Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[shuize]

The one case in which I allowed that it might be reasonable is if an impoverished and disabled person paid what little he could to someone who would otherwise have nothing. That is just the pooor helping each other out. If I am able-bodied and could do it myself, certainly, I owe him at least minimum wage.

You acknowledge that the worker and invalid both come out ahead in this example.

My question remains: Since you recognize the alternative to the worker is nothing, how is he worse off based on the relative wealth of his employer?

 

[Skeptic]

There will be someone to replace the drongo who couldnt come up with a rational business plan. There was an astounding amount of work getting done in the world before anybody even got the idea of money, let alone of capital.

Sure, but I doubt the workers in, say, California would really want to switch with the slaves in ancient Egypt, back in those heady days before the evil capitalists ruined everything.

Capital cannot, by itself, create wealth. It just moves it around to where it is needed. Capital cannot create itself. Only labor can create capital and capital should only be tolerated as a means of subsidizing labor.

I dunno. Take corporate funded R&D and hi-tech, for example: they are not "laborers" but people who do research, funded by capital, so that the company investing could make money. In the soviet world this was a big no-no, which is why soviet technology remained, in essence, stuck in the 1950s as the west advanced massively. There were no Russian-made PCs that weren't clones of capitalist-made ones, for example.

Marxism simply doesn't work. Capitalism doesn't work perfectly, either, of course, but far better than any alternative we know.

 

[leftysergeant]

You acknowledge that the worker and invalid both come out ahead in this example.

My question remains: Since you recognize the alternative to the worker is nothing, how is he worse off based on the relative wealth of his employer?

The worker is the only one to benefit financially from the fruits of his labor.

 

[Francesca R]

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

So?

So that results in lower productive output for the economy. It also places a greater burden on the state. It also denies those folks the social benefit of being productive.

All those negatives are alleviated if you let the below-minimum wage job exist.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

For the umpteenth time, in a world where the minimum wage is $7.25, why is it better for a worker to earn $0/hr than $7.24/hr?


edit: aww, no all caps?

 

[leftysergeant]

So that results in lower productive output for the economy. It also places a greater burden on the state. It also denies those folks the social benefit of being productive.

All those negatives are alleviated if you let the below-minimum wage job exist.

No. It would just lead to a bunch of drongos replacing the competent workers and allowing more money to flow into the hands of someone who just hordes it and does not allow any re-circulation of the wealth. The end result is that no one can rise to compete with him.

 

[Francesca R]

Rendering someone unemployed doesn't result in lower productive output?

It doesn't place a greater burden on the state?

It doesn't deny the person the social benefit of being productive?

Is "No" [it doesn't] your final answer, or would you like to go 50:50?

 

[leftysergeant]

Rendering someone unemployed doesn't result in lower productive output?

Yopu're assuming that the tightwad who doesn't want to pay minimum wage is the only employer in town. You also seem to assume that only minimum wage jobs will exist. You assume that the fact that more of those individuals who do work having more money to spend will not stimulate the ecconomy to the point that there will be more unskilled labor so that those lower-skilled persons will still find work.

 

[Francesca R]

I think it is a safe assumption that below minimum wage jobs will not exist. And you have accepted that at least some folks whose product has a value less than minimum wage rate will go unemployed. So:

Rendering someone unemployed doesn't result in lower productive output?

It doesn't place a greater burden on the state?

It doesn't deny the person the social benefit of being productive?

 

[shuize]

The worker is the only one to benefit financially from the fruits of his labor.

You've admitted that both parties come out ahead in your example.

But I still don't understand why you think the benefit to the employee rises or falls based on the relative wealth of his employer. The employee is still doing the same work and receiving the same pay. If he's willing to do the work for the wages offered, why should he care whether the employer is a poor invalid or some rich investor in Maui? Especially considering, as you've acknowledged, his alternative is nothing.

 

[leftysergeant]

You've admitted that both parties come out ahead in your example.

Because my example of a disabled person and the locall handyman who cannot find other work is a case of two people sharing the limited resources of their community.

An employer paying less than a decent wage is hoarding up the wealth of the community. Eventually, the community will be reduced to poverty except for the entrepreneur, who will then be in a position to demand of the poor all manner of things to which he is not entitled just because he is the only game in town.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think it is a safe assumption that below minimum wage jobs will not exist. And you have accepted that at least some folks whose product has a value less than minimum wage rate will go unemployed.

You make a false assumption that there are jobs which are not worth a day's provisions. I fail to see why anyone would buy the service or product of such a business in the first place. It still comes back to the entrepreneur's being an idiot.

 

[respect]

You make a false assumption that there are jobs which are not worth a day's provisions. I fail to see why anyone would buy the service or product of such a business in the first place. It still comes back to the entrepreneur's being an idiot.

You never go to the grocery store?

 

[shuize]

Because my example of a disabled person and the locall handyman who cannot find other work is a case of two people sharing the limited resources of their community.

But the benefit to the worker would not change if your disabled person had a bit more money.

Suppose he's living on a decent pension. He's not a pauper, but he doesn't know how much of his savings he's going to need in the future, so he doesn't want to pay more than he thinks the yard work is worth. Since he knows the neighbor kid would do the work for a little spending money, it's not really worth it to him to pay the handyman any more than that. The handyman is happy to do the work at the price offered, especially since he knows if he demands more he won't get anything.

Why would the handyman be any worse off in this situation?

An employer paying less than a decent wage is hoarding up the wealth of the community.

It's his wealth to hoard. But, just out of curiosity, when you go to the store how much above listed price do you offer to pay?

Eventually, the community will be reduced to poverty except for the entrepreneur, who will then be in a position to demand of the poor all manner of things to which he is not entitled just because he is the only game in town.

No. This is not the middle ages. People can move. If there is opportunity for profit, another entrepreneur will move in and fill the gasp. That's the beauty of competition. It works in both directions.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's his wealth to hoard. But, just out of curiosity, when you go to the store how much above listed price do you offer to pay?

We, as a society, decided some time ago that private property was a good way to manage resources. That does not mean that weare stuck with the idea for all time. It would be disasterous policy in the Darwinian sense, violating a principle that allowed us to thrive as a species.

No. This is not the middle ages. People can move.

The 19th Century is more than a hundred years gone.

If there is opportunity for profit, another entrepreneur will move in and fill the gasp. That's the beauty of competition. It works in both directions.

If we first weed out the useless tightwad who expects people to lose money on his behalf, yes, some grown-up will come in and mop the floor with him.

Just allowing the tightwad to amass a disproportionate share of the wealth of the community does not guarantee anybody a job.

 

[shuize]

We, as a society, decided some time ago that private property was a good way to manage resources. That does not mean that weare stuck with the idea for all time. It would be disasterous policy in the Darwinian sense, violating a principle that allowed us to thrive as a species.

This does not really answer my question as to why you think the benefit to the worker changes according to the relative wealth of his employer. Nor does it answer the question as to how much more than list price you offer to pay when you go shopping.

The 19th Century is more than a hundred years gone.

Right. But you seem to think that workers are tied to the land and unable leave for better opportunities.

If we first weed out the useless tightwad who expects people to lose money on his behalf, yes, some grown-up will come in and mop the floor with him.

It's not useless. You've admitted above that both parties come out ahead.

Moreover, the employer in the example above doesn't expect anyone to lose money on his behalf. He says "This is what the labor is worth to me. If you don't want to do it for that price, you're free to look for something better."

 

[WildCat]

I fail to see why anyone would buy the service or product of such a business in the first place.

Did you type that after you searched the internet for the lowest price for a televison you wanted, while collecting bids to see who can remodel your kitchen for the lowest price?

 

[Skeptic]

Well, HE is allowed to do that -- his FEELINGS are in the right place, with the workers, so it doesn't matter where he actually buys his stuff.

We, as a society, decided some time ago that private property was a good way to manage resources. That does not mean that weare stuck with the idea for all time.

You're quite welcome to send me all your stuff, if you are so sick and tired of private property. Or donate it to charity.

 

[maddog]

You make a false assumption that there are jobs which are not worth a day's provisions. I fail to see why anyone would buy the service or product of such a business in the first place. It still comes back to the entrepreneur's being an idiot.

Elevator operator.

If I owned some big swanky hotel that got $1000 a night for rooms, I might think it worthwhile to pay some dude minimum wage to wear a spiffy uniform, be exceedingly polite to my customers, and push the buttons for them. If someone is willing to take the job for minimum wage, it is not my responsibility to know what he does with his money - it is my responsibility to get him his paycheck in the amount that we agreed upon (minus the government's take).

Let's say the hotel is in midtown Manhattan - minimum wage isn't going to support anyone with rent, food, utilities, and all that stuff there - but maybe this dude has some other reason for wanting this job. Not my responsibility to even know his reason.

He's doing a job I want done, for an amount that I'm willing to pay him to do it; he's doing the job he agreed to do, for the amount that he agreed to. Everybody's happy. Except you, apparently.

 

[leftysergeant]

Let's say the hotel is in midtown Manhattan - minimum wage isn't going to support anyone with rent, food, utilities, and all that stuff there - but maybe this dude has some other reason for wanting this job. Not my responsibility to even know his reason.

He's doing a job I want done, for an amount that I'm willing to pay him to do it; he's doing the job he agreed to do, for the amount that he agreed to. Everybody's happy. Except you, apparently.

Ideally, the minimum wage would be a living wage. That is why there is still a push to get it raised.

The problem in America is not that workers want too much, but that the entrepreneurs do.

Nothing justifies one man's prospering from the labor of one or several who struggle to stay alive.