Biden's America

[BigRedBuster]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Except that if it works for you to hire me for less, your competition is going to start doing the same. That's why it puts downward pressure on wages.

 

I get that you're looking for ideas to minimize people taking advantage of the unemployment system, but I think this concept will simply shift the power from the employees to the employers who already have a lot of power. And corporations have a long history of taking advantage of their workers, so it's not like they're going to be altruistic given more leverage against the workers.

If they hire for less than me, how do they hire you away from me?

[RedDenver]

30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If they hire for less than me, how do they hire you away from me?

They don't, but if they also offer lower wages because your company is offering lower wages, then there's no higher wages for me (the employee) to leave your job for, so I can't hold out for another better offer and if your competitors know that, they can lower their offers as well.

[BigRedBuster]

28 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

They don't, but if they also offer lower wages because your company is offering lower wages, then there's no higher wages for me (the employee) to leave your job for, so I can't hold out for another better offer and if your competitors know that, they can lower their offers as well.

That's a problem only if unemployment is high.  Right now, that isn't the case and it's usually not the case in lots of the country.

[Archy1221]

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's a problem only if unemployment is high.  Right now, that isn't the case and it's usually not the case in lots of the country.

Supply and demand 

[RedDenver]

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's a problem only if unemployment is high.  Right now, that isn't the case and it's usually not the case in lots of the country.

Even if that's true, it's still a problem.

 

And it isn't quite true since it'll be a problem anytime that unemployment is "high enough". And it'll be an issue when labor has limited options like few companies or openings of a particular type in a location. Without a much more in-depth analysis, we're mostly guessing at when or where this will or won't be an issue, but IMO this will be worse than the problem it's trying to fix.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, RedDenver said:

Even if that's true, it's still a problem.

 

And it isn't quite true since it'll be a problem anytime that unemployment is "high enough". And it'll be an issue when labor has limited options like few companies or openings of a particular type in a location. Without a much more in-depth analysis, we're mostly guessing at when or where this will or won't be an issue, but IMO this will be worse than the problem it's trying to fix.

I disagree.

[teachercd]

The best part of this...Not one of you know someone what is sooooo underpaid that they can't make ends meet.  

 

Also, newsflash, wages are never going down again, ever.  

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, teachercd said:

The best part of this...Not one of you know someone what is sooooo underpaid that they can't make ends meet.  

False

 

11 hours ago, teachercd said:

Also, newsflash, wages are never going down again, ever.  

Probably also false

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

False

 

Probably also false

Oh.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

False

 

Probably also false

Actually, wages almost never actually go down. Now, they might not keep up with inflation.  But, they very seldom if ever actually go down.

[deedsker]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Actually, wages almost never actually go down. Now, they might not keep up with inflation.  But, they very seldom if ever actually go down.

Not keeping with inflation is going down. If I got paid $20/hr in 1900 for lumber processing and the job still pays the same in 2021, you effectively are paid less for the same labor. In 1900, you are living like a prince and can dictate your economic whims and in 2021 you are an average person.

 

Same numeric value, but not the same economic value. That is why all employment pay at the marco level is tied to inflation and evaluated by "today's dollars" or equivalent metric. 

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Not keeping with inflation is going down. If I got paid $20/hr in 1900 for lumber processing and the job still pays the same in 2021, you effectively are paid less for the same labor. In 1900, you are living like a prince and can dictate your economic whims and in 2021 you are an average person.

 

Same numeric value, but not the same economic value. That is why all employment pay at the marco level is tied to inflation and evaluated by "today's dollars" or equivalent metric. 

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that in the post you quoted.

 

And, for the most part, they still don't go down.  They fluctuate within a range so, yes, short term they might be a little lower, but then it adjusts.  But, for the most part, they don't go down.

 

[deedsker]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that in the post you quoted.

 

And, for the most part, they still don't go down.  They fluctuate within a range so, yes, short term they might be a little lower, but then it adjusts.  But, for the most part, they don't go down.

 

From the same article, most of the average increase in wages is going to the top 10% which means the average you show is more and more skewed to the top. Top earners have higher buying power and further skew the average to remain constant in your graph while the majority begin to lose earning power.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

 

 

More and more high income earners are reaping the benefits of society while the rest are slowly squeezed to the limit. Also, the peak in the graph in the 70's was when the effective nominal value of minimum wage peaked around $11/hr in 2016 dollars and has been eroding since.

[Guy Chamberlin]

You know who can afford to post their opinions on HuskerBoard several times a day?

 

Probably not people busy at their s#!tty jobs. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, deedsker said:

From the same article, most of the average increase in wages is going to the top 10% which means the average you show is more and more skewed to the top. Top earners have higher buying power and further skew the average to remain constant in your graph while the majority begin to lose earning power.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

 

 

More and more high income earners are reaping the benefits of society while the rest are slowly squeezed to the limit. Also, the peak in the graph in the 70's was when the effective nominal value of minimum wage peaked around $11/hr in 2016 dollars and has been eroding since.

You are trying to argue things I'm not trying to argue...or you're moving the goal post.  The comment was made that wages go down.  In fact, they very rarely if ever do.  Now, we can discuss the need for lower income people to see improvement and I would agree.  But, that's not what we were talking about.