Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[leftysergeant]

Let me try it one more time for the benefit of those who mistake ecconomics for for an actual science.

Any person who performs a day's labor for the benefit of another person, especially for the benefit of a person who shall benefit financially from that labor, is entitled to a decent day's provisions in return.

A "decent day's provisions" shall herein mean "such an amount of money or other consideration as shall allow the worker to obtain shelter, food, transportation and reasonable entertainment, consistant with the modal standard of living without going into debt."

Right now, ten bucks will get you there. Eight is a pretty feeble attempt. One hundred is over the top in an Alex Jones way.

 

[BOATGOD]

You're new here, so here's the quick rundown.

The JREF forum is a place to discuss in a friendly and lively way....except in the politics section, where critical thinking goes to die and manners are clearly optional.

That said I do hope you stick around. Welcome to the forum.

New? Haha...
Don't take me seriously Lefty, but answer to my questions would be appreciated.

 

[bikerdruid]

Why can't you see the silliness in the government dictating the price of labor and goods?

they are not dictating the price of labour.
they are setting a minimum standard.
government sets minimum standards in many industries.
building codes, occupancy codes and many other common matters are set by government standards.
the reason there are not more unsafe vehicles on the road is due to minimum standards set by the government.

minimum wage is a standard to help control the exploitation of labour.

 

[Snide]

The whole point is to identify why one value is better than another. If $1 is too low and $100 is too high, why is $7.25 just right? Some groups say $17 is just right, or at least the lowest acceptable amount. Why isn't $20 better than $17, or $25? $100 is just a random number to illustrate the other end of the spectrum to get some sort of rationale out of the MW proponents as the justification of one value over another. Equally quite simple, really.

OK...we're in agreement now, almost.

If others truly are saying $7.25 or $17 or whatever are "just right," I do not agree that the $100 figure has been used in the way you suggest it has been. Rather, it seems it has been used (many times in past threads here as well, if not $100, some other outrageously large number) as a snarky "gotcha" comment, to (erroneously) suggest that the others' position must be, "If $10 is better than $7, then according to that logic, $100 must be even better still," which simply does not follow.

 

[leftysergeant]

I know that per capita GDP in Australia adjusted for purchasing power parity is over $7,500 less than in the US according to the IMF. And that the median US household income is over $5,600 higher than in Australia, also adjusted for PPP.

So if the goal is to increase household income, it's not apparent that it has worked.

Maybe the goal is not to raise the median income. If I am still making what I made last year, and you just made a couple million dollars on a land deal, our median income has increased.

Aint done me a damned bit of good, though, has it.

 

[Neally]

Any person who performs a day's labor for the benefit of another person, especially for the benefit of a person who shall benefit financially from that labor, is entitled to a decent day's provisions in return.

A "decent day's provisions" shall herein mean "such an amount of money or other consideration as shall allow the worker to obtain shelter, food, transportation and reasonable entertainment, consistant with the modal standard of living without going into debt."

Still haven't answered why an entrepreneur shouldn't be entitled to a "decent days provisions" as well as a return on the capital he put at risk. Further you still haven't explained why people should be forced to live a "modal" quality of life when you could dictate that they have a much better one.

Your approach to determine worth based on expenses is beyond retarded. By that same approach, if it costs me $50 to produce a widget, I should be guaranteed that I can sell it for more than that. If the market is only willing to pay $40 for it, well there ought to be a law that sets the minimum above $50 since that's what it costs me.

they are not dictating the price of labour.
they are setting a minimum standard.

Saying it isn't so, doesn't make it so. A minimum wage is dictating the price of labor. Wishing it away doesn't change that.

government sets minimum standards in many industries.
building codes, occupancy codes and many other common matters are set by government standards.
the reason there are not more unsafe vehicles on the road is due to minimum standards set by the government.

If government setting rules is good, why shouldn't government set the the cost of all labor, as well as the cost of everything else?

 

[leftysergeant]

Still haven't answered why an entrepreneur shouldn't be entitled to a "decent days provisions" as well as a return on the capital he put at risk.

If he can't make a profit without stealing labor, he is probably too freaking stupid to be in business in the first place and should get out of the way and let a grown up take his niche. Maybe he can get a minimum wage job where he will actually be of some use to society.

Further you still haven't explained why people should be forced to live a "modal" quality of life when you could dictate that they have a much better one.

You missed the whole point. That is a floor, not a cieling.

Your approach to determine worth based on expenses is beyond retarded. By that same approach, if it costs me $50 to produce a widget, I should be guaranteed that I can sell it for more than that.

Not a bit of it. If you can't sell your widgets for $50, it would have to be because of one of these factors:
1. Your widgets suck and there are better widgets available for the same or slightly higher price.

2. Nobody uses widgets any more.

3. Your under-paid advertising manager cannot work up the enthusiasm to convince peole that your widgets don't suck.

4. Your under-paid engineers either cannot figure out why your widgets suck, or are afraid you will can them for impertinence.

Whichever, it is clear that your business plan sucks and you might really have a brighter future making whamdiddlies, but, if you are really that inept and cannot get people to porduce for you at the sub-human wages you want to offer, you might be better-off working on an assembly line making whamdiddlies.

Government has no legitimate reason to prop up delusional schmucks.

Saying it isn't so, doesn't make it so. A minimum wage is dictating the price of labor. Wishing it away doesn't change that.
If government setting rules is good, why shouldn't government set the the cost of all labor, as well as the cost of everything else?

No. It is the suppression of theft, which is a legitimate concern of government. Setting the price of goods is not a government function unless in a time of war or famine piratical businesses cannot extort obscene profits from the populace.

 

[WildCat]

Maybe the goal is not to raise the median income. If I am still making what I made last year, and you just made a couple million dollars on a land deal, our median income has increased.

Aint done me a damned bit of good, though, has it.

You are confusing "median" with "mean". If in our 2-person country you made $10,000 and I made $1,000,000, the median is $10,000. If next year you still make $10k and I make $5,000,000, the median income is still $10,000.

 

[Kid Eager]

You are confusing "median" with "mean". If in our 2-person country you made $10,000 and I made $1,000,000, the median is $10,000. If next year you still make $10k and I make $5,000,000, the median income is still $10,000.

let me help you with that:

"In probability theory and statistics, a median is described as the numeric value separating the higher half of a sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half. The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one. If there is an even number of observations, then there is no single middle value; the median is then usually defined to be the mean of the two middle values"

 

[Kid Eager]

So if the goal is to increase household income, it's not apparent that it has worked.

That's a big IF. It's also wrong. It's about procedural fairness and social equity (in broad terms). Here's the role of the organisation, from the previously quoted website:

The Fair Work Ombudsman is a statutory office created by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is set out in the Fair Work Act, and he operates independently of Government, making his own decisions about all investigations.

The Fair Work Ombudsman’s functions include promoting harmonious, productive and cooperative workplace relations and ensuring compliance with Commonwealth workplace laws. The services of the Fair Work Ombudsman are free to all workers and employers in Australia.

 

[Corsair 115]

I know that per capita GDP in Australia adjusted for purchasing power parity is over $7,500 less than in the US according to the IMF. And that the median US household income is over $5,600 higher than in Australia, also adjusted for PPP.

So if the goal is to increase household income, it's not apparent that it has worked.

On the other hand, the national unemployment rate in Australia for March 2011 was 4.9%. In the U.S. the rate was 8.8%, 1.8 times higher.

 

[WildCat]

let me help you with that:

"In probability theory and statistics, a median is described as the numeric value separating the higher half of a sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half. The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one. If there is an even number of observations, then there is no single middle value; the median is then usually defined to be the mean of the two middle values"

True, median is mean in a 2-person country. But Australia and the US have more than 2 people, don't they? And the US has a much higher median than Australia does.

 

[WildCat]

On the other hand, the national unemployment rate in Australia for March 2011 was 4.9%. In the U.S. the rate was 8.8%, 1.8 times higher.

How was Australia's unemployment rate during the 1990s? Early 2000s? The current rate is an anomaly, and is in fact at or near an historic low. There's no evidence at all it's the result of a 2-year old labor law.

 

[thaiboxerken]

True, median is mean in a 2-person country. But Australia and the US have more than 2 people, don't they? And the US has a much higher median than Australia does.

How's that median look if we cut the top 2% out of the equation?

 

[WildCat]

How's that median look if we cut the top 2% out of the equation?

I doubt it would change significantly, that's why we use median instead of mean for these things.

 

[Neally]

If he can't make a profit without stealing labor, he is probably too freaking stupid to be in business in the first place and should get out of the way and let a grown up take his niche. Maybe he can get a minimum wage job where he will actually be of some use to society.

That doesn't explain why it's justified to give labor a minimum wage but not an employer.

You missed the whole point. That is a floor, not a cieling.

But that still doesn't explained why people should be forced to live a "modal" quality of life when you could dictate that they have a much better one. Why not raise the floor?

Government has no legitimate reason to prop up delusional schmucks.

But they do have a legitimate reason to prop up incompetent/unskilled worker schmucks. Got it.

No. It is the suppression of theft, which is a legitimate concern of government. Setting the price of goods is not a government function unless in a time of war or famine piratical businesses cannot extort obscene profits from the populace.

Sorry, "theft" is not something you can change the definition of to describe and justify government dictated wages.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Don't we give some employers a minimum wage? Maybe the oil industry? Big farm corporations?

 

[leftysergeant]

That doesn't explain why it's justified to give labor a minimum wage but not an employer.

What has the employer produced that it of value to anyone? If nobody wants the crap he makes, tough luck, dude. But he wants the labor, and bloody well better pay for it. If, using that labor, he can produce nothing that anyone else wants, he can produce something of value or go offer what he has of value to someone who does make something desireable. (Although I have to wonder how much another employer would want the labor of such a drongo.)

But that still doesn't explained why people should be forced to live a "modal" quality of life when you could dictate that they have a much better one. Why not raise the floor?

That would be inflationary and would do nothing for the unemployed because they would still be trying to obtain now-more-expensive stuff without any more income. There is a finite pool of resources, regardless what paper entrepreneurs may see from their desks. That the working class has more money to spend will create a lot more jobs than will the rich having scads more and just hoarding it or buying jobs out from under competitors. A minimum wage pushes a bit more money down the food chain so that the rich cannot get richer without redistributing some of those finite resources, which is the only justification for the existance of the investor class in the first place.

But they do have a legitimate reason to prop up incompetent/unskilled worker schmucks. Got it.

Arrogant and elitist blather. It is not propping up the incompetent to insist that a decent wage be paid for a decent day's work. The entrepreneur who hires incompetent schmucks is probably too much a schmuck to be worth saving in the first place.

Sorry, "theft" is not something you can change the definition of to describe and justify government dictated wages.

It will have to do for now because it is a little too much a stretch to call it "enslavement."

 

[Kid Eager]

How was Australia's unemployment rate during the 1990s? Early 2000s? The current rate is an anomaly, and is in fact at or near an historic low. There's no evidence at all it's the result of a 2-year old labor law.

Gee, your strawman factory is certainly busy today! But, to answer your question, here's the stats on australia's unemployment:

http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/unemployment_rate.html

Oh, and as we're talking evidence, here's USA's... enjoy:

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/unemployment_rate.html

 

[WildCat]

Gee, your strawman factory is certainly busy today!

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

But, to answer your question, here's the stats on australia's unemployment:

http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/unemployment_rate.html

Oh, and as we're talking evidence, here's USA's... enjoy:

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/unemployment_rate.html

Exactly, take away the last 3 years and the unemployment rate in the US is lower than Australia.

I have no idea what you think your data shows.