Democrat Economic Leadership

[Scooter]

And since conservatives oppose a minimum wage, that means they support the legalization of slavery (since no minimum wage means that people can work for nothing).

Putting words into other posters' mouths is such fun, isn't it?

[rubato]

The existence of a human being represents a certain minimum cost. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, and a rather long list of "&c". The degree to which the minimum wage falls short of this will either be made up by taxes on everyone else or by the gradual destruction of the individual and degradation of society. Or in the case of the United States, both. This is a major cause of the US falling to near the bottom of the G-20 in nearly every measure of quality of life.


Allowing a minimum wage which falls short of a decent level of support for an individual and family is just a subsidy for 'buggy-whip' manufacturers and other failed businesses.


yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

Saw PJ Orourke a few years back in POK NY, he made a point using some simple math, the reported number of poor and the budget: if the govt just simply GAVE people the money to make up the difference to be above the poverty line, we would spend a lot less.

[dgs49]

...compelling employers to pay a minimum amount for their employees' work, regardless of its economic value, will lead to greater prosperity.

Let's see...taking money from one person and giving it to another person increases prosperity.

I am both literally and figuratively scratching my head. Don't really see how that works.

Of course, it does work if the employer has an infinite amount of money to draw from - money that is magically created out of nothing.

Idiocy.

[Gob]

...compelling employers to pay a minimum amount for their employees' work, regardless of its economic value, will lead to greater prosperity.

Let's see...taking money from one person and giving it to another person increases prosperity.

Oh come on Dave, you know better than to try and play an idiot about it.

[quaddriver]

Oh I dunno, min wage goes up and every single min wage employers lays off, stops hiring or hires under projections....recognizing those facts is idiocy.

min wage goes up and the number of min wage jobs either drops or undercuts the typically eligible population: read teenagers who make up the far vast majority.....recognizing that fact is idiocy.

Rubato, and anyone who agrees with his stance cannot and will not point to any business who INCREASED min wage jobs in response to the wage going up.

In 2006, the last full year in which the U.S. federal minimum wage was a constant value throughout the whole year, at least before 2010, approximately 6,595,383 individuals in the United States earned $7.25 per hour1 or less.

For 2010, the first full year in which the U.S. federal minimum wage was a constant value through the year since 2006, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that an average of just 4,361,000 individuals in the United States earned the same equivalent of the current prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 or less throughout the year.

oops. I guess we gained 2M+ idiots who demonstrated such idiocy by realizing their jobs were lost....

Dave, in this instance is right.

[rubato]

To support the existence of a human being requires a minimum of income; one can expand this to the dependents of that human being. Why should the rest of society subsidize businesses which are such utter failures that they cannot do this?

That is the question.

yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

To support the existence of a human being requires a minimum of income; one can expand this to the dependents of that human being. Why should the rest of society subsidize businesses which are such utter failures that they cannot do this?

That is the question.

yrs,
rubato

dunno, I dont eat at McDonalds. Or Burger King.

[dgs49]

Rube, are you truly this detached from reality? Do you really suppose that the holder of EVERY full-time job, regardless of how menial, is ENTITLED to compensation that would be sufficient to support him fully?

And where does this money come from? Where does the value come from?

A recent high school graduate with no skills and no work experience is entitled to a living wage? Based on what?

Have you ever heard of "freedom of contract"? Has it occured to you that EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE in the world is holding a job that was (and probably is) the best available job for that person, considering all the options s/he had or has?

If I have a pizza shop and I need delivery drivers, and am only willing or able to pay $2/hr (plus tips), and at that wage I can find as many drivers as I need, who are you to say there is comething wrong with that?

I am reminded of HRC, who, when questioned about the tens of thousands of small businesses that would be driven out of business by the passage of Hillarycare, and said she couldn't be responsible for piss-ant businesses like that.

Idiocy. Pure idiocy.

[Grim Reaper]

A recent high school graduate with no skills and no work experience is entitled to a living wage? Based on what?

Based on the concept of simple human decency, something that eludes you to this day.

Businesses can not be trusted to look out for the welfare of their workers. This has been proven time and again throughout history and is why we have so many rules and regulations now.

[Long Run]

Businesses can not be trusted to look out for the welfare of their workers.

This highlights a philosophical divide. It is not the function of a business to provide jobs, let alone provide for the welfare of its workers. Happily for society, this is a byproduct of successful businesses -- in providing necessary services and goods, they do provide jobs, and they do care about keeping their employees (to greater or lesser extents depending on a host of factors). The very act of making businesses "responsible", in the many guises that responsibility takes, also acts to limit businesses creating jobs. The trade off is obvious -- more regulation = less jobs. One can look at each regulation and argue the merits, but there is always a cost in terms of the overall economy and it is foolish not to weigh that cost.

The minimum wage is like any other regulation. Why is it the responsibility of a business to provide a "minimum" wage or level of support? Those here who argue that it is about the dignity of people having enough money to support themselves seem to suggest that if a business cannot create good jobs then it should not exist.* Fair enough, but note the trade off -- less jobs, and more expensive goods and services. And when we are in a down cycle, those trade offs don't look so good.

The other viewpoint isn't that low-skill workers should go poor, it is that if we are to keep such persons out of poverty, let's make it everyone's responsibility rather than shifting our burden onto a business owner who happens to be helping such person earn their way out of poverty. Rather than scorn for the business with low paying jobs, we should understand that such business (in pursuing its goals of providing services and goods, and making a profit) as a byproduct is providing a job that helps get a person out poverty, thereby relieving the full burden on society. It is hard to not see those who argue for the "living wage" are simply trying to reduce their individual responsibility to the collective obligation to help the poor, and put that burden on a business who needs labor. That is certainly not a morally superior position, and as we see in our current economy, this position leads to trade offs that leave a lot of people un- or underemployed.

*A far better justification for the minimum wage is to prevent those few situations where certain business owners might take advantage of low-skilled persons by paying extremely low wages (along with other poor working conditions for which we have regulations). But then, the underground economy provides those jobs (see the low level kids in the drug trade, or off-book illegal immigrant work) when legit businesses have a minimum wage law.

[Gob]

The minimum wage is like any other regulation. Why is it the responsibility of a business to provide a "minimum" wage or level of support?

It's not, it is however the responsibility of a company to work within the constructs of society. So if the electorate vote for parties which support and impose a minimum wage, it is the legal responsibility of the firm/company to pay it.

I like to think we've moved on /evolved from the days of slaves.

[rubato]

Businesses can not be trusted to look out for the welfare of their workers.

This highlights a philosophical divide. It is not the function of a business to provide jobs, let alone provide for the welfare of its workers. Happily for society, this is a byproduct of successful businesses -- in providing necessary services and goods, they do provide jobs, and they do care about keeping their employees (to greater or lesser extents depending on a host of factors). The very act of making businesses "responsible", in the many guises that responsibility takes, also acts to limit businesses creating jobs. The trade off is obvious -- more regulation = less jobs. One can look at each regulation and argue the merits, but there is always a cost in terms of the overall economy and it is foolish not to weigh that cost.

The minimum wage is like any other regulation. Why is it the responsibility of a business to provide a "minimum" wage or level of support? Those here who argue that it is about the dignity of people having enough money to support themselves seem to suggest that if a business cannot create good jobs then it should not exist.* Fair enough, but note the trade off -- less jobs, and more expensive goods and services. And when we are in a down cycle, those trade offs don't look so good.

The other viewpoint isn't that low-skill workers should go poor, it is that if we are to keep such persons out of poverty, let's make it everyone's responsibility rather than shifting our burden onto a business owner who happens to be helping such person earn their way out of poverty. Rather than scorn for the business with low paying jobs, we should understand that such business (in pursuing its goals of providing services and goods, and making a profit) as a byproduct is providing a job that helps get a person out poverty, thereby relieving the full burden on society. It is hard to not see those who argue for the "living wage" are simply trying to reduce their individual responsibility to the collective obligation to help the poor, and put that burden on a business who needs labor. That is certainly not a morally superior position, and as we see in our current economy, this position leads to trade offs that leave a lot of people un- or underemployed.

*A far better justification for the minimum wage is to prevent those few situations where certain business owners might take advantage of low-skilled persons by paying extremely low wages (along with other poor working conditions for which we have regulations). But then, the underground economy provides those jobs (see the low level kids in the drug trade, or off-book illegal immigrant work) when legit businesses have a minimum wage law.

You are simply ignoring the empirical problem. Maintaining a person, possibly with a family, requires a certain minimum of money. If we, as a democratic society, permit some employers to pay less than this amount either we are going to make up the difference via taxes or we are going to say that its alright to kill people slowly via decrepitude (and doom their children to more wretched futures).

You have to address the problem, otherwise you are lying. Why should a democratic society allow this? Either you have to say that we should all pay higher taxes to subsidize marginal industries or you will have to say that a policy of deliberately harming people for the profit of a few is ok. There is no other option.

Which is it?

Reality intrudes.

yrs,
rubato

[quaddriver]

I expected Long Run to point this out, but I assume he would have gotten there, because he is posting rationally:

Businesses, when forced to pay a higher wage for the minimum jobs, yet require some amount of minimum jobs (which we have shown they have managed to trim off) make up for the differences by trimming the salaries of NON-minimum wage jobs.

We can show that $7.50/hr is not a 'living wage' - whatever that is - and we can probably show that $8 is not living nor is $9. A simple perusal of the want ads shows that the MAJORITY of advertised are in the $9.50-11 range. We can and have shown that min wage earners are vastly overwhelmingly NOT family people. they are teens and the recently released for the 99% part. However this next tier, this is where the working poor tend to inhabit, or women with kids, the grossly unskilled etc. This next tier has been depressed in response to the upward forcing of the lowest tier. In other words, the govt forces salary compression.

Does this compression extend far upwards? Have not researched this that much, however personal experience: It is well known that I made my bones by developing an OS for IBM and working on the OS for the last 24+ years. At IBM and then 2 user sites. I have often wanted to do what most experienced journeymen do with this OS and work for the airlines (before they took away flight bennies) one of the places I wanted to go was OZ. there are 2 resident airlines that serve OZ, and always hiring as they have poor retention due to people doing exactly what I thought of and.....they pay well below market rates for experienced systems and application guys on the OS that drives their core business. Why? well you figure out why. Has the forced payments of the lowest OZ worker come out of the pockets of the experienced ones?

Interestingly, there are 3 other global projects, Amadeus, Galileo and Atraxis that ALSO shrunk to varying degrees, what they paid people to come in. The country with the most bankrupt airlines, also had the lowest minimum wage, and paid the highest and this holds to this day. Connected?

[rubato]

So far, no one has even tried to explain how the difference will be made up if employers are allowed to pay less than the cost of maintaining a person.

Back in Victorian England their laws set wages at exactly the point where people had enough food not to starve and gave us a vivid picture of the type of squalid and miserable society which results. Why should we believe that if the same experiment were done again the outcome would be any different?

I suspect that since we have a population whose expectations are much higher than the Victorian working man's were that they would react a great deal more violently when that kind of torture was applied.

yrs,
rubato

[Liberty1]

Democratic Economic Leadership

Now there's an oxymoron for you.

[Scooter]

Thus spake the living oxymoron.

[dgs49]

Reality check.

When I got out of the service and started going to college I was looking for a job that would pay me something, but was consistent with the demands of going to college, which was my primary activity. I found work as a security guard, midnight shift. I was given a number of different assignments, but they all had one thing in common: most of my time was spent with nothing actually to do. It was the perfect job for going to college. I would study for 45 minutes, then walk around the property to make sure there were no burglars or vandals about, then I would go back to the office or my car or the lunchroom and continue my studies. 8 hours of this, usually seven days a week.

The jobs paid a few cents more than minimum wage, which was - if memory serves - $1.60/hr at the time. This was certainly not enough to live on. I personally had some savings that I was eating through, and some money coming in from the GI bill. The other security guards who worked with me were either living at home with parents, had additional jobs, or had spouses who worked. One guy was a military retiree and had his pension.

This is life on minimum wage. For most people it is a transition phase into gainful employment that DOES pay a living wage - and beyond. For those who are stuck there for one reason or other, we manage. Again, that sucky job, whatever it is, is the BEST option the employee had or has, and if the wages are arbitrarily increased, those who remain will see a benefit, but a lot will lose their jobs because those jobs will then cost the employer more than their respective economic values.

I was not exploited in any way. The job simply was not worth - either intrinsically or functionally - more than I was making. To mandate that I be paid a "living wage" (maybe $3.00/hr at the time) would have accomplished what?

My employer's margins would have eroded (they were minimal to start with), he would get less work, the customers of the security firm would have looked into electronic security (in its infant stages at the time), or simply done without, and maybe absorbed an increase in their risk management expense.

And of course, if the security guard was given $3.00/hr, then everyone else on the lower levels of the company would have had to have a commensurate raise. The guys who unloaded trucks, swept the floors, ran the machines, were all CERTAINLY worth more than the lowly security guard who was presumed to be (and often was) jerkin' off in the mens' room from midnight to 8, right?

And where, oh where, was all this money supposed to come from?

I also worked as a cabbie, which is a job that pays less than MW (even though I was a member of Teamsters Local 249), unless you are good at it and work hard (most of my earnings were tips).

I went into retail "management" for a time, which initially paid $2.50/hr, and because I was "management," I didn't get paid for my overtime. This was decidedly not a living wage. Fortunately, if you survived for a year or two the compensation increased dramatically.

Take away the minimum wage and what happens. Let's say an employer is stupid and advertises jobs for $4.00/hr. Most of the people whom he would target will simply decline to apply. And he will quickly learn that the majority (but not all) of people who would take that job will be lazy, unreliable, and either steal from him or try to sabotage the work. He would learn - unless he is immune to learning - that if he pays a little more he will get people who are a little better. And he will eventually find a wage that attracts people who can "earn" their pay, which is to say that their work will have an economic value that is equal to their compensation.

Which is the ideal, right?

[Timster]

And he will quickly learn that the majority (but not all) of people who would take that job will be lazy, unreliable, and either steal from him or try to sabotage the work. He would learn - unless he is immune to learning - that if he pays a little more he will get people who are a little better. And he will eventually find a wage that attracts people who can "earn" their pay, which is to say that their work will have an economic value that is equal to their compensation.

WTF? To the first part. To the second part: as apposed to picking produce for 12 hours a day? Or landscaping or on their feet waiting tables for a pittance or a hundred other jobs that require a whole fuck of a lot more than sitting on your ass and masturbating on the boss's dime? *Spit!*

Talk about needing a reality check.

[rubato]

Reality check.

When I got out of the service and started going to college I was looking for a job that would pay me something, but was consistent with the demands of going to college, which was my primary activity. I found work as a security guard, midnight shift. I was given a number of different assignments, but they all had one thing in common: most of my time was spent with nothing actually to do. It was the perfect job for going to college. I would study for 45 minutes, then walk around the property to make sure there were no burglars or vandals about, then I would go back to the office or my car or the lunchroom and continue my studies. 8 hours of this, usually seven days a week.

The jobs paid a few cents more than minimum wage, which was - if memory serves - $1.60/hr at the time. This was certainly not enough to live on. I personally had some savings that I was eating through, and some money coming in from the GI bill. The other security guards who worked with me were either living at home with parents, had additional jobs, or had spouses who worked. One guy was a military retiree and had his pension.

This is life on minimum wage. ... "

If they had been required to pay a living wage then they would not have used peoples lives so wastefully. They would organise the security-guarding so you could cover more locations. Keeping wages artificially low allows the wasteful use of a resource; just like water and gasoline are used wastefully when the price is too low.

Allowing economic exploitation prices human lives too cheaply.

yrs,
rubato