Primarily becaue the salary of Congressional representatives has no direct impact on the US economy and not even a very appreciable impact on the federal budget (about $70m, I'm thinking). Frankly, I think they should be paid more. Hell, no one is ever going to do it for the money, but I would not want anyone to NOT do it because of the money. And, frankly, $133k is not really that much, especially for a job that requires maintaining two homes, one of them in a pretty expensive area. Someone with the skills, talent, and experience I would like to see in congress is likely to be able to make a lot more than that elsewhere.
$12 minimum wage
- Thread starter mark the shoeshine boy
- Start date
moses said:
I thought they had a housing allowance for the DC residence. Same thing with transportation.
moses said:
I'll admit that 133K won't get you far at the Aston dealer, but let's remember that these folks generally paid millions to get into office. I don't see any of them struggling.
I'll also submit that one can scrape by quite nicely on 133K, if you get the free health care, gym memberships, transportation, generous pension, the ability to not pay into SSI, and countless other perks these clowns have voted for themselves.
Do you really think that when they go out anywhere, they're picking up the check?
Fair point about the housing allowance, not to mention various other things. I agree, $133k (actually, I think it is maybe a little more than that now) is not such a shabby amount, all things considered. The real points though, are 1) that these people, fortunately or unfortunately, run our country - it should be a high paying job, and 2) frankly, how much they get paid, while it does come out of our pockets, does not really impact much of anything, including our pockets, because it is so insignificant by conparison.
Oh, and I would definitely want some kind of automatic cost-of-living increases, if nothing else to minimize the frequency of the unseemly process of having people have to vote on their own salaries.
Oh, and I would definitely want some kind of automatic cost-of-living increases, if nothing else to minimize the frequency of the unseemly process of having people have to vote on their own salaries.
I totally agree that people should be paid what they are worth. Some are overpaid and some underpaid. I think a person who has a drive will work their way up a ladder.. but for others the thought of working for $13k a year (less taxes) or doing something illegal that would bring home more money in less time probably prompts a lot of low income folks to do the wrong thing. It is too easy to make money the wrong way... so what is the incentive to make small amounts of money and work your way up a ladder that is probably stacked against you already as you need a min wage job! Probably all the illegal immigrants are getting the min wage jobs already anyway......
I used to be a mid sized biz owner... no-one I could have hired for $6/hour would have worked very hard for me....
Sue (Mama Bear)
I used to be a mid sized biz owner... no-one I could have hired for $6/hour would have worked very hard for me....
Sue (Mama Bear)
NMMB said:
NMMB,
For everyone's benefit it may be beneficial for you to explain why you think gasoline is subsidized in the United States.
It may be appropriate for such a tangent to be carried over in another thread on the Barber Shop.
MTSSB,
Would you care to start the thread please and put it in the appropriate location if NMMB is agreeable?
Chris
Gas prices, taken from MSNBC
Elsewhere in the industrialized world, the actual cost of gasoline ranges from $2.15 a gallon (France) to $2.61 in the Netherlands. But the after-tax price is $5.80 in France and over $6 a gallon in most other major European countries. Japanese drivers get off relatively easy: taxes there only push pump prices to about $4.50 a gallon.
So much for Europe and Japan. In less-developed parts of the world, some countries actually subsidize pump prices to keep them below what the gasoline actually costs to make. China, which recently raised fuel prices, still keeps them well below international market rates. Chinese drivers and farmers still pay the equivalent of less than $2 a gallon. As a result, the oil refining industry there is losing billions of dollars. Thats why the Chinese government is expected to continue to try to raise retail prices, while trying to avoid a major consumer backlash.
The cheapest places to top off, not surprisingly, are in countries that produce the most oil. In Iraq, until recently, pump prices were capped at 10 cents a gallon. Prices have recently risen to nearly 40 cents a gallon still a bargain compared to the U.S. Iran also keeps pump prices low less than 35 cents a gallon, according to a recent Reuters survey.
But for a real bargain, drive on down to Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez has made a name for himself lately by delivering heating fuel to low-income American families at bargain prices. In Venezuela, youll pay just 12 cents a gallon to fill your tank.
Elsewhere in the industrialized world, the actual cost of gasoline ranges from $2.15 a gallon (France) to $2.61 in the Netherlands. But the after-tax price is $5.80 in France and over $6 a gallon in most other major European countries. Japanese drivers get off relatively easy: taxes there only push pump prices to about $4.50 a gallon.
So much for Europe and Japan. In less-developed parts of the world, some countries actually subsidize pump prices to keep them below what the gasoline actually costs to make. China, which recently raised fuel prices, still keeps them well below international market rates. Chinese drivers and farmers still pay the equivalent of less than $2 a gallon. As a result, the oil refining industry there is losing billions of dollars. Thats why the Chinese government is expected to continue to try to raise retail prices, while trying to avoid a major consumer backlash.
The cheapest places to top off, not surprisingly, are in countries that produce the most oil. In Iraq, until recently, pump prices were capped at 10 cents a gallon. Prices have recently risen to nearly 40 cents a gallon still a bargain compared to the U.S. Iran also keeps pump prices low less than 35 cents a gallon, according to a recent Reuters survey.
But for a real bargain, drive on down to Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez has made a name for himself lately by delivering heating fuel to low-income American families at bargain prices. In Venezuela, youll pay just 12 cents a gallon to fill your tank.
I don't even want to touch the prices of cigarettes and booze.... you are right, these are artificially inflated... Marlboro the most I think. Smokers are now paying the fines the govt imposed on Marlboro as well as buying their smokes.... I have to admit I am included in this list of people.....
Sue, who is drinking booze and smoking cigarettes.....
Sue, who is drinking booze and smoking cigarettes.....
Did I get off the subject...... 
Sorry!
Sorry!
Well I've never been eloquent enough for debates such as this so I won't actually voice an actual argument; instead I would lke to ask a question. In a country where "regulated" companies such as Enron can pull off what they did, where a corporation like Wal-Mart can become known for making people work off the clock and whose manager's actually shave hours from people's timecards, do you actually want to let the corporations regulate themselves as to what a wage should be?
Someone made the remark that low wage earners would like to make more money. Of course they do. So does Bill Gates. So does the CEO of Exxon with his huge retirement deal (isn't it something like 400 mil?). The nature of people is to gain as much as they can. Some people feel that there is enough for each of us to make a fair wage, others will scratch tooth and nail for everything they can get. A whole lot of people could get hurt trying to figure out who the good guy is.
Someone made the remark that low wage earners would like to make more money. Of course they do. So does Bill Gates. So does the CEO of Exxon with his huge retirement deal (isn't it something like 400 mil?). The nature of people is to gain as much as they can. Some people feel that there is enough for each of us to make a fair wage, others will scratch tooth and nail for everything they can get. A whole lot of people could get hurt trying to figure out who the good guy is.
Creslin said:
Just as an aside everything you mentioned above was and is illegal. The fact that it is illegal did not stop anyone from breaking the law. The simple fact is that the market will keep a company in line far more efficiently than the law ever will. Most wages are regulated by the market. It's very simple - if you want people to work for you then pay the price to get the kind of talent you need. No one is going to work for you if they feel that you are not paying enough.
Chris
I also believe that the market functions to keep participants in line but only in the ideal situation where all players have equal power. When one or a few participants achieve a position within the market where their power allows them to dictate the terms of economic interaction you get exploitation. Current examples: Microsoft, WalMart, big Pharma.
This power can come from many sources - controlling the supply chain (WalMart), controlling the customer(Microsoft) or controlling the regulator (big Pharma). But in every case other participants suffer without any recourse within the market. It is in these situations that a case can be made for regulation in the interest of the public good.
This is because our economic system urges participants to grow towards a monopolistic position - to 'corner the market' but has no adequate mechanism for dealing with those who actually succeed in that endeavour.
As for the minimum wage, most arguments seem to debate the consequences on the macro level of changes up or down. In my opinion a more effective method for increasing the standard of living of society as a whole would be to absolve the poor of their duty to pay taxes until their income rose to some agreable level instead of making the truly wealthy even wealthier. Or constraining the ability of corporations to outsource production to low wage jurisdictions thereby increasing their quarterly profits at the cost of sacrificing the velocity effect that paying wages into the domestic economy would have. Or by acting to limit the influx of people willing to work at truly slave wages/conditions; this is just importing poverty at the macro level.
Nothing to see here. Keep moving. Just the late night raving of a mad man.
Bob
This power can come from many sources - controlling the supply chain (WalMart), controlling the customer(Microsoft) or controlling the regulator (big Pharma). But in every case other participants suffer without any recourse within the market. It is in these situations that a case can be made for regulation in the interest of the public good.
This is because our economic system urges participants to grow towards a monopolistic position - to 'corner the market' but has no adequate mechanism for dealing with those who actually succeed in that endeavour.
As for the minimum wage, most arguments seem to debate the consequences on the macro level of changes up or down. In my opinion a more effective method for increasing the standard of living of society as a whole would be to absolve the poor of their duty to pay taxes until their income rose to some agreable level instead of making the truly wealthy even wealthier. Or constraining the ability of corporations to outsource production to low wage jurisdictions thereby increasing their quarterly profits at the cost of sacrificing the velocity effect that paying wages into the domestic economy would have. Or by acting to limit the influx of people willing to work at truly slave wages/conditions; this is just importing poverty at the macro level.
Nothing to see here. Keep moving. Just the late night raving of a mad man.
Bob
EL Alamein said:
I'll keep it short. Gasoline is subsidized in the US, as it is in many countries, including Canada, indirectly as the price paid at the pumps does not, in any way shape or form, include the costs of the product. When we buy a liter of gas we do not pay for the irreversible environmental damages caused during the extraction and processing of the fuel, we do not pay for the environmental damages caused by consumption of the fuel (such as global warming, acid rain, poor air quality, etc) and we do not pay for the ill-health effects suffered by people who endure the pollution (this is especially the case in the case of the US with it's less-than-universal healthcare).
In the event that you require further explanation I would suggest that you consult ANY introductory level environmental economics text book... T. Titenberg might be a good place to start.
All my Canadian relatives come to New York for their medical treatments! thats Universal!
Let's be real here- the minimum wage is the governments way of telling you that your employer would like to pay u less, but cannot because its against the law.
Everyone in america cannot become a doctor, lawyer, consultant, etc,etc- but should they have to suffer because they want to work but cant afford to?
the current minimum wage does not even reach poverty levels( if u worked 40 hrs per week u still would be POOR!
Marty
Everyone in america cannot become a doctor, lawyer, consultant, etc,etc- but should they have to suffer because they want to work but cant afford to?
the current minimum wage does not even reach poverty levels( if u worked 40 hrs per week u still would be POOR!
Marty
Some good points made here along with some outlandish claims. Ultimately, and sadly, I believe Aaron nailed it on page 1 though. Our legislators do not care about the working poor or minimum wage or immigaration reform or gay marriage or stem cell research or healthcare or social security, or....or...etc......... They care about beating the other party and midterms are around the corner. The rest is philosophy and can (and should) be argued but not likely settled legislatively. In the end policy will be set by the lobbyists that put the most candidates in office. While sad and perhaps unfair this is not wholly without merit. Greed and lust for power are powerful motivators that are quite useful. I personally do not feel betrayed that my government does not actually have my best interests at heart. I believe this to be the case regardless of a country's national system. My employer does not have my best interests at heart either. This was a tough realization for me but there are greater tragedies.
We are all responsible for our own fortunes. Those that make theirs should not be punished for their success. However, I also believe that the worth of a civilization can be measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Those that prosper should feel compelled to provide aid of their own free will.
In the end I don't believe that legistlating a minimum wage will impact the greater problem of poverty; which cannot be cured by this or any other congress. Better to let the market find its own level and encourage the private sector to willingly pick up the slack. All that needs be done to accomplish this is to make it "cool". Empty campaign promises are worthless. Better results can be achieved when we hold each other accountable and demand more from ourselves.
We are all responsible for our own fortunes. Those that make theirs should not be punished for their success. However, I also believe that the worth of a civilization can be measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Those that prosper should feel compelled to provide aid of their own free will.
In the end I don't believe that legistlating a minimum wage will impact the greater problem of poverty; which cannot be cured by this or any other congress. Better to let the market find its own level and encourage the private sector to willingly pick up the slack. All that needs be done to accomplish this is to make it "cool". Empty campaign promises are worthless. Better results can be achieved when we hold each other accountable and demand more from ourselves.
NMMB said:
OK, thanks. This is what I thought you meant but couldn't be sure. I myself don't think these are true costs as none of them can be measured and quantified or even attributed to one cause or another. But I know that environmentalists have a different point of view. Just my 2¢.
Chris
NMMB said:
Well I have yet to read an economic text of any sort that raises the issue of the pricing of a product not covering such periphery issues. Why? Because you quickly head into "that's just nuts" territory. Should the price of childrens clothing be taxed according to its dorkiness - the idea being that children who wear it might have later self esteem issues that lead them into one lifestyle or another, costing society in the end? Should the price of every product reflect the abilty to return the land it was made on to some pre-historical state of nature? If you buy a pen from Bic, should you also pay some small tax to subsidise the eventual bulldozing and return of Bic's factory land to Yellowstone Park quality? Of course not, and no serious economist would ever suggest any such rediculous policies.
Gas is not subsidised in the U.S., it is simply not taxed as much as it is in the Socialist paradises of the world that love to hand out "free" stuff or force their citizenry to pay for every program under the sun "for the good of society," though it's mostly just to keep someone employed and busy. American gas companies make about 3-4 cents a gallon of gas. The American Government makes about 42 cents average per gallon. You simply pay for other things (like environmental cleanups) when you buy other things or get taxed otherwise.
The REASON gas is cheap in places like Venezuela and the Middle East is because they HAVE the oil and don't have to move it all over the planet and use part of the $70+/bbl to subsidize their local production and use.
As far as wages, if you believe in "fair wages" and paying people "what they are worth," how is this to be decided? Who will get to decide the worth of spending seven years going to school at night, while working full time to support a family, vs. going for four years while supporting nobody? Will people disadvataged in some way automatically get a higher wage because they overcame more? Or will they get less because they might not have the same abilities no matter what (maybe they are in a wheelchair)? While those who come from certain public schools get a higher or lower salary because of it? What about people who work in public interest jobs, vs. self-interest? Will there be a graduated scale according to what advanced degree you have, and who will decide that scale. Will gender make a difference in physical jobs? In what way? Will certain people be excluded from certain professions, because they will have and advantage or disadvantage over others, thus skewing the scale? Will everyone HAVE to live near their job; will further out employees get transportation subsidies? Will the same job in differnt cities that might be more or less expensive pay more or less? How ill the scale be decided? Will there be any way to appeal your salary if you feel you should receive more? How will the guidlines for merit increases be set up? Will these things be decided at a local or national level? If you work for company X in CA, what will happen to your salary if you transfer to FL with the same company and job? A different one?
Now you can pretend the above are silly questions, but they are the very real questions that you will HAVE to answer before you can change over to some third party based system of judgment. Or will you just be happy when your boss tells you one day that you now earn $10,000 less than yesterday, because it has been decided that widget-makers now earn $X, instead of $Y. In the end, the platitudes about paying people "what they are worth" are meaningless, because the only thing anybody is "worth" is whatever THEY decide it's worth it to work for. Would you rather have the ability (whether it actually happens or not) to get a merit raise because of your own efforts, rather than be "held back" because people in your job are only, according to Form 467738.8876 subsection Y, only worth $X, not $X + 1.
When you take a job, it is not one-sided. You are selling something: Your value as an employee, which the company is buying. If you want to charge more for yourself, then make yourself more valuable. It's just like selling watermellons. What you are worth will be reflected in your salary. If the value of your labor is not worth the price you are asking, then you have a problem, just as if you were selling watermellons, during watermellon season, for $10 each. Good luck.
It's an evil and cruel world that makes people work for a living and doesn't just expect the least from everyone!
Andre
C'mon lets have the free market truly reign...., END ALL REGULATION TO DO WITH WORK..., I like hard work, particularly when I'm paying for it - so no more safety equipment, no need to heat or cool the offices anymore ...., let's get rid of it once and for all (and not just the poor).
Regards
John
Regards
John
Andre - they're called externalities, which is a pretty accepted idea in econ.
