Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Click

This seems less like an actual suggestion and more like a "look at how off the mark our economy is these days" statement.

Minimum wages may have been championed by employees, but they were also championed by companies who stood to benefit from introducing machinery to replace workers in the field, etc. Higher wages make it cheaper to go the mechanical route, or these days, to ship jobs overseas. Until massive corporations aren't headed by boards concerned only with the dollar a fair minimum wage will never be of benefit to the common worker.

In the Kingdom everything will be free, so there's no need for work.

Considering businesses prefer to cut hours, jobs, or outsource, there's no way such a substantial wage increase would ever take place, even though increased wages would result in increased spending and possibly stimulate the economy over time. It wouldn't hurt to have a larger class of workers able to maintain credit.

While we don't have a minimum wage in Sweden we do have a collective agreement established by corporates and trade unions. And for most manual labors it's around 120 SEK (or 18.50 USD) per hour. Luckily I have an education and make twice as much.

But 7.25 USD per hour? That must suck. How are you even able to afford shit?

...all that money? then how will society punish and berate people for performing essential non-skilled labor? this must not be!

perhaps a compromise. give them their desired wage but make it legal to spit in their faces whenever the pressure of our unfulfilled sense of supremacy and personal entitlement becomes too oppressive.

Originally posted by Astner
While we don't have a minimum wage in Sweden we do have a collective agreement established by corporates and trade unions. And for most manual labors it's around 120 SEK (or 18.50 USD) per hour. Luckily I have an education and make twice as much.

But 7.25 USD per hour? That must suck. How are you even able to afford shit?

Keep in mind that your taxes are relatively higher because you have a better social safety net and benefits for being a citizen that we lack in the U.S. Also, in 2007 almost half of U.S. personal bankruptcies were due to medical bills, so obviously we're not using all that surplus un-taxed income to do anything constructive.

Originally posted by Astner
While we don't have a minimum wage in Sweden we do have a collective agreement established by corporates and trade unions. And for most manual labors it's around 120 SEK (or 18.50 USD) per hour. Luckily I have an education and make twice as much.

But 7.25 USD per hour? That must suck. How are you even able to afford shit?

Generally, they manage by being effectively paid more, because the average US wage is higher, relatively speaking, than the average Swedish.

The effective Swedish minimum wage is far too high. The lower US one does not represent a poorer standard of pay- it just represents far more available entry level jobs.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Generally, they manage by being effectively paid more, because the average US wage is higher, relatively speaking, than the average Swedish.
How does some multibillion dollar corporates pushing up the wage average help people making minimum wage manage?

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less for the average Swede. I was just shocked that the minimum wage was 7.25 USD.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The effective Swedish minimum wage is far too high. The lower US one does not represent a poorer standard of pay- it just represents far more available entry level jobs.
Swedes flipping burgers at McDonald's make 120 SEK an hour (18.5 USD), with insurance and paid vacation, and the vast majority of Swedes have jobs. These are available jobs.

And don't get me started on the ridiculously high wages in Norway.

This is an average wage, not high level corporate salaries. The average US wage earner is better paid than the average Swedish. Any amount of progress in the US gets you off the minimum, whilst huge amounts of people get stuck on the Swedish effective minimums- the median of people on it is very high indeed as a propotion of the workforce.

And 7.25 is much higher than 0, seeing as the high Swedish minimum is almost certainly a factor in its abnormally high youth unemployment rate. Like I say, the low US rate simply reflects more available jobs. If you think there are more available jobs in Sweden on average, you are mistaken.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is an average wage, not high level corporate salaries. The average US worker is better paid than the average Swedish. Any amount of progress in the US gets you off the menu, whilst huge amounts of people get stuck on the Swedish effective minimums- the median of people on it is very high indeed as a propotion of the workforce.

And 7.25 is much higher than 0, seeing as the high Swedish minimum is almost certainly a factor in its abnormally high youth unemployment rate. Like I say, the low US rate simply reflects more available jobs. If you think there are more available jobs in Sweden on average, you are mistaken.
The welfare in Sweden is higher than 7.25 USD an hour.

Then that's also pretty stupid.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Then that's also pretty stupid.
Yeah, which brings me back to my question. How can people be expected to live off of 7.25 USD an hour?

For a start, they're not, because that's just the entry wage and not necessarily meant to carry a household.

Secondly, as has been alluded to already, things are simply cheaper there and taxes are lower

But mostly what I simply meant was that if you have a high unemployment problem amongst the young, throwing lots of free money at them will only make that worse. Having such a high welfare average is clearly not working in Sweden.

There is a lot that is good about the Nordic economies, but high wage minimums- itself a representation of over-powerful unions- is actually one of the problems.

What are the negative consequences of high welfare average in Sweden, in your opinion?

The unemployment rate between the US and Sweden seems somewhat on par, although I am unsure whether there's different reporting going on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What are the negative consequences of high welfare average in Sweden, in your opinion?

I read the following from his posts:

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But mostly what I simply meant was that if you have a high unemployment problem amongst the young, throwing lots of free money at them will only make that worse. Having such a high welfare average is clearly not working in Sweden.

There is a lot that is good about the Nordic economies, but high wage minimums- itself a representation of over-powerful unions- is actually one of the problems.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And 7.25 is much higher than 0, seeing as the high Swedish minimum is almost certainly a factor in its abnormally high youth unemployment rate. Like I say, the low US rate simply reflects more available jobs. If you think there are more available jobs in Sweden on average, you are mistaken.

I agree with Ushgarak. Heck, if it was up to me all the taxpayers money would go straight to my bank account. And the closer you get to that idea the happier I become.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What are the negative consequences of high welfare average in Sweden, in your opinion?

if Sweeden does have higher youth unemployment than America, a high minimum wage can cause this. Higher wages = less employees = more competition for entry level positions.

Originally posted by Oliver North
if Sweeden does have higher youth unemployment than America, a high minimum wage can cause this. Higher wages = less employees = more competition for entry level positions.

If the overall unemployment is similar however would that then not mean more mid and senior level positions?

Originally posted by Bardock42
If the overall unemployment is similar however would that then not mean more mid and senior level positions?


hmmm, I suppose so, which could either be positive (once in the market there is lots of promotion beyond entry level) or negative (old people are holding onto positions that were once more likely to go to the youth), though, as an unemployed "youth", I might be biased in seeing youth employment as more important.

Interesting point though...

Originally posted by Astner
But 7.25 USD per hour? That must suck. How are you even able to afford shit? We Americans are just that whipped.

Whipped.

In all fairness, although having high welfare, universal healthcare and universal higher education, it's kept in check by our high taxes.

The U.S. has economically spiraled down quite significantly just in the last five years. I wonder how long it will take before U.S. realizes that the free market will ruin a society. The government cares about the people's right to an affordable heart surgery, a corporate CEO doesn't.

Originally posted by Astner
In all fairness, although having high welfare, universal healthcare and universal higher education, it's kept in check by our high taxes.

The U.S. has economically spiraled down quite significantly just in the last five years. I wonder how long it will take before U.S. realizes that the free market will ruin a society. The government cares about the people's right to an affordable heart surgery, a corporate CEO doesn't.

wow. they got you

Originally posted by Raisen
wow. they got you
I was trying to get Oliver, but he logged off soon after.

Originally posted by Astner
In all fairness, although having high welfare, universal healthcare and universal higher education, it's kept in check by our high taxes.

The U.S. has economically spiraled down quite significantly just in the last five years. I wonder how long it will take before U.S. realizes that the free market will ruin a society. The government cares about the people's right to an affordable heart surgery, a corporate CEO doesn't.
Your mistake is in speaking about the U.S. as if it's a unified entity rather than a huge country with a polarized political establishment and a populace of diverse opinions and biases.

Part of the country has already "realized" what you're talking about here, while another part of the country has "realized" that because historically governments are liable to be corrupt and overbearing if they expand too much, the answer is to slash government and trust to free enterprise and luck.

I can't say that I trust the US government absolutely (or even 75%) but I trust them to be more accountable than American corporations and, even given how out of touch Congress is, more in touch with what Americans want.

Originally posted by Astner
In all fairness, although having high welfare, universal healthcare and universal higher education, it's kept in check by our high taxes.

I don't disagree with any of this. I live in Canada, I've had ample opportunity to move to the States, but for the reasons you listed, I prefer it here.

and the whole gun thing...

Originally posted by Raisen
wow. they got you

by "they", you of course mean, empirical evidence, yes?

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't disagree with any of this. I live in Canada,
Well **** you then.

Originally posted by Astner
Well **** you then.

I apologize, eh?

It's worth noting that the minimum wage varies from state to state. For instance, the minimum wage in California is higher than in most other states because the cost of living is much higher. There was recently an initiative passed that will increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour in California in a couple of years.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I apologize, eh?
There's this Canadian girl in my pedagogy class who never wears panties or a bra.

She your cousin?

All Canadians are related, right?

Originally posted by BackFire
It's worth noting that the minimum wage varies from state to state. For instance, the minimum wage in California is higher than in most other states because the cost of living is much higher. There was recently an initiative passed that will increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour in California in a couple of years.

Thats really interesting, minimum here is only 10.25, and might only go up a bit in the next couple of years. I thought minimums were really low across the country. Interesting indeed

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's this Canadian girl in my pedagogy class who never wears panties or a bra.

ah, nothing better than a patriotism boner

Originally posted by Omega Vision
She your cousin?

All Canadians are related, right?

I'll have to check when spring comes back around, this time of year the moose are too aggressive for me to get to the igloo of records.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Thats really interesting, minimum here is only 10.25, and might only go up a bit in the next couple of years. I thought minimums were really low across the country. Interesting indeed

It's still very low. Not enough to live on because the cost of living is significantly higher in places like California and New York than most other states. It's actually easier to live on $7.25 an hour in a place like Alabama than it is to live on $10.00 an hour in a place like California.

A good portion of the people who make minimum wage are also on welfare because it's simply not possible to live a reasonably decent life when minimum wage is your only source of income.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's still very low. Not enough to live on because the cost of living is significantly higher in places like California and New York than most other states. It's actually easier to live on $7.25 an hour in a place like Alabama than it is to live on $10.00 an hour in a place like California.

A good portion of the people who make minimum wage are also on welfare because it's simply not possible to live a reasonably decent life when minimum wage is your only source of income.

oh, for sure, and frankly, even in smaller towns in Canada 10.25 is hardly a living wage (and taxed at 20% ). I was under the assumption minimum wage was as low as 3.00 in some areas in America though. Probably my own misconception.

Ya, $100 Big Mac!

Here is a discussion on minimum wage that I ran across on reddit. It is a very interesting read. It does make me reconsider my position on minimum wages.







Source:

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36g7mt/eli5_people_seem_to_support_raising_the_minimum/crduu4p



I support the idea of a "guaranteed minimum income. I would set that at about $25,000. Meaning, if a person did not work, they were guaranteed at least $25,000 of income a year.

Since I do not think income taxes should exist (the tax system should be something similar to how Texas does their taxes except on a national level), income taxes would not be a concern. Strangely, according to the limited research done on guaranteed minimum incomes, having a guaranteed minimum income actually increases the amount of people working. That runs opposite of what you'd think: a classic "counter-intuitive" situation. I think it has something to do with purchasing power. The poor now have more purchasing power. Small businesses now have more business. They need more employees. This creates a job incentive: benefits, income, etc. These incentives make it possible for a person to enjoy a higher income level than just the $25k without destroying their personal life (such as the ability of a single mother to work part time). For me, this is one of the most fascinating economic ideas. I really want to see another small to medium sized study done on this, again.

I'd of been happy with just $20 an hour. It's still better to get a job working for the city around here. Since you can actually clock in a lot of places around the city you could quite literally go clock in and then go out drinking or something. They are also making like $60 an hour.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd of been happy with just $20 an hour. It's still better to get a job working for the city around here. Since you can actually clock in a lot of places around the city you could quite literally go clock in and then go out drinking or something. They are also making like $60 an hour.

$60 an hour? That's more than I make.

I chose the wrong career, apparently.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd of been happy with just $20 an hour. It's still better to get a job working for the city around here. Since you can actually clock in a lot of places around the city you could quite literally go clock in and then go out drinking or something. They are also making like $60 an hour. Do you live in San Francisco?

Unions are at their weakest since the early 80s.

"high minimum wage is a sign of overly influential unions"

Come on 2013 Ush.

How do Reagan/Thatcher/Nakasone still rule

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you talking about Sweden? No matter which way you put it, the unions there have a far stronger influence than in most western nations. Like Astner mentioned, the reason Sweden doesn't have an official minimum wage is because the Unions are powerful enough to set wages via collective bargaining. They'd probably shoot you for trying that in the US.

If you're not talking about Sweden then... well, neither was I.

To be clear, though, I do favour a high minimum wage- higher than most countries have it. Logically speaking, though, it can always go too high, and I do believe union influence in Sweden has pushed it to the point where it has endangered jobs. Or at least it did at one point; that was an analysis based on the early years of the 21st century. If you can establish that this is not so, then fair enough.

I also broadly favour unions as a needed voice; the US' demonisation of them is unsettling. But Unions very often do themselves no favours in the 'being bloody stupid;' department as well.

If McDonalds has to raise there minimum wage to $22, they will go out of business, but that is a good thing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
I'm getting at unions not being nearly as powerful as they used to be, or imo should be.

Unions have been on a steady decline since the 60s, and while I don't necessarily agree with Unionism as an end-goal it is more or less the only real bargaining chip workers have. I think there's a very obvious correlation between decreasing salaries and increasing top-level wages, and the weakening of unions.

Weak workers unions is a large cause of the financial problems we see in eastern europe as well.

Really, it's a bit disingenuous to quote just the first part of what I said there and ignore the context of the rest. Like I said, I was referring to Sweden, where the unions are far from weak. If you are talking about the US, then yes, they've been weakening for ages. Context is important here. And indeed, weak unions can cause a big problem as well- I am absolutely in agreement that workers need a bargaining mechanism of some form.

I guess I'm a bit confused because you seemed to be taking what I was saying as a. an attack on unions and b. a claim that unions are generally too strong, so if that was the impression I gave then it was in error. I did say that an overly high minimum wage is a sign of over-mighty unions- but how many places actually have an excessive minimum wage? Virtually none that I know of, hence focussing on Sweden, with all due regard to the irony of it not actually having a literal minimum at all.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you're not talking about Sweden then... well, neither was I.

^You wrote this though, so my post was mainly aimed at Europe and America as a whole, not just Sweden.

Sweden's unions are in problems because they can't maintain that level with such a steady flow of immigration. A lot of that immigration is because of failing economies in countries with weaker unions though, as such it's not a fault of the union itself but other policies that harm it.

The salaries really aren't too high.

They're managable because there are fewer superrich people in the country.

Originally posted by krisblaze
^You wrote this though.

I was referring to Europe and America mostly.

Well fine- but then I am not quite sure what you were calling me out on. I have no issue with a claim that many unions in Europe and America- the latter particularly- are too weak.

I think the UK is about right though.

To eliminate any misunderstanding:

I wanted to point out that no union is too powerful, even the Norwegian, Danish or Swedish ones.

Do you think it is not possible for unions to be too strong?

Well, I think it's possible for them to start representing the wrong interests.

If a union start representing the interest of certain politicians instead of the workers' then that's certainly a problem, but that's something that just becomes more likely as a union grows more powerful, it's not a guarantee.

But then it's a union (understood as labour union which is what we're discussing) in name only. Anything could be wrong given that it's not working as intended

Well I'd contend that the era of closed shop agreements- considered such an issue that they eventually pretty much got outlawed across much of Europe, with the assent of all but the most extreme left wing of the political spectrum, were a demonstration of what happens when unions become too powerful and become a problem for the labour market.

(and on the other side of the spectrum, in the US, the complete lack of any general protection against being arbitrarily fired from your job is an example of the abuses if unions are being shut out from the labour process- that kind of situation is unthinkable in Europe)

But on a more day-to-day basis, wage negotiation is always going to be a power struggle between unions and companies. I think it is inescapable that if unions become too powerful in that context, then basic wages can become too high, which is a killer on inflation.

Wages have to bear some sort of resemblance to the supply of labour, else you just end up with a lot of people out of work. Minimum wage is meant to stop companies abusing a plentiful labour situation. If Unions price workers out the market, it's their own fault.

Closed shop is not something I agree with.

That's an abuse of power, and abuse of power is not inherent but a sign of something not working as intended.

The "too high wages" you're talking about is simply people trying to get enough to live by though. Given how bosses are getting bigger and bigger bonuses whilst worker rights and salaries are on a 50 year long decline, I think that is a pointless discussion though