Ask those people how much money they're offering. They're lying about not being able to find people, what they're really crying about is not being able to pay skilled labor for unskilled wages.
I'm torn when it comes to 'enforcing' (through trade policy) the environmental and labor regulations of the developing world. I can see the positives for the developed nation, but would it not stymie growth in the developing one?
Actually, I know a few people who work in HR manufacturing. Even for pretty darn good wages, there's a huge problem with people either (a) being unqualified because they never thought they'd have to learn new skills on their own initiative, or (b) walking off the job because they thought it would be as cushy as whatever they had before.
I agree with every word of this with the qualifier that education alone does not assure one will get hired - i know whereof i speak, the manager who hired me ask me point blank why I wanted to work at Walmart given my qualifications. I don't think you can legislate based on the exceptions like myself. it leads to much worse unintended outcomes. that said, I've read there are over 100 federal programs designed to help people get employed and yet far too many see no results from them or are underemployed. Part of that has to do with the economy, to be sure, but i wonder if we wouldn't be better served if that sort of spending was used to actually make one-to-one connections between qualified employees and positions they can fill. Still, ultimately, some of us simply are exceptions and there's not THAT much government can do to fix it.
They'll be disappointed. The discount does not apply until you've been there 90 days and temps never stay that long.
One can bet plenty chubby on those foods without the help of soft drinks and chips, conversely one can live off soft drinks and chips and stay slender depending on biology and other factors. In any case, potatoes and hamburger are NOT the "healthy foods" Jenee was referring to.
It all depends on how its implemented. For example, China has yet to completely electrify (and many places where they have, they still don't have adequate power levels), so they don't have the entrenched levels of infrastructure that places in the developed world have. Offering to lower trade barriers if they agree to electrify using green energy sources, not only allows them to industrialize, but it also enables them to "green up." On the labor side of things, simply slap a tariff on goods to compensate for the difference in wages. Done in a rational manner, so that you're requiring the labor in China (or wherever) to be paid at an equivalent rate, but not at an exact dollar to Yuan rate. This would mean that if someone in the US earning $25K/yr (which is probably the bottom level for a decent standard of living here) is equal to someone in China earning Y10K/yr, then goods imported from China made by people earning Y5K/yr would have a tariff placed on them raising the price of the goods to what it would cost to pay that laborer double what they're currently earning. (Note that in the case of Apple products, this would add roughly $60 to the price, one assumes that similar modest increases would apply to other Chinese made electronics.) This wouldn't even put a significant hardship on the Chinese (or other nation) economically, if they were wanting to export. If they couldn't hit wage targets right away, instead of making cheap knockoffs of expensive goods, they could aim at the high end market, making exotic/luxury goods until their economy grew to the point where they could afford to start producing lower priced goods.
And what happens when other nations retaliate against the U.S. with tariffs on the goods we export to them? A huge chunk of the U.S. economy including manufactured goods from the aviation, heavy equipment, and petrochemical sectors not to mention agricultural goods are supported heavily by exports. You want to cripple the parts of the U.S. economy that actually produce something that sells overseas?
It's possible though you'll end up with a lot of high carb foods like beans and rice and very few fresh fruits and veggies. Also there is a problem that a lot of poor people on food stamps don't have cars so it isn't like they can shop around and instead they have to buy what ever is with in walking distances and in ghettos that is likely to be a 7-11 type store or a liquor store; the only food those type of places offer tend to be pre-packaged junk food. Lastly, even those who can get to a local grocery store (on the bus or if they're lucky enough not to live in a food desert without a super market) then the cheapest stuff does tend to be the highly processed stuff which is unhealthy so if you're trying to make a dollar stretch and only have ~$2 per meal (that's the max food stamp pay out) then it can be difficult.
On top of which, when even simple (to us) things like getting to a grocery store are made exponentially more complicated by the lack of a car and other factors, it's even harder to find the time to prepare a real meal.
No, they are not. Manufacturing pays better than most any hourly jobs. People just don't go into those fields any more. Colleges don't go much for training for hourly jobs, they would rather train people for IT or something that can be outsourced to India.
There is absolutely NO evidence that a minimum wage has ever adversely impacted either business or job creation, during the 75 years it has been part of the law in the United States. In fact, theree's evidence it has been a net plus. Case in point...the economy was beginning to stall in 1996 when a minimum wage hike was enacted--and the increase immediately re-energized the economy, Economic growth continued for another five years. It miht be a good idea to do it again to help enhance our current recovery.
^More likely that an increase in the minimum wage was the RESULT of an economic upturn, not the CAUSE of one. But as I said, EVEN IF the minimum wage was completely benign, there are still arguments against it.
