Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[respect]

isn't that the way it has always been?
people that do not do their job to the minimum acceptable level, get fired.
how and why will that change if the minimum wage applies or not?

The higher the wage, the more people who will not be be employable. If minimum wage were raised to $10 as some suggested businesses would look to offset the increased input cost with higher prices, when that would not do they would offset the cost with layoffs. People making less than $10 before the hike should be very concerned.

 

[Neally]

Should he starve along with the unskilled workers?

Already answered. The entrepreneurs should be given a minimum return on their capital plus a decent days provisions from the government. Alternatively the government needs to mandate that enough people pay and pay a high enough amount so that the business owner makes his required decent days provision amount. See, isn't it fun and easy fixing everything by just getting the government to pass a law that makes everything nice?

 

[leftysergeant]

Why the sudden obsession with the word "drongo"? Are you trying to teach yourself an insult a day?

I know it's slang, but it's also got a real definition too.

It's more appropriate here than what I really want to call most of today's crop of Repuiblicons and entrepreneurs.

The race horse by that name was assumed to be mentally defective.

Anybody who thinks that one man should expect those who provide him with the ability to earn money should be paid less than a decent day's provisions for a decent day's work, and think that society will not suffer if this becomes at all a normal thing is mentally defective.

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps we need to start implementing minimum prices on goods too. After all, we can't support those minimum wage jobs if the companies employing those workers don't earn some minimum profit. It's not fair for consumers to be able to buy things for too low a price. Such consumers are really just thieves.

 

[respect]

Perhaps we need to start implementing minimum prices on goods too. After all, we can't support those minimum wage jobs if the companies employing those workers don't earn some minimum profit. It's not fair for consumers to be able to buy things for too low a price. Such consumers are really just thieves.

Of course many unskilled workers work in food service. A significant hike in minimum wage would lead to a significant hike in the cost of groceries, then lefty would start screaming that grocery stores are price gouging him and stealing his infrastructure and that the minimum wage needs to go up because the cost of a day's provisions has increased. And when the cost of groceries increased with it the tantrum would start over again.

 

[leftysergeant]

Perhaps we need to start implementing minimum prices on goods too. After all, we can't support those minimum wage jobs if the companies employing those workers don't earn some minimum profit. It's not fair for consumers to be able to buy things for too low a price. Such consumers are really just thieves.

If they are not making or delivering a product for which there is a demand, they are too stupid to live anyway.

 

[leftysergeant]

Of course many unskilled workers work in food service. A significant hike in minimum wage would lead to a significant hike in the cost of groceries, then lefty would start screaming that grocery stores are price gouging him and stealing his infrastructure and that the minimum wage needs to go up because the cost of a day's provisions has increased.

Not even a rational assessment of what I am saying. If the production workers are not recieving a living wage, there is absolutely no justicifation for management or ownership of the company to recieve any cash benefit.

 

[respect]

Not even a rational assessment of what I am saying. If the production workers are not recieving a living wage, there is absolutely no justicifation for management or ownership of the company to recieve any cash benefit.

Sure there is. They have provided more value to the company than a cashier does.

 

[Ziggurat]

If they are not making or delivering a product for which there is a demand, they are too stupid to live anyway.

This explains your impression of Republicans: you're just projecting your own hostility onto them.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sure there is. They have provided more value to the company than a cashier does.

So? They have done it by stealing someone else's labor. It is not in society's interests to allow them to exist, let alone get fat for their efforts.

 

[respect]

So? They have done it by stealing someone else's labor. It is not in society's interests to allow them to exist, let alone get fat for their efforts.

Right, because there will be a lot of jobs if business owners cease to exist.

 

[bikerdruid]

i find the obvious contempt for workers quite disgusting.
a day's labour for a day's necessaries is the only reasonable, moral or practical answer.
no one shold be expected to give a day of labour for less, in a moral society.

 

[Neally]

i find the obvious contempt for workers quite disgusting.

Yet your contempt for the employer providing the jobs, knows no bounds.

a day's labour for a day's necessaries is the only reasonable, moral or practical answer.

An hourly wage based on skills and supply and demand of labor is the only reasonable, moral or practical answer.

 

[Dorian Gray]

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. .

If there are times when you are allowed to pay someone less money for the same job, then what qualifies YOU to be the arbiter?

Lefty, you are committing that old and often-used sin of not practicing what you preach, not applying your rules for everyone else to yourself. I suspect that anything that you could conceivably pay for directly, such as a meal at a restaurant, lawn service, house painting, etc., will mysteriously not be subject to the same rules as something else, like working at a shoe factory or whatever.

The thing is, if the shoemaker makes more money, the shoe company has got to raise prices. You will be paying for the increased wages. Your argument is going to be that the shoe company should pay for this, but why?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

I think John 12:4-6 sums Lefty up pretty well. When he talks of caring about the workers, the poor, the downtrodden, or whatever, he does so out of an entirely other agenda.

 

[DC]

I think John 12:4-6 sums Lefty up pretty well. When he talks of caring about the workers, the poor, the downtrodden, or whatever, he does so out of an entirely other agenda.

wow for a moment i thought Jesus was gay, didn't know ass can also mean donkey

 

[leftysergeant]

If there are times when you are allowed to pay someone less money for the same job, then what qualifies YOU to be the arbiter?

You haven't been paying attention. If i emploly someone to perform a simple service for me out of neccessity, such as mowing my lawn while I am laid up with some illness or injury, and have no money to pay him a living wage and he has no other commitments because he is unemployed,, then yes, I am doing him a favor offering him what I can, if he wants it.

By the same token, were i making a couple grand a week, and needed to be on the job site when the grass needs mowing or lose money, then I would be a low-life and a dirtbag not to offer at least minimum wage to the gardener or whoever for leaving me free to go pursue a greater amount of money.

And, if I am running a landscaping business and hiring someone else to do the actual labor, I can think of no reason not to pay those workers a decent wage, even if it leaves me struggling.

I can think of no reason that someone who helps me make any money at all is not entitled to a decent day's provisions, whether I am making a profit or a pile of crap. I am only entitled to profit if, after paying all my bills, for supplies, utilities and labor, there is still some residue of cash.

Lefty, you are committing that old and often-used sin of not practicing what you preach, not applying your rules for everyone else to yourself.

You assume falsely.

The thing is, if the shoemaker makes more money, the shoe company has got to raise prices. You will be paying for the increased wages.

So? Kids gotta starve so I can pay less for luxury shoes? I don't see it.

 

[Cobalt]

You haven't been paying attention. If i emploly someone to perform a simple service for me out of neccessity, such as mowing my lawn while I am laid up with some illness or injury, and have no money to pay him a living wage and he has no other commitments because he is unemployed,, then yes, I am doing him a favor offering him what I can, if he wants it.

So if you were a business, you'd be OK with "stealing labor" because, damnit, you're offering what you can, despite being a failing business.

By the same token, were i making a couple grand a week, and needed to be on the job site when the grass needs mowing or lose money, then I would be a low-life and a dirtbag not to offer at least minimum wage to the gardener or whoever for leaving me free to go pursue a greater amount of money.

Why not more? You're clearly rolling in the dough. Sharing is caring!

And, if I am running a landscaping business and hiring someone else to do the actual labor, I can think of no reason not to pay those workers a decent wage, even if it leaves me struggling.

I can think of no reason that someone who helps me make any money at all is not entitled to a decent day's provisions, whether I am making a profit or a pile of crap. I am only entitled to profit if, after paying all my bills, for supplies, utilities and labor, there is still some residue of cash.

Cute, but you'd end up having to cut workers to keep your business afloat. In doing so, you condemn that poor, poor bastard to less than a "living wage."

So? Kids gotta starve so I can pay less for luxury shoes? I don't see it.

Why do you need luxury shoes?

Also you're still operating under the assumption that every person going to work puts in a "decent day's labor." There's often someone who isn't pulling their weight at a place of business, leaving others to pick up the slack yet reaping the reward. In raising the minimum wage, you're only rewarding the person who isn't exerting the same effort yet getting the same pay.

This is one of those things that just sounds so lovely on paper, unfortunately reality just doesn't work that way.

 

[leftysergeant]

Right, because there will be a lot of jobs if business owners cease to exist.

Total bull flops. Some non-sociopathic adult will then have an iopportunity to get into the business, if there is any reason for the business to exist in the first place.

 

[leftysergeant]

So if you were a business, you'd be OK with "stealing labor" because, damnit, you're offering what you can, despite being a failing business.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. If I expect to derive some cash benefit from your labor, I am supposed to give you a day's provisions in exchange for a day's labor. If I cannot make a profit after doing so, I have no business being in business, because my business model obviously sucks.

Why not more? You're clearly rolling in the dough. Sharing is caring!

Cutting the grass is a minimum-skill-level job. A day's provisions, or a per-hour rate equal to the time he spends at it is the least I should expect to pay. If he is really good at it, I should think it only fitting to pay hm more.

Cute, but you'd end up having to cut workers to keep your business afloat. In doing so, you condemn that poor, poor bastard to less than a "living wage."

So everybody that I keep on has to work for less than a day's provisions? That is one totally screwed-up business model. To be ethical, I would have to do with less than a day's provisions. You are making no sense. I have no reason to employ someone if he is not doing something for me which will make my life better.

Why do you need luxury shoes?

I don't. I was just using that as a way of pointing out that if you want something, you owe it to the person making it to pay for that part of his day's labor. If I expected the shoes for less, be they Guccis or some cheapy mart house brand, I would be an utter swine.

Also you're still operating under the assumption that every person going to work puts in a "decent day's labor." There's often someone who isn't pulling their weight at a place of business, leaving others to pick up the slack yet reaping the reward.

Why did you hire the drongo, and why should the rest of your workers have to accept less than a living wage because of him?

In raising the minimum wage, you're only rewarding the person who isn't exerting the same effort yet getting the same pay.

Allowing a stupid employer to pay less is rewarding his stupidity out of good worker's pockets.