Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

Neally said:
Just like the worker then, right? Don't both the worker and the owner deserve a guaranteed pay of daily provisions?
Click to expand...
You're just being silly now. Nobody deserves to make a profit just because he goes into business. (If you think they do, stop telling me that we have to tax the entrepreneurial slobs less because they need to be rewarded for "taking a risk.")

The worker who puts in a full day's labor without shirking deserves a day's provisions. The entrepreneur assumes a risk, thinking that he knows how to turn a profit. We expect him to pay ther going rate for the materials he uses. Now explain why he gets to say that the labor is not worth what is established as a proper price.

If we allow some drongo to pay people less than a living wage becausehe istoo stupid to run a business, what keeps everybody else from doing it?

Minimum wage laws are there to keep the entrepreneurs from reducing the rest of us to peonage.
 
leftysergeant said:
You're just being silly now. Nobody deserves to make a profit just because he goes into business.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about making a profit? I'm simply asking why you think one person deserves a guaranteed pay of a day's provision and another doesn't.
 
leftysergeant said:
we're both coming out ahead.
Click to expand...


You've acknowledged that there are cases when parties voluntarily agree to contract for less than the minimum wage and still both come out ahead.

Why does that mutual benefit change if one party has a bit more money?
 
Last edited:
shuize said:
You've acknowledged that there are cases when parties voluntarily agree to contract for less than the minimum wage and still both come out ahead.
Click to expand...

Personal intersactions and businesses are two different things. Business is subject to governmental regulation.

It's easy work for him and he likes to have a little extra spending money. In this hypothetical, my business is reasonably successful and I could probably pay more, but don't we still both come out ahead at the 5.00/hr. rate?
Click to expand...

It opens the door to other for-profit operations to use the same excuse for jobs that are an essential part of the operation. Sweeping the floor is one of those things.

It should be illegal for the same reason that the unions fought for and won laws requiring mine owners to pay for the time workers spent shoring up mine shafts.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Personal intersactions and businesses are two different things. Business is subject to governmental regulation.
Click to expand...


Personal interactions are also subject to governmental regulation. But, to focus the discussion, is this your key distinction? "Personal" interactions need not pay the minimum wage, but "business" interactions must?

It opens the door to other for-profit operations to use the same excuse for jobs that are an essential part of the operation. Sweeping the floor is one of those things.
Click to expand...


If it does not change the mutual benefit to both parties, as you've acknowledged in you earlier post, I don't see what difference it makes whether the job is an "essential" part of the operation or not. Both parties are still willing to contract at that rate.

To repeat then, why does the mutual benefit change if one party has a bit more money?
 
Last edited:
Neally said:
Who said anything about making a profit? I'm simply asking why you think one person deserves a guaranteed pay of a day's provision and another doesn't.
Click to expand...
If he is not producing anything of value, he is not earning anything.
 
leftysergeant said:
Minimum wage laws are there to keep the entrepreneurs from reducing the rest of us to peonage.
Click to expand...
First of all, we would all be making minimum wage if this were true.

Second, I've yet to see you explain one simple thing: if minimum wage is $7.25, why do you think I'd be better off making $0/hr than $7.24/hr?

I can see the response already... "blah blah blah drongos blah blah fat cats blah blah blah not an answer to your question."
 
shuize said:
Personal interactions are also subject to governmental regulation. But, to focus the discussion, is this your key distinction? "Personal" interactions need not pay the minimum wage, but "business" interactions must?
Click to expand...

If you derive your income from the work of another, that other person must be provided for, or you have used something to which you are not entitled.

If it does not change the mutual benefit to both parties, as you've acknowledged in you earlier post, I don't see what difference it makes whether the job is an "essential" part of the operation or not. Both parties are still willing to contract at that rate.
Click to expand...

If businesses are allowed to set a lower rate for work which they do not think will directly profit them, other businesses will try to claim even their profit centers as purely ancillary and then we are all screwed. I think I citred an example of what I mean in the discussion of the mining industry, pre-union.

To repeat then, why does the mutual benefit change if one party has a bit more money?
Click to expand...

The first person to benefit from the fruits of a man's labor must be the laborer. Those who wish to benefit from his labor need to pay for that labor. If they fail as a business, blame their business model, not the workers.
 
leftysergeant said:
If you derive your income from the work of another, that other person must be provided for, or you have used something to which you are not entitled.
Click to expand...
All those volunteer organizations with thousands of people working for free (GASP!) should be your primary target then...
 
leftysergeant said:
The first person to benefit from the fruits of a man's labor must be the laborer. Those who wish to benefit from his labor need to pay for that labor.
Click to expand...


But, as you've acknowledged, there are cases in which both parties benefit even when the agreed rate is less than minimum wage.

Why is that acceptable to you when the transaction is labeled "personal interaction" but not when it's labeled "business interaction?" Both parties are still willing to bargain and both parties still benefit in both cases.
 
leftysergeant said:
If he is not producing anything of value, he is not earning anything.
Click to expand...
He is producing something of value and working hard everyday and providing jobs for others, for which he pays them at least a day's pay worth of provisions. Does he deserve a guaranteed pay of a day's provisions for his work?
 
bikerdruid said:
does the owner actually work at a job within his company, or does he sit in a condo in maui and get fat off of his workers?
Click to expand...


So what if he is sitting in his Maui condo now? Would the workers be better off if the owner hadn't been willing to risk his capital in the first place? What if he busted his ass for years to save enough to make that risky investment? Is he allowed to enjoy any part of his success then?
 
bikerdruid said:
does the owner actually work at a job within his company, or does he sit in a condo in maui and get fat off of his workers?
Click to expand...

Hey, real talk, if he can pull that off, more power to him. What should his workers care if he's still writing good checks?
 
bikerdruid said:
does the owner actually work at a job within his company, or does he sit in a condo in maui and get fat off of his workers?
Click to expand...
Too predictable. The oppression of the proletariat, by the thieving, greedy bourgeoisie, dare I say, drongo. Ho hum, so mid 19th century Marxism. :faint:
 
Neally said:
He is producing something of value and working hard everyday and providing jobs for others, for which he pays them at least a day's pay worth of provisions. Does he deserve a guaranteed pay of a day's provisions for his work?
Click to expand...
If he is producing obsolete or dangerous or in some way unwanted crap, no.

But he is obligated to properly pay those who made it for him. Being stupid is not an excuse.
 
Neally said:
I already said it's of value. Why do you keep avoiding the question?
Click to expand...
Because you keep bringing up the absurd notion that he needs to be guaranteed a living wage for his efforts. If his product or service is of value, he will prosper without government intervention on his behalf. The law cannot dictate that uselessness be rewarded, and the supposed invisible hand of the market will take care of the productive entrepreneur.

I fail to see what this has to do with my assertion that a minimum wage is neccessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom