hehehehehehe…
I’m sorry…
Were you rally calling for a moderator?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I guess that post just really kills you. One post. Just one. 
I mean, I didn’t put up a whole thread or anything.
Moderator Alert. Moderator Alert.
Precious bandwith is being wasted. Please save us.
No its just that I tought you might have had something intelligent to say. don’t know why I would think that.
Are you kidding me?
I asked for some guy to email me and you are getting all bent out of shape?
Could you please tell me how this upset you?
What makes any of you think that labor regulations made a marked difference in the quality of life for workers? In almost every case, labor regulations came in after the fact, to address problems that had already been addressed by the market.
I’ve got news for you - workers aren’t better off because of more laws, they are better off because of the increasing amount of capital investment in the average worker. If an auto worker were pounding out fenders by hand with a hammer, there are no regulations in the world that would allow him to earn more than pennies per hour. Auto workers make lots of money because each worker now has millions of dollars worth of equipment to magnify the value of his labor.
Child labor regulations did not become widespread until decades after the end of child labor as a widespread practice.
The length of the workday had nothing to do with regulations, but had more to do with the number of hours people had to work to survive. As society became wealthier, the work week gradually shortened. The last two decreases in the length of the average workweek (from 44 to 40 then to 37.5 hours) had nothing to do with regulations.
Regulations have certainly made a positive difference in some niche categories, but they have also done a lot of harm. In the big picture, workers do better as society becomes wealthier. To the extend that excessive regulations retard growth, they have been detrimental to workers.
??? Forgive me, but that’s not what I remember reading in history class.
Jaydabee- Sorry, I’m entering into this debate a little late. With the “living wage” you suggest, a husband and wife would earn just under $50,000 per year flipping burgers at McDonalds, assuming they earned the minimum. Somehow I don’t think our economy could support this. Perhaps more troubling, if a couple could earn that much money at McD’s, it would create a serious disincentive for people to obtain training in fields that are more valuable to society as a whole than fast food. I know I might not have gone to college if I could have earned as much at McD’s (my high school job) than I did in my first several jobs after college.
You’re kidding, right? Or trying to start an arguement? If you’re serious, I think that this is a whole new topic. You’ve got a lot to learn about history, my friend.
You’re kidding, you gotta be. Hell, you’ve been to college. 
There, I’m laughing.
Peace,
mangeorge
I was wondering how you can increase wealth(i.e. a minimum wage) without raising productivity? If a minimum wage is created or raised, people not worth what the minimum is set at will not have jobs. Eliminate the minimum wage.
Interesting problem: If the minimum wage is equal to what a person can get from government assistance(welfare), why should that person work at all? If he worked 40 hours a week for minimum wage and could receive that same amount from government assistance, he doesn’t have to work.
So, by trying to fix low wage problems, the government has created unemployment through minimum wage and welfare programs.
Frankly, I believe I constitute a living Wage. snicker I am a working guy (teen really) and make minimum wage right now. For teens, though, it’s fine, since we don’t NEED any money for living (ok, fine, there are some exceptions, but not many). I think there should probably be two different minimum wages, one for adults over 18 and one for under 18’s.
Unless the eligibility rules were changed, I don’t think we’d see this. As far as I know, an able-bodied individual with no small children is not eligible for a check.
I think a childless person can, however, obtain food stamps, medical assistance, and help with housing and heat.
Which is nice, but those things don’t provide enough of a disincentive so that people would stop working, IMO.
AuntiePam: I tried to get some help several years ago, when I was a childless single person working at a minimum wage job in a donut shop.
No dice.
They offered me $32 a month in food stamps. That was it.
The only reason I asked for assistance was because I was tired of borrowing from people. I figured, “hey, I am working, not loafing. These are my tax dollars, going to help me.” I figured wrong.
I couldn’t get any medical assistance, because I was not pregnant, I didn’t have any kids, and I didn’t have a handicap that would prevent me from working.
I told them to keep the food stamps. Oh well. I did get a better job eventually.
Changing my sig, because Wally said to, and I really like Wally, and I’ll do anything he says, anytime he says to.
Jaydabee posted 02-18-2000 08:17 PM
I’m a bit annoyed that people complain that they can’t really afford to support their children on their current wages, and so they somehow deserve a better wage. There is no right to have children; if you can’t afford children, don’t have them. How does being irresponsible give someone more rights?
What exactly is “outside assistance”? Is charging these people a lower tax rate assistance? Is requiring companies to provide health coverage outside assistance? Is giving their children free schooling and other child services outside assistance?
Why? Do people have a right to only work 23.2% of the time (and that’s not even counting vacations)? If some one’s working 70/week and barely getting by, that person has a right to complain. But 40/week? I don’t think so.
Mangeorge posted 02-18-2000 09:51 PM
Jaydabee posted 02-18-2000 08:17 PM
(Emphasis mine). Sounds like a mandate to me.
Mangeorge
Why not? And what is “a honest wage [sic]”?
Freedom
posted 02-19-2000 01:13 PM
Those were some interesting numbers; I’d like to see a cite for them (you did provide a web link, but the website itself doesn’t seem to have a cite). I read somewhere that 80% of the world’s population lives in “substandard housing”. Seeing as how “standard” means “normal” or “average”, that means that 80% are below average. That’s rather difficult for me to believe, especially since the median is the only average that I can think of that would make sense here.
Libertarian posted 02-19-2000 03:53 PM
Janus Joplin? Is that that two-headed singer?
tracer posted 02-19-2000 06:38 PM
I don’t see how unemployment could possibly counteract inflation. Yes, it decreases the money supply, but it decreases the net GNP even more, so while there’s less money going around, there’s even less stuff to buy with that money, making each unit of the money worth less (aka inflation).
Those of you that claim that $5.00/hour is not enough to get by, can you do a breakdown of reasonable expenses?
note: paying for children is not a reasonable expense [children are a luxury, not a right(clarification, I’m not saying that *paying *for children is a luxury; I’m saying that having children is a luxury)], having a stay-at-home wife is not a reasonable expense (also a luxury) and stuff like cable seems pretty iffy to me.
Shoot, Cristi – there goes another of my half-baked beliefs down the terlet.
I would have gone ahead and used the food stamps – $32 is $32 – buys a lot of hamburger and beans. Your taxes pay for that program, you know.
Mangeorge
quote:
Why not? And what is “a honest wage [sic]”?
Well, The Ryan, I’ll try the 2nd question 1st. I think that a “honest” (forgive my limited vocabulary) wage would be enough for a person working full time in the locality of his/her job to live on. That was easy. 
Now for your 2nd question. If an employer can’t pay this living wage to full time employees, and still make a profit, perhaps the failing is his/hers.
And then there’s this reasonable question;
“Those of you that claim that $5.00/hour is not enough to get by, can you do a breakdown of reasonable expenses?”
OK. Single person. My locale.
A place to live: $600/mo.
Utilities: $100/mo.
Transportation: $100-200/mo.*
Eats: $350/mo.
Clothing: $20/mo.
Entertainment: $50/mo.
*Mass transit, no car.
No luxuries there, I promise. And I haven’t been in this position for quite a while, so my estimates are probably quite low.
Total: $1,220/mo.-$1,320/mo.
$5.00/hr. = $800/mo.
Peace,
mangeorge
What a curious attitude you have towards children. You’re obviously thinking of the legions of crack-hos that litter our streets, who get pregnant because it means an extra hundred dollars on their undeserved public money.
Ever heard of husbands who leave their wives? Women who get pregnant even though they’re on the pill? Teen sex? Rape? People with children to support who lose their jobs?
Ever hear about the period in American history when forced sterilizations were carried out on poor, usually minority women and immigrants (from 1907-1937)? Is this what you mean then you say that having children is not a right?
http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm#states
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
mangeorge posted 02-25-2000 11:00 PM
Perhaps, perhaps not. I don’t think that you should categorically state (or imply) that there aren’t legitimate activites that are worth less than $6.00/hour.
I think Berkeley is above average in rental costs, but 600 still seems high.
I pay less than $50
That’s nearly $12/day. If you find a cheap restaurant, you can eat out nearly twice a day on that money.
Assuming 160 hours/month.
hansel posted 02-25-2000 11:04 PM
Really? And just how do you know what I’m thinking?
So instead of going after deadbeat dads, we should just pass the cost onto employers in the form of a higher minimum wages? I do think that women should leave enough margin between what they get and what they need that they could survive if something happens to their partner. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket and all that. If a women has eight children and can’t support them once her husband leaves, well, I think she should have considered that possibility earlier.
So do women have some right to have sex without having to deal with the consequences? Imagine if a man tried to get away with that. “Why should I have to pay child support? I didn’t want her to get pregnant! I was using a condom!”
So people aren’t responsible for their actions until they reach the age of 20?
Well, there is abortion. Okay, so that’s not a perfect solution. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people. As much as I feel for rape victims, I don’t think that we should plan our economy around them. Besides which, few pregnancies are from rape, and very few people have more children than they can support solely as the result of rape. You’re telling me there are women with four children, all of them because of rape? Not terribly likely.
Well, if they don’t have jobs then raising the minimum wage won’t really help them, will it?
No, what I’m saying is that having children is not a right in the sense that having a lawyer is a right. If you’re charged with a crime, and you can’t get a lawyer yourself, you have the right to have the state provide one for you. Haviung children is more like the right to buy a car; if you have the money, no one can force you to not buy a car. But if you can’t afford a car, you don’t have the right to have someone pay for it. And if you can’t afford children, you don’t have the right to demand that other people help you. I’m not talking about temporary setbacks, I’m talking about people that simply do not have the resources to provide longterm support for their children. If you want to have a child even though it will mean spending the rest of your life in poverty, that is your right. But you don’t have the right to have other people support you because of it.
Depends on where you are. Remember, we’re talking about full-time jobs here. You know, somebody trying to make a living.
Peace,
mangeorge
I’ll repeat - Child labor as a widespread practice was not ended by regulations. It ended when it was no longer economically necessary for children to work. The first child labor laws in England (in 1788) applied only to a very small percentage of children who were working as chimney sweeps. After that, the next laws applied to children working in near-slavery because of Parish authories, which was a government body. The next laws only applied to certain types of factories, and child labor did not decrease AT ALL because of these laws. Because families largely needed their children to work to survive, the laws succeeded only in forcing children out of the largest, most heavily-scrutinized factories and back into the fields and small shops, where the pay and conditions were worse.
As late as 1925 in Canada children could leave school at age 12 and enter the workforce full-time. Yet, child labor as a widespread practice had ended much, much earlier (the exception being among poor farming families, who again needed their children to work to survive).
On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution and unbridled capitalism was a huge boon for children. There is a myth that children were victims of the early factories and became near-slaves in sweatshops. In fact, the first century of the industrial revolution saw rapidly increasing standards of living for families, and rapidly decreasing rates of infant and child mortality. With no government regulation.
Irionicly the way people make enough money to live around here, is to get paid in cash, under the table.
They are forced to AVOID taxes in order to live.
I live on the East Coast. Anybody who wants to work right now can make $8-11/hour, even if the don’t speak ENGLISH.
You may not find painting, landscaping, brick laying etc…etc… the most glamorous work, but it can pay a lot better than minimum wage.
Factor in that they are keeping everything they earn, and the money is not that hard to live on.
50 hours X $9/hr = $450 week
$450 X 4 weeks = $1800 month.
That is a lot easier to live off than your example.
You’re absolutely right! Let’s put the cretin out of business. Then instead of making $6/hr, his employees can make $0/hr and collect public assistance. : :rolleyes::
And for the record, I live in the Philadelphia area and could probably manage to get by on $700-800 a month. You can get a 2-BR apartment near public transportation for $495/month. It might be next to a noisy highway and less than luxurious than the $1300/month pad in the next town over, but it’s hardly substandard housing. (I’m not sure how much single apartments run, but I’m sure they’re even less.) Similarly, utilities for one person should not be more than $50 in an appropriately sized apartment.
$350/month for food is ridiculous. My husband and I can eat very well for less than that and still go out once in a while. A single frugal person should be able to eat well for $150/month.
In other words, You can live here on $6/hr. Heck, I could live on less by teaming up with roommates and family, which plenty of people do. If another area is too expensive, move!
In the end, employers should not have any special obligation to employees who are free to work elsewhere. Similarly, employees don’t have any obligation to keep working for less than they’re worth.