Obama begins political counteroffensive in Midwest
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
57 Comments
Login to comment
0
BreitbartVictorious
Polling at 40 percent and sinking fast. I don't foresee a challenger from within his own party though because, well, we can't really talk about that.
Live by the race card, die by the race card.
-1
plasticmonkey
@Breitbart--is there anything in this article about race? Wanna clarify? Or is this another of your drive-by comments?
0
Wolfpack
You aren't kidding, Gallup has announced that his support has just slipped down into the 30's for the first time.
President Obama's political counteroffensive will consist of blame shifting and more of the same policies that have failed for nearly three years now. Last years "Recovery Summer" has America on the brink of a double-dip recession. However, the seeds of renewal are becoming apparent. Big Labor has failed to pull the wool over the eyes of voters in Wisconsin by denying Democrats their chance at revenge in the recall elections. They could still lose two seats that are still not yet decided. Obama's Keynesian spending and his inclination to raise taxes has been stopped. That said, he is still able to use bureaucratic subterfuge to throttle business and economic growth.
President Obama's Midwest counteroffensive is simply meant as a means to revive his huge lose in support from Independents. Meanwhile, the Left will continue to be angry with him for not pushing their neo-socialist agenda while he runs for re-election. Although he seems like a decent father and husband, he is in over his head in a job that he just wasn't prepared for. The speeches and the "yes we can" talk will not wash anymore - America knows that he can't.
-1
plasticmonkey
Sorry, but I don't know what this means on its own. But I guess if you mix in the words "neo-socialist", "Big Labor", and "Keynsian spending" it will make the angry and delusional right start frothing at the mouth. The Pavlovian stimulus sounds something like this: the economy has been in a mess and Obama has not been able to turn it around immediately because he has not cut taxes on America's wealthy and magnanimous job creators, he has not allowed big business to pay employees at the bottom whatever they can get away with, and he has not cut social spending on the poor lazy slobs who supposedly pay no taxes.
0
BreitbartVictorious
plastic
Maybe you should research it then. Start with the 30 or so 'czars' in the Obama admin who do not answer to to the people or Congress but to Obama and his other appointees. Take a look at who Obama appointed to the NLRB. Why is the NLRB trying to prevent Boeing, one of our biggest exporters, from relocating some of their operations to S Carolina? Like Obama's meddling in GM's affairs - firing it's CEO - this is unconstitutional. If, as Obama has declared repeatedly, he is focused 'like a laser' on creating jobs, why is his Labor Secretary Solis appearing at rallies held by groups like "National Peoples Action" that are openly anti-capitalist? Why did Obama choose Solis, a keynote speaker at the Democratic Socialists of America 2005 convention ???? Who are these people??
1
Laguna
Bloomberg says:
Some people in today's world would say that to be against even such extreme steps is to be "anti-capitalist." These people have no inkling of what capitalism means. Labor has a recognized right to organize to sell their services; government has a responsibility to create or maintain conditions allowing them to do so.
Corporations have a responsibility to maximize profit, which is recognized and appreciated; government has the responsibility of setting socially-driven standards as to how they may do so. This is unrelated to some vague notion "anti-capitalism"; it is precisely how capitalism works.
Really, it seems those economic lessons garnered in the 20th century through so much exertion and pain have been completely lost on some people.
0
Molenir
Yep, its the Tea Parties fault for creating the most inept, and incompetent administration in American history. I wonder who is to blame for the corruption?
Heh, thats funny. Lets try it. You say, big labor, I'll say, Sarah Palin. Who starts frothing first?
Seriously though. How can anyone not look at what Obama has been pushing and not ask, isn't this socialist, isn't this anti-business? The fact that he has failed to get all the stuff through he promised before the Dems lost control of the House, means he is done. His own supporters are abandoning him, and the independents he suckered into voting for him are wising up in the face of his economic disaster. If the Dems were smart, they would put forward a primary challenger. That is really the only way they could manage to hold the Presidency, and if they had a good one, it might help them retain control of the Senate, though at this point, that change looks like a foregone conclusion. It would have to be a Governor though. Someone like Mike Beebe from Arkansas, or O'Malley from Maryland. Another Washington politician wouldn't stand a chance. Former Gov. Ed Rendell from Pennsylvania might have a shot as well. But at this point, I don't think Dems will put forward anyone to challenge Obama, and that will mean Republicans take back the house in 2012. The only question is, which Republican candidate it will be.
-1
plasticmonkey
@Breitbart-- Oh, do you mean you don't like the idea that there are so many 'czars', or that they are under Obama? G.W. appointed more of them than Obama has.Do you have a problem with the 'faith-based initiative' czars? What about the drug czars?
As for National Peoples Action, I did not realize that they are openly anti-capitalist, unless your sources of information are extreme right websites who view fairness and safety in the workplace as evil. Is your vision of a working America a place where, unshackled by govt oversight, employers can pay whatever they want? How about a dollar an hour? The Republican party sure has devolved since Teddy Roosevelt.
0
BreitbartVictorious
plasticmonkey
Read some basic economics. It has repeatedly been proven that minimum wage legislation, while beneficial to grandstanding politicians who advocate it, invariably ends up hurting most the unskilled, entry-level age, or underemployed persons it is supposed to help. I worked one entry level job in the hospitality industry in the 70s at well below minimum wage, but it was understood by those of us competing to remain hired that this was more of a training wage, and that if you were re-hired in the season your pay would be much more commensurate with ability and current market wages.Your employer can't pay 'whatever they want' , they pay the wage that emerges as the competitive one, when in a truly free market.
Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush were all Republicans yes but that hardly means they understood economics or heeded the advice of their economists.
Bush btw, created 5 new czars in 8 years and 3 of em were for WMD, terrorism, and Sudan.
Obama created 17 new czars in his first 7 months.
0
Serrano
"Polls show voters hold both parties to blame for the stunted economic recovery"
But not the Tea Party.
The latest Gallup Poll has Obama's approval rate at 39%, a new low. People just don't understand it's going to take most of Obama's two terms to fix the mess left behind by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
2
yabits
LOL!! That statement can be easily disproven. The fact is that many of world's most competitive economies have either minimum wage laws, or have scrapped them in favor of wages derived through collective bargaining. A theoretical free market would only work if all job-seekers had accurate information on the market value of jobs -- and that value is not what any employer will tell you it is -- since there can be wide disparities from one employer to another for the same kind of work. (And often wide disparities within the same company for the same position.)
If a free market was at work, it is doubtful that the ratio of average worker to top executive pay would vary much beyond a fairly predictable range. As soon as the ratio in a given industry varied from say 25:1 to 50:1, it would immediately have an impact of forcing upwards the salary of the average workers. That is, if collective bargaining was in place so that workers could negotiate on a relatively equal footing with collectively organized management.
-1
plasticmonkey
@Breitbart
Your figures are simply false. Do a simple check on that yourself instead of letting Hannity and Beck selectively arrange data for you.
0
Molenir
I actually wish that what you are saying was true. Unfortunately, it is not.
PM, which part of what he said was untrue? It is without question that Obama has created more czars then any other President, largely as a way to circumvent the process of Senate confirmation. As for the numbers, its easy enough to check. Obama has over 30, Bush never even reached double digits.
1
Laguna
Proven?! - You'd better get Oslo on the line quick! When I wrote my thesis on the dynamics between a minimum wage and employment, the data was very complex and contradictory - but of course, that was back in '88, so if anything has been "proven" since then, please show me the data. Really: please.
Some facts remain, though, such as: real wages have stagnated or declined over the past decade while worker productivity has continued to improve; and corporations are sitting on an historically large amount of cash. Some inferences may be drawn: the proportion of corporate profits flowing to workers has dropped significantly; workers with lower disposable income are consuming far less; and corporations are holding off on expansion even amongst historically low interest rates due to lack of consumer demand.
In the face of this, Bachmann says, lower wages! Lower wages, and companies will hire! - to meet what demand, she does not say.
0
plasticmonkey
@Molenir
That is not without question, except in the alternate universe you inhabit. You (and Glen Beck, from whom you are getting your info) are selectively distorting the facts. For one thing, 'czar' is not an official title, it is applied (usually by the media) to a wide range of positions which may or may not be appointed directly by the president, with or without senate confirmation, and counting depends on how favorably you view the position. I guess you must be using different counting methods for Obama than you use for Bush.
By any reasonable count, Obama and G.W. Bush have about the same number of 'czars' total (Bush 33, Obama 37), created about the same number, and had about the same percentage confirmed by the Senate. Both presidents created positions based on the circumstances of America at the time. Bush was actually mocked by the press during his time in office for his appointment of czars (e.g. the 'abstinence czar').
So how do you arrive at the absurd conclusion that Obama is trying to circumvent the Senate? Is this part of Obama's conspiracy to implement his 'far left' ideology?
The point is that the virulently anti-Obama crowd will find patterns in almost any data to paint Obama as either hell-bent on turning the US into a socialist/communist/fascist/totalitarian/Islamist state, or ineffective as a real American leader. I can understand political opposition to anyone; that is natural. What sickens me is the degree to which Obama has been demonized as an uber-liberal; any potential for accomplishment and bipartisan progress has been written off by the fringe elements of the Republican party before it can begin.
@Breitbart -- you still haven't clarified what you meant by Obama dying by the "race card". Or is it the "class warfare card"? Or do you simply hate Obama for whatever he may be or do?
0
sailwind
When I wrote my thesis on the dynamics between a minimum wage and employment, the data was very complex and contradictory - but of course, that was back in '88, so if anything has been "proven" since then, please show me the data. Really: please.
Laguna,
If I can be so bold. Some data for you.
Since $10/hour creates double the wealth of $5/hour, $20/hour would double wealth again. Yes, there is some mathematics here, but take my word for it: $40/hour would double the wealth yet again. And so forth. $400/hour would increase wealth by another ten-fold. Ideally, the minimum wage would be infinite, and thus create infinite wealth. And, as a bonus, higher wages mean more tax revenue – and that means even more wealth.
0
Novenachama
Obama fooled the public with his phony slogans and his charm and smile routine. It was just one big shibai. He knew how to work the crowd and had only been a junior senator backed by virtually no experience. Fast forward 2011 and now what? He cannot continue to remain in charge cause he has no accomplishments. Obama has not followed through with at least 95% per cent of his campaign promises. From the beginning his focus was on the war and not the economy. He over stepped and the game is over. It's time to move on. While American corporations have raked in huge profits, the middle class Americans are fast disappearing, struggling with debt and starving in the streets, spelling disaster. A new president must take control of the out of control situation America finds itself in. Period. Trust me it won't get any better. He's just spinning his wheels. But unfortunately some people will still vote for him because of his star power. All style, but definitely no substance and lacks the skills to become the top CEO of the United States again.
0
BreitbartVictorious
Not Obama, but his party. I agree with what Democrat Geraldine Ferraro said about Obama - had be been white he would not have lasted through the primaries.
Liberals and progressives and the identity politics crowd constantly try and paint his opponents as racists, a disgustingly lazy dishonest tactic they obviously think is the easiest and quickest way to end all debate. And now it will come back to hamstring them. Anyone in the party who challenges Obama will face the mindless race-baiting and insults conservatives and independents who criticize Obama get.
-1
plasticmonkey
@Breitbart -- That wasn't in the story and it hasn't been in any posts except yours. Explain to me how race-baiting will now hamstring the liberals and progressives, and how it relates to Obama trying to regain momentum after losing much public support.
0
Laguna
Great example, Sailwind, of how CEOs justify their multi-million dollar salaries. Especially
except that we both know, in reality, it doesn't work that way. First, higher wages only go to those who are able to negotiate for them, and those people usually justify their higher wages by cutting wages of the people below them. That's how Romney did it (well, that and outsourcing to China); I'm not complaining - it is just the nature of capitalism, after all - I am just pointing it out. Second, those "higher wages" usually don't always translate into higher tax revenues when tax rates are cut because - God forbid - those occupying the stratosphere of the upper-quintile might choose to up and retire. And don't get started on how these uber-earners pay so much in taxes; all the statistics thrown out don't include state or sales taxes so are meaningless. As a percentage of income, they're far undertaxed.
Economic rules work quite differently depending on which step of the economic ladder one is discussing. At any rate, discussion in the US of jumpstarting economic growth by cutting wages of those most likely to spend is economic insanity, pure and simple.
0
BreitbartVictorious
yabits
The fact that many nations have min wage laws does not disprove basic economic principles about labor, employers' demand for skilled employees and of course considerations of age. I will simply let one of today's more startling headlines clarify things:
Average Teen Unemployment Rate in D.C. is 50.1%, Analysis Shows
Friday, August 12, 2011 ttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/average-teen-unemployment-rate-dc-501-an-0
0
Laguna
The minimum wage in DC is $8.25 untipped, $2.77 tipped. How much of a reduction from that do you suggest would spur hiring? $5.00, maybe? How would that effect those who work at or close to the current minimum wage but are trying to support families? What would be the purchasing effect as those with suddenly lowered wages withdraw spending from the local economy?
0
BreitbartVictorious
Sorry. I am not willing to play central planner.
0
es000.wordpress.com
Perry will work to eradicate the the division between church and state -- that will make D.C. more irrelevant.
Perry will also work to give more rights to states and less power to the EPA, so I am sure he will make friends with the nuclear industry in Japan who are looking for clients to export their technologies.
-1
plasticmonkey
@Breitbart
Yeah, let the market decide.
Perhaps you can be willing to take responsibility for your comments. Let me repeat, please explain to me how race-baiting will now hamstring the liberals and progressives, and how it relates to Obama trying to regain momentum after losing much public support.
0
yabits
The fact is that nations proven to have some of the world's most competitive economies either have minimum wage laws or -- better yet -- have replaced them with comprehensive collective bargaining. If market "principles" about labor were a "proof," -- the words used by those who worship such golden calves -- those countries could not be competitive.
Genuine examples of competitive economies where the vast majority who work in them prosper demonstrate a better end than some right-wing, Ayn-Randian fantasyland.
Since wages are subject to negotiation, a higher form of "free market" would be achieved when the ordinary worker is able to negotiate on a par with a collectively organized management. And in order to achieve that relatively equal footing, workers need to be organized around their interests as workers -- and not solely grist for the mill serving management's interests.
0
sailwind
At any rate, discussion in the US of jump starting economic growth by cutting wages of those most likely to spend is economic insanity, pure and simple.
Actually on a serious note your viewing this from the wrong angle. The U.S has a shadow underground economy estimated at more than a trillion dollars, and this does not include the illegal drug trade. This is the economy that employs all the illegal aliens and those who are citizens but work "off the books" in our poorest inner cities. The dishwashers in the restaurants, the street vendors hawking goods with the electronic knock offs, the workers in the fields. These are the workers that are really being exploited by their so called employers and not the bogeymen CEO's. A decent minimum wage is of course the right thing to do, but does it actually square with the gritty economic reality facing the poorest of our citizens? It does not, in many ways it forces them to accept inhumane conditions that they are willing to accept because the minimum wage set by the Government is not matching the actual micro-economic labor activity taking place at the street level. All populist rhetoric aside. Those who work with our lowest and neediest members of society know exactly what the "prevailing wage" that is being paid in their communities in this underground economy. Pegging an official minimum wage to that actual figure on a local basis ( say inner city Detroit sets 5.00 dollars and hour, Washington D.C sets about Six dollars due to the tourist trade that does bring in a lot income in services needed by semi-skilled labor and the often illegal use thereof....hotel housekeepers etc) it would go a long way to getting those in the underground economy into the legitimate economy where Medicaid, social security taxes and unemployment insurance could actually be deducted legitimately and afford them some actual minimal social net protection and the rights granted by U.S labor laws already on the books in the U.S. This is not a cruel thing on my part to suggest because like it or not they are already being exploited and that isn't going to change by raising the minimum wage at what ever level the Govt deems necessary. I'd rather start fighting poverty and exploitation by bringing the labor market they actually exist in and the actual real wages being paid out into the light and out of the shadows and craft inner city policy and efforts to fight poverty to reflect that gritty baseline economic reality.
0
Virtuoso
Has anyone stopped to consider what sort of shape the US would be today if McCain/Palin had won the 2008 election instead of Obama? Given the choice they had, I think the American people picked the right man. From what I've seen of the Iowa Straw Poll, it looks like Obama is a shoo-in for re-election. Then we can look forward to four more years of hysterical Republican whining and bellyaching.
0
Laguna
Good post, Sailwind.
It is a very complex issue, and while I don't agree with everything you've written, I appreciate the spirit. I'm from LA, so I'm well-acquainted with life on the margin (well, that and that I've lived most of my life abroad, often dubious circumstances). With people of good intention, America will work this out.
0
Alphaape
@yabits: How are the collective bargaining rights in China doing today? The main reason why China can mass produce is that don't have a minum wage law, and so they can afford to pay very little to get workers to do the work. It puts an unfair advantage to places like Japan and the US who have to pay more.
I started off working at $3.35/hour many years ago. It was small but I made do with it. Yes some employers may be able to pay more, but keep in mind, the more they pay, they have to also pay the corresponding amout of payroll taxes to the government. I say, get rid of some of those taxes employees have to pay for their workers, and maybe then theymay be able to pay a larger salary.
0
Alphaape
Will someone give me an example of a company that has a well known CEO who gives to the Dems and other Far Left organizations that pays well above the minimum wage and gives their workers generous benifits?
Look at the trouble the Huffington Post had when she sold it to AOL, and the bloggers are now saying that they didn't get paid and are trying to sue for back wages. Or look at ACORN, who led strikes against Wal-Mart because of their pay practices, but yet was paying the crowds that they bussed in to picket stores below what the hourly wage was working in Wal-Mart. Better yet, take a look at the movie industry itself. Without a doubt is is pretty left of center, and though some in the industry do make it rich, and I am glad for it, but look at what those who are not so lucky get paid, even with a union like the SAG and other trade unions. The same industry that goes to D.C. to get funding and laws passed so that they can get tax relief, and still ship production of a lot of shows to places like Canada.
So, I don't think that it is just a "conservative" thing, but also liberal businessess too. Just check where that latest Apple gadget was manufactured, and ask Jobs why he would rather ship work overseast to get done than here in the USA.
0
yabits
LOL!!! is that the main reason? You're a hoot who can't reason or explain basic facts.
Go back and re-read the statement: many of the world's most competitive countries. Not all. If minimum wages were the factor -- the main reason -- then nations like Finland and Germany could not compete along with China. And yet both are highly competitive.
0
Alphaape
@yabits: What are the low cost Finnish and German products that are flooding the world's markets today?
Also, go back andre-read my post. How many of those companies that the left seems to believe are "good" (i.e. big financial supporters) actually pay more than the minimum wage?
0
yabits
Well, gee, the same reasoning would apply to management salaries too. They don't seem to mind paying the extra payroll taxes when it comes to increasing their own salaries.
Maybe? Maybe? What kind of a person would even suggest that kind of a one-way deal -- giving up something for "maybe."
0
yabits
LOL!! You think a country has to make low-end products to be competitive? What, you make up your own rules for competitiveness too? Rather than the Alphaape Index of Competitive Economies, it would be better to look at one that actually has some credibility -- The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness rankings, which look at many more aspects of a country's economy than just minimum wages paid to workers.
China also heavily abuses its workforce. Perhaps not paying a minimum wage is just one more form of general abuse.
They come in at 27 on the list, by the way. Nations in the top 10 include many of those which either have minimum wage laws or heavy reliance on collective bargaining: Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, etc. Yes, those countries may not flood the world with cheap knock-offs, but they lead in high technology and high-end manufacturing.
0
yabits
Well, we all know of company CEOs like Lay (Enron), Kozlowski (Tyco), Mozilo (Countrywide), Rigas (Adelphia), Ebbers (WorldCom) -- who all went to prison and were heavy givers to Republican causes.
One well-known company whose CEOs had long been associated with Democratic causes is IBM. Thomas Watson Sr. was a staunch defender of the New Deal. His son, who also became CEO, supported Great Society programs and was the US ambassador to the USSR under Carter. IBM has always paid well above minimum wage and has great benefits. I would say that a lot (if not most) of the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley lean Democratic. They all provide great pay and benefits.
0
yabits
Is a protestor an employee? Are they expected to make protesting a full time occupation? Or is it a simple, one-time contract arrangement that both parties enter into freely? If it's the latter, than it's sheer stupidity to compare it with a full-time employment situation.
Regarding Huffington Post, the company had 183 formal employee-journalists who were paid well and enjoyed good benefits. Freelance bloggers were never employed and freely wrote in exchange for having their names cited as writing for Huffpo. Some of them were under the illusion that they would receive money if the Post was ever sold. As with the WalMart protestors, bloggers are not assigned work: they are free to write on whatever topic they want, whenever they want. Blaming Huffpo for not treating them like employees is ludicrous.
0
BreitbartVictorious
Yabits does not argue for a minimum wage as end in itself or a single good but as a means to empower unions to the point where collectivist politicians control our economy and our lives.
0
yabits
Really afraid of "we the people" aren't you, Breitbart. Anything that smacks of the lower 60% of the economic ladder organizing around common interests. Gee, the thought of the U.S. becoming more like Switzerland or Denmark in terms of quality of life.
0
Alphaape
I wonder does Denmark or Switzerland have to deal with gangs like MS13, and turning what used to be poor areas in the US into worser hell holes and combat zones like the ones I see now in some areas of the US. Does Denmark and Switzerland have a huge uneducated population of immigrants and natives that can't do high tech jobs, and thus rely on the public dole to support them.
So, if they have those problems, and manage to make their societies a socailst haven, then good for them. But the US is a differnt place, and those pie in the sky dreams that you keep expousing will not work here.
0
yabits
The topic is how economic competitiveness is impacted by a minimum wage and/or collective bargaining.
I understand why you want to go back out into left field since you can't offer anything that's relevant.
0
Alphaape
The topic is how economic competitiveness is impacted by a minimum wage and/or collective bargaining.
I understand why you want to go back out into left field since you can't offer anything that's relevant.
@yabits: My comments do add to the discussion. The countries that you name don't have the same social issues that the USA does. They can afford to offer higher wages, simply because they tax heavier than the US and give more benefits to their citizens. The USA can't. We take on a massive immigrant community who get paid minimum wage (if they are lucky) and who also drain our social services system. Sure we can increase the minimum wage, but then those same people will be required to pay more to taxes, if we are to be able to give them the same lifestyle as you say those two countries have.
I am for increasing the workers right to get better compensation. But you must realize you just can't make money appear and spread it around evenly.
0
BreitbartVictorious
alpha
It is almost embarrassing that you would have to point out to yabits that America, the most diverse nation on the planet,home to a population of 305 million, is not Denmark, 90 percent of whose 5 million citizens belong to the same race.
1
yabits
Your comments are irrelevant to the point that a country can pay higher minimum wages and still be competitive in a global market. But, you have just admitted that those countries can also tax higher and still be competitive.
That contradicts one of your first deflections: that the main reason that China is so competitive is because they don't have to pay a minimum wage. (Neglecting the fact that Taiwan, which does have a minimum wage law has much more of a competitive economy than China.)
Your next attempts to deflect involved bringing up CEOs who support Democrats, how Huffington Post treats freelance bloggers, and how ACORN compensated protesters. None of which have anything to do with minimum wage laws for fulltime employees and economic competitiveness.
Germany has many of the social issues that the US does. There are millions of Greek and Turkish immigrants and the attendant problems that come with such immigration. In fact, Germany has a much higher percentage of immigrants relative to native Germans than the United States has. And yet Germany can pay a high minimum wage and still be a very competitive economy. So the "social issue" angle doesn't cut it either.
0
yabits
Most of the countries that are highly competitive and pay higher wages are not like the United States in several important ways.
One of the most important differences is that a nation like Denmark does not have people who head business and industries who are out to screw their fellow Danes by encouraging the influx of illegal immigrants in order to apply downward pressure on wages and benefits.
This indicates that an American decision-maker is justified in the eyes of right-wingers to make policies that reflect the fact many Americans are not white. (As if to say, "If only those Danes had to deal with all these non-white people; they would do things differently.")
0
Alphaape
@yabits: I suggest you read the book "Do as I Say, Not As I Do" about how some on the left are very hypocritcal when it comes to what they seem to fight for and how they live. My comments about ACORN are very relevant to this case. Community organizing groups and unions pay protestors to picket outside of local Wal-Marts to demand that they pay higher wages to their employees. However, those organizations only pay about $5/hour for the protestors. Wal-Mart, normally starts pay around $7.25 (or around that amount). So for groups to send people to protest about minimum wage jobs, and then doesn't even pay the people that they hire to do it smacks of hypocrisim to me. If they minimum wage is not liveable, then I would expect those groups to send people out paying them that amount or more. But they seem to not be willing to do so. I guess that would cut into their "donations" that they receive and would leave them with fewer money to pay their pensions (oh I forgot, the company pays employee pensions and not the unions) or to give to lobbyist.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
Debating in public with Sarah Palin's Facebook page didn't work out too well for Obama so he has resorted to imitating her and chasing her around what his base snidely call 'fly-over country.'
Smartest president evah!
0
yabits
Only to yourself. They have nothing to do with the impact of minimum wage laws (or collective bargaining for wages) on the competitiveness of an economy.
A fifth-grader would be able to see through your phony argument: That a position of supporting minimum wage laws is taken by a side where some of whose members might be shown not to follow what they are endorsing, and therefore the position should not be considered on its own merits.
It's really an embarrassingly stupid argument because it requires accepting a false premise that every member taking a side has to be perfect in everything they do. As if a few examples of imperfection would spoil the position taken by the larger group. Well, I'll be first to admit that all members of the faction supporting minimum wage laws are not perfect. And neither are their opponents.
By the way, most organizations pay nothing to those who volunteer their time to them. The fact that ACORN was willing to reimburse some of its volunteers is somewhat unusual. You don't seem to be aware that there's a significant difference between a volunteer for a one-time task and a full time employee. This failure to understand only ends up compounding the foolishness of your position.
Still, there must be something very powerful and positive in the progressives' position. I can't think of any other reason why people have to resort to such efforts at making dumb, irrelevant arguments or generally being disingenuous.
0
Einherjar
But yabits, if it's ok to pay volunteers less than minimum wage one time, shouldn't it also be legal to pay them less than minimum wage a second time, and a third? And if so, why shouldn't it be legal to pay people less than minimum wage over extended periods, so long as they in fact volunteer for the position (i.e. work voluntarily)? I might want to quasi volunteer for a think-tank or political action group, and charge less than minimum wage for it, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?
The fact in Denmark is that the workforce is better educated and more skilled than the american workforce, and so the price of unskilled labor is bid up due to business demand and supply constraints. The price of unskilled labor in the US is kept down by an inexhaustible supply of illegal immigrants, and minimum wage laws merely prevent law abiding unskilled workers from working.
0
yabits
The arrangement depends upon the "volunteer's" continued willingness to take less for their time and labor than the value of those to the person or organization paying them -- and also with the full knowledge that there is a minimum wage they could require by law, but have chosen to waive.
Working as a freelance contractor would enable anyone to do that. You could tell the person contracting you that you intend to give them 20 hours a week, and they write the contract specifying they'll pay you for no more than 10 hours. then you can give them ten hours of free time and even collect ten hours at minimum wage -- or whatever you decide.
The laws governing a full-time employment relationship have to be different. I am rather surprised you are not aware of this. An employer reaping the benefits of the increasing skills and knowledge of an employee who is working full time for many weeks or months is an expropriation by that employer of the employee's delivered value.
0
Einherjar
This is the crux of the issue isn't it? I don't believe every employee necessarily deliver a minimum wages worth of value. If they all did, they wouldn't have as much trouble finding employment at that wage.
It is also the case that compensation could com in other forms than money. In the example of me working at a political action comity for instance, I would certainly find the position rewarding in other ways than the monetary compensation. One case I've heard of where this phenomenon was in effect was a business that decided to get rid of a number of apprenticeship positions because they wouldn't make sense for them at the minimum wage, in spite of the fact that they had plenty of applicants that wanted the positions and thought they were a valuable opportunity. Are those people better off washing dishes at minimum wage if they can even land such a job?
It would be wiser in my opinion to let the market set the price of labor. If an employee is capable of delivering more value than his employer will compensate him for, let him strike a better deal with some other employer.
The way to raise the price of unskilled labor is to either increase the demand for it, or to decrease the supply of it, for instance by training/educating some unskilled labor into skilled labor, or reducing the influx of new unskilled labor.
0
lucabrasi
@Einherjar
Right. Like in industrial revolution Britain, when half-starved children worked 16-hour shifts in the mills for the price of half a loaf of bread a day. Like in America during the Great Depression when mothers starved to death rather than let their children go hungry. Like in India now, where silk-shirt wearing yuppies step over desperate, dying fellow-citizens on their way to the office.
You gotta love that capitalistic self-regulation!
0
Einherjar
@lucabrasi In industrial revolution Britain conditions were what they were because of the relative scarcity of skill and capital, conditions actually improved over what had been the case prior to the industrial revolution. You didn't have millions flocking to the cities because they were worse off then they used to be.
In America during the Great Depression salaries as well as the products were subject to price controls. The prices specified were so high that the amount of gold in circulation was only sufficient to keep three quarters of the people included in the economy.
In India now, economic conditions are rapidly improving. It will take a while for India to reach capital saturation due to it's huge population, so unskilled labor is likely to be cheap there for a long time still, but the price of various kinds of skilled labor is already rising fast in response to high demand. Do you imagine introducing and enforcing a minimum wage of $8 an hour in India today would lead to anything other than mass unemployment and famine?
Also I suggest you read up on what self-regulation is before you mock it. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and you look like an idiot for misusing the term.
0
lucabrasi
@Einherjar
Okay, I misused the term "self-regulation". I was trying to make a general point about capitalism's inability to control its excesses, not to be academically correct ; I'm no economist :)
But I still think my general point stands: unfettered capitalism leads to misery. Would you rather live in Sweden, or Haiti? Until human beings start acting in a Christian (or other religion: choose one!) way, we're screwed. Capitalism is just the way of the world, which we're encouraged to reject.
0
yabits
Perhaps it is more an indication of an (obviously) overpaid management that doesn't have a clue how to turn the skills and abilities of a workforce -- ie: human resources -- into high-value, high-quality products and services.
When a bank goes under, it's not because of too many counting errors by tellers. But the low-level employees are the first to suffer while those responsible draw very large checks either for continued "service" or for separation. Such it is with organizations all across the board.
You'll have a hard time selling that to any intelligent person. That is, someone who can see a much bigger picture than those who wear the ideological blinders of libertarianism. Your proposal is very unwise. A free market works only when there is complete freedom of information and complete freedom from coercion. The worker is forced to sell his skills in order to survive, and the employer is not required to hire him at any given time -- and so can wait him out for the best deal.
Secondly, the worker is in near total dependence on the employer to provide to him the information that lets him know the true value of his work. It is therefore in the employer's interest to withhold as much of that information as possible, in order to exploit and therefore maximize his return from the human resource.
The best way for a market-type system to work in this scenario is to have the workers organized and represented by a party that is interested in ensuring that workers get the best possible deal. And who can provide the resources to wait out any employer who would want to use the human conditions of cold and hunger against the person trying to bargain for a position.
0
Einherjar
Of course, but the employees labor is only worth to an employer what said employer can make of it. If there were an ample supply of employers who could produce a lot of value with unskilled labor, then they would bid up the price of labor accordingly, and neither unemployment or low wages would be an issue.
Banks are a bit of a special case, as they don't go under so much as get bailed out and lumber on. I have reforms In mind which would address this, but that is a major topic on it's own, and will have to wait for another time.
When stock market funds perform poorly, the brokers earn less commission, and when an analyst at a bank screws up, said analysts bonus takes a hit. The terms of bonuses and such are negotiated by these employees by themselves in the market by the way, no laws or collective bargaining were necessary in order to provide them with these benefits.
In a free market anyone who think they could offer these peoples employers better value for money are free to compete for their positions.
A free market will work, sub-optimally, even when there are search-frictions. Freedom from coercion is is fulfilled, slavery has long since been abolished.
There are multiple prospective employers competing for labor, and government is responsible for preventing the formation of cartels. People have to buy food to live, but there is still competition among providers of foodstuffs. The same holds for providers of employment.
There are publicly available statistics on unemployment by worktype (don't know the english word) and region, as well as statistics on wages in various types of work. I would not be opposed to a public contribution to the publication of such statistics. Additionally said worker can access job-hunting websites, to see what various open positions are offering in order to get the lay of the land.
If workers try to organize a cartel, the government should step in and jail the ringleaders. If you think of something more like a career management agency, (which would for instance find and recommend higher paying positions to workers in exchange for a percentage of the salary increase over a period), I agree. Such an agency could also provide and/or recommend training and/or coursework which would help the employee find higher paying positions.
0
Einherjar
@lucabrisi
Self regulation refers to contractual conditions. An advocate for self regulation will argue, for instance, that it is not necessary for government to introduce regulations forcing anyone shorting a commodity to have a certain amount of capital on hand to cover potential losses, since the person entering into the contract in the long position can insist on such conditions himself. Usually exchanges guarantee trades made on them, (as in, they eat the loss if someone is unable to cover a short, the long still gets his money) and set their own conditions which short sellers must comply with. If a trader is unhappy with the conditions he can trade at another exchange.
One could also argue that regulations meant to protect minority shareholders are superfluous, as such conditions could be established by contract.
I have no idea where you get the idea that Haiti sports a freer market than Sweden, but I can assure you that you are wrong.
If you start with the premise that no one should be forced to participate in any interaction without their consent, you end up with a free market, and in most cases it is hard to argue with that premise. Of course there are some things which do not lend themselves to market solutions, natural monopolies line road networks for instance, but for most things I think people should be allowed to arrange themselves as they see fit provided they do not infringe on the rights of others in the process. Of course everyone would have to contribute to the enforcement of this principle. (police&military)
Back to top