Minimum Wage?

[Ashmada]

Minimum wage is a job killer. There is a lot of start ups that could really benefit from low initial salaries, even struggling small businesses could keep afloat without it. If a homeless person wants to do small jobs paying 3-5$/hr, why ban it?

Maybe because when Joe Homeless accepts 3-5$/hr, Joe Homeless' employer (let's call him Richard Head) pressures his other employees to accept the same wage or be replaced by someone who will; maybe because when Richard Head's friend, CEO as well, (Jack A. Hole) hears of the wage he pays, decides to lower his own workers' wages or "find a place that pays better".
When all the Richard Heads and Jack A. Holes meet, all workers in the area are fucked.

You'd think someone so passionate about the free market would understand basic competitivity.



But it's true that raising minimum wage won't fix the core problems.
A pure unregulated free market is a beautiful thing in theory: it balances itself, everyone lives decently and abuse is avoided; in practice the theory's failings are readily evident:
- Competition, the very thing that is supposed to keep the system in check is easily circumvented by either trusts (which have long been made illegal in most countries) or mergers (which are completely legal pretty much everywhere).

- The top fixes the top's salaries. It has gotten to a point where a CEO can get away with raising his own pay while the company's making record losses and get away with it!
Sure, the press will write a few inflammatory articles... but nothing will happen.

- Globalisation allows big multinationals to hold the world hostage.
Make us pay our workers decently? We leave for another country where cost of life is lower and the workers can thus accept lower pay.
Tax us like you tax small businesses? We leave for another country that taxes less. We're big companies, we provide more jobs so we deserve tax cuts (yes, this obviously flawed argument is in complete disagreement with the rest of their discourse).


When a CEO makes more in a month than his workers will in a lifetime, something's very wrong, but if you tie his wages to the lowest paid worker in his payroll (any other way can be circumvented), he'll just up and leave to a country that doesn't.


You guys probably never heard about the Arcelor-Mittal furnaces in Liège, but it's a good example of all 3 above items:
In 2009, Mittal buys Arcelor; thereby granting CEO Lakshmi Mittal an almost complete monopoly over global steelwork.
Arcelor includes the ancient Cockerill-Sambre furnaces in Liège, bought some time ago.

In 2010, Arcelor-Mittal records benefits of 1.39 billion € (1.71 billion $) and is taxed a whopping 500€ (616.05$). 500€!
Why? Because it benefits from the "intérêts notionels" a recent right-wing measure that allows big multinational companies (but not local businesses) to deduce taxes.
At the same time, employees are asked to make sacrifices: more flexible hours, unpaid unemployment periods, reduced wages... and they do, they have little choice.

In 2011, Mittal forgets his promises to invest in the site (the very reason he qualified for notional interests) and instead opts to close it. 600 direct job losses, 3000 indirect.
The asshole gets richer, a whole area is in the shitter.

In 2012, he uses the Olympics to buy some public support.

[arus2001]

Makes me wonder how far off we are from a violent global revolution due to the world economy. :/

[Byrthnoth]

I personally prefer the standard of living that people had in the early industrialization period of the US before minimum wage and all this damned regulation, back when the workplace was safe and wages were fair.

[Talint]

If you can afford a PC and an internet connection to make this thread, your wage is more than enough.

Personal anecdote time!

I made enough in my previous line of work that I was able to save up and invest a decent amount.

Since then, I've changed my profession entirely. Now I work a job that pays minimum wage. I have to live off the savings and investments of my previous job to be able to afford, "A PC and an internet connection" (as well as other things).

Is my wage more than enough?! Inquiring minds want to know!

[Kuya]

I would be amenable to getting rid of minimum wage if it were replaced with a universal wage payed by the government.

[Psion]

When a CEO makes more in a month than his workers will in a lifetime, something's very wrong, but if you tie his wages to the lowest paid worker in his payroll (any other way can be circumvented), he'll just up and leave to a country that doesn't.

good, lets get rid of the asshole and find someone willing to work for what would still be an obscene amount of money. And don't tell me we're losing "irreplacable talent" either. I have yet to see a CEO that had the half a brain required to implement practical policy in their workplace. I'd much rather have some of those lowest paid workers move up to the CEO position, where their experience as the bottom of the company can be put to good use making policies that make sense and aren't a big waste of money and irritation to customers/workers.

[hey]

Can you show me any data where a company has created jobs just because they can, even if they don't need them at all?

It doesn't happen. However when the price drops significantly, they might find themselves needing things they didn't before. For example, if i offer you a hamburger for $500, do you need that? No? Are you sure? What if it was $.5?

If a company estimates that hiring a new employee would generate an additional $7/hr of revenue, but cost $10, they simply will not hire anyone. It wouldn't make sense to, since it'd cost them money. However, if they they can hire them at $5/hr, it's a safe bet they find someone who can make them more money.

You need to realize that in a free market with high unemployment, employers can dump wages to minimum simply because there is a large supply of labor. Fix Unemployment and you will get higher salaries.

This is completely true. People are willing to accept incredibly low wages right now because they simply don't have a choice. $7.25/hr is better than being jobless, and turning down a job in this economy can be very dangerous, since you never know when the next will come around. The supply of labor far exceeds the demand, so prices have dropped. When that is no longer the case, prices will rise.

[hey]

Maybe because when Joe Homeless accepts 3-5$/hr, Joe Homeless' employer (let's call him Richard Head) pressures his other employees to accept the same wage or be replaced by someone who will; maybe because when Richard Head's friend, CEO as well, (Jack A. Hole) hears of the wage he pays, decides to lower his own workers' wages or "find a place that pays better".
When all the Richard Heads and Jack A. Holes meet, all workers in the area are fucked.

So...what's the problem? If they can find people to work cheaper, why shouldn't they? They are obviously paying more than the fair price for the labor they are getting.

I still feel the solution is to make it so theres a % cap on how much money the top of a company can make over the lowest paid worker. Like 3000% of lowest paid worker, or 4000% or something, which would put CEO pay more in line with the rest of the world. Making a salary equivilent to $240 an hour and want to bump that up to $250 an hour? Fine by us, but you also have to raise the pay of the lowest paid worker to 8.33 an hour also. That way higher profits in a company translates to higher pay for the rest of the company, not just the CEO.

And this is still retarded. If my business requires a workforce of entirely highly skilled people, that make no less than $40/hr, are you still going to cap me at $300/hr because i also have one janitor that i pay $10/hr? Furthermore, even if you didn't, why the fuck do i deserve to take more money for myself than a business that makes equal profits, but doesn't have the need to hire anyone that deserves more than $15/hr?

[Byrthnoth]

So...what's the problem? If they can find people to work cheaper, why shouldn't they? They are obviously paying more than the fair price for the labor they are getting.

A nation's greatest resource is its people. If you subjugate and don't properly nourish a large fraction of the population, you are failing to develop your greatest resource. Maybe there is a kid right now in Appalachia who could be the next "great mind" if they were getting better food, education, and access to ideas/internet/books/whatever. Intentionally taking steps away from providing the necessary services to develop our human resources is just shooting ourselves in the foot. The situation you are describing, and apparently are okay with, leaves a large fraction of society without the services necessary to remain competitive in a 21st century world. On the other hand, if your plan was to shift the intellectual center of the world elsewhere while devastating our economy then I don't know a better way to do it. You know who can learn programming languages and invent the next Google/Facebook/whatever? It's not the kid in Appalachia who doesn't have internet; it's the kid in India or China who does.

"Boo hoo if you have enough money to post in this thread then you are paid enough." Bullshit! Someone without enough money to maintain an internet connection is living at the very bottom of society, their routes to self-betterment have been cut, and (in the case of many here) they are in social semi-isolation. The standard of living that is deemed socially acceptable has risen and that's a good thing. Stop being so motherfucking retarded about it.

[hey]

A nation's greatest resource is its people. If you subjugate and don't properly nourish a large fraction of the population, you are failing to develop your greatest resource. Maybe there is a kid right now in Appalachia who could be the next "great mind" if they were getting better food, education, and access to ideas/internet/books/whatever. Intentionally taking steps away from providing the necessary services to develop our human resources is just shooting ourselves in the foot. The situation you are describing, and apparently are okay with, leaves a large fraction of society without the services necessary to remain competitive in a 21st century world. On the other hand, if your plan was to shift the intellectual center of the world elsewhere while devastating our economy then I don't know a better way to do it. You know who can learn programming languages and invent the next Google/Facebook/whatever? It's not the kid in Appalachia who doesn't have internet; it's the kid in India or China who does.

Ah, but fortunately internet access is quite cheap, and easily pays for itself multiple times over, so actually that kid has access to it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his neighboor who's parents are unemployed, and are surviving entirely on food stamps, and soup kitchens.

I am baffled that you would make this argument, and just not give a shit at all about unemployment.

[Helm]

Trolling? I can't really tell the difference here.

[Rhinox]

If you can afford a PC and an internet connection to make this thread, your wage is more than enough.

The dumbest thing that has been said in this thread.

[Coren]

The dumbest thing that has been said in this thread.

Obviously free access at libraries and other locations don't exist.

The concept of the government providing everybody a minimum living wage is interesting. Would you then have everybody making up to that amount pay 100% in taxes to offset it? As I mentioned in another post, the USA as a whole has plenty of money to pay everybody to not live in a box on the street. We grow enough crops to feed the entire world.

How do you decide what that living wage is?

You could probably pay for it just by nationalizing healthcare and using the trillions in savings annually for the living wage.

[falloutboy14]

I doubt it'll ever happen, but I think the best method would be returning to some of the tax rates of the 50's-70's. For example, Mitt Romeny's dad payed an average of 37% on his taxes, with a high of 47%. If you have significantly higher tax rates at the top, it will provide at least some discouragement for CEOs etc from giving themselves massive bonuses/etc. If every dollar you pay yourself, you have to give $.65 to the government, perhaps companies will choose to invest more in their company instead of executives.

[test123]

I personally prefer the standard of living that people had in the early industrialization period of the US before minimum wage and all this damned regulation, back when the workplace was safe and wages were fair.

I always get amused by this argument. The big shift in society as a result of the industrialization period has caused problems across the board no matter who was in power. People are inherently conservative, it takes generations to adapt to modern thinking. Even today if a company go from one IT system to another employees will whine and moan, sometimes even quit their job.

Big changes in society comes with problems which in turn demand new laws and regulations to ease the transition. But here is the kicker, what would happen if nothing is done and let the big change do its thing. Probably more good in the long run. An analogy would be the patriot act, at first people thought it was a good idea, but in the long run its probably better doing away with it.

You can get rid of unsafe workplaces and low wages by doing nothing! Because the labor market will be attracted to safer work places and higher wages. The market creates good things. Another example is that pollution is easily tackled with property laws and lawsuits, instead of granting some companies rights to pollute.

[Draylo]

Won't happen unless its completely necessary for them to turn a profit, they like having to pay shit to keep their slaves. I really feel sorry for the people that are older and still work these min wage jobs, it must suck and be very demoralizing.

[Ashmada]

good, lets get rid of the asshole and find someone willing to work for what would still be an obscene amount of money. And don't tell me we're losing "irreplacable talent" either. I have yet to see a CEO that had the half a brain required to implement practical policy in their workplace. I'd much rather have some of those lowest paid workers move up to the CEO position, where their experience as the bottom of the company can be put to good use making policies that make sense and aren't a big waste of money and irritation to customers/workers.

Yeah, I didn't mean the CEO leaving, I meant that if corporate tax isn't ludicrously favourable, the huge multinational is going to delocalise. That's what I meant by "leaving", guess it wasn't clear.
And they can play the whole world at that game, which is why pretty much everywhere corporate tax favours the big multinationals over small local businesses and on an individual level, the rich pay less tax (%, obviously, not absolute numbers) than the middle class & working class.

But since you bring it up: "being completely amoral" is a talent: not everyone could. But it's hardly irreplecable and not at all desirable.

So...what's the problem? If they can find people to work cheaper, why shouldn't they? They are obviously paying more than the fair price for the labor they are getting.

You don't see a problem in a whole area being forced to accept below-poverty level wages because that's all they're being offered?
Hell, you provided your own counter-argument: people will always accept lower wages because "it's better than nothing". That's why there has to be a minimum.

[hey]

Hell, you provided your own counter-argument: people will always accept lower wages because "it's better than nothing". That's why there has to be a minimum.

Fuck you, that's not what i said.

People are willing to accept incredibly low wages right now because they simply don't have a choice. $7.25/hr is better than being jobless, and turning down a job in this economy can be very dangerous, since you never know when the next will come around. The supply of labor far exceeds the demand, so prices have dropped. When that is no longer the case, prices will rise.

[Sepukku]

If you can afford a PC and an internet connection to make this thread, your wage is more than enough.

If $20,000 is a "more than enough" wage, why are business fat cats so set on not paying higher taxes?? Clearly they could still scrape by with Walmart sales on their post-taxes income that is only 300x a "more than enough" wage instead of their previous 400x "more than enough" wage.

[Ashmada]

Fuck you, that's not what i said.

No, it's what I said. If you provide employers with a way to pay less, they will and people will have no choice but to accept because, as you said, "it's better than being jobless".

And this is still retarded. If my business requires a workforce of entirely highly skilled people, that make no less than $40/hr, are you still going to cap me at $300/hr because i also have one janitor that i pay $10/hr? Furthermore, even if you didn't, why the fuck do i deserve to take more money for myself than a business that makes equal profits, but doesn't have the need to hire anyone that deserves more than $15/hr?

R'lyeh forbid you earn only 3000% of what your janitor is earning!
We're talking about a human being, here. And one that does a hard job, too.
3000% is incredibly generous, even. Seriously 30 times! It'd take him 3 decades to make what you'd make in a month!
I'm all for knowledge being rewarded, but keeping the gap between the unskilled and the skilled reasonable isn't a bad idea.