Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

Thread: Minimum wage

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    80

    Minimum wage

    The minimum wage rate’s proportional affect upon a task’s wage scale is inversely related to the difference between the minimum rate’s and the wage scale amounts.

    Although the minimum rate affects ALL labor compensation, it’s of lesser importance to middle income earners and of no significant importance to higher income earners. The minimum rate has the greatest affect upon the working poor segment of our population.

    Due to the changing value of the U.S dollar, congress determines the timing and extent of the minimum wage rate adjustments. The minimum rate is rarely ahead, much more often behind and almost never actually abreast of the dollar’s value.

    If rather than a political determination, the minimum rate would be annually cost of living adjusted in the same manner as social security retirement benefits, it would improve the condition of our working poor and decrease the need for public assistance more than otherwise.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Price floors prevent markets from clearing. This is a universal economic facts.

    As Murray Rothbard wrote

    "It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error. But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "when speaking one's mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure." For if proponents of the higher minimum wage were simply wrongheaded people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour, but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the stratosphere.

    The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected, and where there is no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male workers with union seniority. When we see that the most ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effect of the minimum wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition of the marginal workers as against higher-wage workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent. "

    In other words, if you believe raising minimum wages brings only good, why not demand minimums of $50, $100, $1 million an hour, and raise the living standards of all?
    Last edited by Symbiote; 06-27-2011 at 06:56 AM.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Price floors prevent markets from clearing. This is a universal economic facts.

    As Murray Rothbard wrote

    "It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error. But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "when speaking one's mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure." For if proponents of the higher minimum wage were simply wrongheaded people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour, but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the stratosphere.

    The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected, and where there is no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male workers with union seniority. When we see that the most ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effect of the minimum wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition of the marginal workers as against higher-wage workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent. "

    In other words, if you believe raising minimum wages brings only good,
    Raising minimum wage rates to certain levels has positive and negative effects on various groups. Similiar to how technology effects some groups positivly and other negatively. Nobody said hey let's hold off on those cell phones because rotary phone manufactureres will suffer.

    There is the inital shock of the higher wage and then it gets absorbed and business and people overcome and adapt. The company that pays minimum wage might cut hours or positions and those people might find jobs elsewhere make more money and then go spend it or they won't and he will learn how to run a leaner operation over time making him more profitable or maybe he will just fold because that was the final straw and someone else will try what he did until someone figures out how to make it work.

    The alternative is to keep the wage low and rely on employers and market conditions to raise wages on the most menial of jobs. With increases in the cost of living rising faster (even more so) those people with no skills become trapped. Employment is never 100% so there will always be someone willing to take that job. There is a saying that desperate people do desperate things. I have seen the truth of this watching people make false accident claims, commit crimes and perform poorly in their job as a few examples.

    why not demand minimums of $50, $100, $1 million an hour, and raise the living standards of all?
    Why not drop it to 1.00 or a penny or make the worker pay the employer and everybody can have a job?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    I agree with eliminating the minimum wage, so throwing the reverse of that question back at me is pointless. Obviously I do not agree with "making the workers pay the employer", since this would constitute a price-ceiling or maximum wage, which is just as problematic as a price floor.

    So why are you evading the question? Why not raise the minimum wage to $1 million?

    If you truly believe "There is the inital shock of the higher wage and then it gets absorbed and business and people overcome and adapt. ", why do you not want to help mankind out by raising the minimum wage to $1 million? Are you heartless? Do you just hate workers? Why else would you deprive them from their potentially enormous pay packets?

    Nobody said hey let's hold off on those cell phones because rotary phone manufactureres will suffer. So why are you holding off on a $1 million minimum wage? Are you a luddite?
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    I agree with eliminating the minimum wage, so throwing the reverse of that question back at me is pointless. Obviously I do not agree with "making the workers pay the employer", since this would constitute a price-ceiling or maximum wage, which is just as problematic as a price floor.

    So why are you evading the question? Why not raise the minimum wage to $1 million?
    It isn't pointless. By eliminating the minimum wage what would you hope to accomplish? The creation of more summer jobs for kids? Would business flourish? Maybe McDonalds or other jobs that require a minimum level of skill. You would need to reduce welfare and other social programs to keep the flood of people who make more doing nothing than working. State and government revenue would decline as would overall consumption of goods. Reducing the minimum wage is taking a step backwards in economic evolution. What economy as a whole thrives as worker wage declines? Short term you may at times get positive benefits from low wages in an emerging workforce, but to improve and sustain the overall economic environment wage increases are necessary

    If you truly believe "There is the inital shock of the higher wage and then it gets absorbed and business and people overcome and adapt. ", why do you not want to help mankind out by raising the minimum wage to $1 million? Are you heartless? Do you just hate workers? Why else would you deprive them from their potentially enormous pay packets?

    Nobody said hey let's hold off on those cell phones because rotary phone manufacturers will suffer. So why are you holding off on a $1 million minimum wage? Are you a luddite?
    I think we can both agree that the guy bagging groceries doesn't have a degree of expertise that warrants a million dollars, but history has shown the cost of living has far outpaced the idea that the market will dictate a living wage. If the US had not increased the minimum wage there would be a lot of people making that much even though, at least where I live it would not be possible to maintain a household of one at that rate.

    No I think a higher paid workforce breeds a more skilled workforce just as technology does. 20-30 years ago it was thought that accountants and bookkeepers were going to suffer slower than average growth as an industry and decline in wages and overall opportunity as a result of computerized accounting. The exact opposite happened. But what if there was no incentive to become more efficient because labor was so incredibly cheap?

    People, business and markets adapt to the environment, they don't disappear never to return unless they become obsolete in which case they are replaced by something new.

    So what do you think will happen without a minimum wage? If employers could pay 1/hr what overall long term benefit would come about as a result?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Amazing how you can reply to two posts asking you why you think the minimum wage should not be raised to $1 million and still not answer the question.

    If you honestly believe raising the minimum wage is a good thing, you would agree with raising them all the way and not stop at a few bucks. Or at the very least be able to explain why you had settled on such a low number.

    You have continued to rant about all the amazing benefits that will arise from setting a price floor on labour and still, mysteriously, not deigned to let us know why you are so cruel as to keep it below $1 million. The best thing you have given us is that you don't think a grocery bagger "warrants" a million dollars, and since in your opinion, he does not "warrant" it, you want to hold back the living standards, efficiency, and workforce skills of all mankind. Good reason?
    Last edited by Symbiote; 06-30-2011 at 05:34 PM.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by pappillion001 View Post
    So what do you think will happen without a minimum wage? If employers could pay 1/hr what overall long term benefit would come about as a result?
    Justice.





    ___
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    576
    I think we can both agree that the guy bagging groceries doesn't have a degree of expertise that warrants a million dollars, but history has shown the cost of living has far outpaced the idea that the market will dictate a living wage. If the US had not increased the minimum wage there would be a lot of people making that much even though, at least where I live it would not be possible to maintain a household of one at that rate.
    Who says the guy bagging groceries does so to make a living? Chances are that 16 year old is not living off the 20 hrs per week bagging groceries. Moreover, Once you increase the cost that must be paid for a cashier you make it more affordable to replace that cashier with a robot. Robots do not have living expenses and thus if you pit the worker against the robot efficiecy dictates that you will eventually reach that point where labor is no longer cost effective.

    Is it better to lose a job to a domestic robot or a foreign worker?

    No I think a higher paid workforce breeds a more skilled workforce just as technology does.
    How much more skilled can the cashier get?

    20-30 years ago it was thought that accountants and bookkeepers were going to suffer slower than average growth as an industry and decline in wages and overall opportunity as a result of computerized accounting. The exact opposite happened. But what if there was no incentive to become more efficient because labor was so incredibly cheap?

    You have it exactly opposite. If you could make a living with a MINIMAL skill set what would be the incentive for self improvement or developing unique job skills? The primary criterion for commanding a higher salary is the ability to do perform tasks that others cannot perform at a per/unit cost that the market will allow.

    People, business and markets adapt to the environment, they don't disappear never to return unless they become obsolete in which case they are replaced by something new.
    That something new is cheap foreign labor and robots. I don't have to pay union scale for a robot to tighten bolts.

    So what do you think will happen without a minimum wage? If employers could pay 1/hr what overall long term benefit would come about as a result?
    The people who did not possess skills with greater than $1.00/hr value would find constant employment.
    Mutz (E)

    Your Life Is Not My Fault

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by E Mutz View Post
    Who says the guy bagging groceries does so to make a living? Chances are that 16 year old is not living off the 20 hrs per week bagging groceries. Moreover, Once you increase the cost that must be paid for a cashier you make it more affordable to replace that cashier with a robot. Robots do not have living expenses and thus if you pit the worker against the robot efficiecy dictates that you will eventually reach that point where labor is no longer cost effective.

    Is it better to lose a job to a domestic robot or a foreign worker?
    Yes it is, because the robot produces the same value without the same expense. If half the world's production just now turned into automatic robotic production we would not lose anything, in fact people would have to work half as much. That is why the sci-fi utopias are not naive as some would charge them to be; increase in efficiency which frees up labour and thought for 'higher' pursuits is the constant theme in the history of civilization. The alternative is advocating inefficiency so that mindless laborers can have something to trade. It's insane, and perfectly reliant on the presumption that there is such a common human creature that cannot do anything better than that. If the less interesting jobs were being done without them they would need less wealth to trade and would have the same living doing something more intellectual that no one would trade for before because before their menial labor was worth more than it.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Amazing how you can reply to two posts asking you why you think the minimum wage should not be raised to $1 million and still not answer the question.
    You are to easily amazed. You have managed not to even offer a rant in response to the questions posed to you.

    One answer could be raising the minimum wage to 1m is a ridiculous question. Another could be some jobs just don't merit such compensation, like grocery store baggers, call me cruel. Possibly minimum wage laws are something used to combat poverty and give opportunities for people to raise their standard of living thereby relieving some stress off social services that are funded by, take a guess, it isn't the people on them either. Maybe after all is said and done the benefits outweigh the harm even if by just a little bit which would suggest it might be a better idea than not implementing it.

    Is that enough to work with? Can you guide me to your conclusion with that or do you need more?

    If you honestly believe raising the minimum wage is a good thing, you would agree with raising them all the way and not stop at a few bucks. Or at the very least be able to explain why you had settled on such a low number.
    I would? Why? I believe ice cream is a good thing, but I that doesn't keep me from other foods. Maybe I don't need to go to some absurd degree with an idea simply because I think it a worthwhile concept at a reasonable level.

    Did I settle on a low number? I believe the Fed establishes a wage that 2080 hours would put a family just above the poverty threshold. As good a number as any.

    You have continued to rant about all the amazing benefits that will arise from setting a price floor on labour and still, mysteriously, not deigned to let us know why you are so cruel as to keep it below $1 million. The best thing you have given us is that you don't think a grocery bagger "warrants" a million dollars, and since in your opinion, he does not "warrant" it, you want to hold back the living standards, efficiency, and workforce skills of all mankind. Good reason?
    Did you arrive at this all by yourself? Your ability to break down such complex ideas and follow almost invisible clues to such an insightful conclusion is stunning. I hang my head in shame having now understood that I have condemned mankind to a future of mediocrity.

    So what would happen if there was no minimum? What amount of prosperity awaits us if only the minimum wage were a thing of the past?
    Last edited by pappillion001; 07-02-2011 at 04:07 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by E Mutz View Post
    Who says the guy bagging groceries does so to make a living?
    Because I made him so I get to say why he does what he does. Get your own bagger who does it because he is lonely or likes helping little old ladies.

    Chances are that 16 year old is not living off the 20 hrs per week bagging groceries.
    I see because he may not need it he doesn't get it. So if it is based on need why are so many in need not getting?

    Moreover, Once you increase the cost that must be paid for a cashier you make it more affordable to replace that cashier with a robot.
    You mean like the scanners that are in almost every major grocery store and Home Depot? Why if labor was cheap enough I could have a hand built car. Innovations in production are one of the primary reasons companies remain profitable and is a necessary component to a capitalist market. You know build a better mouse trap.

    Robots do not have living expenses and thus if you pit the worker against the robot efficiecy dictates that you will eventually reach that point where labor is no longer cost effective.
    As I said you now have labor who can make and maintain robots as opposed to a person sliding boxes with bar codes in front of a scanner

    Is it better to lose a job to a domestic robot or a foreign worker?
    Nothing is forever. Typewriter ribbon and floppy disks used to be very lucrative products. Our economy survived their demise and the technology that replaced them created higher paying jobs for better trained workers and business was able to grow and remain profitable.

    How much more skilled can the cashier get?

    Your cashier you get to decide.

    You have it exactly opposite. If you could make a living with a MINIMAL skill set what would be the incentive for self improvement or developing unique job skills? The primary criterion for commanding a higher salary is the ability to do perform tasks that others cannot perform at a per/unit cost that the market will allow.
    Or your confusing what I was referring to. There will always be those who are content, just as there will always be people who want more for any number of reasons. All of which would be incentive to better ones self and thereby command a larger amount of compensation.


    That something new is cheap foreign labor and robots. I don't have to pay union scale for a robot to tighten bolts.
    That something new built by robots did alright for auto makers and how about that computer your on the processor inside it, the cables that connect it to your monitor?


    The people who did not possess skills with greater than $1.00/hr value would find constant employment.
    You bet they would! just think 60.00 a week, I assume you wouldn't give overtime, so you can spend 50% of your waking 7 day week working so you can have enough money to take a date dinner and a movie.

    Is that really the direction you would like to see us go?

    It's the negative waves man. You have got to let go of the negative waves.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Justice.





    ___
    I am surprised it let you get away with such a short response and even more surprised you were able to offer one.

    What about Truth and the American Way? Is that justice for all?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    576
    Because I made him so I get to say why he does what he does. Get your own bagger who does it because he is lonely or likes helping little old ladies.
    Or one of the thousands who does it as a first job in high school with literally no connection to making a living.

    I see because he may not need it he doesn't get it. So if it is based on need why are so many in need not getting?
    YOU are the one who suggested the "livable wage". The 16 year old is demonstrably not LIVING off that wage, regardless of what he "needs" the money for.

    You mean like the scanners that are in almost every major grocery store and Home Depot? Why if labor was cheap enough I could have a hand built car. Innovations in production are one of the primary reasons companies remain profitable and is a necessary component to a capitalist market. You know build a better mouse trap.
    IF labor was cheap enough. But chances are there are not a hell of a lot of people who possess the requisite skill necessary to carve a car out of soapstone. When no one takes those hand-carving car jobs for one buck employers will be forced to raise prices. Again, the market determines the price folks are willing to pay for the product whether that product is a finished item or the labor it takes to produce it.


    As I said you now have labor who can make and maintain robots as opposed to a person sliding boxes with bar codes in front of a scanner
    Where are those robots being made then? Hint: Asia. Increase the cost of labor artificially and you create job opportunities for robot makers in the Orient.

    Nothing is forever. Typewriter ribbon and floppy disks used to be very lucrative products. Our economy survived their demise and the technology that replaced them created higher paying jobs for better trained workers and business was able to grow and remain profitable.
    Without a doubt. But this does not argue for an inflated minimum wage it argues for paying higher salaries to those who are better trained.


    Your cashier you get to decide.
    Wait, you claim the cashier in the opening paragraph then dump him back when you are no longer interested?

    You suggest that higher skilled workers will get higher pay. What is the difference between the most skilled and least skilled cashier and what is that difference worth?



    Or your confusing what I was referring to. There will always be those who are content, just as there will always be people who want more for any number of reasons. All of which would be incentive to better ones self and thereby command a larger amount of compensation.
    This does not make sense. There will always be X, there will always be Y. All of which is incentive for Y...

    That something new built by robots did alright for auto makers and how about that computer your on the processor inside it, the cables that connect it to your monitor?
    Bought for the least possible price, just as you likely look for the lowest possible price. As the consumer goes so goes business. Incidentally my computer was made in Japan. Increasing the cost labor for skilled US computer assemblers does not encourage a domestic market for computers.
    You bet they would! just think 60.00 a week, I assume you wouldn't give overtime, so you can spend 50% of your waking 7 day week working so you can have enough money to take a date dinner and a movie.

    Is that really the direction you would like to see us go?
    Well as others have noted you have twice been asked to defend the opposite extreme without response. I don't imagine you should expect others to treat your reducto ad absurdum with any greater concern.
    Mutz (E)

    Your Life Is Not My Fault

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Since Pappillion is too dense or too dishonest to answer the simple question: "Why not a million dollar minimum wage?" I will answer for him.

    Because a million dollar minimum wage would result in 99% unemployment.So why not a minimum wage of $20? Because it would result in more unemployment than a $10 minimum wage, and more still than no minimum wage at all.


    When someone says "Raising minimum wage rates to certain levels has positive and negative effects on various groups" (and is therefore good), the hidden meaning is;

    "Raising minimum wages to certain levels has positive effects on people like me, and negative effects on people I don't give a XXXX about"
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by E Mutz View Post
    Or one of the thousands who does it as a first job in high school with literally no connection to making a living.

    YOU are the one who suggested the "livable wage". The 16 year old is demonstrably not LIVING off that wage, regardless of what he "needs" the money for.
    So the people that do lose out because again the kid doesn't need it so nobody should get it? Your still denying it saying a particular group may not need it so it isn't needed by anyone. Would it be to their detriment to get it even if they don't need it?

    IF labor was cheap enough. But chances are there are not a hell of a lot of people who possess the requisite skill necessary to carve a car out of soapstone. When no one takes those hand-carving car jobs for one buck employers will be forced to raise prices. Again, the market determines the price folks are willing to pay for the product whether that product is a finished item or the labor it takes to produce it.
    Or business doesn't make it any more or business figures out a way to make it work. If business can't sell it at a price that is profitable then it won't be available. If the consumer does not have disposable income then demand declines. Willing buyer willing seller

    Where are those robots being made then? Hint: Asia. Increase the cost of labor artificially and you create job opportunities for robot makers in the Orient.
    Good then you realize Asia specifically china right now used to have really cheap labor but a lousy labor market. As they kept making worthless junk their labor force began to become more skilled. This brought more complex work at better prices which let workers earn higher wages and better benefits and round again and round again and you have a developing middle class of a billion people with enough disposable income to buy some things extra and the time to enjoy it enough to want to continue to do so

    Without a doubt. But this does not argue for an inflated minimum wage it argues for paying higher salaries to those who are better trained.
    Nobody is arguing for an inflated minimum wage. Where do we start to develop those better trained workers and how do we train them better to have the skills to justify those higher wages?


    Wait, you claim the cashier in the opening paragraph then dump him back when you are no longer interested?
    I was being sarcastic. A the cashier was yours I had the bagger. B if we create people in situations that fit the the circumstances being expressed then they can be anything we need or want them to be.

    You suggest that higher skilled workers will get higher pay. What is the difference between the most skilled and least skilled cashier and what is that difference worth?
    Without knowing the industry I can only guess that an experienced cashier will be plug and play, they can be put in front of any register and start working, they will be faster and know how to deal with issues that may come up. The would be able to accept other responsibilities as needed including teaching newer cashiers what they know. What is that worth, I couldn't say. To a large store with a dozen cashiers maybe not as much as a small store with only a couple or it might be the opposite.


    Bought for the least possible price, just as you likely look for the lowest possible price. As the consumer goes so goes business.
    Then why keep the consumer at a level where he can only purchase necessities?

    Incidentally my computer was made in Japan. Increasing the cost labor for skilled US computer assemblers does not encourage a domestic market for computers.
    That is what tariffs are for. An industrialized nation is not going to be able to compete with a 3rd world or in many cases a 2nd world nation for cheap labor.


    Well as others have noted you have twice been asked to defend the opposite extreme without response. I don't imagine you should expect others to treat your reducto ad absurdum with any greater concern.
    Nice try. I have given several reasons why I think a minimum wage produces more benefit than harm in the long term. I am still waiting for the reasons why there should be no minimum wage.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •