Minimum Wage

[Pupik]

If you are content to work as an unskilled laborer for your entire life, have no plan to ever move on or better yourself or expect to be able to support a family on an unskilled labor job, you don't deserve to make as much as the guy who either learned a skill, trade, or discipline to have a competitive edge in the job market.

Competition is all that makes the job market fair. It's the only reason anyone strives for anything better.

Minimum wage jobs pay squat. That's why you're supposed to strive for better. In this way society improves itself through individuals working fo their own advantage.

Exactly my thoughts on the above...although I'm rather 75% for the abolition of a minimum wage and 25% for it.

I make commision on what I sell. I get paid because I'm motivated to do so. It's not as bad I thought it would be, because it keeps me moving. Minimum wage doesn't offer motivation to work any harder than the next guy, making it a type of welfare. Why not make jobs pay on the amount of quality production that each individual can do? If a kid can properly bag and manufacture more burgers than the other kid, he should be paid more. But instead, you have a system whereby for every one kid works his tail off for $5.15/hr, and three others are constantly in the back having a smoke, yet earning the same amount, while producing half as much.

Why make $2/hr digging ditches when the government will pay me welfare/unemployment not to work? This is a big reason I'm against welfare. Everyone can do something. You can always try to find and train yourself for a better job, whether it's something you enjoy more than another job, or a job that pays you better.

There's lots and lots of service-related "McJobs" in major metropolitan/suburban areas. Those types of jobs can't be sent overseas nor cheaply, easily, and satisfactorily replaced by automation. However, the bottom falls out on skill-based work because the "competitive wages" (read: we stay competitve by paying you less) represent an increasing amount of all the jobs available.

We say a CEO makes all that money because he provides work for hundreds or thousands of people who wouldn't normally have a job. And an athlete makes the money he makes because he entertains thousands of people. But what about the teacher who likely makes a better kid, which in turn, makes a better adult, and thus has the potential to make a better society? (I suppose it all has to do with what we value...)

Well, enough of my rambling.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

lol @ McJobs...nice

 

[Danoff]

A few statistics

"Nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage employees who continue employment are earning more than the minimum wage within a year. More than 97% of all employees in the United Statesmove beyond the minimum wage by age 30."

"The key to increasing one's income is not raising the minimum wage, but remaining employed. This is one reason why the minimum wage can actually be devastating to the working poor. The minimum wage tends to hurt the lowest skilled workers by making them less employable."

"Data from the 1995 Current Population Survey reveals that of all workers who earned the minimum wage immediately preceding President Clinton's 1996 increase, 37.6% were teenagers living with their parents, 17.1% were single adults living alone, 21.5% were adults who were married to a spouse who also worked. Only 5.5% of all minimum wage workers were single parents, and only 7.8% were married and the sole wage earner for their household, which may or may not have included children"

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1603

Only 5.5% of people earning minimum wage are single parents. 97% of all employees in the US move beyond minimum wage by age 30. Nearly 75% of people earning minimum wage earn more within a year. Those are pretty important numbers - and let's not forget about the welfare most of these people are already getting. I'd like to point out that as people move off of minimum wage, employers are VOLUNTARILY paying them more - no governemnt regulations necessary (amazing isn't it).

Minimum wage will only decrease employment rates. By raising it you're causing people to have a harder time getting their foot in the door - which, according to the statistics, is what it takes to become more successful.

 

[Arwin]

The biggest crap on earth is the argument that a minimum wage costs jobs. What you guys stare yourself blind at is the fact we've had a period in our past of great economic prosperity. Only now that many jobs are lost (and in the US minimum wage has little to do with that) is it really going to hurt, because there will be a surplus in workers and too few companies to use them.

The way you guys argue is that any job at any price is better than nothing. In a country that still hands out food stamps, I suppose that makes more sense than over here, but ok. All in all though, one thing that is really clear is that you guys have no sense of history. As if minimum wage was some crazy idea put into place on a whim. I find that funny. You don't even try to figure out why they exist, instead you just assume you're better off without them. Same on the whole welfare deal. Just about every EU country ranks higher than the US when it comes to poverty levels, welfare and so on, and in those countries that have a higher unemployment rate the unemployed are still far better off than many who earn 'some' money in the U.S. To each his own. In the mean time, you don't have to look very far in history to learn why minimum wage could be introduced and what effects this has on employment levels:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/nmw/LPCsubmissions2003.pdf

 

[milefile]

So if welfare cases in Europe are so well off what motivation do they have to work for anything? It seems that in America you have higher highs and lower lows, more risk and bigger reward. In Europe you have govrernment enforced mediocrity all around. In America we tell our lazy-asses to work or suffer. Good for us. That's why we excel.

 

[Danoff]

The biggest crap on earth is the argument that a minimum wage costs jobs.

Well it certainly isn't going to encourage jobs. In fact, if you assume that companies are making all of the money that they can, if their low paid jobs have to be paid more, they'll simply cut a different job.

Companies work with the money they have to employ people with. If you tell them they have to spend more on their people, they're not going to throw more money at it (in most cases they can't) they're going to cut people so that the money stays even. I don't see why that's hard to understand.

The way you guys argue is that any job at any price is better than nothing.

Not true. If I were to lose my job today (for posting on GTPlanet for example) I would not go get a "McJob". I would rather be unemployed (at least for a while) than work there. That's my personal choice.

You don't even try to figure out why they exist, instead you just assume you're better off without them.

I know why it exists. It exists because people think they can force the market to do what they want. It doesn't work because in the end consumers will not be forced.

Just about every EU country ranks higher than the US when it comes to poverty levels, welfare and so on, and in those countries that have a higher unemployment rate the unemployed are still far better off than many who earn 'some' money in the U.S. To each his own. In the mean time, you don't have to look very far in history to learn why minimum wage could be introduced and what effects this has on employment levels:

The US could do that it but its not right or good.

You don't seem to want to comment on my statistics Arwin.

 

[Arwin]

So if welfare cases in Europe are so well off what motivation do they have to work for anything?

There's a difference between being better off in Africa, the U.S., or Europe. That the welfare cases are better off doesn't mean they have nothing to motivate them. That's another of those stupid exaggerations. Of course it is something that requires attention, make sure that the balance between welfare and work is such that you're better off working.

It seems that in America you have higher highs and lower lows, more risk and bigger reward.

Only good for casino's and art.

In Europe you have govrernment enforced mediocrity all around. In America we tell our lazy-asses to work or suffer. Good for us. That's why we excel.

Or fall behind. Government enforced mediocrity. That's a good one. I wonder what you base your opinion of Europe on, apart from reality, that is. No wonder Europeans have a prejudice that Americans are completley uninformed on anything outside their own borders.

 

[Arwin]

I know why it exists. It exists because people think they can force the market to do what they want. It doesn't work because in the end consumers will not be forced.

Sorry, but that answer is incorrect.

The US could do that it but its not right or good.

Well with your principles on right or good I will soon give up arguing.

You don't seem to want to comment on my statistics Arwin.

I did with a long report on the reinstatement of the legal minimum wage in the UK as of 1 january 1999. You missed it?

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, but that answer is incorrect.

If you say so.

I did with a long report on the reinstatement of the legal minimum wage in the UK as of 1 january 1999. You missed it?

I see it. Is it true that the UK unemployment rate is 25%? That's what it looks like. It also looks like since the introduction of a minimum wage the employment of people aged 17-21 has fallen in a major way. The person that wrote that report seems to ignore that saying something to the effect of "there's no evidence that links that fall in employment to the minimum wage." And something like "we need to do more research on this." He or she says over and over "minimum wage has not had an effect on employment rates". But they cite all the wrong numbers to support that. They cite numbers for total number of people in the workforce going up - which doesn't take into account population changes.

I did not see the kind of evidence I would like to see that supports the claim. I think that in the UK it's pretty tough to fire someone so I wouldn't necessarily expect numbers of low paying jobs to decrease... here's what I want to see.

I want to see the total number of new jobs (and as a percent of all jobs) created before the minimum wage that were at a level below the minimum against the number of jobs created at the minimum wage after it was introduced and see that that percentage didn't decrease.

It doesn't take much to throw numbers out the window and I don't think any of these those charts really stand up to scrutiny when set against the claim that the minimum wage had no adverse effect.




Edit: You know you're reading a balanced view when you read this:

"The Government introduced the National Minimum Wage to end
exploitation through low wages and as part of its policies to make work pay. It
would be wrong to allow 16 and 17 year olds in employment, the youngest
workers, to be exploited through low wages."

...nice


Edit #2: I also love how average earnings growth is headed downward and there is no concern.


Edit #3: I'm glad I looked at that report. It makes me feel better about the excel charts I make for work since mine look a hell of a lot better than those.

 

[Famine]

Is it true that the UK unemployment rate is 25%?

No.

 

[Danoff]

The report disagrees with itself.

In chart 6 it shows an amazingly high 25.5% unemployment rate in 2002 down from 27% in 1997 - that's for working age people.

In table 1 it reports a still quite high 22.3% unemployment rate in '02 among the working age.

Am I missing something? Famine, Arwin how can this be? The report says its for the UK. I'd expect it to be for India or Russia with numbers that bad. Seriously I must be missing something.


Edit: I'm still reading throug this thing. I thought it was funny when it said

"The slowdown is most likely linked to demand is unlikely to be a reaction to previous increases in the minimum wage."

It gives no evidence for this and does not indicate whether the reduced demand (if there is a reduced demand) is linked to raised prices that are the result of an increase in minimum wage.


Edit #2: I liked this part too.

"With the wages of the section of the pay distribution covered by the
minimum wage increasing well above the rate of earnings growth, it would not
be surprising if jobs that were paying just above the minimum wage level were
also needing to pay their workers more. Nevertheless, the key test of the
minimum wage policy is whether there has been any negative impact on
employment. So far, there has been no evidence of any impact on the
aggregate level of employment."

They logically reason why the minimum wage is going to hurt employers and then point to a conclusion they reached earlier without presenting any convincing evidence as a reason why their logic must somehow be flawed - in some way - that they can't figure out. But hey, earlier they made a statement tjey didn't back up, and that must be true cause we said it was.


Edit #3:

This site http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12 shows the employment rate and the unemployment rate with a 20 percent disparity between the two (which explains why I was confused). There is an "inactivity rate" of about 20 percent. What is that? What is the inactivity rate?


Edit #4

AHA! The inactivity rate is the number of people not looking for work!! So who would that be? That would be people going to school, people who have retired during what would otherwise be considered the working age, aaaaaaand people who were happy getting government handouts. I wonder what the inactivity rate in the US is...

Edit: #5

I couldn't find it. They kept quoting numbers for people 16 years and older, not 16-60 like the UK statistics. I found one website that put us between 10 and 20% but it didn't say where in that range and it was old data that had an altogether different age range. I'm not finding comparison statistics.

 

[Arwin]

reasons for min. wage
The report's sole goal is to keep track on the effects of the minimum wage on employment rates. It's main concern is the same as yours, i.e. that minimum wage would affect employment rates adversely. You see, the reason for instating a minimum wage was to protect employees from being exploited, something you of course think isn't possible or if it is, it's someone's own fault. In the meantime, I suspect that either you didn't notice in the report that 2/3rds of those affected by minimum wage limits are women (or it simply didn't interest you?).

inactivity rates
Not everyone who can work does in fact want or need to work. A simple example is a traditional family in which one parent works and the other stays home. The definition of unemployment is that someone wants to work and can claim welfare. Someone who is in a partnership/marriage with someone who makes enough money for the both of them will, for instance, not receive welfare and will generally not be counted as unemployed unless actively seeking work (registered at employment agency). The percentage of those 'happy receiving government handouts' is the 4.7% you were referring to. There is one area where a possible negative influence of minimum wage was possible (a small one and for a very specific area), but no concrete evidence could be found as yet. That's all it said.

The main thing I want you to keep an eye out for here is that the risk of adverse effects will be balanced against the main reasons for introducing the minimum wage. A small hint could be the name of the act that the US minimum wage rules fall under: the Fair Labor Standards Act. (EDIT: see here: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm )

Your point about getting fired for being on GTPlanet too much is one I better take to heart. If I lose this job (and don't get another one) I'd have to sell my house (4 bedrooms, garden) and move to a cheap rental (flat), sell my car, get a cheaper internet connection, and probably end up selling half of my equipment. Of couse come to think of it that's hardly an incentive to work, even though if I want the big handout I'd have to apply for a job 3 times a week and basically accept any old job I qualify for.

 

[Danoff]

The report's sole goal is to keep track on the effects of the minimum wage on employment rates. It's main concern is the same as yours, i.e. that minimum wage would affect employment rates adversely.

And the report throws its hands up in conclusion that there is no adverse effect after two charts that are highly inconclusive. Surely you see that this report is weak... I know you want to believe that forcing employers to pay more for their employees will be good for poor people, but surely you see that this report doesn't have the evidence you're looking for.

Of couse come to think of it that's hardly an incentive to work, even though if I want the big handout I'd have to apply for a job 3 times a week and basically accept any old job I qualify for.

Did you see where I was talking about a general reduction in incentive to work? How the only government type where no incentive exists is communism? Did you see where I was talking about how private charity can and does help people who are temporarily out of work? That the only help government provides is to skim forced charity money before it goes to those it sees fit?

Haven't they made it illegal to fire anyone over there anyway? You don't have to work hard at your job because your employer would probably be tortured to death if he/she thought about firing you.

In the meantime, I suspect that either you didn't notice in the report that 2/3rds of those affected by minimum wage limits are women (or it simply didn't interest you?).

It doesn't mean much, it probably isn't the employers' fault, it's probably not due to sexism in hiring practices, it's not something the government needs to worry about, and no, it doesn't really interest me.

You politically correct socialist types are very quick to try to make it seem as though employers are racist while totally ignoring the facts. You point to a few hollow statistics and say "see, employers are sexist". That statistic ignores why 2/3rds of the people in the UK earning minimum wage are women. It ignores things like education, pregnancy and culture.

 

[Famine]

Just for reference, the number of unemployed amongst those in an employable situation (so not including under-16s, over-65s or those receiving disbility living allowance, even though it's perfectly possible to be quite severely disabled and still perform A job) is just over 1 million. The highest I've ever seen was 3 million. The population of the UK is 62 million, with roughly 40 million people of employment age.

 

[Danoff]

Just for reference, the number of unemployed amongst those in an employable situation (so not including under-16s, over-65s or those receiving disbility living allowance, even though it's perfectly possible to be quite severely disabled and still perform A job) is just over 1 million. The highest I've ever seen was 3 million. The population of the UK is 62 million, with roughly 40 million people of employment age.

The numbers for economic inactivity for the UK were 20% of the potential work force (people 16-65). If 16-65 includes 40 million, that's 8 million.

 

[Arwin]

The numbers for economic inactivity for the UK were 20% of the potential work force (people 16-65). If 16-65 includes 40 million, that's 8 million.

Apart from alarm bells that should rinkle whenever you find yourself discussing numbers with Famine (he could be wrong but nevertheless better recheck), I explained to you only a few posts ago what economic inactivity means. But I guess you're on full campaign mode now.

Many US diplomats here in Europe ask us to look away from America during the last months before election day and forget everything we hear. Wonder where that comes from ...

 

[Danoff]

Apart from alarm bells that should rinkle whenever you find yourself discussing numbers with Famine (he could be wrong but nevertheless better recheck), I explained to you only a few posts ago what economic inactivity means.

I think Famine and I are talking about different statistics. And I explained a post before that that I figured out what economic inactivity means.

Many US diplomats here in Europe ask us to look away from America during the last months before election day and forget everything we hear. Wonder where that comes from ...

I don't understand this.

 

[Danoff]

bump
(see the libertarian party thread for the reason)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I didn't bother to read through the thread, but I'm still going to post here anyway based on the conversation in the Libertarian thread.

First of all, minimum wage used to based on inflation. As the cost of living rises, if people are not paid more, their standard of living will continue to decrease -- widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

It is my belief that minimum wage laws benefit employers by increasing productivity which increase the overall efficiency of the of the corporation. This, in turn, will lead to LOWER overall costs of production despite higher wage rates. In this case, the benefits outweigh the costs. Raising minimum wage could cause some problems, but ELIMINATING minimum wage laws would be 10x worse.

 

[Sage]

It is my belief that minimum wage laws benefit employers by increasing productivity…

How?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

How?

Put simply, people will be more inclined to work harder if their salaries are increased. How many times have you heard someone say "I don't get paid enough to this..." etc. If they were paid enough, they would be inspired to do their job and to the best of their abilities. Therefore, increased productivity. That is what a corporation needs to make their income statements attractive to shareholders.

 

[Danoff]

Put simply, people will be more inclined to work harder if their salaries are increased. How many times have you heard someone say "I don't get paid enough to this..." etc. If they were paid enough, they would be inspired to do their job and to the best of their abilities. Therefore, increased productivity. That is what a corporation needs to make their income statements attractive to shareholders.

Nonsense. People work harder to get their salaries increased, not the other way around. Yes sometimes they're willing to put up with more crap if they feel that they're compensated well, but that doesn't mean that a janitor works harder becaues he makes 5 bucks an hour instead of 3.

Minimum wage is not an issue for the vast majority of Americans because the free market takes care of making sure that most of our wages are well above the minimum. Few people are on minimum wage for very long - because they get raises above the minimum (again free market). All minimum wage does is limit the number of low paying jobs so that it's harder for people with few skills to gets started and get raises.

Minimum wage creates poverty and hurts the poor.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Nonsense. People work harder to get their salaries increased, not the other way around. Yes sometimes they're willing to put up with more crap if they feel that they're compensated well, but that doesn't mean that a janitor works harder becaues he makes 5 bucks an hour instead of 3.

Minimum wage is not an issue for the vast majority of Americans because the free market takes care of making sure that most of our wages are well above the minimum. Few people are on minimum wage for very long - because they get raises above the minimum (again free market). All minimum wage does is limit the number of low paying jobs so that it's harder for people with few skills to gets started and get raises.

Minimum wage creates poverty and hurts the poor.

What did market forces do BEFORE minimum wage laws were in effect? There is NO evidence that would suggest ELIMINATING minimum wage will allow the "free market" to take care of making sure most wages are well above the minimum. Price floors are created for a reason. Where the market fails, the government steps in to create equity.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that companies in industries with unusally high labor costs as a percentage of their variable costs have a STRONG incentive to cut wages. Cut costs = greater profits. Greater profits = greater shareholder equity.

 

[ledhed]

I see no harm in the minimum wage . As a former business owner I saw it at worse as a starting point to furmulate cost , in effect just another cost of doing business . If you go by past history the minimum wage was a godsend to countless people in the US . Today it a guarantee to a poor person of something at least aproaching an almost living wage . You need something a little more substantial than a philosphy to justify doing away with it. Some historical proof that removing it would be better would be a start . In fact name one business that would benifit by not having a minimum wage and why .

 

[Danoff]

I see no harm in the minimum wage . As a former business owner I saw it at worse as a starting point to furmulate cost , in effect just another cost of doing business . If you go by past history the minimum wage was a godsend to countless people in the US . Today it a guarantee to a poor person of something at least aproaching an almost living wage . You need something a little more substantial than a philosphy to justify doing away with it. Some historical proof that removing it would be better would be a start . In fact name one business that would benifit by not having a minimum wage and why .

No I don't. I don't need to prove that it would be better for society, only that it is just that minimum wage not exist.... and just because you saw it as a constant doesn't mean that its right - just because you got used to it doesn't mean its the right or best thing to do.

But I can give you an example of who would benefit from not having a minimum wage. Poor people.

What did market forces do BEFORE minimum wage laws were in effect? There is NO evidence that would suggest ELIMINATING minimum wage will allow the "free market" to take care of making sure most wages are well above the minimum. Price floors are created for a reason. Where the market fails, the government steps in to create equity.

Where the market fails to creat inequity you want the government to create it. The market is ALWAYS equitable. Your issue with it is that it pays people what they actually earn.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that companies in industries with unusally high labor costs as a percentage of their variable costs have a STRONG incentive to cut wages. Cut costs = greater profits. Greater profits = greater shareholder equity.

...right. That's why you and I don't make minimum wage right?


Here's the thing. Getting rid of minimum wage would reduce the wages of those who currently make minimum wage - but (as ledhed was describing) it would CREATE jobs - so some people who are unemployed would have jobs. If minimum wage didn't exist there would be lots of new extremely low paying jobs - more opportunity for someone to break into the workplace and get raises/promotions for good work.

In short, getting rid of minimum wage would allow an equitable distribution at the low end such that more people could find jobs.

Example, a high schooler wants a job - he doesn't care whether he makes 5 bucks/hr or 3, he just wants to find a job, pad the resume, and make a little extra spending money. Under the current system he can't necessarily find a job because the government won't allow him to offer to work for less than 5 bucks/hr and companies aren't willling to hire another person for that amount - so he goes without working at all.

That restricts his freedom to work for less and effectively leaves him without work at all.

I full understand not everyone is in that situation, but it is an example of how minimum wage can do wrong.

 

[Sage]

^^^ 👍, because I am in that situation. Businesses in this area simply won't let anybody under 18 work, because they don't want to pay 16 year-olds $7.50 an hour (or whatever CA's min. wage is). They know that most kids under 18 will be lousy workers and will want fussy hours (school + sports). So they simply don't hire anyone in that age range.

Thing is, I don't particularly care for $7.50 an hour… I'd be content with $4 or so (just so I can buy myself a nice item once in a while). I'm sure employers would be more content to put up with sub-par workers and odd hours if they only had to pay $4 an hour. But since minimum wage is in place, I get $0 an hour.

Let me say that again: since minimum wage is in place, I get $0 an hour, instead of $4/hour.

 

[PS]

Do you live at home, Sage?

I don't really find Canada (Ontario, anyway) in that predicament. Our minimum wage is $6.50 or something, and places are hiring teens all over, so it's probably a good thing here that we have minimum wage. Hopefully, however, I will never have to work in a fast food or service industry where I may be paid that, I currently have a $10/hr job lined up for the summer and an $11.50/hr job I want to apply to soon.

 

[Sage]

Do you live at home, Sage?

I'm under 18, so, duh?

It's totally the case here though – very few juniors (and virtually no sophomores) have jobs, unless they have "connections" (they know the manager, that kind of thing). If you live in this valley and you don't have any strings to pull, you're basically guaranteed to be jobless until you're 18.

 

[smellysocks12]

^^^ 👍, because I am in that situation. Businesses in this area simply won't let anybody under 18 work, because they don't want to pay 16 year-olds $7.50 an hour (or whatever CA's min. wage is). They know that most kids under 18 will be lousy workers and will want fussy hours (school + sports). So they simply don't hire anyone in that age range.

Thing is, I don't particularly care for $7.50 an hour… I'd be content with $4 or so (just so I can buy myself a nice item once in a while). I'm sure employers would be more content to put up with sub-par workers and odd hours if they only had to pay $4 an hour. But since minimum wage is in place, I get $0 an hour.

Let me say that again: since minimum wage is in place, I get $0 an hour, instead of $4/hour.

Your example pretty much makes it clear why there should be a minimum wage. Some people are dependent of their income, they are trying to make a living. This means lower educated or uneducated people will end up being replaced by 16 year olds who just need some extra pocket money, since they ARE willing to work for $4 an hour. Someone who has to pay rent, food etcetera of his wage, will not have enough money if he earns $4 an hour. This way they will resort to crime, or live on food stamps paid by the government, since if there isn't a huge difference between working and unemployment they won't be motivated to go to work.

Without a minimum wage and other people being willing to work for $3, you wouldn't be able to find a job either when you aren't willing to work for less than $4.


It's easy to say that there shouldn't be a minimum wage when you have had a good education. You will be able to make more than that no matter what and you are probably the one paying the lower educated people's wages. Not everyone, especially in the USA, has had this opportunity to grow into the position of a manager.


Oh well, I guess most replies here come from the American way of thinking, raking in as much money as possible for yourself and not giving a **** about the situation of other people. Everything must be cheap, no matter who is suffering. Total capitalism without any influence from the government DOES increase inequality and hence also the poverty. The rich get richer, since they can invest in more projects, the poor have no other option besides having 3 different jobs and working 80 hours a day. They don't have the time or money to educate themselves or their children. If everyone would be rich, nobody would like to work and make the food for / clean the toilets of rich people... so the rich would do everything they can to keep inequality present, not giving everyone a fair opportunity to make it in life.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Your example pretty much makes it clear why there should be a minimum wage. Some people are dependent of their income, they are trying to make a living. This means lower educated or uneducated people will end up being replaced by 16 year olds who just need some extra pocket money, since they ARE willing to work for $4 an hour. Someone who has to pay rent, food etcetera of his wage, will not have enough money if he earns $4 an hour. This way they will resort to crime, or live on food stamps paid by the government, since if there isn't a huge difference between working and unemployment they won't be motivated to go to work.

That's the point. You don't have to provide for anyone, Sage -- you're only looking for a few extra dollars for yourself. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that but in all honestly, an adult with bills to pay SHOULD have priority over teens when it comes to the job market. When minimum wage is raised, it affects teens mostly -- corporations know how to [and will] adjust.

Without a minimum wage and other people being willing to work for $3, you wouldn't be able to find a job either when you aren't willing to work for less than $4.

Excellent point.

It's easy to say that there shouldn't be a minimum wage when you have had a good education. You will be able to make more than that no matter what and you are probably the one paying the lower educated people's wages. Not everyone, especially in the USA, has had this opportunity to grow into the position of a manager.

Eliminating minimum wage is a self-serving proposition. Either it stays the same or it gets increased to make up for inflation.

What makes you think eliminating a price floor (not to be confused with price ceilings as in gas prices in the 1970s) altogether is not going to have a negative impact on our economy? If you WERE serious, you would suggest something like DECREASING minimum wage over time, not eliminating altogether. Neither of those are going to happen anyway so...

Oh well, I guess most replies here come from the American way of thinking,

DID YOU READ ANY OF MY POSTS?! I AM A PROPONENT OF LEAVING/RAISING MINIMUM WAGE!

raking in as much money as possible for yourself and not giving a **** about the situation of other people.

That's not being fair. Not all Americans are like that -- I proved that in my posts.

Everything must be cheap, no matter who is suffering. Total capitalism without any influence from the government DOES increase inequality and hence also the poverty. The rich get richer, since they can invest in more projects, the poor have no other option besides having 3 different jobs and working 80 hours a day. They don't have the time or money to educate themselves or their children. If everyone would be rich, nobody would like to work and make the food for / clean the toilets of rich people... so the rich would do everything they can to keep inequality present, not giving everyone a fair opportunity to make it in life.

I am cognizant of that fact. Which is something I have been trying to tell everyone. Dan seems to think the market creates equity -- it DOES NOT.