Myth Pro and Con about the Minimum Wage

[gnome]

To which I ask, if having three kids puts your finances so close to the edge, why did they have three kids to begin with? Why didn't they improve your job skills and marketability before deciding they needed to repopulate the earth?

This is a huge issue... and encompasses more than minimum wage policy. How to get people not to have kids they can't afford... and finally, what to do with the kids if they do anyway?

 

[slingblade]

People stuck in minimum wage long term jobs aren't unlucky. They are either basically unemployable because of a criminal record or personality defects or just too lazy or stupid to even try for a better job. You can get stuck at less than ten for reason of mostly bad luck, but not minimum wage.

Wow, thanks. So many ignorant insults all in one post; how convenient. And yep, it looks like you managed to get every single reason, situation and circumstance for living at minimum wage in there. Yessir, every single one. You've covered all the possible bases. Neat little nutshell, all right.
Good thing you haven't left anything out of your careful, critical analysis.

So tell me, why do you let us lazy, stupid criminals with personality defects serve you in restaurants, ring up your purchases, or help you carry your groceries to the car?

Are we just fun to watch?

 

[The Atheist]

Then answer the question I asked you before, when you said the minimum wage is "too low." Too low for what?

If there's one thing I despise below all others, it's jumped-up little rednecked plutocrats who see the poor as deserving of their lot in life.

You are clearly one of these, yet despite my utter contempt for you, I'll expand on my statement, since you're obviously too ignorant or too simply being too obtuse to give the answer to yourself. The wages are too low to enable people to have a standard of living to which they are entitled in the developed world. You clearly disagree with that - good for you!

I was wondering if you were going to toss out that canard. "Oh, with all their kids, they can't afford to have one of them quit or work part time, so they're stuck in their menial jobs forever."

To which I ask, if having three kids puts your finances so close to the edge, why did they have three kids to begin with? Why didn't they improve your job skills and marketability before deciding they needed to repopulate the earth?

You're back to your original nonstarter position: People should be paid more not because they deserve it, but because they need it. Nonsense.

I assure you that, if you were waiting for my comments, I knew, with all the certainty of a two-bob psychic that you'd trot out those old favourites!

"Work harder" "Train more" "Don't have kids". I bet you're the type of filth who comes out with those same tedious platitudes when it comes to people starving to death in developing countries - "If you can't feed children, don't have any." Sound familiar at all? It's a catch-cry for the weak-minded, selfish, privileged dummies among us, so I'm guessing you'd be on that train.

No doubt you'd do away with all publicly-funded policies and just leave people to their own devices. "All humans are equal but some humans are more equal than others".

My last comment on the subject is merely that I find it interesting that your avatar is a person who came from a highly underprivileged background. I wonder what he would have thought, both of the question in hand and your blatant disregard of people less fortunate than yourself.

 

[The Atheist]

Lastly, go on the internet and start blaming others for your own self-made problems.

What a typically arrogant and ignorant comment. I'd be very surprised if anyone on the minimum wage was even on the internet, let alone in here. Maybe, if you ever manage to pull your head of its self-rectal examination you'd understand that.
(Just so you know, as the most vociferous and abusive member of the "pay the poor more" club, I earn an awful lot more than the minimum wage)

 

[The Atheist]

Are we just fun to watch?

Hell, yes. Without watching you struggle to juggle your undeserved $5 an hour and your twelve kids who all belong to street gangs, how could we get to feel so damned superior. That's why we keep you poor - entertainment, affirmation of how much we are worth by comparison and to encourage sales of perfumes for us to wear to mask your smell.

 

[HeavyAaron]

First off I know you were responding to me. But I'd like to answer this just the same.

The wages are too low to enable people to have a standard of living to which they are entitled in the developed world. You clearly disagree with that - good for you!

Why do you believe there is such an entitlement? Where did it come from? Can you point me to it? How do you define this minimally acceptable standard of living? Do you not realize that anyone in a first world nation with a mailing address is one of the materally richest persons to ever walk the Earth?

I assure you that, if you were waiting for my comments, I knew, with all the certainty of a two-bob psychic that you'd trot out those old favourites!

"Work harder" "Train more" "Don't have kids". I bet you're the type of filth who comes out with those same tedious platitudes when it comes to people starving to death in developing countries - "If you can't feed children, don't have any." Sound familiar at all? It's a catch-cry for the weak-minded, selfish, privileged dummies among us, so I'm guessing you'd be on that train.

Whether or not "work harder" "train more" and "don't have kids" accounts for the whole picture or not, do you not consider that very good advice?

No doubt you'd do away with all publicly-funded policies and just leave people to their own devices.

False dichotomy. Private charities employ considerable resources. I would thank you to not discount the work some of us perform in them.

"All humans are equal but some humans are more equal than others".

Is that like "Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like Dr. Pepper?"

Aaron

 

[The Atheist]

First off I know you were responding to me. But I'd like to answer this just the same.

Fine by me, your questions are quite valid and not couched in redneck-speak.

Why do you believe there is such an entitlement? Where did it come from? Can you point me to it? How do you define this minimally acceptable standard of living?

Why do I believe that? Because I'm a Kiwi, I guess. We have the world's best and fairest social policies here, on the back of over 100 years of social responsibility. We were the first country to have universal suffrage and the first to implement a true social welfare net to ensure that the least fortunate members of society have a chance at getting off the bottom rung of the ladder. Probably having very poor parents and escaping from the poverty trap thanks to that very system has made me into the staunch proponent I am now.

How is it defined? No idea, I'm neither a politician or economist, but I know that it works. As stated, a family can survive, and to a small degree, thrive, on the minimum here. New Zealand, thanks to its isolation, is not a huge or strong economy and we rate lowly on the OECD rankings of income, net worth and standard of living, so any system which works here can easily be replicated in places with far stronger economies, such as USA.

Do you not realize that anyone in a first world nation with a mailing address is one of the materally richest persons to ever walk the Earth?

Of course I do, but having said that, there is no question that a well-off third world citizen is going to be much better off that a poor first world one.

Whether or not "work harder" "train more" and "don't have kids" accounts for the whole picture or not, do you not consider that very good advice?

Again, of course I do. Hopefully, by ensuring that today's poor are able to see a way out and have access to education, we can break the cycle for the next generation. The problem I have with statements like those is that it's shutting the door after the horse has bolted as far as today's underpivileged go.

False dichotomy. Private charities employ considerable resources. I would thank you to not discount the work some of us perform in them.

I know they do, I devote both time and money to them myself, so there's no way I was belittling it, I just believe that these charities wouldn't be needed by working families if the breadwinners were paid more.

Is that like "Diet Dr. Pepper tastes more like Dr. Pepper?"

Aaron

NOOO! It's paraphrasing George Orwell. (Animal Farm)

 

[HeavyAaron]

Fine by me, your questions are quite valid and not couched in redneck-speak.

Likewise I appreciate your thoughtful responces.

Why do I believe that? Because I'm a Kiwi, I guess.

Okay, I suppose that's literally true. But of course I am not a Kiwi (not that it wouldn't be appealing, I think it's the prettiest country on the planet). So why should I believe in such a thing?

We have the world's best and fairest social policies here, on the back of over 100 years of social responsibility.

So long as you understand that that's merely oppinion, I will certainly respect it.

We were the first country to have universal suffrage and the first to implement a true social welfare net to ensure that the least fortunate members of society have a chance at getting off the bottom rung of the ladder.

Would you be suprised to know that throughout US and colonial American history funding of the "social safety net" has remained virtually constant as a percentage of GDP? It's been a while, but as I recall it's roughly 5%. It's just that much of it has shifted from charities to the government. My intention isn't to stipulate that one is better or worse than the other. Just that a "social safety net" has always been. The establishment of a government service <> the establishment of a safety net.

Probably having very poor parents and escaping from the poverty trap thanks to that very system has made me into the staunch proponent I am now.

Obviously I love hearing about such success stories. Most critiques of welfare systems, however, paint a somewhat different story. As the living standard provided by not working approaches the living standard provided by working, the incentive to work goes down and a larger portion of people choose not to "escape" their situation, but to persist in it. Actually this is perhaps one of the better arguments for minimum wage law.

Of course I do, but having said that, there is no question that a well-off third world citizen is going to be much better off that a poor first world one.

Absolutely. My point, really, is that I think the context should be true to life. The working "poor" we are talking about are only poor compared to their contemporary fellow citizens. Compared to their historical and worldwide brothers in humanity however, they are rich. I'm not saying it's not hard. But it doesn't have to be a miserable life by any stretch either. And unlike all the truely poor elsewhere and elsewhen, there is a real potential to change one's lot in life.

Also, I do pat you on the back for being directly involved in improving the plight of the poor.

Aaron

 

[The Atheist]

Okay, I suppose that's literally true. But of course I am not a Kiwi (not that it wouldn't be appealing, I think it's the prettiest country on the planet). So why should I believe in such a thing?

I guess it's all about personal choice - you either believe it's the responsibility of the privileged to help the under-privileged, or you don't. Nobody's going to change anyone's views here, but I feel that those who don't have the same sense of social responsibility can just shut the **** up! I'm sure the under-privileged are aware that lots of wealthy people don't like it that they're even guaranteed the paltry amount they are. On that basis, rubbing their noses in their own poverty is tantamount to the village idiot playing "king of the castle".

So long as you understand that that's merely oppinion, I will certainly respect it.

Sure it is, and my opinion's always right!

Would you be suprised to know that throughout US and colonial American history funding of the "social safety net" has remained virtually constant as a percentage of GDP? It's been a while, but as I recall it's roughly 5%. It's just that much of it has shifted from charities to the government. My intention isn't to stipulate that one is better or worse than the other. Just that a "social safety net" has always been. The establishment of a government service <> the establishment of a safety net.

Not sure what our figure is in percentage terms, but it's going to be quite high. I must confess, that in terms of actual benefits, we have been a bit too lax in the past, but over the past decade changes have been made to ensure that workers have a larger, and increasing, advantage over beneficiaries.

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Wow, thanks. So many ignorant insults all in one post; how convenient. And yep, it looks like you managed to get every single reason, situation and circumstance for living at minimum wage in there. Yessir, every single one. You've covered all the possible bases. Neat little nutshell, all right.
Good thing you haven't left anything out of your careful, critical analysis.

So tell me, why do you let us lazy, stupid criminals with personality defects serve you in restaurants, ring up your purchases, or help you carry your groceries to the car?

Are we just fun to watch?

My statement only applied to people who are stuck in such jobs long term. Most people, around here at least, in such jobs are either students or have been at it long enough to do quite a bit better than minimum.

Would you care to explain why anyone with a high school diploma and no criminal record who generally shows up to work when scheduled wouldn't be able to beat $5.15 an hour if they seriously tried? The criminals and high-school drop-outs are the only ones I have much sympathy for there as they have something in the past that there's nothing they can do in the present to get rid of (or with a great deal of difficulty for the drop-outs). Certainly, there are lots of students in low-pay jobs, but I was referring only to people who are in such jobs long-term.

I'm nto some six-figure elitist looking down on the poor, either. I just spent a long time unemployed, followed by doing phone surveys for $8/hr. I'm not saying that everyone could get a good job if they wanted to, but they could certainly beat minimum wage.

 

[HeavyAaron]

I guess it's all about personal choice - you either believe it's the responsibility of the privileged to help the under-privileged, or you don't.

Okay, let me try another tact here.

You believe that first world citizens are entitled to some minimal living standard. But you aren't really sure what that standard should be.

I've pointed out that if you have a mailing address in a first world nation in the broadest sense such a person is already rich. You've agreed that this is so.

And I presume you and I can agree that ideally everyone would have at the very least a mailing address which is not condemned. (Thus is structually sound, has indoor plumbing, electricity, and refrigeration.) The difference here is that while you use the term "entitled" I will not.

Now, assuming you do agree with the above we have agreed that ideally every citizen of a first world nation should live a materially rich life in the broadest sense.

You, of course, are welcome to believe that whatever the minimum standard is should have even more than that. But that's as far as I'm likely to grant.

Now, in your oppinion, should that minimal standard of living increase along with the average standard of living, or is this minimum somehow a perminate minimum?

See, to me, I feel that society is obligated to feed, clothe, provide emergency health care for, and shelter (not neccessarily house) all of its citizens. They are not entitled to it, but society is morally obligated to provide it. (Thus the poor are in no position to expect it but should instead be grateful for it.) So long as the physical needs of the population are met, I feel it's up to the people themselves to strive for better. I don't believe we can make them strive for better. I'm not convinced that providing more would make them more likely to strive for better, but less likely.

I also feel that the best way to maximize the available no-skill jobs for people who want a starting point to get beyond handouts is to repeal the minimum wage law. Day layborers seem to be the most common, but right now that has to be done under the table so doesn't become official job experience to build on. I'm sure other examples exist as well.

Aaron

 

[gnome]

If the physical needs of the population are guaranteed, I would consider abandoning minimum wage laws.

But, doesn't that just allow a business to underpay its employees and rely on the government to make up the difference? Seems like a form of corporate welfare.

 

[slingblade]

Would you care to explain why anyone with a high school diploma and no criminal record who generally shows up to work when scheduled wouldn't be able to beat $5.15 an hour if they seriously tried?

I can explain how it happened to me, with my high school diploma, my good work ethic, and my total lack of criminal behavior. But since that's anecdotal, it doesn't count as evidence. It also can't be made to apply to everyone who works for minimum wage.

The best thing my story would do is confirm that there are as many reasons for being in that place as there are people in it. Reducing all of those people to four generic reasons isn't really a good argument for anything.

So take my word for it, and please try to expand your reasoning. There are reasons you haven't yet considered. There are combinations of reasons, unique to each person, you haven't yet considered. There are age/race/gender issues you haven't yet considered.

But don't do me any favors.

Do yourself a big favor and realize that if you can sum up any large, convoluted, confusing, controversial issue having decades of history behind it with four short, simplistic reasons, you might have a little more thinking to do about said issue, yes?

Maybe?

 

[BPSCG]

If there's one thing I despise below all others, it's jumped-up little rednecked plutocrats who see the poor as deserving of their lot in life.

You are clearly one of these, yet despite my utter contempt for you, I'll expand on my statement, since you're obviously too ignorant or too simply being too obtuse to give the answer to yourself.

Excellent. Invective as a substitute for argument.

I recommend you either look up the definition of "plutocrat" or find out more about me before using the term.

The wages are too low to enable people to have a standard of living to which they are entitled in the developed world.

You've painted yourself into a corner here.

If one is entitled - to use your term - to a minimum wage, how much work must he do, and at what level of competence?

The answer is "none." If you are entitled to something, you don't have to do anything to possess it, because you own it. I am not entitled to the use of your car, because you own it. If I buy it from you, you are no longer entitled to the use of it, because I now own it.

You now claim that people are entitled to a certain standard of living. If that is true, then they need do nothing to receive it. HeavyAaron asked you why you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, and you gave a shrug-of-the-shoulders answer, "because I'm a Kiwi, I guess." Let me rephrase the question to ask what I believe he intended: Where does this entitlement come from?

"Work harder" "Train more" "Don't have kids". I bet you're the type of filth

Can you make your case without getting insulting?

who comes out with those same tedious platitudes when it comes to people starving to death in developing countries -

People starving to death in "developing countries" (I hate that term) are starving generally not because of their own failings, but the failings of the thug governments that rule them. Stop trying to claim I believe things that I do not.

No doubt you'd do away with all publicly-funded policies and just leave people to their own devices. "All humans are equal but some humans are more equal than others".

Stop trying to claim I believe things that I do not. Instead, defend your position that people are entitled to a certain standard of living.

 

[The Atheist]

Okay, let me try another tact here.

You believe that first world citizens are entitled to some minimal living standard. But you aren't really sure what that standard should be.

Probably my poor explanation. I know what the standard should be, the amount I'm not sure of. The standard should be pretty much as you espouse futher on.

I've pointed out that if you have a mailing address in a first world nation in the broadest sense such a person is already rich. You've agreed that this is so.

Just an aside here, I actually believe that all people on the planet should be entitled to that minimum standard, not just those in first world countries. I realise the impracticality of that, so I support third world kids separately.

And I presume you and I can agree that ideally everyone would have at the very least a mailing address which is not condemned. (Thus is structually sound, has indoor plumbing, electricity, and refrigeration.) The difference here is that while you use the term "entitled" I will not.

100% fine by me.

Now, in your oppinion, should that minimal standard of living increase along with the average standard of living, or is this minimum somehow a perminate minimum?

Not so much the average, but a system like the one we run here - an annual incremental increase in the MW is made to cover the amount of inflation.

See, to me, I feel that society is obligated to feed, clothe, provide emergency health care for, and shelter (not neccessarily house) all of its citizens. They are not entitled to it, but society is morally obligated to provide it. (Thus the poor are in no position to expect it but should instead be grateful for it.) So long as the physical needs of the population are met, I feel it's up to the people themselves to strive for better. I don't believe we can make them strive for better. I'm not convinced that providing more would make them more likely to strive for better, but less likely.

I'd have to agree with all that. I'm not asking that the MW be increased to a stage where it's attractive to work at, but an amount which covers all of those physical needs you mention.

I also feel that the best way to maximize the available no-skill jobs for people who want a starting point to get beyond handouts is to repeal the minimum wage law. Day layborers seem to be the most common, but right now that has to be done under the table so doesn't become official job experience to build on. I'm sure other examples exist as well.

Aaron

You could even be right here, but I know for a fact that there are some terribly unscrupulous employers around and many could not be entrusted not to pay slave labour wages. Just going back to the teachers again, that's where I see the similarity with MW law - it isn't ideal, but because there are divisions of wealth between people and areas, there needs to be legislative requirements for things to be done for the good of all, which helps to protect those who can't protect their own interests.

I said before that I'd be the first to line up and kick the abusers of the system, but there are people out there who are capable of doing a good, honest day's work, but for reasons of lack of brainpower, learning difficulties or family responsibilities, just can't break out of the cycle of poverty. Those are the ones deserving of our help.

 

[HeavyAaron]

If the physical needs of the population are guaranteed, I would consider abandoning minimum wage laws.

But, doesn't that just allow a business to underpay its employees and rely on the government to make up the difference? Seems like a form of corporate welfare.

There are ways around this. First off, get rid of the weird tax incentive for employer paid benifits. Then bingo, it makes no difference if the employer pays them or simply raises the base salary by the premium costs and you by them yourselves. This simplifies the situation greatly.

Then let's suppose we've determined how much it costs to provide this minimum livable conditions... then simply give EVERYONE a check for that amount every year (and raise taxes such that it's revenue neutral.) Then your problem also doesn't exist. Likewise disincentives to working disappear.

Of course... people might just blow those checks and then starve themselves. So, if you want to avoid that...

Provide free government soup kitchens and cotts in a big hall to sleep in that ANYONE is welcome to use regardless of income or wealth. This also resolves the problem without allowing people to die of stupidity.

Keep in mind, however, that it's not coorperate welfare to pay employees less than it costs to keep them alive. How much it keeps a person alive is completely independant of pay rates. What could be coorperate welfare, however, is to intentionally set wages just below what's needed to collect welfare checks or food stamps, or the like and then provide classes to the employees on how to obtain these government benifits.

Aaron

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I can explain how it happened to me, with my high school diploma, my good work ethic, and my total lack of criminal behavior. But since that's anecdotal, it doesn't count as evidence. It also can't be made to apply to everyone who works for minimum wage.

Since I was making a broad claim, reasonlyably recent anecdotes that don't include extraodrinary circumstances certainly would count. As for age, poeple who are below a certain age are unlikely to have a high school diploma, but almost certain to have certain support structures, and above a certain age, they can draw social security, which isn't a lot, but better than minimum wage. A similar principle applies to the disabled. If I'm so wrong an uninformed, inform me.

 

[The Atheist]

Can you make your case without getting insulting?

Not when I'm dealing with selfish scum, no.

 

[The Atheist]

I recommend you either look up the definition of "plutocrat" or find out more about me before using the term.

I know precisely what the term means. If it doesn't apply to you, feel free to correct me.

I see you didn't dispute the "redneck" at least.

 

[HeavyAaron]

I'm not asking that the MW be increased to a stage where it's attractive to work at, but an amount which covers all of those physical needs you mention.

I'm still flummuxed by the desire to connect these two things.

What our system currently is, and is sounds like yours is too, goes something like this:

1) welfare and foodstamps; no work required
2) minimum wage law guarentees minimum payment for wages; lose stage 1 benifits (potentially)

I'm proposing you get minimum physical needs provided for REGARDLESS of income. Then let wages float naturally.

There is no natural tie between wages and costs of physical needs. Why try to create one?

Aaron