Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[leftysergeant]

It can be done. Just use mechanisms like the earned income credit. If you want to subsidize the working poor, then just do so directly.

Not a bit of it. That would be a subsidy to the drongos who refuse to pay a proper wage and who shriek like slapped children about being taxed to death while we pay to clean up the sludge they are dumping on the environment.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not a bit of it. That would be a subsidy to the drongos who refuse to pay a proper wage

You have a very peculiar notion of what a "subsidy" actually is. I suggest you consult a dictionary.

And what constitutes a "proper wage"? If the work isn't worth current minimum wage rates, then minimum wage doesn't force the employer to pay that wage, it prevents the employer from hiring anyone at all. Why is that an improvement? It's not.

Furthermore, this argument is completely unconnected to your previous rationalization for why minimum wage was necessary in the first place. Now you're arguing that we need it to punish employers you don't like, rather than because we needed to ensure the welfare of workers. Which of those causes actually matters the most, lefty?

 

[Neally]

Not a bit of it. That would be a subsidy to the drongos who refuse to pay a proper wage and who shriek like slapped children about being taxed to death while we pay to clean up the sludge they are dumping on the environment.

Once again, it all comes back to wealth envy and punishing those that are wealthy.

 

[leftysergeant]

You have a very peculiar notion of what a "subsidy" actually is. I suggest you consult a dictionary.

And what constitutes a "proper wage"? If the work isn't worth current minimum wage rates, then minimum wage doesn't force the employer to pay that wage, it prevents the employer from hiring anyone at all. Why is that an improvement? It's not.

Bull flops. There is no job not worth a day's provisions. If it were not, it needn't be done in the first place.

Now you're arguing that we need it to punish employers you don't like, rather than because we needed to ensure the welfare of workers. Which of those causes actually matters the most, lefty?

Well, of course thieves and swindlers need to be punished.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bull flops. There is no job not worth a day's provisions.

Nonsense. Lots of jobs are not worth a day's provision.

If it were not, it needn't be done in the first place.

I never said that it needed to be done (quite a subjective word, BTW). But why is it better that it goes undone, and that someone sit idly without a job they would be willing to do?

Well, of course thieves and swindlers need to be punished.

There are things I'd pay people $1/hr to do that I wouldn't pay them $6/hr to do. Since I cannot legally pay them $1/hr, the jobs simply go undone. If someone would be willing to work for me for $1/hr, their lot is not improved one iota because you have forbidden them to do so. If they are unwilling to work for me for $1/hr, your prohibition is irrelevant. And why am I the thief or swindler in this scenario, when it is you who have stolen mutual advantage from us both?

But thank you for making it clear that punishing those you don't like is actually more important to you than helping the needy.

 

[leftysergeant]

Nonsense. Lots of jobs are not worth a day's provision.

And there are a lot of drongos running big businesses who use that excuse when they argue against a minimum wage for over half of their employees. Clearly, somebody is selling someone a load of crap.

If you are deriving monetary value of any sort from the worker's having done a day's work, even if it is not equivalent to his pay, but that work in some way furthers the work that does return more, you owe him a day's provisions.

I'm not saying that the man who mows lawns for what his neighbors can afford should be getting paid the same as the man who does it for a contractor. That is another matter entirely. But the contractor, if he gets more than one man's provisions, had better square away his workers first. Otherwise, he is serving no purpose in the ecconomy or the society in which he lives and needs to find something else to do with his life.

But thank you for making it clear that punishing those you don't like is actually more important to you than helping the needy.

If the entrepreneurial class could be trusted to act like grown-ups, there would be far fewer poor people and less need for government. Without government and regulations, some of them might even get the idea that slavery is not that bad an idea.

 

[respect]

Bull flops. There is no job not worth a day's provisions. If it were not, it needn't be done in the first place.



Well, of course thieves and swindlers need to be punished.

Would it be okay with you if I hired my neighbor's kid to mow my lawn and didn't pay him $150 or so for an hours work? Seeing as how you claim that no job is worth less than a day's provisions and all. Most would agree that $20 is very generous but you seem to think that that would be theft.

 

[respect]

And there are a lot of drongos running big businesses who use that excuse when they argue against a minimum wage for over half of their employees. Clearly, somebody is selling someone a load of crap.

If you are deriving monetary value of any sort from the worker's having done a day's work, even if it is not equivalent to his pay, but that work in some way furthers the work that does return more, you owe him a day's provisions.

I'm not saying that the man who mows lawns for what his neighbors can afford should be getting paid the same as the man who does it for a contractor. That is another matter entirely. But the contractor, if he gets more than one man's provisions, had better square away his workers first. Otherwise, he is serving no purpose in the ecconomy or the society in which he lives and needs to find something else to do with his life.



If the entrepreneurial class could be trusted to act like grown-ups, there would be far fewer poor people and less need for government. Without government and regulations, some of them might even get the idea that slavery is not that bad an idea.

You seem to forget that people making "less than a day's provisions" are doing so voluntarily. Ronald McDonald does not hold a gun to McDonald's fry cook's heads and make them work for him.

Your problem seems to be with unskilled workers more so than their employers.

 

[Ziggurat]

And there are a lot of drongos running big businesses who use that excuse when they argue against a minimum wage for over half of their employees. Clearly, somebody is selling someone a load of crap.

Walmart is in favor of a minimum wage. They pay almost all their workers above minimum wage, so why does it even matter to them? You should ponder why they do that. And it isn't because they're really just nice people who believe in social justice.

Someone is indeed selling a load of crap. Looks like you're a buyer.

If you are deriving monetary value of any sort from the worker's having done a day's work, even if it is not equivalent to his pay, but that work in some way furthers the work that does return more, you owe him a day's provisions.

And if the work doesn't... then what?

Your answer, evidently, is don't let them work. It doesn't actually matter to you if they can be provided for by other means, even though you said so earlier. Your more recent comments have contradicted that. You DON'T really care about the welfare of workers. You actively want to punish employers you don't like, for its own sake.

 

[leftysergeant]

You seem to forget that people making "less than a day's provisions" are doing so voluntarily.

Ah, yes. Of course. The working man's freedom to starve is infringed when we nasty old liberals make the corporate leeches pay a decent wage.

 

[Earthborn]

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,

Not exactly the same. There is such a concept of "too much of a good thing", therefore to prove that something is categorically bad it is not enough to show that it can be exaggerated.

The argument that "if you think minimum wage is so good, why not make it $100?" is just as silly as saying "if you think your heart medicine is so good for you, why don't you take 100 pills every day?". It ignores the important concept of dosage: many things are not bad or good in and of themselves, but their badness or goodness depends on how much of it is used.

and that no consistent argument has been put forward which actually puts a maximum on what the minimum wage should be.

Perhaps no one explicitly put forward such an argument, but it is obvious enough for you to come up with it yourself: The maximum is when the deleterious side effects are not yet worse than the problem it intends to solve. Where exactly that point is is of course a political question; people will disagree on it.

 

[bikerdruid]

Would it be okay with you if I hired my neighbor's kid to mow my lawn and didn't pay him $150 or so for an hours work? Seeing as how you claim that no job is worth less than a day's provisions and all. Most would agree that $20 is very generous but you seem to think that that would be theft.

dude...simple concept...minimm wage...$10/hr.
how does that equate tp $150 /hr?

You seem to forget that people making "less than a day's provisions" are doing so voluntarily. Ronald McDonald does not hold a gun to McDonald's fry cook's heads and make them work for him.

Your problem seems to be with unskilled workers more so than their employers.

mcdonald's in grande prairie alberta, pays $12 - $15/hr for workers.

 

[Ziggurat]

The argument that "if you think minimum wage is so good, why not make it $100?" is just as silly as saying "if you think your heart medicine is so good for you, why don't you take 100 pills every day?".

Neither question is actually silly. And the existence of a definitive negative answer to the latter doesn't invalidate the question. But no answer to the former question was forthcoming.

Perhaps no one explicitly put forward such an argument, but it is obvious enough for you to come up with it yourself: The maximum is when the deleterious side effects are not yet worse than the problem it intends to solve.

In other words, there are deleterious effects. That's a rather major point, a point which many advocates of minimum wage try to avoid acknowledging. And addressing the question forces such an acknowledgment, which was its purpose in this thread.

 

[respect]

Ah, yes. Of course. The working man's freedom to starve is infringed when we nasty old liberals make the corporate leeches pay a decent wage.

You seem to want a lot of unskilled workers to be unemployable rather than have to have two workers in the same household. So what should happen to the people who become unemployed because they cannot provide enough value to a company to satisfy your minimum standards?

 

[respect]

dude...simple concept...minimm wage...$10/hr.
how does that equate tp $150 /hr?



mcdonald's in grande prairie alberta, pays $12 - $15/hr for workers.

Apparently I am stealing if I don't pay him a "day's provisions". It isn't clear how that standard applies to part time work.

 

[leftysergeant]

If, at the end of the day, the boss still has a day's provisions and has paid off all supplies and business expenses, he is not over-paying anyone.

If, at the end of the day, the boss has not paid his workers a decent wage, has not paid for his supplies and has fallen another day behind on repayment of his rent, he is really not entitled to take home a bag of potato chips, and may well be too stupid to run a business in the first place an should just get the hell out of the way.

 

[respect]

If, at the end of the day, the boss still has a day's provisions and has paid off all supplies and business expenses, he is not over-paying anyone.

If, at the end of the day, the boss has not paid his workers a decent wage, has not paid for his supplies and has fallen another day behind on repayment of his rent, he is really not entitled to take home a bag of potato chips, and may well be too stupid to run a business in the first place an should just get the hell out of the way.

Should he starve along with the unskilled workers?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Should he starve along with the unskilled workers?

Yes.

 

[Earthborn]

Would it be okay with you if I hired my neighbor's kid to mow my lawn and didn't pay him $150 or so for an hours work? Seeing as how you claim that no job is worth less than a day's provisions and all.

Perhaps lefty should have said "full time job". If you employ someone for an hour or so, you need only to make sure it provides them with enough money for an hour or so provisions. If you employ someone for the full time it is reasonable to make someone work in a day, you'll have to provide them with enough money for a full day's provisions.

Most would agree that $20 is very generous but you seem to think that that would be theft.

$20 for one hour work is quite generous. Many would even agree that it comes close to a full day's provisions, at least for a single person with no dependents. I'm pretty sure even lefty would not have any problem if you employed someone for a full work day and paid them 8 times that amount.

 

[respect]

Yes.

After you guys have starved all the unskilled poor and failed entrepreneurs we will have a much more efficient workforce.