. The inequality gap would decrease and those doing the more menial essential tasks would benefit in health and ability to do their job as well as having a better life, and this increase in production would make up for any loss in potential tyranny previously enjoyed by those in more powerful positions.

But better solutions than “increasing minimum wage” have been proposed, and even actioned. There was a recent thread about the relative capping of the highest salaries to the lowest salaries. This ensures the same effect as an increase in minimum wage, even within an open market economy, because there is less incentive to jack up prices just because people can afford your produce now.

Excellent points Sil, I’d like to hear more about your economic theories.

I measure society in terms of how well off I am, personally.

The perfect society would be one where I’m in the top tier.

At the end of the day, self interest motivates politics.

It’s just a manifestation of self interest.

Even fairness is rooted in self interest.

At the moment, in the US, minimum wage should be somewhere between 10-15 dollars an hour, depending what area you live in. It should then increase with inflation, or just go up a small percentage annually (2-4%) to account for increases in cost of living.

This figure would be intended to account for average costs of housing, transportation expenses, food, clothing and some form of health insurance wherever one lives. Anyone who works full time ought be able to afford those five things without going into debt.

What do you have to offer for this to occur?
Would you “earn” it somehow, happen upon it out of luck, be given it out of charity, or would you prefer an egalitarian society where you would be in the top (and bottom) only tier by default? That last one was a joke, I really can’t see you going for that idea ever.
Perhaps a tiered society based on competitiveness, where those who need to feel superior are given free reign to assume power, and those who aren’t as bothered settle for their default lower tiers. This doesn’t take into account any practicality by itself, once you start relying on people to work towards practical ends, given a tiered society based on competitiveness, you… well you end up with this. We have that already. But you don’t like it. Taking into account practicality forces you to play the game of doing/learning “what works”. I imagine this is what you are ultimately objecting to.

Of course, and it even makes sense for those with economic power - who make it so that full timers can’t afford the basics - to ensure this, because they only get rich and powerful through having a healthy rewarded workforce. Without their workforce they are nothing. But seemingly greed, social competition based on who has the best material possessions and further access to them, and the sense of entitlement to the level of richness that they have become used to, are getting in their own way. They need to sort themselves out. Since they won’t by themselves, they need rules and restrictions. Economic controls (carefully selected ones) are needed.

Yes, and minimum wage is one of those needed controls i think.

What do you think of this thread? I think this is a better solution than minimum wage. But without it, yes, minimum wage is absolutely necessary - for the benefit of everyone in the way I just described in my last post on this thread.

An even better solution, though not without difficulties in implementing it, is outlawing private ownership of the means of production. If everyone’s wages were reflective of the value of their work, and not reflective of their ability to make money from others doing work for you, there won’t be any situations where lots of valuable, good quality work doesn’t pay.
People who work end up with money, more if they do it better or work more, and if the product is more valuable.
People who don’t work don’t end with money, and people who work less, to a low quality and toward something that isn’t wanted don’t end up with any/much money.

This is fair in a much more appropriate way than fixing wages regardless of what you put into society. But then you could even go a step further and fix the ratio of maximum to minimum wage on top of that step - even better.

None of that works as it will simply increase the prevalence of outsourcing and international banking at astronomical rates.

Yeah there’s the argument that only a global movement will suffice.

To this I do not care. Let all the leeches of the hard work of others move elsewhere. Let them invest their money in other parts of the world. Honestly I don’t care. It’s not like everyone else won’t know how to do the EXACT SAME WORK that they did anyway, making the same exact produce. Because they are the ones doing the actual working. People who aren’t rich know how to produce these means of production, non-capitalists. The knowledge EXISTS. The knowledge to actually do what we always have done… but without capitalists making money off us for doing it???

Who wouldn’t want to maintain what we have, perhaps cherry pick the bits we like and the bits we could actually do without…?

Without them directing the market, we can actually democratically choose what produce we want. The reduction in total money “in the system” would at worst make the money more powerful because of the same or better return on it (there’s even an argument that capitalists would worm their way back in due to the increased strength of the currency, with production similar or better, despite less money being put into it). But fuck 'em.

We have the communication, we have the technology. Things can easily be coordinated (or perhaps uncoordinated) such that produce and service remains the same, or better, without capitalists.

Anyone wanna try this out?

It would definitely be better off…for like a few thousand people, if they could be convinced not to care about the 95% unemployment rate.

Like Ucc said, - you might not care, - but everybody else that ends up taking a nosedive as a result of it probably will. Like any product, - value lies solely in the amount of demand for it.

Who’s gonna purchase the same exact product from you that they can instead get for pennies on the dollar elsewhere? Economics is simply the slave of market forces.

You’ll get better return on it, - but only because of increasing poverty, and a decreasing demand. There’s a reason why countries like China became economic powerhouses in such a short period of time in recent history, - and that’s because they treated their citizenry like shit and have abhorrent civil rights precedents.

This is why you can never defeat a system from within, - as it will only end up assimilating it’s host over time. Only from without can you pose a significant threat to it’s continued existence, - and even that only for a limited period of time as need/greed will eventually cause it to re-manifest itself.

This is essentially what every countercultural movement has philosophically/fundamentally been about, - and why they are so viciously opposed by governments and social structures wherever they manifest.

We cannot cap the maximum wage without being called socialists.

Would society be better off is gold was $3,000 per ounce?
…same question.

That’s right. So how about you embrace the term, since it’s accurate, and advocate for what you want in the open where people are allowed to call a spade a spade? Not the lefty way, I know.