"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER
intended to be a "living" wage.


I thought the minimum wage was exactly that - the minimum a single worker
needs to maintain even the most basic standard of living. If it isn't that,
what is it supposed to be?

The problem today, as more and more people become locked into lower wages,
is that the minimum wage doesn't address the extra needs of the worker's
family or future. Taxpayers pay a price for that down the road (welfare,
food stamps, medical costs, student aid, and so on). If companies paid
better wages, much of that would be sharply reduced.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:
"Kim" wrote:
I'm out of it...speculation won't solve a thing and I
choose not to be as depressed and bitter and
hateful as others...

I hope you weren't referring to me....

Oh goodness...no. I was specifically referring to Dwight.


Grow up, Kim. If you can't handle spirited discussion and debate, then
you're clearly in the wrong place because most of these newsgroups were
created for exactly that - not pleasant, dainty, little discussions that
never offend your delicate, child-like, sensibilities. Regardless, if you
post obstinate and contrary opinions in these newsgroups, then you should
expect, and be prepared for, obstinate and contrary responses (without
crying about it for days afterwards). Whatever the case, I wasn't put on
this Earth to cater to your sensibilities, so will only consider that to a
limited extent when responding to what you post (and it will be a cold day
in Hades before I consider it at all when you attack me personally).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:
"Kim" wrote:
I'm out of it...speculation won't solve a thing and I
choose not to be as depressed and bitter and
hateful as others...

I hope you weren't referring to me....

Oh goodness...no. I was specifically referring to Dwight.


Grow up, Kim. If you can't handle spirited discussion and debate, then
you're clearly in the wrong place because most of these newsgroups were
created for exactly that - not pleasant, dainty, little discussions that
never offend your delicate, child-like, sensibilities. Regardless, if you
post obstinate and contrary opinions in these newsgroups, then you should
expect, and be prepared for, obstinate and contrary responses (without
crying about it for days afterwards). Whatever the case, I wasn't put on
this Earth to cater to your sensibilities, so will only consider that to a
limited extent when responding to what you post (and it will be a cold day
in Hades before I consider it at all when you attack me personally).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Dwight in training for the Larry Roll Project...

Kim W5TIT

Dave Heil wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


What does any of this have to do with BPL?????

Carl, this isn't a newsgroup, it's a CHAT ROOM for the regulars
and their buddies.


Nope, not even the use of CAPITAL LETTERS makes this a chat room. It is
still a newsgroup.


All can talk on anydamnthingtheywant
because they got licensed as amateurs.


All can discuss any topic because it isn't outlawed. As you've been
quick to point out, this is an unmoderated group. You've frequently
gone quite far afield in your postings. We'll chalk this up as another
"Do as I say and not as I do" comment.


One can only talk
about actual amateur radio policy issues someplace else... :-)


What's it to you? You aren't ivolved in amateur radio.

Especially since the Carl's real intention behind his comment was based
(I think) on my being some minor irritant to him, rather than a desire
to keep the newsgroup pure and On Topic.

"Approchamentus Obliqautum"

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

So.... basically, one way or another people have to
pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or
paying in taxes for a government program.

Let me start by saying I don't have all the answers either, Ryan. However,
it is fairly easy to see where some of the biggest problems are. The most
obvious is corporate profits today.

Hold on a sec, Dwight. "Corporate profits" are the basis of any capitalist
system. Without 'em, our economy collapses.

Product quality is dropping (plastics),

In some areas, yes. But people still buy the products!

wages are relatively stagnated, product prices certainly haven't dropped
much, but corporate profits have went through the roof.

How much corporate profit is excessive? If a company is worth $1 billion, and
their profit is $100 million, that's a 10% return on investment. Is that
excessive? Who decides?

Perhaps a mechanism
to reel in or put a cap on corporate profits is the answer. How to do that
is the ten thousand dollar question (or, in this case, trillion dollar
question).

But without the details it's a moot point. Suppose a company has a string of
bad years and then a good year - should their profits in the good year be
confiscated and a blind eye turned towards the bad years?

I'm somewhat radical, so I prefer the outright purge method - a
cap on product price increases for several years and an immediate increase
in overall wages (with caps on immigration or other negative factors
effecting workers).

Price controls were tried in the late '60s and early '70s to "Whip Infaltion
Now". Didn't work in the long term.

This will drive some marginal companies out of business
(the purge) and will slow down the economy sharply.

At the very least. And the political and economic backlash will be
overwhelming.

But, over a several year
period, more streamlined companies will eventually replace those put out of
business and the economy will recover. At that point, the cap on product
prices can be reduced, letting competition once again drive the market.

Except that it may not be the most "streamlined" companies who survive.

The second most obvious is the concentration of marketplaces. So, if the
above isn't acceptable, perhaps this is the place to look. What I'm talking
about here is larger corporations gobbling up whole market segments, driving
smaller companies out of business. Lets take an example. Wal-Mart moves into
a town offering a wide range of products. Of course, the new store doesn't
offer a wide selection in any department, but it does carry the basics in
each department - just enough to take away what local businesses call their
bread-and-butter products (the products stores depend on to pay employees,
rent, and so on). As that happens, local stores are forced to depend on the
sale of high end products where sales are far less predictable. The
inevitable result is that many smaller stores simply collapse. And this
isn't just happening in the retail industry. It is happening in many
industries (publishing, news, entertainment, manufacturing, transportation,
and so on).

Because the *market* (people who make the buying decisions) go to the Wal Mart
instead of the local stores. That's where the real problem lies - people who do
not think about the long-term economic results of their actions.

The next most obvious is credit. In many markets, high prices are
supported only by massive credit activity. For example, the automobile
market. Prices have climbed sharply mainly because credit is much easier to
get, in much higher amounts, than just a few decades ago. Put a regulatory
cap on credit in this market and prices have to drop if companies want to
sell cars.

Do you know this for a fact? Car price increases also reflect the enormous
investment in engineering and tooling to build cars using the latest
technology. Remember when most cars fell apart before reaching 10 years or
100,000 miles?

Of course, the same is true for other markets (home construction,
consumer goods, and so on).

As long as people are willing to pay the prices, the markets are driven that
way. Supply and demand.

What about people trying to get started as homeowners? Raising the price of
credit makes it impossible for them to buy a first house.

Some months back I refinanced the mortgage on this place. Took more than 5
years off the ultimate payback date *and* reduced my monthly payment by a few
$$. Was that a good thing or a bad thing for me to do?

The biggest danger to this solution is the
tendency for companies to pass on any initial losses to consumers (lower
quality products) and their own employees. The first will correct itself
over time, but the second requires additional labor protections (wage
increases, a cap on immigration, and efforts to prevent companies from
moving overseas).

Import duties.

Like I said, I certainly don't have all the answers. Even some of the
problems are elusive. However, it is clear that even minor regulatory
modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic impact.
The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping
product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph requires
more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The
idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the most
negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust economy,
perhaps parts of all three should be considered.

But you also have to consider that the companies will find ways around such
limitations. If the govt. is going to seize my "excess" profits, I simply won't
have any - I'll set up deferred-compensation programs for myself and other
bigwigs, buy down debt and buy back stock, do massive capital programs that
*reduce* employment, invest in things to carry my company over the lean years
to come, etc.

The big changes have to come from ordinary folks becoming educated and deciding
how to spend their money. It's "voting with your wallet" and it's done every
day.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"
wage.

It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that.

I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage.

Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely
sum of
about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back
then
the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so
much
lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway.

73 de Jim, N2EY


And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour. It wasn't a living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family. Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.
No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something. The majority of items but not all take fewer hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976. The cost of electronics is down
in terms of hours to buy. The cost of houses is about the same in terms of
hours.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

So.... basically, one way or another people have to
pay for it, be it in higher service/product costs or
paying in taxes for a government program.


Let me start by saying I don't have all the answers either, Ryan.
However,
it is fairly easy to see where some of the biggest problems are. The most
obvious is corporate profits today. Product quality is dropping
(plastics),
wages are relatively stagnated, product prices certainly haven't dropped
much, but corporate profits have went through the roof. Perhaps a
mechanism
to reel in or put a cap on corporate profits is the answer. How to do that
is the ten thousand dollar question (or, in this case, trillion dollar
question). I'm somewhat radical, so I prefer the outright purge method - a
cap on product price increases for several years and an immediate increase
in overall wages (with caps on immigration or other negative factors
effecting workers). This will drive some marginal companies out of
business
(the purge) and will slow down the economy sharply. But, over a several
year
period, more streamlined companies will eventually replace those put out
of
business and the economy will recover. At that point, the cap on product
prices can be reduced, letting competition once again drive the market.


You know Nixon tried wage and price controls and we started developing
shortages. Other countries in the world have tried it too and also failed.
Every where that has been tried, the standard of living dropped, goods and
services became hard to get and unemployment rose. So why try what has
already been proven to fail.

Please show that profits are obscene. Don't quote dollars, quote percentage
of operating expenses. If expenses are say 100 trillion, then a profit of 1
trillion (1%) is so dangerously low that the company is on the verge of
going bankrupt. Any company only making a 1% profit has difficulty getting
investors, difficulty in getting expansion capital, and has no safety margin
to ride out an economic downturn. On the other hand, let's take another
case. If a small business has operating expenses of $100 and makes a profit
of $1000 then that is an obscene profit since it is 10 times the operating
expense. So you see just quoting a dollar figure doesn't tell the whole
story.

[snip] However, it is clear that even minor regulatory
modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic
impact.
The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping
product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph
requires
more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The
idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the
most
negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust
economy,
perhaps parts of all three should be considered.

However, history has proven that it is not possible to predict the results
of these "minor" regulatory actions. At this point in time no one is
knowledgeable enough to do so and it's better to let the system react to the
free market principles.

In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better to
serve the US market with cars made in the US. The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER
intended to be a "living" wage.


I thought the minimum wage was exactly that - the minimum a single
worker
needs to maintain even the most basic standard of living. If it isn't
that,
what is it supposed to be?


Only if you expect to live in a group setting (i.e. at home or with
relatives or with roommates), have just barely enough clothes for work, eat
basic foods (meat is NOT a daily item), and spend minimum on transportation
(i.e. take the bus or have a junker car). It has never, ever risen to the
level of allowing a person to support a family of four in their own home and
own a moderately good car. It wasn't that high when implemented and has
never gotten close to it.

The minimum wage is just high enough to keep a single person with no
dependents from starving and freezing if they are willing to settle for bare
bones survival. It's never been higher than that.


The problem today, as more and more people become locked into lower
wages,
is that the minimum wage doesn't address the extra needs of the worker's
family or future. Taxpayers pay a price for that down the road (welfare,
food stamps, medical costs, student aid, and so on). If companies paid
better wages, much of that would be sharply reduced.


You are not supposed to stay in a minimum wage job. You get work
experience, demonstrate your ability to be dependable, get recommendations
(i.e "he/she is a hard worker") and move on.

The solution is not to mandate a higher wage but to actively seek out these
people and get them ready to move on to the better jobs by making training,
etc accessible.

When I was young (too long ago), I worked minimum wage jobs but I certainly
knew that was not something I should consider doing lifelong.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

You know Nixon tried wage and price controls and we started developing
shortages. Other countries in the world have tried it too and also failed.
Every where that has been tried, the standard of living dropped, goods and
services became hard to get and unemployment rose. So why try what has
already been proven to fail.

As I recall it, wage and price controls caused some shortages because certain
costs could not be controlled. For example, the wellhead price of natural gas
was regulated but the cost of drilling wasn't, so a lot of folks either stopped
drilling altogether, or, when they were drilling for oil but hit only gas,
they'd cap the well and take the loss in one lump rather than put the well into
production and lose money on every cubic foot of gas produced.

Please show that profits are obscene. Don't quote dollars, quote percentage
of operating expenses. If expenses are say 100 trillion, then a profit of 1
trillion (1%) is so dangerously low that the company is on the verge of
going bankrupt. Any company only making a 1% profit has difficulty getting
investors, difficulty in getting expansion capital, and has no safety margin
to ride out an economic downturn. On the other hand, let's take another
case. If a small business has operating expenses of $100 and makes a profit
of $1000 then that is an obscene profit since it is 10 times the operating
expense. So you see just quoting a dollar figure doesn't tell the whole
story.

It's actually even more complex than that. Operating expenses are only one
metric - there's also return on investment, market volatility, stock prices,
regulatory controls, and a bunch of other factors.

For example, suppose a business with a total investment of $1 million has $10
million in operating expenses and $100,000 in profits. Profit is 1% of
operating expenses but 10% of investment - is this company on rocky ground or
not? If the operating expenses are fairly fixed, even a small drop in sales
will put the company in the red. But if the operating expenses rise and fall in
sync with sales, the company may be in a very solid position, profit wise.

There are all sorts of other examples. Some industries are so cyclic that they
*need* high profits in good times to carry them through losses in bad times.

[snip] However, it is clear that even minor regulatory
modifications, not massive government programs, can have a dramatic
impact.
The idea offered in the first paragraph also has the advantage of keeping
product prices down for consumers. The idea in the second paragraph
requires
more effort, but offers greater returns over a longer period of time. The
idea in the third paragraph offers the most benefits, but will have the
most
negative impact on consumers in the short term. For a truly robust
economy,
perhaps parts of all three should be considered.

However, history has proven that it is not possible to predict the results
of these "minor" regulatory actions. At this point in time no one is
knowledgeable enough to do so and it's better to let the system react to the
free market principles.

"Law of Unexpected Consequences"

Look at the auto industry. Fuel prices were kept artificially low until the
1973 embargo, when they became artificially high, and the fuel itself became
scarce.

Because the market had become used to a semingly inexhaustible supply of cheap
fuel, the US auto industry did not develop fuel-efficient cars, and
transportation alternatives like transit died off (or were actively killed to
get rid of the competition to the private auto). This shortsightedness set the
stage for massive inroads in the US market by foreign carmakers who *had*
developed fuel-efficient cars.

In addition, you have left out the most workable option. That is to work
toward a world economy that enjoys a comparable standard to ours. Once that
occurs, industry will find it more economical to produce more locally to
trim shipping costs. Once it becomes equally costly to make a car in Japan
as in the US for example, then the lower shipping cost means it's better to
serve the US market with cars made in the US.

In the case of cars, this has already happened in some cases. Many Japanese
companies (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, to name just a few) make cars in the USA
because it's cheaper!

VW started that trend way back in the '70s by buying the Westmoreland, PA
facility from Chrysler, and building Rabbits, Golfs and Jettas here instead of
Germany. VW later sold that plant to Sony, who uses it to make CRTs (because
it's cheaper to make them here!)

The main drawback is the fact
that it will take a very long time before the world standard of living
matches ours.

So what do we do until then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"
wage.

It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that.

I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage.

Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely
sum of
about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back
then
the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so
much
lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway.

73 de Jim, N2EY


And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour.

Actually a bit more, as I recall. But in any event we're talking $3000/yr to
$4000/yr, max..

It wasn't a living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family.

Agreed - nor were they meant to. But it *was* possible for a person to live on
them - probably more so than today.

Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.

Pretty much the same here.

No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.

'adult male'....ahem.....

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something.

Exactly! And you also have to take into account things like creeping taxation
(even if the laws don't change, inflation causes people to pay more of their
income in taxes) and increases in the number of 'necessities'.

Taxes are a big part of the game, too. At one time the income tax rules were
such that people on the bottom end who knew the rules could pay very little in
taxes. I remember when:

- *all* interest paid (not just home mortgage interest) was deductible.
- *all* documented sales tax and *most* documented medical costs were
deductible
- the various personal and dependent deductions were larger *in infaltion
adjusted dollars*

The majority of items but not all take fewer hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976.

In some cases, yes, in others, no.

The cost of electronics is down
in terms of hours to buy.

True to a point - but on the other end of the scale, those electronics are
often non-repairable, and have limited useful lives, so that they must be
replaced more often.

It it actually easier to restore ham gear that is 30-40-50 years old than much
of the newer stuff, because parts for much of the newer stuff are simply
unobtainable except from junker units. The displays in the popular TS-440S is
one example - they are no longer made, and yet they are often one of the first
major parts to fail, so your chances of lifting one from a junker are slim.

The cost of houses is about the same in terms of
hours.

A lot of that depends on the interest rate and taxes. Interest rates in the
'70s were double-digit, approaching 17% in some markets at times - for home
mortgages! But since all that interest was deductible, the *effective* interest
rate was less, depending on your tax bracket.

Escalating home prices makes it harder to get started, though, because the size
of the down payment keeps growing. And since many of the fees involved with
buying and selling are a percentage of the price, the amount of cash a
first-timer needs gets really high.

Compare this to 40-50 years ago, when interest rates, taxes and down payments
were low.

73 de Jim, N2EY