Elizabeth Warren: Why Isn't The Minimum Wage Today $22/Hour?

[Danan]

Warren is touching on an important point here. There has been a historic breakdown in the share of income earned by labor vs. capital. The reason for this is the neo-feudal corporatism that has taken hold in this country by controlling the banks, media, and government.

I don't trust Warren but she shouldn't be slammed when she's doing something right. What indeed happened to the earning power of a man's labor, and why? This question leads to profound and uncomfortable truths about our monetary system and related government policies.

The real question is not so much, "why has capital income grown and labor income stagnated?" but rather, "why aren't more people becoming capital owners?" And the answer to that question is because of government.

Even without government interventions the share of labor income would have likely gone down (in relative terms) as automation continues. That wouldn't be a huge problem though, since more and more people would become capitalists.

Also, the whole paradigm is a wrong one. Aggregate income is not a ready-baked cake with capitalism or the government wielding the knife of income distribution. It is simply the aggregate of individual incomes, each of which could be higher or lower without the government.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Warren, Obama and McCain. 3 of a kind.

Ah to be a kid growing up the 70s again.

 

[anaconda]

...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Great question. It's like she is trying to make the free market argument for us.

It's really quite uncanny. Does she even know that she's making a strong argument AGAINST minimum wage?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I think the other $14.75 is in her bank account somewhere.

I guarantee you it's a lot more than fourteen dollars and seventy five cents.

 

[mport1]

Elizabeth Warren is one of the scariest people in government. The fact that she was ever even considered a viable candidate is frightening.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

in 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.

If we just left the money system based on silver as it was back then and left the minimum wage at $1.25/hr in silver money that would translate to well over $22/hr in todays inflated money

 

[jbauer]

It is my business to question what the employees of a fortune 500 company are doing. If we truley lived in a freemarket place then it wouldn't. But we don't. Those companies with their quasi government lobist organizations that ensure their meal ticket gets deducted out of my tax dollars and out of the future dollars of my children. Those same companies flocked to the government in 08 & 09 asking for my tax dollars to bail their asses out.

The profits of companies are up from the 60's....gee no friking kidding. Tell me something that hasn't skyrocketed since the 60's.....except nominal wage. Again, I'm not advocating for increasing the minimum wage and haven't through my comments. You say that the CEO had 4-5k people and now has 40-50k people. Great, good for them. Thats a great argument for them making 10x the salary then they did in the 60s not 500x.

I know I'm quite alone here and frankly don't care but no one has been able to explain to me why its ok for Ron Paul to run around bitching that a mercery dime still buys a gallon of gas as an example of how our monetary system if f'ed up but how its not ok for Mrs Warren to make the exact same argument only substituting sliver for minimum wage. Its the same problem caused by the same people that is damaging our country.

Those that can't see this hypocrisy are only kidding themselves. So take your "class warfare" and stick it because we don't live in a free market. Not even remotely close.

Indeed I am, although it's really none of your business how much somebody else makes. If you want to start a company and pay a CEO less than that, then you go right ahead.

But if you think that the working man will make more money if the CEO makes less, you're horribly mistaken. Executive pay is taken from the common man? Socialist bullshit. That money never belonged to the worker. Their labor is for hire, nothing more.

Go look at the profits those corporations are making, and tell me they're not also up significantly since the 60's. Corporations are much bigger now, too. A CEO back in the 60's probably had 4 - 5000 people under him. Now it's not uncommon for them to have 10 times that amount.

It takes less people though - when I first started accounting, there was a person whose only function was write checks. That's basically it. People brought the invoices up, already approved and totaled up. She did nothing but cut the checks, find a manager to sign the big ones, and mail them. Then the company bought a computer. In a decade, the company quadrupled in size, but my department stayed at the same staff level. One guy managed all that change - taking a company from the 60's to the 90's was a huge feat, and the only bullshit is that you think that running a company today is exactly the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

This class warfare bullshit has no place in a free market. I can't believe this is coming from Ron Paul Forums and not The Daily Kos.

 

[jbauer]

in 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.

If we just left the money system based on silver as it was back then and left the minimum wage at $1.25/hr in silver money that would translate to well over $22/hr in todays inflated money

Tried explaining that earlier at about page 6 or so. No one seems to be able to see the hypocrisy.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

They provide credit at exorbitant rates to people who clearly cannot and will not ever pay. They loan out monies they do not have. [another issue] Then they rely on their 'too big to fail, too big to prosecute' crony government sponsored bullshit to remain afloat after confiscating things of actual value and investing in actual worth. No, I am not joking. I hate usurers, I hate banksters. I despise those who create wealth from 'the flick of a pen.' [those who actually steal the value of what you've worked for, by said 'flick of the pen' or entry into a computer]

Perhaps that falls back to your previous post of socialist politicians being in bed with them.

The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents - men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest - stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.- Lysander Spooner

And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived.- Lysander Spooner

That about sums up my feelings.

Okay, Cutlerzz, what is 'ignorant' about my post? If I am mistaken about something, I do not mind being corrected... but as I see it, I'm not. You simply neg repping me and not clarifying or correcting me is kind of selfish, don't ya think? I know human nature is to hold knowledge close as to be able to hold it over someone's head, or to be able to feel a sense of superiority, but please, enlighten me. I would be indebted to you. The Rothschilds own next week's check. I might be able to spare some change though.

 

[anaconda]

in 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.

If we just left the money system based on silver as it was back then and left the minimum wage at $1.25/hr in silver money that would translate to well over $22/hr in todays inflated money

What deeply concerns me is the real wage (i.e. purchasing power) not so much (in this context) the nominal wage or the price level. The problem is that the real wage has stagnated for many in our country who have been unable to acquire job skills with a higher market wage.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

in 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.

If we just left the money system based on silver as it was back then and left the minimum wage at $1.25/hr in silver money that would translate to well over $22/hr in todays inflated money

Yes. And if we did that, the prices of everyday things wouldn't require us to make 22 dollars an hour to afford. Ron Paul made my day when he pulled out the mercury dime during the debate.

 

[anaconda]

Tell me something that hasn't skyrocketed since the 60's.....except nominal wage.

Is it possible that you mean the "real" wage here? Nominal wages increase with the price level

 

[jbauer]

Heck throw in the under 30 crowd. How many are walking around with degrees working at Wendys. Wage stagnation is and should be one of the things talked about because it is the root problem of almost ALL of our problems. Average American household income adjusted for inflation is just slightly up since the 80s but over the same time we went from a 1 earner household to a 2 earner household.

That should be alarming to everyone here. Somebody is screwing the pooch.

What deeply concerns me is the real wage (i.e. purchasing power) not so much (in this context) the nominal wage or the price level. The problem is that the real wage has stagnated for many in our country who have been unable to acquire job skills with a higher market wage.

 

[jbauer]

Is it possible that you mean the "real" wage here? Nominal wages increase with the price level

yup sorry, typing fast.

 

[BAllen]

And I would agree that it should. When the value of an average man's labor goes below the cost of living the nation becomes a slow-motion death camp - it breaks through the fundamental bottom line that makes it worth it for the average person to prefer civilization to barbarism.

That is only because we don't have a free market in other areas of the economy like housing, farming, and healthcare. Taxes and regulations make those things much higher priced. THAT is the problem.

 

[Danan]

I know I'm quite alone here and frankly don't care but no one has been able to explain to me why its ok for Ron Paul to run around bitching that a mercery dime still buys a gallon of gas as an example of how our monetary system if f'ed up but how its not ok for Mrs Warren to make the exact same argument only substituting sliver for minimum wage.

The former is caused by monetery policy entirely, while the latter has multiple causes, many of which are free market forces, like automation, globalization, etc., but also other government causes that have nothing to do with the Federal Reserve System, like subsities, regulations, tariffs. The Fed has only indirect influence on real wages, since those are adjusted for inflation.

Also, government interventions in the free market have way more negative influence on the low wage of low skilled labor, than they have on the wages of CEOs. Those seem to be largely a product of market forces.

Also, as I stated before, the fact that real income of capital owners grows, while labor income grows more slowly (or even stagnates) is not very surprising and it's not even a huge problem. The problem is that most people don't manage to become capitalists, which should be the ideal. And the reason for that is obviously for a large part government intervention in the economy.

 

[anaconda]

no one has been able to explain to me why its ok for Ron Paul to run around bitching that a mercery dime still buys a gallon of gas as an example of how our monetary system if f'ed up but how its not ok for Mrs Warren to make the exact same argument only substituting sliver for minimum wage.

This is a topic that I thought Ron Paul always did a very poor job of explaining. Ron would always talk about how the money has lost it's value, but he never would mention that the very same inflation that inflates the currency also inflates peoples' wages. Ron occasionally tried to explain his argument but I think it was lost on most voters: namely that the inflationary effect of printing money is significantly more costly to the bulk of Americans as opposed to the "early recipients" of the newly created money, because it takes many months for the newly created money to fully exert its inflationary effect throughout the macroeconomy and by that time the money has long since been spent by (as Ron would say) "the people that get to use the money first." Ron Paul's other concern with monetary inflation was for people on fixed incomes such as perhaps some retirees.

 

[angelatc]

Tried explaining that earlier at about page 6 or so. No one seems to be able to see the hypocrisy.

There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about it. People get paid better, different benefits, the dollar buys more now than it did then, and with women and immigrants flooding the workforce, there are far more workers competing for less American jobs.

You're perpetrating a myth.

 

[Danan]

Heck throw in the under 30 crowd. How many are walking around with degrees working at Wendys. Wage stagnation is and should be one of the things talked about because it is the root problem of almost ALL of our problems. Average American household income adjusted for inflation is just slightly up since the 80s but over the same time we went from a 1 earner household to a 2 earner household.

That should be alarming to everyone here. Somebody is screwing the pooch.

You are still talking about the same income per wage hour as in the 80s. I agree that's a bad sign, that we couldn't progress from then on, but it's not like the 80s were the worst time in human history. I'm fully aware of the reasons why we see this unfortunate outcome (mainly monetary policy, but also to a large part regulations, etc.)

With equal real wages a single earner houshold in the 80s would have half the material wealth like a two earner household today. If you don't believe that, than your real problem is not stagnating real wages.