Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[The_Animus]

And the workers obviously believe they are better off for it or else they wouldn't do the work.

But that's not the question.

Yeah isn't it funny what people are willing to do when they are starving and all the land and resources are controlled by others.

But back to your question I feel I need more information to answer it. Give me an example of a company that can afford $7.24/hr but not $7.25.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah isn't it funny what people are willing to do when they are starving and all the land and resources are controlled by others.

But back to your question I feel I need more information to answer it. Give me an example of a company that can afford $7.24/hr but not $7.25.

Nothing down this road. Explain to me why 65 is okay, but 66 is too fast for our highways. Explain to me why 18 is okay, but 17 and 364 days is not okay to vote. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[The_Animus]

Nothing down this road. Explain to me why 65 is okay, but 66 is too fast for our highways. Explain to me why 18 is okay, but 17 and 364 days is not okay to vote. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

66 isn't too fast for highways. And 17 and 364 days is not too young to vote.

 

[leftysergeant]

Funny thing about the rightwingnuts and regulations. They always shriek like slapped chilldren about how picky the regs are.

IK reemember watching a segment on TV a few years back, during old Jelly-brain's presidency in which some slob factory owner was insisting that OSHA was being anal retentive about his safety railing because it was an inch too low, and that he had to go buy 2X4s to nail over the tops of them to meet OSHA standards. It did not dawn on him that the whole mess could have been avoided had he instructed his contractor to "measure twice and cut once." Apparently, he just figured "Meh. Close enough for government work."

Corporatist weasels fail to acknowledge that there is no reason for government to accept half-assed attempts at being right. The height of a railing, for instance, was probably a compromise between what would ensure that nobody would topple over the railing onto the work area twenty feet below and what would reasonably prevent an average-sized worker from going SPLAT. This kind of thing can be determined objectively and realisticly. You find the center of gravity for a worker of average height and put the top of the railing above that point.

(Is everybody with me so far on how the standards can be set objectively, or do I have to take the right wing nuts aside for some remedial tutoring?)

So, let us assume that , when the physical plant people tell the OSHA inspector, "Hey, c'mon, man. Close enough for government work," the OSHA inspector shrugs and says,"Yeah, I'm not here to shut you all down. Screw it, you tried."

You now have a factory that is only a marginally safe place to work if all the workers are a bit below average height.

Stretch Grossman's life expectancy just took one hell of a hit.

Now, in a just world, which is really the better outcome:

1) The physical plant manager, maybe the CEO of the factory take a financial hit when OSHA shuts them down until they are in compliance and fines them both $100 per day until they fix it.

2) The physical plant manager and the CEO eat the cost of the higher railing but avoid the fine.

3) OSHA shrugs it off and Stretch splashes his brains on people who work on the ground floor and the shareholders still get enough money to go with the leather seat cover option on their BWMs.

 

[Dorian Gray]

66 isn't too fast for highways. And 17 and 364 days is not too young to vote.

Legally, it is. And that's the point. The minimum wage has to be set at a specific figure.

 

[leftysergeant]

Legally, it is. And that's the point. The minimum wage has to be set at a specific figure.

And it has to be set at a reasonable figure relative to what it takes to live decently.

 

[bikerdruid]

Legally, it is. And that's the point. The minimum wage has to be set at a specific figure.

And it has to be set at a reasonable figure relative to what it takes to live decently.

it seems pretty simple, really.

 

[respect]

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.

Right, if there was no minimum wage hospitals would fire all of their doctors and hire high school dropouts to replace them.

 

[respect]

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.

Why don't potential employees just go to one of the tightwad's competitors and get a better paying job?

 

[respect]

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.

He is going to create a vertical monopoly in every industry?

 

[respect]

If a job is not worth a day's provisions, it is not neccessary to begin with. If it needs to be done, it is worth a day's provisions. This is inescapable. If a person is not capable of performing any task to standards, it must be assumed that the individual is disabled or lazy. If he is disabled, a decent civilization will make other provisions for him. If he is just lazy, he can shape up or starve. There are other people looking for his job, if the ecconomy is in a down turn. If the ecconomy is booming, the employer will just have to take what he can get. It would be to his advantage to do so because it will keep the demand for all goods and services high.

A lot of jobs are not worth a "day's provisions". In fact you mean more than a day's assuming you don't want a seven day work week. Are you willing to pay more at the grocery store and other retailers so every employee can have a day's provisions +? Are you willing to pay more in taxes to support all of the people you want to be laid off?

Very few people are actually unemployable. If they are not disabled or uneducated or unwilling to follow instructions, the idea that they are not employable at minimum wage is a myth.

We are primarily talking about the uneducated here.

Why are you assuming that the state will be burdened? A minimum wage, with proper controls over cheap imports will create enough demand that most people will be employed.

Your plan to slap tariffs on everything will raise prices and lower the standard of living, which will lead to you crying for a higher minimum wage, which would put more people out of work and farther increase the burden on the state.

But I know, "ecconomics is a religion invented by Milton Friedman to steal my infrastructure, blah blah blah, drongos, blah blah blah."

 

[respect]

Except that you've admitted that there are some cases in which both parties still come out ahead even when the job is for less than minimum wage. Moreover, if the parties agree to the bargain at that rate, they both obviously feel the work is necessary.

I am still waiting to learn why, since you agree both parties come out ahead in your example, the worker no longer benefits when his employer has more money. If the working conditions and wages are the same, why does the relative wealth of the employer change the benefit to the employee?

Jealousy, there is nothing else to it.

 

[respect]

why should they have to?
this stff really is not that difficult.

for the umpteenth time....all workers deserve a decent wage.
a minimum wage keeps the capitalists honest.
someone needs to.

Apparently basic economics is very difficult for you and a few others.

 

[respect]

Because there are too many self-absorbed, whiney capitalist swine who think that no job other than their own is worth a day's decent provisions, and the little piggies would, without a truncheon nudging them in the ribs, get together and agree not to pay a decent wage even for high-skill jobs.

While there is no reason to believe your claims are true, the contrary in fact, such an environment would make it very easy for an aspiring entrepreneur to enter the market and take the imagined cartel's market share. In fact, such competition is why doctors don't make minimum wage like your fantasy imagines they should. In the real world, most people make considerably more than minimum wage. If you were right, there would be a race to the price floor. Removing the floor affects nothing but the handful of jobs at it.

 

[respect]

I specified that I am disabvled and of limited means, and that I will not benefit financially. Were I prosperous and had I things that I could do that would benefit me financially, then I am without excuse.

In either case, letting a contractor come between us and take the biggest chunk of the transaction screws both me and the worker. I can see no juustification on earth for allowing someone who finds work for a worker making more money for the work than does the worker.

Utility need not be financial. Get your gimpy #@$% out there and mow the lawn yourself if you aren't willing to pay a "decent day's provisions (+)" or quit the hypocrisy.

 

[respect]

Yeah isn't it funny what people are willing to do when they are starving and all the land and resources are controlled by others.

But back to your question I feel I need more information to answer it. Give me an example of a company that can afford $7.24/hr but not $7.25.

Perhaps they should look into improving their situation. I am not obligated to pay a high school dropout more than they produce because they dropped out of high school. If they don't like their employment opportunities it is up to them to do something about it, go back to school, develop a business model etc.

 

[respect]

it seems pretty simple, really.

Again, what about the people who can't earn that much? What do we do with them after you have banned them from having two incomes to compensate for their inability to live off of one?

 

[Skeptic]

Apparently basic economics is very difficult for you and a few others.

Well, they wouldn't be communist otherwise. It's the same way ignorance of basic astronomy is needed if one is to be a flat-earther.

 

[leftysergeant]

A lot of jobs are not worth a "day's provisions". In fact you mean more than a day's assuming you don't want a seven day work week. Are you willing to pay more at the grocery store and other retailers so every employee can have a day's provisions +? Are you willing to pay more in taxes to support all of the people you want to be laid off?

You are assuming that which is not so. Statres with high minimum wages tend to have lower unemployment rates because working people can actually afford to do things like buy groceries and clothing, so that there is a demand for grocerey stores and such.

How is the unemplolyment situation in Alabama (pre-tornado cluster) compared to Washington State?

We are primarily talking about the uneducated here.

What oriffice did that come out of? Lack of a HS diploma does not make one ditch digger worth less than another who has a couple college credits if he can still move the same amount of soil without the sides of the trench caving in.

Your plan to slap tariffs on everything will raise prices and lower the standard of living, which will lead to you crying for a higher minimum wage, which would put more people out of work and farther increase the burden on the state.

Bull flops. We had a great standard of living with enormously less personal debt before old Jelly-brtain started dismantling the New Deal and arguing for "free trade." It is not a post hoc ergo proter hoc argument that the end of tariffs and tax cuts for the wealthy and tax increases on the poor and massive deregulation of commerce caused the collapse of the ecconomy. It has happened every time that government let the investor class run wild.

But I know, "ecconomics is a religion invented by Milton Friedman to steal my infrastructure, blah blah blah, drongos, blah blah blah."

Well, it sure is not a science. Even less a science than history, and history is not friendly to criminal scum bags like Friedman.

 

[leftysergeant]

Perhaps they should look into improving their situation. I am not obligated to pay a high school dropout more than they produce because they dropped out of high school.

Nobody is asking you to. We are just saying that if they put in a day's work and do not damage your equipment by acting a total fool, you owe them a day's provisions. And, if it is not worth a day's provisions, you did not need it done in order for your business to succede, so why did you hire the drongo?

If they don't like their employment opportunities it is up to them to do something about it, go back to school, develop a business model etc.

Excuse me, but are you one of those superstitious people who think that all one needs to make gazillions is the determination to do so? Really? Wow!