Escalating Tariffs on Mexico - Do You Agree?

[Tatetopa]

20 hours ago, aztek said:

not everyone has grown son who likes feeling helpful.  do you really think your personal example is a valid argument when we talk about entire country? 

Nope.  I don't think so.  It is one way to do it, there are others.  I will say he didn't get that way because I let him grow up doing everything he wanted and not having any chore responsibilities.  But, I didn't have any special parenting talents, attend parenting school, or think I am a natural genius at raising a kid. So, it is one way that works  for a percentage of folks even in America.

I notice by some of your quotes you think the younger generation is literally going to pot.   I agree some are.  But not all.  I have had to hire entry level people for my work for a lot of years.  A lot were legal immigrants because of the relatively low wage.  A  bunch were  high school kids on their first non-burger job.  Like every generation, some were flakes, a lot mediocre, not at  all outstanding but solid, some were stars.  

So what does society do with kids that didn't grow up learning some values?

.

[Tatetopa]

16 hours ago, Big Jim said:

16 hours ago, OverSword said:

Yeah, increasing minimum wage is s losing proposition. After a short time the result is the price of everything goes up and there are fewer minimum wage jobs available. At that point the $15 an hour is no longer enough to live on and people making $20 suddenly have to eat pb&j sandwiches for dinner three nights a week.

I can see it also being a morale killer for the people who have spent years working their way up to $15 from whatever minimum wage was when they started.

This is an interesting and confusing topic to me.  I will try to find some of the economics youtube pieces Oversword suggested.

Is it a morale killer that wages rise?  I don't know.  When I made $2.25 an hour, hamburger and chicken were .39 a pound, gas cost .45  and I shared a two bedroom house with three roommates for $55 a month each.    Even medical care.  I got stitches a couple of times with a tetanus shot  and my dad paid $35.

Is it a morale killer for young people that everything costs 10x as much as their parents paid and they have to lower their expectations? 

I know my dad, a WWII vet, saw his lifestyle, comfort and security greatly increase over his lifetime.

Are we seeing the same thing?  Do the extra zeroes on our paycheck and the price of goods just fool us into thinking we are better off?  I have internet, cell phones and microwave ovens my dad never had, but is my lifestyle really better or more affluent than his because of that?

Oversword, what do the economists say?  What is happening to value?  Money is a counter that fluctuates, but in the end, we trade our hours for shelter, food, clothing,and the luxuries we can afford including raising a family.  Is the average middle class wage earner seeing more value for working hours or less?

I keep wondering about those low paying jobs. Big Jim can't find anyone to mow his lawn at a reasonable price. So all of those folks working at fast foods; are they on parental or public assistance to survive?  Are they the illegals living 30 to a house and ripping off our welfare system that Aztek knows about?  Do we need that work force to keep our social system from collapsing?

Is our economy adjusting itself or eating the middle class or what?

If immigrants are taking low paying welfare level jobs instead of high paying family wage jobs, I can't put the blame at their door.  .  

 

 

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

It’s not a matter of bringing jobs back. It’s about saving small businesses from going under due to regulations imposed by well meaning buerocrats. Not everyone is suited to a tech job and maybe some people enjoy their job at novelty t-shirt store or fro yo shop that will never survive paying employees $15 an hour. 

Yes, that is so true.  Maybe regulations are a part of it. I know that not everybody is suited to a tech job, and I respect people that do other things as well.  It seems like there should be a place for them.

I just wrote a post about this and I need to look up your economy references.  I'm still confused.  If a shop can't pay a living wage, does the owner  do all the work  himself?  Is it a Saturday market job that one does in  addition to a real job for extra cash.  Are people one step away from having their goods spread out in boxes, baskets, and blankets like you see in National Geographic?

[+OverSword]

5 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Is it a morale killer that wages rise?

It's a morale killer when you are making plenty more than minimum wage and suddenly (like it did in Seattle) minimum wage goes from $9.15 to $15.00 and you are now not making much more than minimum wage.  You know damn well that your wages will not go up accordingly so in effect the seemingly random raise of the minimum wage has made many other people who were doing well barely making more than minimum.  Not long after minimum wage is raised prices/cost of living goes up because businesses raises prices to pay this minimum and everything adjusts accordingly.  Since minimum wage was raised in Seattle (you know, to make sure everyone can afford to live here) my rent has gone up $350.00 a month in the last two years. 

[RAyMO]

If a business cannot afford to pay a decent living wage, is it viable in the first place?

If a business makes profits but is not paying a decent living wage aren't it workers subsidizing the profits of the owners?

[+Desertrat56]

30 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

If a business cannot afford to pay a decent living wage, is it viable in the first place?

If a business makes profits but is not paying a decent living wage aren't it workers subsidizing the profits of the owners?

You mean like McDonalds or any company in the state of New Mexico like Fidelity Investments?  I would say 1. no, 2. yes.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Desertrat56

[aztek]

3 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

If a business cannot afford to pay a decent living wage, is it viable in the first place?

If a business makes profits but is not paying a decent living wage aren't it workers subsidizing the profits of the owners?

well, it either they get paid less, or not at all. 

try to run. or even better own a businesses, you'll understand

Edited June 6, 2019 by aztek

[aztek]

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican soldiers, armed police and migration officials blocked hundreds of migrants after they crossed the border from Guatemala in a caravan into southern Mexico on Wednesday, and detained dozens of them, a witness from a migrant aid group and an official said.

The Mexican response in the border town of Metapa, which included dozens of soldiers, marked a toughening of the government's efforts to curb the flow of mainly Central American migrants, said Salva Cruz, a coordinator with Fray Matias de Cordova.

The operation in Chiapas coincided with a meeting of Mexican and U.S. officials at the White House on Wednesday to thrash out a deal that would avoid blanket tariffs on Mexico threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump last week.

Trump announced the tariffs in retaliation for what he called Mexico's failure to stop Central American migrants from reaching the U.S. border.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-meets-migrants-southern-border-233725731.html

 

look at that, tariffs work in mysterious ways. once again proof, trump knows how to get things his way. 

[+OverSword]

50 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

If a business cannot afford to pay a decent living wage, is it viable in the first place?

If a business makes profits but is not paying a decent living wage aren't it workers subsidizing the profits of the owners?

What if it's just a job on the weekend for a little extra money and not your only source of income?  Should such a business be regulated out of existence by the state over a minimum wage?  How about a lot of minimum wage jobs don't just pay money but help young people gain experience making them more valuable and knowledgeable so they can then get a better paying job?  How about a new business just starting out with a small customer base that doesn't have the capital to pay people $15.00 an hour but as the business grows will be able to pay better wages?  No.  Imposed high minimum wage doesn't really help people, it drives small companies out of business and drives the cost of living up.

[Agent0range]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

nothing wrong with that.  how come i never see such articles,and opposition when taxes, and licensing fees go up?

Well...since the forties, aside from a couple years, the corporate tax rate steadily declined.  Prices went up.  Corporations just received one of their largest tax cuts ever...and prices are still going up.  When the prices go up no matter what happens to the corporate tax rate, it makes it kind of difficult to oppose it, especially considering the last time it took a significant jump was 1987.  I might have opposed that increase...but I was 5.  Sorry.

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

What if it's just a job on the weekend for a little extra money and not your only source of income?  Should such a business be regulated out of existence by the state over a minimum wage?  How about a lot of minimum wage jobs don't just pay money but help young people gain experience making them more valuable and knowledgeable so they can then get a better paying job?  How about a new business just starting out with a small customer base that doesn't have the capital to pay people $15.00 an hour but as the business grows will be able to pay better wages?  No.  Imposed high minimum wage doesn't really help people, it drives small companies out of business and drives the cost of living up.

I know there are exclusions for agricultural labor, I think fast food joints and retail stores keep everybody under 40 hours so they don't have to pay benefits.  Uber and Lift try to argue people believe drivers are subcontractors. Can small shops hire on commission?    There are probably some ways around the problem for legitimate issues without making them martyrs in a Crusade.

I sure agree that raising the wage will cause  some prices to go up;especially  in the range where people are currently making $15-20 dollars an hour  Pressure will be dis-proportionally on that group . A guy working for $10 under the table or making $150k won't feel the same pressure or care. The only people it helps is are the ones whose wages get doubled.

So what is the answer to this riddle?

Some businesses can only afford to pay $7 an hour.  People that work there as a primary income need government or parental  assistance and we all pay for that.

Only part timers or kids or illegals can work there. Do businesses close up except on weekends and after school or cater to illegals? 

Are robot burger chefs and automated merchandise kiosks the answer?  

What do the economists say about a healthy growing economy while lowest level jobs are shoved aside as an exception?   How do you calculate an equation when you ignore one term?

 

  

 

 

[Big Jim]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Is it a morale killer that wages rise?

It's a morale killer for the guy who's worked his butt off for 6 years to get from minimum To $15 when the new guy, that he has to train, walks in the door making the same.  He's thinking "why should I try?".  He's probably angry at his employer for not raising his pay proportionately, and might take it out on customers.  Check your burger.  

When I was a kid working at McDonald's the whole crew was kids. The only adults were the managers and the maintenance man.  I've never been richer than when I made minimum wage and lived at home.  That's what minimum wage is for.  It's a stipend for kids who know nothing but are willing to trade time and energy for some spending cash.  No one ever envisioned raising a family on that kind of job.  It kept us in gas and records.  No one expected to be there beyond 2 or 3 years.  Jobs like that had their place and served their purpose.  It's not that minimum wage hasn't kept up it's that people's expectations have changed.  The "everybody gets a trophy" crowd has joined the workforce and now they expect to make a living wage from day one.  They shouldn't have to climb their way up, they show up and they want good pay just for that.  How dare employers expect them to advance and improve to get what they want.  That's a new concept and they don't like it.  Added to the mix are thousands of immigrants who see minimum wage as a great income compared to a dollar a day back home.  No need to learn English or assimilate, this suits me fine, I think I'll stay right here.  But with 5 kids and a wife I need more for my trouble.  

Way back when, an hours pay at minimum wage bought about 3 gallons of gas.  It still does.

[Agent0range]

36 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

It's a morale killer for the guy who's worked his butt off for 6 years to get from minimum To $15 when the new guy, that he has to train, walks in the door making the same.  He's thinking "why should I try?".  He's probably angry at his employer for not raising his pay proportionately, and might take it out on customers.  Check your burger.  

If you work your butt of for 6 years to get to $15...you have no one to blame but yourself.  $15 isn't even enough to live.

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

If you work your butt of for 6 years to get to $15...you have no one to blame but yourself.  $15 isn't even enough to live.

Don't take the 6 years too literally.  It's a figure I pulled out of the air.  I hope you got my main point.

$15 an hour comes to over $31,000 per year.  It may not be what it used to be but if a single person can't live on that they might need to adjust their priorities.  

[Jerry Gallo]

Hmmm... 

https://www-cbsnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/mexico-guatemala-border-mexico-offers-to-send-more-troops-us-says-tariffs-still-moving-forward/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fmexico-guatemala-border-mexico-offers-to-send-more-troops-us-says-tariffs-still-moving-forward%2F

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, Big Jim said:

When I was a kid working at McDonald's the whole crew was kids. The only adults were the managers and the maintenance man.  I've never been richer than when I made minimum wage and lived at home.  That's what minimum wage is for.  It's a stipend for kids who know nothing but are willing to trade time and energy for some spending cash.  No one ever envisioned raising a family on that kind of job.  It kept us in gas and records.  No one expected to be there beyond 2 or 3 years.  Jobs like that had their place and served their purpose.  It's not that minimum wage hasn't kept up it's that people's expectations have changed.

 I am just trying to figure out how all of this works.

My brother-in -law managed a string of Dairy Queens in small Texas towns when we were a lot younger.  He used to joke that it was him training 18 year olds to train 16 year olds.  That was the sixties and seventies.  In those towns in the 70's Dairy Queen was about it for what you would call fast food.  With a high school in each town of 200-300 kids and not much to do. it wasn't hard to keep a crew.

Times have changed.  At the only two  intersections large enough to have stop signs or flashing lights in those old towns from my youth, , there are now  two or three fast food choices.  People don't take the family to Dairy Queen as a special occasion any more.  Some people eat fast food every day.  People that work in local stores or even the closest high school to where I live now hit a fast food place for lunch every day. 

My mom was at home.  She packed lunches for me and my sisters.  They were healthier than fast food and just as important, cost way less than a buck.  Times have changed,  Moms work.  Most don't make lunches.   

Somebody still has to crew all of those places.  If it is not high school kids and kids just out of high school then who will it be?  If you are a boss, you don't want to train somebody every single day or even every week.  You might want to hire the student because he or she will stick around through the year. What are the odds the graduate will stay that long. If he or she is any good, he get a better job quick.  So do you hire immigrants because they want to stick? 

Whats the plan for our economy?  How do you fill the lower tier jobs?

I will disagree a little with your numbers.  When I was making 2.25, gas was . 45  You could buy 4 gallons when they took SS and tax out.   Today, I think the going rate for a gallon is $3 or more.  At $ 7.75  you  can buy a shade more than 2 gallons.

In 1968, the Big Mac appeared.  I remember that.  It cost .49   If you were foolish enough you could buy 4 of them with the net of your 2.25 waqe.

Today a Big Mac costs about 3.99. Your minimum wage buys you two of your own burgers.

I am not saying you are wrong about anything you have said, but I think there is more to it.  

If the minimum wage guy is not as well off as he was 30 years ago, is the $15 dollar guy as well off?  How about the $30 dollar specialist plumber?  Is anybody as well of as they were 30 years ago?  How is that going to be reversed and get better?

 

[RAyMO]

11 hours ago, aztek said:

try to run. or even better own a businesses, you'll understand

Its not good to  assume.

Edited June 7, 2019 by RAyMO

[RAyMO]

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

What if it's just a job on the weekend for a little extra money and not your only source of income?  Should such a business be regulated out of existence by the state over a minimum wage?  How about a lot of minimum wage jobs don't just pay money but help young people gain experience making them more valuable and knowledgeable so they can then get a better paying job?  How about a new business just starting out with a small customer base that doesn't have the capital to pay people $15.00 an hour but as the business grows will be able to pay better wages?  No.  Imposed high minimum wage doesn't really help people, it drives small companies out of business and drives the cost of living up.

In all cases the worker is subsiding the business. If a business needs subsidising by workers long term, then there are issues with the viability of the business. at the very least customers are not willing to pay a proper economic rate for its product / service.

If a business is making profit by not paying a decent wage then the workers are subsidising the business profits, such businesses should be called out. 

If it is a new business well planned and viable, then its should be able to attract sufficient start up finance, otherwise the workers are subsidising the business start up. 

Re bolded: That is based on a clear theory, however despite much research in the real world there is no straight forward answer. For every properly conducted study showing negative impacts of higher min wage you will find another study showing the exact opposite effects. Basically it a take your pick to illustrate your point. 

My beef is not so much the min wage per se - its the fact that often the lowest wage earners are pilloried in society, "its there own fault.. there lazy...etc" but what is not often enough recognised is that, these same individuals by working at these rates are in fact subsidizing the richer profit takers. That is my real point, companies who make a profit out of "low wages" should imo pay back the workers for some of the value of the indirect subsidy they receive from the workers. Fat chance of it ever happening but still.

 

[Big Jim]

3 hours ago, RAyMO said:

In all cases the worker is subsiding the business. If a business needs subsidising by workers long term, then there are issues with the viability of the business. at the very least customers are not willing to pay a proper economic rate for its product / service.

If a business is making profit by not paying a decent wage then the workers are subsidising the business profits, such businesses should be called out. 

If it is a new business well planned and viable, then its should be able to attract sufficient start up finance, otherwise the workers are subsidising the business start up. 

Re bolded: That is based on a clear theory, however despite much research in the real world there is no straight forward answer. For every properly conducted study showing negative impacts of higher min wage you will find another study showing the exact opposite effects. Basically it a take your pick to illustrate your point. 

My beef is not so much the min wage per se - its the fact that often the lowest wage earners are pilloried in society, "its there own fault.. there lazy...etc" but what is not often enough recognised is that, these same individuals by working at these rates are in fact subsidizing the richer profit takers. That is my real point, companies who make a profit out of "low wages" should imo pay back the workers for some of the value of the indirect subsidy they receive from the workers. Fat chance of it ever happening but still.

 

The whole purpose of a job is to make money for, or subsidize, the employer. If you don't produce more value than you cost in wages you won't have that job for very long.  People go into business to make money.  Period.  Sure, there may be other benefits to society in the form of goods and services and jobs, but the primary motivation for starting a business is to make money.  To this end, people and machines are interchangeable.  This is why people are so often replaced by machines.  Every job is only worth so much.  If your ability to produce widgets doesn't exceed your pay then the company will find a new person or machine that will.  When unions demand more than a job is worth they price themselves out of a job and the whole factory moves to China.  Pay is a balance between what is high enough to attract and retain workers and low enough to keep the business profitable.  Business owners don't do it to make others rich, they do it to make themselves rich.  Nothing wrong with that.

[RAyMO]

1 minute ago, Big Jim said:

Business owners don't do it to make others rich, they do it to make themselves rich.  Nothing wrong with that.

I know the philosophy of employing people to make money. I have not argued against it.

I am arguing it is wrong to allow companies to make profits, sometimes excessive profits, while failing to pay its workers a living wage, or a share in the profits they created to help make up for the lack of a living wages.

There is nothing wrong with making profit, what is wrong is exploiting the workers and then expecting the state or others to make up the short fall. As it stands uncontrolled capitalism is merely socialism for businesses.

[Big Jim]

6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Times have changed.

No doubt about that.  You're right about the numbers, when I thought about it afterwards I realized mine were off but it was too late to edit and not all that critical anyway.  I've had to work for minimum wage as an adult.  It was no fun.  The jobs are often dirty and dangerous as well as menial and soul sucking.  Mostly it's basic survival.  On the other hand, a lot of those jobs wouldn't exist if the wages were higher.  As far as being as well off as we were 30 years ago, it's hard to say.  Wage wise, probably not, but some of that can't be blamed on the wages, it's just that we expect them to cover more than they used to.  In other words the wages are the same as they relate to the job but there are so many more things we want to purchase.  30 years ago we didn't have cell phones, the internet, Netflix and so many other things that seem to be necessities now.  Those are bills we've taken on without wages to keep up with.  But whose fault is that?  If we've been tempted into living beyond our means does that mean our jobs should pay more?

[Big Jim]

6 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I know the philosophy of employing people to make money. I have not argued against it.

I am arguing it is wrong to allow companies to make profits, sometimes excessive profits, while failing to pay its workers a living wage, or a share in the profits they created to help make up for the lack of a living wages.

There is nothing wrong with making profit, what is wrong is exploiting the workers and then expecting the state or others to make up the short fall. As it stands uncontrolled capitalism is merely socialism for businesses.

I agree, but what do we do about it?  How do we force a company to pay more than what people are willing to work for?  I remember back in the booming 90's all the fast food joints had signs in the windows offering pay well above minimum wage and even signing bonuses because of a shortage of workers.  Supply and demand was working just fine.  In a sense everyone works for minimum wage.  A job will pay the minimum it takes to keep the position filled.  Unions were designed to correct that but they got greedy and priced themselves right out of their jobs. If a company is paying less than a living wage it's because there are enough people willing to work for it.  If they then claim they can't live on it where does the fault lie?  

[Myles]

20 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I know the philosophy of employing people to make money. I have not argued against it.

I am arguing it is wrong to allow companies to make profits, sometimes excessive profits, while failing to pay its workers a living wage, or a share in the profits they created to help make up for the lack of a living wages.

There is nothing wrong with making profit, what is wrong is exploiting the workers and then expecting the state or others to make up the short fall. As it stands uncontrolled capitalism is merely socialism for businesses.

Not a good way to define that.  If you hire high schoolers, who live at home, what would their "living wage" be?   Do the employers get a say in what it's employees spend their money on?   Perhaps this guy would be able to live on what you are paying him if he didn't have satellite TV, smoke ciggs and go to the bar most nights.

[aztek]

15 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Well...since the forties, aside from a couple years, the corporate tax rate steadily declined.  Prices went up.  Corporations just received one of their largest tax cuts ever...and prices are still going up.  When the prices go up no matter what happens to the corporate tax rate, it makes it kind of difficult to oppose it, especially considering the last time it took a significant jump was 1987.  I might have opposed that increase...but I was 5.  Sorry.

well since we are talking about small business, not corporations,  your post is irrelevant,  read link in post 248. SB taxes do go up as well as licensing fees.  and try to keep up with the conversation.  you are not proving anything by answering questions that no one asked.  btw how many small businesses have you owned, and had to deal with taxes, licenses, insurance,  employees.....?  

Edited June 7, 2019 by aztek

[+OverSword]

7 hours ago, RAyMO said:

In all cases the worker is subsiding the business. If a business needs subsidising by workers long term, then there are issues with the viability of the business. at the very least customers are not willing to pay a proper economic rate for its product / service.

If a business is making profit by not paying a decent wage then the workers are subsidising the business profits, such businesses should be called out. 

If it is a new business well planned and viable, then its should be able to attract sufficient start up finance, otherwise the workers are subsidising the business start up. 

Re bolded: That is based on a clear theory, however despite much research in the real world there is no straight forward answer. For every properly conducted study showing negative impacts of higher min wage you will find another study showing the exact opposite effects. Basically it a take your pick to illustrate your point. 

My beef is not so much the min wage per se - its the fact that often the lowest wage earners are pilloried in society, "its there own fault.. there lazy...etc" but what is not often enough recognised is that, these same individuals by working at these rates are in fact subsidizing the richer profit takers. That is my real point, companies who make a profit out of "low wages" should imo pay back the workers for some of the value of the indirect subsidy they receive from the workers. Fat chance of it ever happening but still.

 

Who cares about fault or whatever? That’s not what it’s about. You raise the minimum amount people can be paid and it’s a boon for a short time but long term it devalues money and soon the new minimum is worth just as much as old minimum as far as purchasing power. People that made more than minimum do not get a raise but now their money purchases less goods. In a couple of years the demands to raise the minimum wage are repeated because a minimum wage is again not enough to make a living.

As far as the worker subsidizing business? Ridiculous. A business hires you to work in exchange for money and getting that money is to your benefit. A business pays you to work for the benefit of the company. If you can get more money for your time at another job then that’s what you do. Not every job is going to buy you a home or a car but that doesn’t mean that job shouldn’t exist.

Edited June 7, 2019 by OverSword