Is the US economy in recession?

[Aeson]

dp

[Aeson]

I am saying that by definition, some of those who work at minimum wage are overpaid. We can tell which positions are overpaid by those which have a labour oversupply.

Simply having oversupply of labor for a particular job does not mean it is overpaid. Look at the logical conclusion we'd have to come to if we accept your claim it does:

Everyone is overpaid except some minimum wage workers where no one else would want to do their job. Most positions have oversupply in the current economy. Good positions tend to always have oversupply of labor. It doesn't necessarily mean they are overpaid.

Elimination of the minimum wage would help here - which is why you see things like 'training wages' and the like. If all labor were truly worth the minimum wage, you would not see training wages.

People on welfare who are capable of working already demonstrably choose welfare over minimum wage. We can see this very clearly for the majority of the last 30 years. Lowering minimum wage would not convince them to change their evaluation.

[Aeson]

dp

[Ben Kenobi]

I didn't say only Europeans have been evil. That is your strawman.

You said, "they", referring to whom, are we? The Japanese or Europeans?

The Philippines is ~95% Catholic. That wouldn't have changed much with more Spanish rule (which would have been very short indeed). Indonesia is ~90% Muslim. The comparison is obviously going to be dominated by the differences in religious demographics.

Just like Cuba is a republic too, oh wait.

The Philippines would almost certainly be a republic without US intervention against Spain.

It's possible, I don't think that would be the case, with subsequent rule under Japan following Spanish rule. More likely they would have some sort of Junta today.

The Philippines essentially won their revolution before US troops landed (having occupied the entire of Luzon except the walled city), and had already established the First Philippines Republic and had a democratic constitution before they were annexed by the US. We only delayed their status as a Republic.

Plenty of Americans fought and died for the Philippines. This is the typical - "I hate America, everything in the world is the fault of America", while living in a region that has benefitted tremendously from American sacrifices on their behalf.

Absolutely no reason to suspect that the US would have lost to the Japanese in WWII in the hypothetical.

Why would they have gotten involved? Japan would have simply overran the Philippines and would have gotten all the Oil they needed from the Dutch East Indies. No Pearl Harbour necessary.

We didn't allow the Japanese to keep any of their other conquests during WWII, no reason to suspect the Philippines would be treated differently.

The US would have had no cause to go to war with Japan.

[Ben Kenobi]

Simply having oversupply of labor for a particular job does not mean it is overpaid

By definition, labour oversupply is indicative of an overpaid position.

Most positions have oversupply in the current economy.

Which is why wages have dropped.

Good positions tend to always have oversupply of labor. It doesn't necessarily mean they are overpaid.

Yes, it means they are overpaid. That is why there is an oversupply. If a 'good' position were paying much less, then there would be fewer applicants. This is why wages should drop during a recession until the balance is rectified.

Most skilled positions, actually don't get paid enough - there is quite a labour shortage in most of them.

People on welfare who are capable of working already demonstrably choose welfare over minimum wage.

Then why do training wages exist?

Lowering minimum wage would not convince them to change their evaluation

True, which is why these benefits should be reduced/eliminated as well.

[Aeson]

dp

[Aeson]

Yes, it means they are overpaid. That is why there is an oversupply. If a 'good' position were paying much less, then there would be fewer applicants. This is why wages should drop during a recession until the balance is rectified.

No. Paying more, and getting more applicants because of it, can be a very useful thing for employers to attract the best potential employees. As such not all oversupply of labor is indicative of the job being overpaid. It is indicative of the employer thinking that filling the job with the best applicant they can attract at that price level is worth paying that much.

Most skilled positions, actually don't get paid enough - there is quite a labour shortage in most of them.

This isn't true, even when the economy is humming along and we are at or near total employment.

Already employed people will often try to apply for positions they view as better than their current station. As such there are almost always more applicants for good jobs than there are positions to fill even if everyone looking already has (or shortly will have) a job. This is "oversupply of labor" for those specific positions, but doesn't mean they're overpaid.

Then why do training wages exist?

Because there are other forms of compensation besides just wages. Training wages essentially can be viewed as a worker paying part of their compensation back in return for the training. Internships can be seen this way as well. As such you could look at it as similar to tipped positions which have a much lower minimum wage. There is compensation (tips/training) making up the difference (and often more).

True, which is why these benefits should be reduced/eliminated as well.

Definitely welfare could be handled better. But eliminating welfare benefits altogether would be a very bad thing that would harm a lot of people that actually do rely on it.

[Aeson]

Yes, it means they are overpaid. That is why there is an oversupply. If a 'good' position were paying much less, then there would be fewer applicants. This is why wages should drop during a recession until the balance is rectified.

No. Paying more, and getting more applicants because of it, can be a very useful thing for employers to attract the best potential employees. As such not all oversupply of labor is indicative of the job being overpaid. It is indicative of the employer thinking that filling the job with the best applicant they can attract at that price level is worth paying that much.

Most skilled positions, actually don't get paid enough - there is quite a labour shortage in most of them.

This isn't true, even when the economy is humming along and we are at or near total employment.

Already employed people will often try to apply for positions they view as better than their current station. As such there are almost always more applicants for good jobs than there are positions to fill even if everyone looking already has (or shortly will have) a job. This is "oversupply of labor" for those specific positions, but doesn't mean they're overpaid.

Then why do training wages exist?

Because there are other forms of compensation besides just wages. Training wages essentially can be viewed as a worker paying part of their compensation back in return for the training. Internships can be seen this way as well. As such you could look at it as similar to tipped positions which have a much lower minimum wage. There is compensation (tips/training) making up the difference (and often more).

True, which is why these benefits should be reduced/eliminated as well.

Definitely welfare could be handled better. But eliminating welfare benefits altogether would be a very bad thing that would harm a lot of people that actually do rely on it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Usually when using pronouns they refer to the last subject mentioned. ("they" in that sentence refers to "pronouns" for instance) I have bolded that subject in the statement you were responding to.

I think what the Japanese did to the Philippines was evil. I'm amused by your reticence.

Cuba is a closer analog than Indonesia in some ways. Still plenty of obvious differences though

What do you feel are the obvious differences that would preclude the possibility of a junta in the Philippines?

They would not have been a Spanish colony by WWII. They would have already been a republic.

I disagree - the Americans declaring war on Spain gave the Philippines the impetus. Had the Americans declared war on the Dutch - things would be very different. The rationale for having a republican model based on the US system, is a result of the liberation by the Americans, as opposed to, say, a Constitutional monarchy or a Westminster system, as you'll see in the Commonwealth. I don't think it's a bad thing - the American system has worked well for the Philippines, but it's certainly not the only game in town.

It's blaming Americans for the decision Americans made to not allow the Philippines self-rule after they had formed a republic, specifically to refute your preposterous claims that the Philippines would not be a republic without the US having held it as a territory in the past.

Why did they set up an American-style Republic then?

I had 2 great-uncles who fought in the Philippines. One who escaped while on the Bataan death march and lived in the jungle for a couple years. The love the Filipino people show the Americans is a constant reminder of this as well. I understand the sacrifices Americans have made that have helped the Philippines, adn the great good they did for the people here.

Personally, I think the Filipinos do many things better than the US, especially regarding their Catholic faith. One of the things that irritates me is to see Americans going off and apologizing for what they didn't do - when they did do it right. It wasn't until '47 that the British gave self-rule to India. Given the end result which is a stable democracy - I think the delay was beneficial, in the long run, not detrimental.

If you're ever going to be an American, you should probably drop the "u" from "Pearl Harbor". It's bad enough on the "labor", but when you start changing the spelling of proper nouns to appease your imperial allegiance it's getting seditious.

Guilty as charged. *sigh*.

The US had other interests in the South Pacific and China. There's no reason to expect that without the Philippines being one of the interests (which itself is not necessarily the case in the hypothetical) that the US wouldn't have embargoed Japan, or that Japan wouldn't have seen us as an opponent that needed to be crippled to further it's interests.

I'm not so sure the Americans would have intervened if not for Pearl. Funny, that the Spanish American war would have such long ranging consequences.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. Paying more, and getting more applicants because of it, can be a very useful thing for employers to attract the best potential employees. As such not all oversupply of labor is indicative of the job being overpaid. It is indicative of the employer thinking that filling the job with the best applicant they can attract at that price level is worth paying that much.

Most businesses (at least the ones I've worked with), don't have HR capable of understanding how to select the best applicants, let alone setting the correct price. Nor, is there much incentive for them to do so, as HR isn't being paid on how well they staff a company. It benefits HR to just take the top x applicants and go from there.

This isn't true, even when the economy is humming along and we are at or near total employment.

Yes, this is very true, with skilled labour positions. If they were properly compensated, they would see applicants come forth, and they would encourage people to get the qualifications necessary to take these positions. Again, most times you get the employers complaining about 'no quality applicants', without ever asking themselves the question, "why did I set the offer at this number?" Did into it more, and it comes out that they are usually demanding too much for too little.

Already employed people will often try to apply for positions they view as better than their current station. As such there are almost always more applicants for good jobs than there are positions to fill even if everyone looking already has (or shortly will have) a job. This is "oversupply of labor" for those specific positions, but doesn't mean they're overpaid.

Yes, it means they are overpaid. Everyone wants to get paid the most for doing the least. This means that we will see jobs that expect too much to have difficulty staffing, and jobs that expect too little will see a flood of applicants.

Because there are other forms of compensation besides just wages.

Which is why they tend to cut hours to avoid paying out this compensation.

Definitely welfare could be handled better. But eliminating welfare benefits altogether would be a very bad thing that would harm a lot of people that actually do rely on it.

Most on welfare make more than I do in a year. The worrisome part, is that we might not have a choice anymore, Aeson. Since there are so many older folks - it's not social security that's going to get cut. If they kick the can down the road - the US will be fiscally insolvent.

[Aeson]

Most businesses (at least the ones I've worked with), don't have HR capable of understanding how to select the best applicants, let alone setting the correct price.

Yes, it means they are overpaid. Everyone wants to get paid the most for doing the least. This means that we will see jobs that expect too much to have difficulty staffing, and jobs that expect too little will see a flood of applicants.

No, it doesn't mean they're overpaid. It means they are good jobs that everyone wants. There is a very real value to getting the best prospective employees rather than letting them go to your competition. This is why we have very highly paid jobs. It doesn't mean they are overpaid just because more than one person applies.

Most on welfare make more than I do in a year.

Yes, that's bad. It's also the reason I've stated many times in this thread that there are people who choose welfare over working already. Cutting the minimum wage isn't going to help with that, it's going to hurt (probably a little).

The worrisome part, is that we might not have a choice anymore, Aeson. Since there are so many older folks - it's not social security that's going to get cut. If they kick the can down the road - the US will be fiscally insolvent.

There is definitely still a choice. Eliminating welfare is not necessary.

[Kidlicious]

People on welfare do not even get paid more than Ben. I don't know why this lie stays out there.

Texas pays 260/month in cash benefits to a single family of three.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3625

[Ben Kenobi]

In 2010, the average monthly SNAP benefit for households with TANF income was $428 a month

TANF + SNAP is 263 + 428 = 700/month or 8.4k for a year. More than my take home last year, FWIW.

[kentonio]

You get paid less than $8.4k a year as a teacher? Wow, people really do get what they pay for.

[giblets]

You get paid less than $8.4k a year as a teacher? Wow, people really do get what they pay for.