• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Double The Minimum Wage

Tony said:
Translation: Slavery should be legal.
Click to expand...

I have functioning fingers; I can speak for myself. I don't need you to attempt to do so for me, thanks.

How many slaves have the choice to quit and find different employment?
 
Tony said:
Productivity, skills and knowledge only matter when it comes to normal jobs. When it comes to executives and politicians, they have free reign to mooch as much as they can get because "freemarket", or something. Whatever the reason, a lot of people have drank the kool-aid.
Click to expand...

For those who are familiar with American football, it is like picking a first round draft pick. You are really hoping to get Aaron Rogers, but sometimes you end up with JaMarcus Russell, or Brian Bosworth. It is a high risk, high reward choice that costs lots of money to even play.
 
Last edited:
Solitaire said:
Video

Fifteen dollar minimum wage? A bit high.
For that price I could hire a few russian engineers and start my own missile program.

Where did this number come from?

P.S. I like the "Life's a Lottery" phrase. Although I prefer to pick up scratchers.
Click to expand...

Ugh, please don't. When I made 15 dollars an hour, it was pretty good living, even with an appartment. I can't imagine how things would cost if they raised it that much.
 
MikeMangum said:
I have functioning fingers; I can speak for myself. I don't need you to attempt to do so for me, thanks.
Click to expand...

I wasn't replying to you in that post. :confused:

How many slaves have the choice to quit and find different employment?
Click to expand...

All of them. As long as they are willing to risk their lives and well being. It's pretty much the same way it would be if the "free market" were allowed to rule unfettered. Your boss/master could control your life, pay you whatever he/she wanted, make anything a condition for continued unemployment and make it practically impossible to find new employment. And without the government safety net that "free marketeers" want, just up and quitting would mean starvation and living on the street for the employee and his family. It would be modern feudalism. The only differences are that the consequences wouldn't be as immediately harsh or violent.

And for some reason, "freemarket" advocates think this is preferable to what we have now.
 
Last edited:
What gets me is that we tried to have no minimum wage laws.

That led to massive exploitation of workers. Across the board wages for unskilled and minimally-skilled labor dropped to nothing. Look at wages and working conditions at the beginning of the twentieth century, for example. In some cases, wages actually went down from 1910 to 1930.

Not to mention, according to supply and demand, this also means that when the ecomony is worst (unemplyment high and jobs scarce), the wages can drop even more, because there will always be someone else willing to do it for a little bit less, or someone who simply can't "quit and look for other work" because any income is better than none, and there isn't any other work to be had (unless you want even lower wages).

I have issues with treating humans as commodities, completely at the whim of supply and demand, regardless of the cost. While I have doubts and concerns about where the minimum wage line should be drawn, I much happier there is one, and I don't think the free market can handle that without an unacceptable human cost.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...

Maybe in theory.

although I think the minimum wage should be abolished.
Click to expand...

Without a minimum wage, what incentive is there for the employee pay the worker anything (other than table scraps)? The standard ideologue answer is "the employee can find a job that pays more than table scraps". But this ignores the fact that when the market sets the price, EVERY employer will be paying in table scraps which would render moot any "choice" the employee might have.

Hellbound said:
I have issues with treating humans as commodities, completely at the whim of supply and demand, regardless of the cost. While I have doubts and concerns about where the minimum wage line should be drawn, I much happier there is one, and I don't think the free market can handle that without an unacceptable human cost.
Click to expand...

Treating humans/labor as a commodity isn't functionally different from treating them as property. And the results will, overtime, tend to be the same.
 
Last edited:
Tony said:
Without a minimum wage, what incentive is there for the employee pay the worker anything (other than table scraps)? The standard ideologue answer is "the employee can find a job that pays more than table scraps". But this ignores the fact that when the market sets the price, EVERY employer will be paying in table scraps which would render moot any "choice" the employee might have.
Click to expand...

Really? Then why is there a single person anywhere making more than minimum wage right now? Why don't employers just pay everyone minimum wage?

Maybe you're the ideologue.
 
Last edited:
Tony said:
Without a minimum wage, what incentive is there for the employee pay the worker anything (other than table scraps)? The standard ideologue answer is "the employee can find a job that pays more than table scraps". But this ignores the fact that when the market sets the price, EVERY employer will be paying in table scraps which would render moot any "choice" the employee might have.
Click to expand...

This. SO much this. THIS is the situation that arose from the free market, and why a minimum wage was started in the first place. There was no choice for workers. This was the situation for the twenty years or so leading up to the Great Depression.

We've seen how the free market sets wages, and it doesn't work. It disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. The CEO can get his pay cut in half, and while he loses a few luxuries it doesn't put him in any danger; one can live VERY well on half a million a year, and the difference between that and a million a year, as far as quality of life, is slim.

But the difference between minimum wage and half minimum wage is the difference between your children being able to eat every day.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Really? Then why is there a single person anywhere making more than minimum wage right now? Why don't employers just pay everyone minimum wage?

Maybe you're the ideologue.
Click to expand...

Maybe let's just assume all labor is identical, that there are no differences in minimum wage positions and positions that pay higher, and pretend it makes sense?

I mean, seriously, did you really ask this question?

There is a difference between skilled labor and unskilled labor. Experience matters in some positoons.

But what are minimum wage positions?

Food service workers. Assembly line workers. Janitorial services. Parking lot attendent. Car washer.

The reason the pay for these jobs is low is because pretty much anyone can do the work, with minimal training required. The company has no incentive to be fair, because they can always hire some other person to fill the same spot. The quality of the work for most of these doesn't matter; if they can perform acceptably that's all that's needed. In some cases, performing well is a detriment: the faster assembly line worker can't work faster, because the line has a certain pace. Too fast causes backups at other locations. There's minimal difference between a cheerful McDonald's clerk and one who just goes through the motions and gets the order. And if they want cheerful, they just fire the guy and hire someone else.

The supply is, essentially, unlimited.

Compare that to, for example, my job as a computer analyst. It takes skill and training for this position, it's not somethign anyone can do. a small percentage of the population gets the education, and has the experience, to do what I do. So there is a limited supply. I am worth more, because the work I do is NOT something anyone can.

Your question is about as honest as asking why gold costs more than iron. I mean, tehy're both metals mined out of the ground, right? Why doesn't everyone pay the same price for both?
 
Hellbound said:
But the difference between minimum wage and half minimum wage is the difference between your children being able to eat every day.
Click to expand...

Right. So you think if minimum wage laws went away, employers would start paying their employees half minimum wage? Why stop there? Why not 1/3 minimum wage? Or 1/4 minimum wage? Or why even pay them at all? Why not just start a company, hire a bunch of people without paying them, and then become wealthy?

I'd be interested to know how you arrived at the figure of half minimum wage.
 
Minimum wage laws are heavily racist and are keeping people from turning into productive members of society.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Right. So you think if minimum wage laws went away, employers would start paying their employees half minimum wage? Why stop there? Why not 1/3 minimum wage? Or 1/4 minimum wage? Or why even pay them at all? Why not just start a company, hire a bunch of people without paying them, and then become wealthy?

I'd be interested to know how you arrived at the figure of half minimum wage.
Click to expand...

A random number, simply to illustrate the point that the salary of skilled and/or rare labor is a lot more resistence to change than a minimum wage workers wages.

Wages would drop. Not all at once, but over time. One company starts paying their workers a bit less so their profit margin is a bit higher, or so they can sell for a bit less and undercut the competition. Or they start offering the jobs (when a worker is fired or quits) at a lower wage, for the same reasons (competitive advantage). The competition follows suit. Workers grumble a bit at the lower wages, but it ends up as the norm. Repeat until wages are at a bare subsistence level (which is pretty close to where minimum wage is now). It's in the company's best interest to pay their labor the minimum amount they can get away with. For unskilled labor, it's not hard to find people willing to work for less. Repeat as needed.

Look at U.S. History. This isn't something that I'm just throwing out there, this has already happened in our past. This is precisely the reason minimum wage laws were formed.
 
Let me put it this way:

We've seen in the past that free market conditions for labor result in absolutely horrible conditions and wages.

If you think something different will happen now, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove it won't.

So show me your evidence. If it's there, I'm willing to change my mind. I just don't see what force is going to stop the downward trend of wages for unskilled labor, at least at any reasonable level.

I also fail to see how paying people enough money to have a place to live, food to eat, and some minimal level of medical care is preventing them from veing productive members of society. Considering we're talking about people that are working, are you saying that we should do away with those mimnimum wage jobs entirely? After all, they aren't productive, apparently. What should they be doing? We abolish minimum wages, their poay goes down. THey already can't afford to go to school and re-train for a new job. How are they supposed to become productive members of society?

Convince me. Show me the studies, show me the research. I'm not afraid to say "I was wrong, you were right". But I'm not going to say that just because you believe it hard enough.

If all you have is ideology, I'm not interested.
 
maxpower1227 said:
How about we require businesses to pay their employees a certain minimum percentage of the CEO's salary?
Click to expand...

Some CEO's pay themselves all of a dollar per year ...


Hellbound said:
What gets me is that we tried to have no minimum wage laws.

That led to massive exploitation of workers. Across the board wages for unskilled and minimally-skilled labor dropped to nothing. Look at wages and working conditions at the beginning of the twentieth century, for example. In some cases, wages actually went down from 1910 to 1930.

Not to mention, according to supply and demand, this also means that when the ecomony is worst (unemplyment high and jobs scarce), the wages can drop even more, because there will always be someone else willing to do it for a little bit less, or someone who simply can't "quit and look for other work" because any income is better than none, and there isn't any other work to be had (unless you want even lower wages).

I have issues with treating humans as commodities, completely at the whim of supply and demand, regardless of the cost. While I have doubts and concerns about where the minimum wage line should be drawn, I much happier there is one, and I don't think the free market can handle that without an unacceptable human cost.
Click to expand...


Except that these days entry-level wages are competing with the welfare state.

And employees are treated as commodities precisely because the laws, regulations, tax codes, and the Great Society welfare state defines them that way.
 
Hellbound said:
Wages would drop. Not all at once, but over time. One company starts paying their workers a bit less so their profit margin is a bit higher, or so they can sell for a bit less and undercut the competition. Or they start offering the jobs (when a worker is fired or quits) at a lower wage, for the same reasons (competitive advantage). The competition follows suit. Workers grumble a bit at the lower wages, but it ends up as the norm. Repeat until wages are at a bare subsistence level (which is pretty close to where minimum wage is now). It's in the company's best interest to pay their labor the minimum amount they can get away with. For unskilled labor, it's not hard to find people willing to work for less. Repeat as needed.
Click to expand...

You're not looking at both sides of the transaction. You say "it's in the company's best interest to pay their labor the minimum amount they can get away with". This is true, if by saying 'the minimum they can get away with' you are considering the costs of turnover and so forth in your analysis.

But, it is also in the best interest of companies to charge as much as they can for their products. So, using a similar analysis as yours, if we don't legislate a "maximum cellphone price", cellphones will keep getting more and more expensive. One company starts charging their customers a bit more so their profit margin is a bit higher, or so they can sell for a bit more and outperform the competition. The competition follows suit. Customers grumble a bit at the higher process, but it ends up as the norm. Repeat until prices are unaffordable for everyone.

You've got to look at both sides in a voluntary transaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom