Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[Neally]

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.

Because you keep bringing up the absurd notion that employees need to be guaranteed a living wage for his efforts. If his skill 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 employee. Get it yet?

 

[leftysergeant]

Because you keep bringing up the absurd notion that employees need to be guaranteed a living wage for his efforts. If his skill or service is of value, he will prosper without government intervention on his behalf.

Historicly, that has not been the case. Deal with the realities of this time/space continuum.

 

[Neally]

Historicly, that has not been the case. Deal with the realities of this time/space continuum.

If an employee isn't prospering through his valuable work, he finds a new employer or becomes a business owner. If a business owner isn't prospering with is valuable business, he reinvents his business, or becomes an employee.

Now do explain why this isn't true today.

 

[leftysergeant]

If an employee isn't prospering through his valuable work, he finds a new employer or becomes a business owner.

Historicly, without minimum wage laws, there was unlikely to be another job to which to move that paid any better. And where does an under-paid working man get the capital to open a business? Do think these things through, please.

If a business owner isn't prospering with is valuable business, he reinvents his business, or becomes an employee.

Now do explain why this isn't true today.

And your head is not splitting from cognitive dissonance? Wow! Just WOW!

 

[Cobalt]

Historicly, without minimum wage laws, there was unlikely to be another job to which to move that paid any better.

If his skills, or lack thereof, mean that anyone else can do his job, he likely won't find better pay because someone else will take the job for less.

And where does an under-paid working man get the capital to open a business? Do think these things through, please.

Business loan. Find an entrepreneurial backer. The options exist. Do think these things through, please.

And your head is not splitting from cognitive dissonance? Wow! Just WOW!

He's correct, if a businessman's business isn't going well, he's got two options. Fix it, or **** it.

 

[leftysergeant]

If his skills, or lack thereof, mean that anyone else can do his job, he likely won't find better pay because someone else will take the job for less.

This does not mean that the job will go to someone as qualified or more so. It just means that a lot of people who do not have the skills, capital or blind good luck to have their own businesses get screwed out of a living wage so that a few can prosper.

Business loan. Find an entrepreneurial backer. The options exist. Do think these things through, please.

Not everyone who wants a small business loan can get it. Small businesses have about the same chance of beating the corporations as a herring has of getting out of the middle of a school of baracuda.

He's correct, if a businessman's business isn't going well, he's got two options. Fix it, or **** it.

Right. I am just saying that the ways to fix it do not include shorting the working people in a moral society. But, if his business is, indeed, valuable, why hasn't he prospered?

(Don't say it is because he had to pay a fair price for labor.)

 

[Neally]

Historicly, without minimum wage laws, there was unlikely to be another job to which to move that paid any better. And where does an under-paid working man get the capital to open a business? Do think these things through, please.

I didn't ask why this wouldn't work "historicly", I asked why this wouldn't work NOW. Where has any under-paid working man gotten capital? He goes into partners with someone else, gets a loan from a bank or angel investor, starts small from his home and works his way up, and dozens of other ways people have and do start from nothing and build their way up.

And your head is not splitting from cognitive dissonance? Wow! Just WOW!

By "valuable business" I mean a business that is producing something of value, but isn't making a profit. You know like a valuable employee, that isn't earning a days provision but should be if his skill or service is of value, and he will prosper without government intervention on his behalf.

Small businesses have about the same chance of beating the corporations as a herring has of getting out of the middle of a school of baracuda.

Well I guess we can just close the patent office and the small business administration offices, since no one can ever compete against established business that now rule the world.

I am just saying that the ways to fix it do not include shorting the working people in a moral society.

So it's immoral for some people to be shorted a day's provision, but not immoral for other people to be shorted a day's provision. Your ideas of morality are rather arbitrary. Wait, I almost forget, it's based on the Marxist bourgeoisie = evil, proletariat = victims concept of morality.

 

[Francesca R]

The law cannot dictate that uselessness be rewarded

Well quite, couldn't really have said it better myself.

Which is why a minimum wage fixed above the value of some people's productivity will likely lead to them being unemployed.

 

[leftysergeant]

Which is why a minimum wage fixed above the value of some people's productivity will likely lead to them being unemployed.

So?

 

[JJM 777]

In Washington State, college kids cannot get a job during summer or other breaks. This is because the minimum wage is among the hightest in this state within the Union.

Yep a minimum wage alone would not guarantee a major improvement in equality of people´s standard of living. Work must be a right that you get if you want to do work, so unemployment can only be a choice, not an involuntary fate as it now is for many.

 

[leftysergeant]

I didn't ask why this wouldn't work "historicly", I asked why this wouldn't work NOW.

For the same reason it didn't work in 1930.

Where has any under-paid working man gotten capital? He goes into partners with someone else, gets a loan from a bank or angel investor, starts small from his home and works his way up, and dozens of other ways people have and do start from nothing and build their way up.

Right. Everybody has a friend with money or an idea that a couple thousand other people are not already trying to do.

Add to that the fact that a growing number of those working don't even make ends meet and you're sure of success.

By "valuable business" I mean a business that is producing something of value, but isn't making a profit.

Hard to see how you figure his product or service is all that valuable if he is not making a profit.

You know like a valuable employee, that isn't earning a days provision but should be if his skill or service is of value, and he will prosper without government intervention on his behalf.

If a bunch of greedy entrepreneurs collude to artificially depress wages, no.

Well I guess we can just close the patent office and the small business administration offices, since no one can ever compete against established business that now rule the world.

Right. Just ask the multi-millionaire descendants of Philo Farnsworth.

So it's immoral for some people to be shorted a day's provision, but not immoral for other people to be shorted a day's provision. Your ideas of morality are rather arbitrary. Wait, I almost forget, it's based on the Marxist bourgeoisie = evil, proletariat = victims concept of morality.

I am quite consistant. If you intend to profit from another person's labor, you are obligated to ensure that that person also profits. Anything else is immoral.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yep a minimum wage alone would not guarantee a major improvement in equality of people´s standard of living. Work must be a right that you get if you want to do work, so unemployment can only be a choice, not an involuntary fate as it now is for many.

How do you uphold work as a “right”? If the economy is such that there are a thousand jobs open, and there are two thousand people unemployed who want to be working, how do you insure that every one of those two thousand is able to find a job?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am quite consistant. If you intend to profit from another person's labor, you are obligated to ensure that that person also profits. Anything else is immoral.

A worker profits from the efforts of his employer. Why don't you think the employer is entitled to profit?

 

[Cobalt]

This does not mean that the job will go to someone as qualified or more so.

Uh huh.

It just means that a lot of people who do not have the skills, capital or blind good luck to have their own businesses get screwed out of a living wage so that a few can prosper.

The ability to get the skills or capital exist. It isn't a guarantee, but by not trying they've dropped their chances exponentially.

Not everyone who wants a small business loan can get it.

True. These things happen.

Small businesses have about the same chance of beating the corporations as a herring has of getting out of the middle of a school of baracuda.

Difficult does not mean impossible.

Right. I am just saying that the ways to fix it do not include shorting the working people in a moral society. But, if his business is, indeed, valuable, why hasn't he prospered?

(Don't say it is because he had to pay a fair price for labor.)

You've literally said people getting fired isn't a problem to keep a business going, thus condemning people to no wage at all, never mind your "living wage" or "day's provisions."

How is nothing better than something? In increasing the minimum wage to keep from "shorting the working people" you're going to end up with less working people because businesses cut costs.

As far as why a business might not be doing so well, poor marketing, poor locations, any number of factors that don't instantly equal an "invaluable" business, but rather one that might need work.

 

[Neally]

Right. Everybody has a friend with money or an idea that a couple thousand other people are not already trying to do.

Add to that the fact that a growing number of those working don't even make ends meet and you're sure of success.

No one promised it was easy or guaranteed. See, competing in the real world is not like some government guaranteed employment or minimum wage.

Hard to see how you figure his product or service is all that valuable if he is not making a profit.

Thousands of examples of decent products or business that don't make it even though they have a decent offering. Take your lawn mowing business example. It may be a reliable valuable service, yet could still fail for a multitude of other reasons, including demand, competition, burdensome regulations, cost of labor, cost of supplies, etc. The real world business survival doesn't just depend on having a good product or service.

I am quite consistant. If you intend to profit from another person's labor, you are obligated to ensure that that person also profits. Anything else is immoral.

Which ignores your inconsistency in allowing another human to not ensure that they have a days daily provisions of income.

 

[shuize]

Lefty, I still don't understand the difference between you hiring a neighbor to cut your grass for less than minimum wage and a small scale entrepreneur hiring two or three guys at the same rate to help him run his lawn care business. If, as you admit, the parties come out ahead in the former, why is that not also the case in the latter?

 

[leftysergeant]

Lefty, I still don't understand the difference between you hiring a neighbor to cut your grass for less than minimum wage and a small scale entrepreneur hiring two or three guys at the same rate to help him run his lawn care business. If, as you admit, the parties come out ahead in the former, why is that not also the case in the latter?

You have no right to prosper while those who work for your profit fall behind. It really is that simple.

 

[Cobalt]

You have no right to prosper while those who work for your profit fall behind. It really is that simple.

And what you refuse to understand is that those working for someone wouldn't have that job at all if the businessperson hadn't decided to take the risk of opening a business.

It really is that simple. Do think these things through, please.

 

[leftysergeant]

And what you refuse to understand is that those working for someone wouldn't have that job at all if the businessperson hadn't decided to take the risk of opening a business.

You assume that every business man is a cad. That is so wrong. If some drongo wants to make widgets and pay 75% of a living wage and another agrees to pay 100% of living wage, guess which one will make a widget worth every penny you pay for it?

 

[shuize]

You have no right to prosper while those who work for your profit fall behind. It really is that simple.

Yes, I understand you believe what you've written above. But you're not really answering my question. I'm asking why, if you recognize that both parties come out ahead in a "personal interaction" at less than minimum wage, then why are they not also both coming out ahead when the transaction is called something different?

That you believe it is wrong when done in a "business interaction" does not change the relative benefits to the parties. They're still benefiting the same in either case.

I also do not understand why, in your view, it is acceptable to "prosper" on a personal level (i.e. paying someone less than minimum wage to cut grass at your home) but wrong to "prosper" on a business level (i.e. paying someone less than minimum wage to cut grass at someone else's home). The costs and benefits (i.e. the cost of the labor and the work received in return) are essentially the same in both cases.