Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[respect]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

 

[Francesca R]

You misunderstand why someone can rationally want a compulsory rate (which would materially change the funding to the government) at the same time as rationally rejecting chipping in extra themselves in the absence of compulsion (which would not materially change the funding to the government).

 

[respect]

You misunderstand why someone can rationally want a compulsory rate (which would materially change the funding to the government) at the same time as rationally rejecting chipping in extra themselves in the absence of compulsion (which would not materially change the funding to the government).

Sure there is a difference, especially in scope, but nonetheless, it appears they don't really want to pay more in taxes. King's rant was tantamount to whining that he doesn't contribute enough to charity while refusing to contribute to charity.

 

[Magyar]

Why not?

Our society provides social safety nets. People who are unemployed don't need to sleep in allies. People who are employed on $1/hr need not sleep in allies either.

But do I prefer that someone have the option to work for $1/hr rather than not have that option? Damned straight.

Err, not if Bonyar and Ryan have their way they won't! And as for preferring to allow people to work for $1/hr vs not. I guess in theory that sounds wonderful to a repugnincan freemarketeer delisionist. But the reality is that people will turn to crime by way larger portions than simply work for $1.

My job involves work in regional grocery stores. In cities like Detroit and Toledo
stores lose upwards of million dollars in theft. We're talking basic foods (because most of these stores willnot even carry liquor any more and cigarettes are locked up)

Now YES, certain portion of this is just people being scum bags, but when you start having that kind of numbers of people going in and taking mac and cheese and hamburger to eat there is something wrong!

Where do they live? The image below shows food security status by state (USDA "Food Security").


Low food insecurity 10.4 million US households (8.9 percent of households) had low food security in 2008, a 27 percent increase from 2007. These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets,

 

[The_Animus]

So, if I want to hire a cashier and the standard going rate is around $10 an hour I should pay them $15 and have to raise prices compared to my competitors to compensate? How long do think I will be in business?

Alternatively you suggest that profits for ownership could decline. Who will invest in my business when competitors don't follow suit?

That 500 ft tall strawman is quite impressive, you must have great experience building them.

 

[leftysergeant]

There are other, and perhaps better ways to accomplish this but everything has its drawbacks. Ziggurat mentioned expanding the earned income credit, but there are two reasons I don't like that idea much. First, it doesn't help someone who needs money soon. That minimum wage gives the person money they can use now to pay rent, gas and food. The earned income credit only helps at the end of the year, unless it has other uses beyond what I am familiar with. Second, it gives companies incentive to pay their employees poorly.

This is exactly what is wrong with Francesca's idea. Why on earth should I subsidize people who are too stupid to run a business at a profit while still paying a decent wage, or too greedy to accept less than three hundred times what the worker bees make?

 

[Dorian Gray]

This is exactly what is wrong with Francesca's idea. Why on earth should I subsidize people who are too stupid to run a business at a profit while still paying a decent wage, or too greedy to accept less than three hundred times what the worker bees make?

Also, why should a company be forced to pay a higher minimum wage due to cost of living increases, but YOU shouldn't be forced to pay a higher wage to someone who cuts your grass due to cost of living increases? Why do YOU get a different set of rules?

Is it because you're too greedy, or because all your platitudes only apply to other people?

 

[Francesca R]

The earned income credit only helps at the end of the year, unless it has other uses beyond what I am familiar with.

Paid as a true benefit, or negative income tax rate, it would not be a once yearly refund. Indeed that is a very impractical way to do it for the purpose of alleviating poverty. The Working Tax Credit (UK version) is credited weekly or biweekly.

Second, it gives companies incentive to pay their employees poorly.

It is correct that it blunts the incentive to pay employees what they are worth. But to agree with that you would also need to agree that any form of low income support blunts the incentive to work in the first place. These distortions are an inevitable consequence of having any kind of welfare state. They can only be minimised and cannot be eliminated. Conversely minimum wage blunts the incentive to employ people in the first place if they are worth less than the minimum. It is incoherent to criticise some distortions and ignore others. The issue is which are the least bad distortions.

I don't like the idea that the burden of paying employees a decent wage gets taken away from the business and onto tax payers in general.

Since it is society's preference that people should have a threshold income, it is entirely appropriate that it is funded from as wide a base of society as possible. Tax funding is ethically superior to funding it via minimim wage laws with the already discussed adverse effects of that (which includes having unemployed people fund it).

Even if the cost was fully borne by business (which it isn't), that is simply a case of wanting social justice at someone else's expense.

 

[Ziggurat]

there is the problem with capitalists.
greed.
ken talks about a home, food and transportation.
you equate that to a mansion, a hired chef and a hovercar.

Ken brought up the mansion and hired chef, not me. And yes, I brought up the hovercar. I thought the point would be obvious (it's not possible to provide that), but I guess you're capable of ignoring almost anything.

Yea, and I didn't even mention transportation. I'm amazed that the point went right over their heads, Biker.

I'm amazed that you think I mentioned hovercars because I wanted to include the category of transportation. Talk about going over your head. I also note that you didn't even notice that YOU brought up the mansion and chef, not me. I guess when he's on your side, you can let that stuff slide.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, I brought up the mansion and the chef. Why? Because you and your GOP cronies argue against giving people mansions and chefs, when liberals argue for providing basic shelter and food for those in need. Just like in this thread. We're talking about raising the minimum wage, and you Righties argue against giving all people $100/hour.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I brought up the mansion and the chef. Why? Because you and your GOP cronies argue against giving people mansions and chefs, when liberals argue for providing basic shelter and food for those in need.

So you offered it up as a strawman. Got it.

 

[Neally]

Yes, I brought up the mansion and the chef. Why? Because you and your GOP cronies argue against giving people mansions and chefs, when liberals argue for providing basic shelter and food for those in need. Just like in this thread. We're talking about raising the minimum wage, and you Righties argue against giving all people $100/hour.

You're still not getting it. The $100/hr. example is for you to argue against, to demonstrate the flawed logic. If forcing workers to be paid $7.25 is good for basic shelter and food, why isn't $10 better? How could you be so cruel to force people to scrape by with just a "basic" life? Why not make it $20 and lift them to at least a modest life? Hell, make it $100/hr. then you can stop being so envious of the rich and be one.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you offered it up as a strawman. Got it.

Hardly a strawman. See Neally's post above.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hardly a strawman. See Neally's post above.

I did. I see no mention of mansions or chefs. In fact, I see no mention of giving anything to anybody.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I did. I see no mention of mansions or chefs. In fact, I see no mention of giving anything to anybody.

He's arguing against $100/hr minimum wage, which is something that no person has actually argued for. I mentioned mansions and chefs only to point out the straw he's arguing against because while some of us are arguing for basic provisions, he's arguing against luxury provisions.

 

[Ziggurat]

He's arguing against $100/hr minimum wage, which is something that no person has actually argued for.

You obviously fail to understand his argument, which is that the reasons to oppose a $100/hr minimum wage are the same as the reasons to oppose some lower minimum wage, and that no consistent argument has been put forward which actually puts a maximum on what the minimum wage should be. And on these points, you have offered nothing but straw in response.

I mentioned mansions and chefs only to point out the straw he's arguing against

So you offer straw in exchange for what you see as straw. Not exactly an impressive response even if your interpretation of his argument were correct. But it's not.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you're going to continue to argue "basic provisions" = "luxury provisions"

Gotya. Again, here we are at an impass. While some of us are arguing for minimum wage, you and he are arguing against $100/hr wages.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you're going to continue to argue "basic provisions" = "luxury provisions"

No, I'm not.

Again, here we are at an impass. While some of us are arguing for minimum wage, you and he are arguing against $100/hr wages.

A $100/hr minimum wage IS a minimum wage. You say you're arguing for a minimum wage, but you haven't said what it should be. Furthermore, none of the arguments you have presented indicate that there should be some upper limit for a minimum wage, or how one would figure out what such an upper limit should be. This is a rather glaring omission from your position, one which you continually fail to address, or even understand.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Right, you're still arguing against a wage far and beyond what anyone advocating for a raise in the minimum wage would even concieve. But if it makes you feel good, keep punching that strawman.

 

[Ziggurat]

Right, you're still arguing against a wage far and beyond what anyone advocating for a raise in the minimum wage would even concieve.

I can see you're having considerable problems actually thinking about this issue, so let me make it as simple as I can. Forget the $100/hour wage. Simply tell us what is the highest the minimum wage should be. And then tell us why.