• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

COVID-19

RedFive

Well-Known Member
pilot
None
Contributor
People having a living wage is good for corporations too. People who make a living wage can buy crap and make the wheels of the economy go around. Buying crap=economic goodness.
Isn't it like trying to make a perpetual motion machine? Or like trying to pick yourself up off the ground by pulling up on your pants? I'm not saying I'm against it, but I've been waiting to see a study that says it works. I thought they were finding it doesn't?
 

wiseguy04

The Dude abides....
pilot
People having a living wage is good for corporations too. People who make a living wage can buy crap and make the wheels of the economy go around. Buying crap=economic goodness.

A higher minimum wage also means less people that a company can afford to hire. Less workers=less people buying crap. Let companies compete with each other over talent. Wages/benefits will work themselves out.
 

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
A higher minimum wage also means less people that a company can afford to hire. Less workers=less people buying crap. Let companies compete with each other over talent. Wages/benefits will work themselves out.

I'll stipulate your point. Generally agree.

Explain how you agree with the federal government bailing out businesses and corporations. Seems like a moral hazard for the American taxpayer. Shouldn't they be allowed to go bankrupt, and let the free market take its course. Isn't this what fired up the Tea Party movement?
 
Last edited:

Ken_gone_flying

"I live vicariously through myself."
pilot
Contributor
I'll stipulate your point. Generally agree.

Explain how you agree with the federal government bailing out businesses and corporations. Seems like a moral hazard for the American taxpayer. Shouldn't they be allowed to go bankrupt, and let the free market to take its course. Isn't this what fired up the Tea Party movement?

Are you suggesting to let most, if not all major airlines go bankrupt? Air travel is kind of essential. Would letting that happen be in the tax payers best interest?

Are you suggesting they let Boeing go bankrupt? Their contribution to our defense program is kind of essential. Would letting that happen be in the tax payers best interest?
 

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Are you suggesting to let most, if not all major airlines go bankrupt? Air travel is kind of essential. Would letting that happen be in the tax payers best interest?

Are you suggesting they let Boeing go bankrupt? Their contribution to our defense program is kind of essential. Would letting that happen be in the tax payers best interest?

I'm sure it would all get sorted out in chapter 11.

Are you suggesting we nationalize this industry?
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
Isn't it like trying to make a perpetual motion machine? Or like trying to pick yourself up off the ground by pulling up on your pants? I'm not saying I'm against it, but I've been waiting to see a study that says it works. I thought they were finding it doesn't?
Yes but that also how this whole market thing works. People need to get paid to be able to buy stuff. Corporations want people to buy stuff but they also want to maximize profit which one hand means selling a lot and on the other hand means keeping wages low. But if they don't pay people enough then they can't afford to buy the stuff the company is making and then the company fails. Ford didn't become a huge company by making cars no one could afford, instead they made cars almost everyone could afford. Same with apple and the iPhone.

It is a giant self licking ice cream cone but at some point we want the economy to grow...but that implies that there's capital to do that. That capital has to come from somewhere.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
A higher minimum wage also means less people that a company can afford to hire. Less workers=less people buying crap. Let companies compete with each other over talent. Wages/benefits will work themselves out.
It's obviously an important thing to balance and I don't think it's something that all companies consider when they pay their workforce. Which while it may be good for that company it may also not be good for the greater economy.

"God Entity : Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.

Bender : Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.

God Entity : Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
 

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
I got hired at a Jack in the Box at 16 and was a store assistant manger by 18 and manager by 19. But that is not the minimum wage job we are talking about. Most don’t do that.
Similar to me, I worked in retail from 14-18, I was assistant manager during the week and manager during the weekends, they said if I stayed on I could be a manager of one of the new stores they were going to open, however looking at the other managers who were 35-40, living in apartments, didn't really seem like the direction I wanted to go.

Instead I took the work ethic I had and joined the USN, where I then learned about cleaning bilges lol
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Great idea in theory, but who pays? According to Forbes, the 400 richest people in the US are worth approximately $2.96 trillion...
I hate when people mention this to justify higher wages.

These business owners don't have trillions of liquid assets sitting around. The vast majority of their net worth is directly tied to owning very profitable businesses with huge market shares.

Do they draw out millions of cash flow to live in mansions on huge properties with a whole team of people to take care of the place? Sure. Could they say 'fuck it' and cash out their assets? Not without losing most of the value of it and laying off a lot of people. More to the point: is that cash flow enough to give thousands of workers a $10,000 a year raise? Not even close.
 

ABMD

Bullets don't fly without Supply
People having a living wage is good for corporations too. People who make a living wage can buy crap and make the wheels of the economy go around. Buying crap=economic goodness.

People can still buy crap on minimum wage. I did it all the time when I was making $4.25 washing dishes at a local deli. I had the money I needed for gas, insurance and lift tickets. I think the idea of a "minimum wage" isn't that people are expecting to raise a family, buy/rent a house, afford a new F-150, buy Starbuck's everyday, have multiple subscription services on that minimum wage. It's a start, a jumping off point to gain experience, learn a skill and move on to bigger and higher-paying things. If I'm wrong and people actually think they are supposed to do all those things mentioned above while working the local drive-thru something is seriously wrong with society.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I also tend to think that everyone is primed to look at unemployment numbers in a traditional sense, ie a recession. This is a different thing. People still want to consume they just can't. To try and analyze this like a traditional recession won't be accurate.

It also has exposed a lot of fragility in our existing systems such as just in time delivery, centralized production, and maximizing profit to make #s look good so many companies initial reaction is a lay off or furlough.
In any recession people want to spend, but can't. This is no different. When back to work they may want all the same stuff, but they now have gone without income for many weeks. Their savings may be deplete. Had to spend the down payment on tjhe house or car you were about to buy.

No, not quite like most recessions, but bad enough and recovery will not be weeks. If lucky, several months.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
I am all for personal responsibility and living below your means.
Living in SC circa 2009 my annual living expenses for housing and utilities was $9800. Food ran me about $2000 a year. I could have shaved 13% off of that if I went for a basic cell phone plan or landline instead of a smartphone and got rid of internet. I could have shaved 25-33% if I split the place with a roommate. But there wasn't a reason to do that.

Minimum wage was $15000 a year. That would have left enough to pay for food and a car, even though it would have required the roommate route to have any spending money.

I recognize that cost of living is very localized amd living on $15000/year isn't always feasible, but we've convinced ourselves that many services are essential when they really aren't. And in those higher cost of living places, the minimum wage tends to be higher. At any rate, when I see a story about how a new college grad can't make ends meet on $15/hr, I think 'you have a spending problem. Might want to possibly drop that multi smart device internet service plan for a bit until you get a career established.' Because I made $36k a year as an Ensign and I had enough money left over to pay off $22k in student loans before I made LTJG.
 
Last edited:
Top