Minimum Wage
- Thread starter Danoff
- 242 comments
- 9,716 views
- 3,194
I like it,. but dont think it should have loop-holes,... like with being a waiter/ess.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
Hang on a sec.
Capitalism works it out on its own. If people can't get by on the amount of money that companies are paying them, then they won't work for those companies.
You're part of the system. Companies are fighting for your labor. They have to compete too, just like people trying to sell you something.
Here's the thing. What minimum wage does do is it prevents small buisnessmen (I happen to be related to one) from offering a low paying job to a highschooler so they he/she could get some extra change by doing some odd job. If you decide you want to go around the system and offer this below minimum wage job you have to worry about getting sued and going to jail and so forth.
There is no reason for a minimum wage at all... because companies need employees. Just ask yourselves why any job ever has a salary higher than minimum wage.
Capitalism works it out on its own. If people can't get by on the amount of money that companies are paying them, then they won't work for those companies.
You're part of the system. Companies are fighting for your labor. They have to compete too, just like people trying to sell you something.
Here's the thing. What minimum wage does do is it prevents small buisnessmen (I happen to be related to one) from offering a low paying job to a highschooler so they he/she could get some extra change by doing some odd job. If you decide you want to go around the system and offer this below minimum wage job you have to worry about getting sued and going to jail and so forth.
There is no reason for a minimum wage at all... because companies need employees. Just ask yourselves why any job ever has a salary higher than minimum wage.
- 10,832
A specialized skill. Education. Experience.
There are problems with jobs that require no specialized skills or training, no education, and no prior experience.
There is a thing called "working poor." I use the term because I knew exactly who was being referred to when I heard it: People who work full time or more, and yet still struggle to live modestly. There is no reason a capitalist system needs to propagate poverty.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
It doesn't propogate poverty. Capitalism is the system that creates wealth where none exists. It may distribute that wealth unevenly (note that I didn't say unfairly), but it cannot make people poorer.
Labor is a commodity like any other. If it is a person's only skill, then they have to play that hand as it lies. When they can improve that hand through increased skill or increased production, they become more valuable.
Another way laborers can improve their value is by voluntary unionization, which I support. Note that this is separated entirely from unionization as it is currently practiced in America, where it has a large compulsory aspect.
Unfortunately, life doesn't guarantee anyone anything. Nor should it.
Labor is a commodity like any other. If it is a person's only skill, then they have to play that hand as it lies. When they can improve that hand through increased skill or increased production, they become more valuable.
Another way laborers can improve their value is by voluntary unionization, which I support. Note that this is separated entirely from unionization as it is currently practiced in America, where it has a large compulsory aspect.
Unfortunately, life doesn't guarantee anyone anything. Nor should it.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
and it doesn't.
The answer to the question is: Nobody who can do the job will do the job for less.
Think about it. If someone could do the job adequetly for less money, then that's how much money the job would be worth.
Of course what its worth is relative to the cost of living of the area. That's why job markets in different parts of the country adjust to the cost of living.
Now, if you have a job that's offered for less money than it takes to live, people wouldn't do the job. They'd look for something else. In essense, any job that went below the minimum livable wage would price itself right out of the competition for any kind a decent applicant. No buisness owner would make that decision. Its not in his best interest.
That's the beauty of the capitalist system. It generates a reward-for-effort system while allowing everyone to look out for themselves. Jobs exist because someone wanted to make money, and people work at those jobs because they want to make money also. Everone looking out for themselves while producing.
Buisness owners recognize the fact that they want good employees or they won't make any money. So they're willing to pay for those employees. That's why the majority of jobs out there are above minimum wage (<- I didn't look that up, it just feels true).
The answer to the question is: Nobody who can do the job will do the job for less.
Think about it. If someone could do the job adequetly for less money, then that's how much money the job would be worth.
Of course what its worth is relative to the cost of living of the area. That's why job markets in different parts of the country adjust to the cost of living.
Now, if you have a job that's offered for less money than it takes to live, people wouldn't do the job. They'd look for something else. In essense, any job that went below the minimum livable wage would price itself right out of the competition for any kind a decent applicant. No buisness owner would make that decision. Its not in his best interest.
That's the beauty of the capitalist system. It generates a reward-for-effort system while allowing everyone to look out for themselves. Jobs exist because someone wanted to make money, and people work at those jobs because they want to make money also. Everone looking out for themselves while producing.
Buisness owners recognize the fact that they want good employees or they won't make any money. So they're willing to pay for those employees. That's why the majority of jobs out there are above minimum wage (<- I didn't look that up, it just feels true).
- 8,128
- 2 smacks past uranus
- Somebodyshootme
I don't know where I stand on this issue. Half of me agrees and half of me doesn't.
I agree because I feel everyone needs to make ends-meat to survive. (that goes against my natural selection theory though). Actually It gives them a chance to survive on ends meat. Everyone deserves a chance to succeed in life and those that toss it should get tossed themselves.
I don't agree because I feel there are individuals out there that are not getting paid for the knowledge they have. In my business that I have been a part of for 3 years, "minimum" wage was around 8 dollars an hour and it is slowly decreasing. Now working tech support to have a wealth of knowledge on how to fix things, you should get paid by the skill. Most outsource companies just pay a minimum to increase their profits. The company I am still with does things like makes you log into a phone when the time punch system doesn't work and once it starts has you clock in to later go in and adjust it. They don't fully adjust to the minute. That minute becomes many minutes with the amount of people that work for this company. That many minutes over a year turns into millions of dollars. (class-action lawsuit anyone?).Now, someone specialized comes to work here because he or she is out of the job. They were making say 50g a year. That person has enough experience and knowledge to run a whole tech center out of any business. . . A person picked up off the street that barely speaks english also is picked up too. (trust me this happens) They are both put into this job making the same amount of money. Where is the fairness in that? the dude off the streets can barely speak english let alone turn a computer on.!?!?!?
I feel more for a system where you get what you put in deal.
EDIT - The people off the street and that 50g a year guy are both being paid industry standard minimum wage BTW - sorry guys
I agree because I feel everyone needs to make ends-meat to survive. (that goes against my natural selection theory though). Actually It gives them a chance to survive on ends meat. Everyone deserves a chance to succeed in life and those that toss it should get tossed themselves.
I don't agree because I feel there are individuals out there that are not getting paid for the knowledge they have. In my business that I have been a part of for 3 years, "minimum" wage was around 8 dollars an hour and it is slowly decreasing. Now working tech support to have a wealth of knowledge on how to fix things, you should get paid by the skill. Most outsource companies just pay a minimum to increase their profits. The company I am still with does things like makes you log into a phone when the time punch system doesn't work and once it starts has you clock in to later go in and adjust it. They don't fully adjust to the minute. That minute becomes many minutes with the amount of people that work for this company. That many minutes over a year turns into millions of dollars. (class-action lawsuit anyone?).Now, someone specialized comes to work here because he or she is out of the job. They were making say 50g a year. That person has enough experience and knowledge to run a whole tech center out of any business. . . A person picked up off the street that barely speaks english also is picked up too. (trust me this happens) They are both put into this job making the same amount of money. Where is the fairness in that? the dude off the streets can barely speak english let alone turn a computer on.!?!?!?
I feel more for a system where you get what you put in deal.
EDIT - The people off the street and that 50g a year guy are both being paid industry standard minimum wage BTW - sorry guys
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
If the company you talk about there is really picking people up off the street and paying them 50g/year. They're not going to be in buisness very long.
Our system is one in which you get what you put into it.
I would argue that companies are actually less likely to pay minimum wage if the minimum was zero. They'd have to actually sit down and decide (calculate): "How much is this job worth?"
In your scenario, if one of the people was awesome and the other was terrible - one gets promoted and the other doesn't. Or, one gets fired and the other doesn't. Or company goes under because they forgot to pay attention to who they give their money too (doesn't happen too often because people tend to care about money a great deal).
Our system is one in which you get what you put into it.
I would argue that companies are actually less likely to pay minimum wage if the minimum was zero. They'd have to actually sit down and decide (calculate): "How much is this job worth?"
In your scenario, if one of the people was awesome and the other was terrible - one gets promoted and the other doesn't. Or, one gets fired and the other doesn't. Or company goes under because they forgot to pay attention to who they give their money too (doesn't happen too often because people tend to care about money a great deal).
- 3,425
I am truly on the fence about minimum wage laws. its a fact that there are some who would exploit mother theresa to make a buck and the minimum wage to me on its face seems harmless. I guess I have trouble with the government telling me anything when it comes to business . I am btw a small business owner. The less I see of the government the better.
- 10,832
No. This sounds like some kind of capitalist manifesto. Capitalism has made people poor. Capitalism has been and is still unfair. Think of the Robber Barons. They became obscenely rich wile most of the country lived in squallor. It took government intervention to adjust it.
What you refer to as "uneven" distribution of wealth is also called unfair. It's a matter of interpretation of the same thing. Using both in the same sentence as you did only highlights that fact.
In an advanced society such as ours, a buck or two an hour for menial workers willingly coughed up by corporations who's CEOs make more in a year (not even including bonuses) than the average middle class family will in their entire lives, would go a long way toward making life decent for so many people.
I don't want government to coerce them, on the contrary, I oppose it. Once the floodgates of government patronage are opened there's no logical place to stop, and socialism is just around the corner (as it may already be in America).
I want companies to have a little decency. I want a society where the standard of value of a human being is not merely his labor. We live in a country that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I want the billionare CEO to give the janitors eight bucks an hour instead of $6.50, because their own conscience demanded it. Some companies do this already. Most don't.
And as far as "small businesses..." Spare me. I am so sick of hearing about small businesses. I work for so-called "small business" and my boss lives in a mansion, flys his own plane, and fires $6.50 per hour workers if he finds out they can speak English. He's an evil prick who, rather than buying labor in a market place, exploits people to line his own pockets. It's monsters like him who make problems for the honorable "small business" owner, not the workers.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Very well said, as usual, danoff.
The thing that has occurred to me many times in my life as this:
How can offering someone a job at a low wage be considered exploiting them, when compared to not offering them a job at all? Say minimum wage is abolished and ditch digger's wages fall to $2/hr. That's still $2/hr more than they'd be making if there was no employer to hire them. Conversely, that employer is going to lose out to another employer who's willing to pay $4 an hour to the ditch diggers who can move the most dirt.
And if that doesn't happen, all the best ditch diggers can go on strike or become log splitters, and leave the first employer with no workers who can move enough dirt. That means he's forced to decide between less production at less cost, or paying a premium for higher production. That's a business decision the boss will have to make, but economic history has shown a million times over that volume is the key to success. Consequently he hires back the good ditch diggers at a better wage, and enjoys increased production and the better income it generates.
In no part of this system is anyone required to do anything, be it pay more than a job is worth, or work for less than a job is worth. That's the profound beauty of it.
The thing that has occurred to me many times in my life as this:
How can offering someone a job at a low wage be considered exploiting them, when compared to not offering them a job at all? Say minimum wage is abolished and ditch digger's wages fall to $2/hr. That's still $2/hr more than they'd be making if there was no employer to hire them. Conversely, that employer is going to lose out to another employer who's willing to pay $4 an hour to the ditch diggers who can move the most dirt.
And if that doesn't happen, all the best ditch diggers can go on strike or become log splitters, and leave the first employer with no workers who can move enough dirt. That means he's forced to decide between less production at less cost, or paying a premium for higher production. That's a business decision the boss will have to make, but economic history has shown a million times over that volume is the key to success. Consequently he hires back the good ditch diggers at a better wage, and enjoys increased production and the better income it generates.
In no part of this system is anyone required to do anything, be it pay more than a job is worth, or work for less than a job is worth. That's the profound beauty of it.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
The common mistake that is made is to assume that large companies are similar to the government. That companies can do whatever they want, however, unfairly, and just get away with it. They can be evil and exploit their employees and laugh and laugh as the CEO gets all the money. So of course, the conclusion is that the government needs to step in and control the situation.
This could not be farther from the truth. CEOs of companies have to make sure that the company stays afloat. Why do they have to do this? Because they dont want to be out of a job. So they work hard to make sure that they recruit a strong labor force with (tada) competitive wages.
Thats why most jobs offer wages much higher than minimum wage, which I think is like $5.75/hr right now. Not because they had a conscience and felt bad for the little guy (thats no way to stay afloat and if you dont keep your business going you cant employ anyone . No matter how bad you feel for them).
As Duke said, thats the beauty of capitalism. While companies look out for themselves, everyone benefits.
btw: There are always an infinite number of jobs available. Sometimes you just have to make them yourself.
This could not be farther from the truth. CEOs of companies have to make sure that the company stays afloat. Why do they have to do this? Because they dont want to be out of a job. So they work hard to make sure that they recruit a strong labor force with (tada) competitive wages.
Thats why most jobs offer wages much higher than minimum wage, which I think is like $5.75/hr right now. Not because they had a conscience and felt bad for the little guy (thats no way to stay afloat and if you dont keep your business going you cant employ anyone . No matter how bad you feel for them).
As Duke said, thats the beauty of capitalism. While companies look out for themselves, everyone benefits.
btw: There are always an infinite number of jobs available. Sometimes you just have to make them yourself.
- 10,832
This is not a "common mistake." It is a logical conclusion. Corporations want to be seen as public, as part of the fabric of the free society that allows them to exist, until it is inconvenient for them.
As I've said twice already, I oppose government intervention in business. And I've also said that they can do better for the little guy. They just can. It's blatantly obvious.
Captialism, or any "ism," functions within a framework of values and does not create that framework, but can influence it in ways that appear a priori. When the sole valuative principle is the almighty dollar, life suffers. Compassion is not mutually exclusive of logic (any "ism" is supposedly "logical"). The accelerating stratification of our society benefits no one. We can easily have a society where the filthy rich could be merely "richer-than-everyone-else," the middle class could still turn their nose up at the proletariat, and the bottom rung of society's basic needs could be met... all without government intervention. All we have to do is curb greed, and not only for the rich.
Clinging to a theoretical crutch like it's the word of god is narrow minded. Dividing understanding on this subject into two diametrically oppsed camps is narrow minded, too.
The more we go against our nature the more harm is done.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,992
- Mile High City
The more we go against nature, the more harm is done... Very well said. That is exactly true.
Greed is natural. It has been part of the human existance since we were fighting to rise above the animals. Greed is natural. Capitalism is the only system that acknowledges that humans come with greed and uses that to create a fair system.
You cannot have capitalism without greed, it depends on greed, it is built around greed.
Curbing greed is not only impossible to do (because we're human afterall) it would be the wrong thing to do.
Greed is natural. It has been part of the human existance since we were fighting to rise above the animals. Greed is natural. Capitalism is the only system that acknowledges that humans come with greed and uses that to create a fair system.
You cannot have capitalism without greed, it depends on greed, it is built around greed.
Curbing greed is not only impossible to do (because we're human afterall) it would be the wrong thing to do.
Similar threads
- Poll
