Re: bridging the gap between rich and poor

On Mar 30, 3:13 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:46 pm, Walt <wka...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 30, 1:57 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Want to start a family?  Get the skills to
get a job that allows that.

Present the conclusive evidence that it's always reasonable to expect
this of people.

You can expect it or not expect it, but the fact is a busienss-owner
should not have to pay a higher wage just because someone decided
"raising a family of four" is the right wage to pay someone no matter
how low their skill level.  If more people saw a 19 year old with no
skils working 12 hour days at two jobs because he knocked hif gf up,
maybe less girls would get knocked up at that young age.

Otherwise don't come crying to me.
Minimum wage is a teenager wage and those on it should not exect to be
starting families.

A temporary training wage may make sense, but it makes no sense to
allow people to be paid a temporary wage permanently.

They aren't.  How many people do you know that are at minimum wage for
much more than a short period?  Heck, when the economy is anywhere
near good you can't even hire someone at mw.  But that does not mean
you put some artificially high wage out there. Two examples why:

1.  I myself took a job at a fairly low wage when I moved cross
country recently.  I know I wouldn't be there forever, the manager who
hired me knew it as well.  But he needed a job done for the season and
I needed a "survival job" so it worked out for both.  Had their been a
"living wage" requirement he would have hired fewer people and I'd be
out in the cold.

2. Say a person believes in paying more to get good employees.  So he
pays $12/hr to his store employees.  He gets the pick of the best!
But raise it and he loses this comparative advantage he has gained for
himself.

 > > Indirect payment of health care costs is why they are so high.
 If

people shopped for health care like they shop for gas and food, and if
health care costs were just as transparent, then there would be price-
competition in health care.

Yes, but transparency is needed (information about outcomes for
different doctors, drugs and procedures) and there will always have to
be some kind of insurance for catastrophic health care costs.

I agree with that part. My plan would be to have $5-10K deductible for
major medical expenses and health savings accounts for the gap.
"Insurance" is supposed to be for large, unexpected expenses.  You
don't "insure" your car and get $5 oil changes, why do you insure
yourself medically for $10 office visits?

"What people are willing to pay" is a big function of worth.  I never
said it was fixed.  If I own a store I may only be willing to pay $8/
hr to keep the floors mopped.  OTOH it is also measurable. If I pay $8/
hr to someone making hamburgers and labor is 20% of my cost, then they
must make $40/hr worth.  If you raise that labor cost to $10 to "let
them start a family" and their productivity does not go to $50/hr then
there is a problem.

That doesn't make sense.  If one cost goes up, the other costs are not
going to go up proportionately to maintain the original percentages of
the costs.

It is a simplified example for a usenet discussion, not for a
textbook.  But the point is you mandate a $2 rise in wages you need a
$2 rise in productivity to go with it or businesses will fail.

Ah, yes, sounds like Hillary Clinton saying "I can't be responsible
for every undercapitalized small business" during her health care
fiasco.

It may make sense to cause the bankruptcy of some marginal businesses
in order to have better health care coverage.  Just like it made sense
to cause the bankruptcy of some marginal businesses in order to have
better regulation of environmental pollution.

Oh, smart idea.  "Sorry worker, your job is no more, but you and
everyone else now have free health care!  Sorry businessowner!  Your
store will now close but everyone now has health care, even though
they pay more for everything and wait forever to get treatment!"

If you're American and you're old enough, I'm sure you voted for
Reagan. He was also a big believer in the "you don't need any
statistics if you have enough anecdotes" approach.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: bridging the gap between rich and poor
    ... "raising a family of four" is the right wage to pay someone no matter ... health care costs were just as transparent, ... $2 rise in productivity to go with it or businesses will fail. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: bridging the gap between rich and poor
    ... "raising a family of four" is the right wage to pay someone no matter ... health care costs were just as transparent, ... $2 rise in productivity to go with it or businesses will fail. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: bridging the gap between rich and poor
    ... "raising a family of four" is the right wage to pay someone no matter ... health care costs were just as transparent, ... be some kind of insurance for catastrophic health care costs. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: bridging the gap between rich and poor
    ... businesses as necessary to ensure the continued health of society. ... bring market forces to bear on health care. ... pay for it, it's just a question of who. ... Indirect payment of health care costs is why they are so high. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: bridging the gap between rich and poor
    ... they have effectively lost the right to start a family. ... bring market forces to bear on health care. ... pay for it, it's just a question of who. ... Indirect payment of health care costs is why they are so high. ...
    (sci.econ)