• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 💪Muscle Gelz® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.musclegelz.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

Unemployment

IML Gear Cream!
LAM is a dumbass obamazombie
 
Singapore, 1.9% unemployment with NO min wage.

Singapore, One of the highest incomes per capita in the world

Singapore is an island nation of 5 million uniquely placed in South east Asia for trade advantages and is a major trade hub. It is a financial center and is highly industrialized. It also has one of the highest income inequalities among developed countries, being slightly better than the U.S. You seem to cherish income inequity so this is a plus for you. Please outline how you would "Singaporeize" the U.S. economy. You can start by describing how to squeeze our area to 220 sq ft and moving our newly compressed mass between Viet Nam and Australia. Maybe this is a great idea for a conservative since the squeezing process will push the liberals in the coastal states into the ocean along with all the illegal and legal aliens.
 
Singapore, 1.9% unemployment with NO min wage.

Singapore, One of the highest incomes per capita in the world

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=45106

Singapore to set minimum wages for cleaners, security guards
(01-08 16:51)

Singapore's government is going to introduce a compulsory licensing scheme leading to mandatory basic wages for cleaners and workers in security sector, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said on Wednesday.

Nevertheless, the minister said that the moves are targeted approaches to use the industry licensing schemes to raise wages in certain sectors and that it is not a national minimum wage.

The scheme will make it mandatory for specified sectors to adopt a progressive wage model with basic wage levels set in accordance with the role of the employees, so as to raise wages progressively as workers' productivity improves through skills upgrading and training.

All cleaning companies will come under the scheme in September, with the entry-level pay for cleaners set at 1,000 Singapore dollars monthly. This is about 20 percent higher than the current median basic wage for cleaners.
Details for the security sector are still being worked out. --Xinhua
 
it's impossible to hire someone who's pay exceeds his or hers productivity. that's the reason why the SF bookstore closed. I guess in the liberals mind no job is better that a job that pays what their productivity is worth.

This has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative.
What is the economic incentive and motivation for someone to work at a wage that pays less than their living costs?

For some reason, companies that have a low wage staffing model expect maximum effort and high levels of productivity from their employees for low compensation.
Those companies may look at their employees as low skill or no skill easily discard-able tools of production.
You see this a lot in the retail sector, say in grocery stores.

When they do not get maximum effort and high levels of productivity from unmotivated employees, experience high rates of employee turnover, and have customer complaints as to the level of customer service, they blame the employees, instead of admitting the root cause.
Their low wage compensations leading to unmotivated employees.

People demand low cost for goods and services, that demand requires a business to use low wage labor arbitrage to drive down employee wage compensation and benefit costs as far as possible and the result is as follows

Crappy compensation = recruitment problems, crappy unmotivated employees = staffing instability issues and increased employee turnover = leading to customer complaints as to poor customer service levels.

People that think that retail manual labor jobs that require someone to bust their ass should be compensated as low as possible just so they can buy what they want at a dirt cheap price, should not complain about the quality of employee and the level of customer service in a business.
Employee wage compensation and benefit levels and customer service and satisfaction levels are related to each other.

You get, what you are willing to pay for.
Be it quality of a product or quality of employee.
 
Last edited:
Singapore is an island nation of 5 million uniquely placed in South east Asia for trade advantages and is a major trade hub. It is a financial center and is highly industrialized. It also has one of the highest income inequalities among developed countries, being slightly better than the U.S. You seem to cherish income inequity so this is a plus for you. Please outline how you would "Singaporeize" the U.S. economy. You can start by describing how to squeeze our area to 220 sq ft and moving our newly compressed mass between Viet Nam and Australia. Maybe this is a great idea for a conservative since the squeezing process will push the liberals in the coastal states into the ocean along with all the illegal and legal aliens.


LOL.

there's no hope for the US economy. If we had capitalism then we'd have a change.
 
It is rational for someone to promote a low wage working poor worker class, if they in some way financially benefit from it as a customer of that business, a business owner, or an investor in that business.
They support a low wage arbitrage business model that cuts employee costs to the bone resulting in a financial benefit for them.
Even if it means the employees of that business due to low wages and low or no benefits fall into a working poor economic class and into poverty.

It is irrational for someone to want to work at a job that requires a great deal of physical effort for a wage that pays well below what it costs for them to survive.
I am not talking about someone that spends money on what they may want like a large screen tv, an iphone or other expensive stuff they do not need to survive.
I am talking about someone that works for a living to provide the survival money they need to pay rent, utilities, buy food and transportation costs to go to work.
 
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=45106

Singapore to set minimum wages for cleaners, security guards
(01-08 16:51)

Singapore's government is going to introduce a compulsory licensing scheme leading to mandatory basic wages for cleaners and workers in security sector, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said on Wednesday.

Nevertheless, the minister said that the moves are targeted approaches to use the industry licensing schemes to raise wages in certain sectors and that it is not a national minimum wage.

The scheme will make it mandatory for specified sectors to adopt a progressive wage model with basic wage levels set in accordance with the role of the employees, so as to raise wages progressively as workers' productivity improves through skills upgrading and training.

All cleaning companies will come under the scheme in September, with the entry-level pay for cleaners set at 1,000 Singapore dollars monthly. This is about 20 percent higher than the current median basic wage for cleaners.
Details for the security sector are still being worked out. --Xinhua

I bet once the wages rise the unemployment rate goes up as well
 
This has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative.
What is the economic incentive and motivation for someone to work at a wage that pays less than their living costs?

For some reason, companies that have a low wage staffing model expect maximum effort and high levels of productivity from their employees for low compensation.
Those companies may look at their employees as low skill or no skill easily discard-able tools of production.
You see this a lot in the retail sector, say in grocery stores.

When they do not get maximum effort and high levels of productivity from unmotivated employees, experience high rates of employee turnover, and have customer complaints as to the level of customer service, they blame the employees, instead of admitting the root cause.
Their low wage compensations leading to unmotivated employees.

People demand low cost for goods and services, that demand requires a business to use low wage labor arbitrage to drive down employee wage compensation and benefit costs as far as possible and the result is as follows

Crappy compensation = recruitment problems, crappy unmotivated employees = staffing instability issues and increased employee turnover = leading to customer complaints as to poor customer service levels.

People that think that retail manual labor jobs that require someone to bust their ass should be compensated as low as possible just so they can buy what they want at a dirt cheap price, should not complain about the quality of employee and the level of customer service in a business.
Employee wage compensation and benefit levels and customer service and satisfaction levels are related to each other.

You get, what you are willing to pay for.
Be it quality of a product or quality of employee.


Since when has a minimum wage job meant to be a career and to live off of? Are you trying to completely abolish the teen and first time job seekers out of the market?
 
It is rational for someone to promote a low wage working poor worker class, if they in some way financially benefit from it as a customer of that business, a business owner, or an investor in that business.
They support a low wage arbitrage business model that cuts employee costs to the bone resulting in a financial benefit for them.
Even if it means the employees of that business due to low wages and low or no benefits fall into a working poor economic class and into poverty.

It is irrational for someone to want to work at a job that requires a great deal of physical effort for a wage that pays well below what it costs for them to survive.
I am not talking about someone that spends money on what they may want like a large screen tv, an iphone or other expensive stuff they do not need to survive.
I am talking about someone that works for a living to provide the survival money they need to pay rent, utilities, buy food and transportation costs to go to work.

As long as people are willing to take the job its on them. If no one wants the job then the company would have no option but to raise the wage.
 
IML Gear Cream!
Obamanomics' Fatal Flaw: Minimum Wage-Hiking States Are Seeing Slower Job Growth



Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/17/2014 12:54 -0400


Who could have seen this coming? While facts are awkward things - especially in the face of populist policies - the data shows that retail trade employment growth since the start of the year is notably slower for 'minimum-wage-hiking' states than 'non-minimum-wage-hiking' states.



As ValueWalk's Roger Thomas explains,




Seventeen states increased their minimum wages in 2014. Most of the changes happened early in the year.

It?s still quite early on evaluating how large the adverse employment effects will be, but it looks like the effects are starting to show up in the retail trade employment numbers. As a note on why retail trade, the effects would likely show up in retail trade before they show up in other industries because retail trade employs a large proportion of the minimum wage workers.


Here?s the early evidence.

The figure shows the growth in retail trade by state since the start of the calendar year according to whether or not a state imposed new higher minimum wage rates.

On the left hand side are states that left things as is, meaning these states did not impose any new minimum wage rates.

On the right had side are states that imposed new minimum wage rates.

The figure that matters here is the difference in the average employment growth rate. In states that left business as is, employment growth in the retail trade industry is up 0.72%.

In contrast, states that imposed higher minimum wage rates saw retail trade employment growth of only 0.43%.

Although it?s still too early to say the results are statistically valid, one could likely assume further analysis will find that some or most of the difference is due to higher minimum wage rates.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...ge-hiking-states-are-seeing-slower-job-growth
 
The Minimum Wage Law

JANUARY 17, 2014Walter Block
The minimum wage on its face is an unemployment law, not an employment law. It does not compel anyone to hire anyone else. It only stipulates who CANNOT legally be employed: no one may be hired for less than the amount stipulated by law. If the minimum wage law is set at $10 per hour, the law does not require any employer to hire any employee at that wage level. It only FORBIDS employment contracts set at $9.99 or below. This is not a matter of empirical evidence, not that there can be any such thing in proper, e.g., Austrian economics; this conclusion is a matter of pure logic. We repeat: the minimum wage on its face is an unemployment law, not an employment law.
What about empirical studies (economic history, for praxeological economists)? Here, economists disagree. Some say there will be no unemployment effects whatsoever. That is, a person with a productivity level of $6 per hour will still be hired and paid $10 per hour, even though any such firm that does so will lose $4 per hour. Such ?economists? are in a distinct minority. Other dismal scientists opine there will be very slight unemployment effect; some few unskilled workers will lose their jobs or not attain them in the first place; but a large number will retain their jobs and be paid more. Then there is a third or majority view: most economists conclude that this law will boost unemployment for those with low productivity, and will only raise wages for them temporarily, until employers can substitute away from the factor of production (unskilled labor) now priced out of the market.
What is the Austrian take on all of this?
The praxeological view is that the minimum wage law will raise unemployment higher than it would otherwise be, in the absence of this law, other things equal, provided only that it is set above the level of productivity of at least one worker. This is an apodictic claim, not subject to refutation, falsification or testing. This claim is necessarily true, and yields knowledge about real world effects. Austrian economics is causal ? realist, unlike the economics of the mainstream logical positivists, who recognize no economic law, only hypotheses to be tested, and if not falsified, then provisionally accepted.

Some economists who have recently signed this open letter in support of the minimum wage law have published introductory and intermediate economics textbooks. In those publications, they take the usual position that minimum wage legislation unemploys laborers with low skills. Thus, their textbooks blatantly contradict the open letter they signed. I take great joy in listening to and reading their responses to this charge that they are contradicting themselves. Talk about talking without saying anything.
What of the ethics of the matter? Here, again, there can be no controversy. An employer and an employee agree to a wage contract of, say, $5 per hour. Both are considered criminals under this pernicious legislation. But it is a victimless ?crime? to pay someone $5 per hour for his labor services, and/or to receive such an amount of money for working. Both parties agreed to this contract! Our society is now in the process of legalizing other victimless crimes, such as those concerning prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc. Many people favor ?choice? when it comes to adult behavior without victims. The minimum wage law is a step backwards from these moves in a moral direction. And, yet, paradoxically, it is to a great degree precisely those people who advocate the legalization of these victimless crimes who are the staunchest supporters of the minimum wage law.
Posit that the ?moderate? economists were right. A few people will lose their jobs, but the overwhelming majority would either find or keep their employment slots, at higher compensation rates. Suppose I were to go to the inner city (which contains a disproportionate number of the unskilled), and did the following. I went to one in every 20 people I met, and, at the point of a gun, I relieved them of, oh, $10,000 (40 hours per week time 50 weeks multiplied by $5 per hour). Whereupon I turned to the other 19 out of 20 people and dispersed these stolen funds amongst them. If I did so, I would be promoting the precise effects that the moderate members of the economics profession who are supporters of minimum wage claim will occur. Namely, this law, they contend, they concede, will hurt very few but benefit the many. But how would my excursion into the inner city, and my wealth transfer, be considered by law? Of course, I would be considered a criminal, and very properly so.
For reasons we need not discuss right now, the productivity of whites is higher than that of blacks. It is for this reason that the unemployment of the latter is higher than that of the former, actually, as an empirical finding, about twice as high. For reasons we need not discuss right now, the productivity of middle aged workers is higher than that of young employees, who are just starting out. . It is for this reason that the unemployment of the latter is higher than that of the former, actually, as an empirical finding, about twice as high. It is for this reason that the unemployment rate of black teens is roughly quadruple that of whites of mature years. All this stems from the minimum wage law serving as a barrier to entry, a hurdle, and not a floor raising wages. Supporters of the minimum wage, who just LOVE statistics, tend to shy away from this revealing data.
Who are the beneficiaries of the minimum wage law? Cui bono? This will come as a shock to some people, but the people who gain the most from this legislation are skilled workers, typically organized into labor unions. When they demand a boost in their own wages, the immediate response of the employer is to want to substitute away from this suddenly more expensive factor of production, skilled labor, and into a substitute for it; that is unskilled labor. There is more than one way to skin the cat. The same number of widgets might be able to be produced with 100 skilled and 100 unskilled workers, as with, for example, 50 of the former and 200 of the latter. If there is any such thing as fixed proportions in manufacturing and production, it must be a great rarity. How best to fight such an eventuality from the point of the labor union? One way to do so is to castigate as scabs? (why this is not an example of ?hate speech? similar to the use of the ?N? or ?K? word is beyond me; well, not really) the unskilled laborers hired in response to the union?s demand for higher wages. But there are problems here. For one thing, these newly hired employees would be disproportionately minority group members. It really looks bad for liberals, ?progressives,? to be fighting this particular demographic. For another, these people can fight back. If you slash their tires, and hit them over the head with a baseball bat, they can reciprocate. No; this will not do. Organized labor has come up with an ingenious counterattack. Are you ready for this? Please take a seat, for you are now in danger of keeling right over. Yes: the minimum wage law; that is the solution to this quandary for organized labor. There is perhaps no better way to eliminate competition than to price it out of the market. (Hint, to burger providers; if you want to adopt crony capitalism, try to get a law passed compelling the prices of competitive products such as pizza, hot dogs, to be raised ten-fold. You can claim it is for health reasons.)
Who else benefits from the minimum wage law? This is like asking, who gains from high unemployment rates of young people, and unskilled workers? When looked at in this manner, several candidates immediately come to mind, given that unemployment breeds boredom and criminality: social workers, psychologists, psychologists, prison guards, policemen, etc. I don?t say that all of these people favor the minimum wage law because it will feather their nests. I only say their financial situation improves from its passage, and therefore empirical research into this possibility might be fruitful.
Why do we have this law on the books if it is so evil, so pernicious? One reason, already discussed, is that there are beneficiaries: organized labor, and our friends on the left who support them. Another is of course monumental economic illiteracy. Obdurate economic illiteracy. I teach freshman economics at Loyola University, and I usually take a survey of my students on opening day. Typically, a large majority favors the minimum wage law, and they do so not out of malevolence. Rather, they really think that this law will raise wages and help the poor. My students think this law is like a floor rising, and thus raising everyone with it. They do not realize that a better metaphor is a hurdle, or high jump bar: the higher the level stipulated by the minimum wage law, the harder is it to ?jump? into employment. This law eliminates the lowest rungs of the employment ladder, where especially young people can gain valuable on-the-job training, which will help raise their productivity. If this legislation were of such great help to the poor, I ask my students, why are we so niggardly about it? Why limit the raise to $10, or $12 or even $15, as some radicals favor? Why not really help the poor, and raise the minimum wage level to $100 per hour, or $1000 per hour, or maybe $10,000 per hour. At this point they can see that virtually the entire population would be unemployed, because it is a rare person who has such high productivity. But, then, hopefully, then can begin to see that a minimum wage of a mere $7 per hour is an insuperable barrier to employment for someone whose productivity is $4 per hour.
When the minimum wage was raised from $.40 to $.70 cents per hour (the largest percentage increase so far) we went from manually operated elevators to automatic ones, helping high skilled engineers at the expense of the unskilled manual operators. This transition took a few years, but that was the cause. Initially, before anyone could be fired, wages did indeed rise. If the present minimum wage goes from $7.25 to, horrors!, $15.00, people who ask if you want ?fries with? that will be supplanted by self serves and automatic machinery which will then be competitive with labor, but cannot now compete with low skilled people. Those jobs will go the same place, namely, booted out of existence, as the ones that used to exist at gas filling stations.
What should be done? We should not raise the present national minimum wage from its present $7.25. Nor should we maintain it at that level. Nor should we decrease it (some politicians advocate a lower minimum wage, for example, $4 per hour, just for the summer and only for high school kids to help them get jobs; but to counsel such a course of action is to admit that the law is a hurdle which must be jumped over, not a floor supporting rises). We should instead eliminate it entirely, and sow salt where once it stood. More than that. We should criminalize passage of this law. That is, we should throw in jail, or deal with these miscreants as we would other criminals, all those responsible for the passage of this law and for its implementation, such as the legislators who passed such a law, the police who enforced it and the judges who gave it their seal of approval. After all, is this not the way we would treat a person who unemployed other people at the point of a gun? Suppose there were a law that explicitly did consign people to involuntary unemployment, not implicitly and indirectly as does the minimum wage law, but directly. That is, an enactment such as this: It shall be illegal to employ black people. It shall be illegal to employ white people. It shall be illegal to employ young people. It shall be illegal to employ old people. It shall be illegal to employ Jews. It shall be illegal to employ Christians. It shall be illegal to employ gays. It shall be illegal to employ heterosexuals. It shall be illegal to employ men. It shall be illegal to employ women. How would we treat all those responsible for the passage of such laws and for their implementation such as the legislators who passed such a law, the police who enforced it, the judges who gave it their seal of approval? Precisely, we would throw the book at them. We would penalize them to the fullest extent of the law. Why should we do any less for those responsible for the minimum wage law?

http://mises.org/blog/minimum-wage-law
 
Singapore's unemployment rate and minimum wage cannot be compared to the US for a myriad of reasons.
 
As long as people are willing to take the job its on them. If no one wants the job then the company would have no option but to raise the wage.

I think you are wrong about supply and demand of workers being the sole factor in wage determinations.

I base that on the fact that I invest in companies within the grocery industry and as an investor I keep an eye on among other things, the cost of grocery labor and the number of job postings on grocery store websites, as that has impacts on the profitability of the company I invest in and my ROI.

If what you are stating is true about supply and demand and companies having no options as to raising wages if no one wants the jobs, why have some grocery clerk jobs on grocery store websites been open for months without anyone applying for them, and that lack of applicants has not resulted in an increase in the starting base pay for those jobs that would increase the number of applicants for those jobs?
 
Sniper,
I have four words for you.

Low Wage Labor Arbitrage.
That has as much to do with retail sector worker wage and benefits compensation rates as the supply and demand for workers does .
 
it's impossible to hire someone who's pay exceeds his or hers productivity. that's the reason why the SF bookstore closed. I guess in the liberals mind no job is better that a job that pays what their productivity is worth.

Most everyone in my building costs the company a horrific amount of money. The faster we break things the more we cost. That's our job.
 
Since when has a minimum wage job meant to be a career and to live off of? Are you trying to completely abolish the teen and first time job seekers out of the market?

No.

People need to keep in mind is that due to globalization, off-shoring and automation there have been structural changes in the U.S job markets that have resulted in large numbers of working adults, many with families, that are being employed long term in low wage jobs that are traditionally associated only with teens and first time job seekers.

There are things going on out there due to globalization, off-shoring and automation that are radically reducing the level of opportunities in the U.S job market for advancement into higher paying jobs.
 
I think you are wrong about supply and demand of workers being the sole factor in wage determinations.

I base that on the fact that I invest in companies within the grocery industry and as an investor I keep an eye on among other things, the cost of grocery labor and the number of job postings on grocery store websites, as that has impacts on the profitability of the company I invest in and my ROI.

If what you are stating is true about supply and demand and companies having no options as to raising wages if no one wants the jobs, why have some grocery clerk jobs on grocery store websites been open for months without anyone applying for them, and that lack of applicants has not resulted in an increase in the starting base pay for those jobs that would increase the number of applicants for those jobs?

it also has to do with the cost of labor. the more labor costs a company the less they'll hire.
 
No.

People need to keep in mind is that due to globalization, off-shoring and automation there have been structural changes in the U.S job markets that have resulted in large numbers of working adults, many with families, that are being employed long term in low wage jobs that are traditionally associated only with teens and first time job seekers.

There are things going on out there due to globalization, off-shoring and automation that are radically reducing the level of opportunities in the U.S job market for advancement into higher paying jobs.

the reason for the offshoring & automation IS because wages are too high to compete globally. when the cost of labor goes up companies will always look to cut
costs. automation is one way they do it here in the US.

you don't see ushers at the movie theaters any more, the reason is because of the minimum wage laws.

you never see people at gas stations filling up your tank, checking the tire pressure or cleaning your windshield all because of the unemployment law, the minimum wage.

I wonder how many more jobs have been abolished do to the minimum wage
 
IML Gear Cream!
the reason for the offshoring & automation IS because wages are too high to compete globally. when the cost of labor goes up companies will always look to cut
costs. automation is one way they do it here in the US.

you don't see ushers at the movie theaters any more, the reason is because of the minimum wage laws.

you never see people at gas stations filling up your tank, checking the tire pressure or cleaning your windshield all because of the unemployment law, the minimum wage.

I wonder how many more jobs have been abolished do to the minimum wage

Our CEOs are the highest paid in the world. Why aren't they being off-shored?
 
it's simple, they're the boss. they do what they want.

There's the problem. The guys at the top aren't being competitive with the CEOs around the rest of the world.
 
says who?

Says the facts. While corporations around the world are paying their top dogs around 20x what the average worker makes US companies are paying hundreds of times what the average worker makes. It's making US businesses uncompetitive.
 
Says the facts. While corporations around the world are paying their top dogs around 20x what the average worker makes US companies are paying hundreds of times what the average worker makes. It's making US businesses uncompetitive.

what facts?
 
The facts that US CEOs are way overpaid and they are hurting the competitiveness of their companies.


There's the problem. The guys at the top aren't being competitive with the CEOs around the rest of the world.

Where did you get this information? how did you calculate the differences between the companies ad their ceos like are they stock options or yearly income? what about profits, number of employees, taxes, publicly traded company, private, ect... post the link where you got your info.

And if they are so what? you don't like it, become a ceo and pay yourself what you want. what wrong with that?
 
Where did you get this information? how did you calculate the differences between the companies ad their ceos like are they stock options or yearly income? what about profits, number of employees, taxes, publicly traded company, private, ect... post the link where you got your info.

And if they are so what? you don't like it, become a ceo and pay yourself what you want. what wrong with that?

Google it. I did. What's wrong with it? They are artificially inflating their wages, hurting the competitiveness of the companies they are raping, and the icing on the cake? They've got people like you convinced they aren't the problem, someone else is. They've got you convinced the guy actually doing the work that makes the company money is the problem. Global economy they say, worker pay needs to be competitive with the rest of the world they say. But somehow they aren't part of the global economy, their pay doesn't need to be competitive.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-Archive/CEO-Pay-and-You/CEO-to-Worker-Pay-Gap-in-the-United-States/Pay-Gaps-in-the-World
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-workers-is-much-worse-than-you-realize/
 
Back
Top