Progressive Radio Rants -- Minimum Wage

[Francesca R]

You make a [ . . . ] assumption that there are jobs which are not worth a day's provisions.

So did you when you answered before:

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

So?

And you don't seem bothered that those jobs will in some cases not be done and that in some cases people whose output is not worth more than that will be unemployed.

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?

 

[Aurelian]

Re: Everybody's happy - so many happy people at Walmart.

Sweden apparently thinks the United States has cheap labor:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ikea-union-20110410,0,4172495,full.story

 

[leftysergeant]

And you don't seem bothered that those jobs will in some cases not be done and that in some cases people whose output is not worth more than that will be unemployed.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[shuize]

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.

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?

 

[maddog]

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.

But the example I gave is true regardless of the amount of the wage. It's also true in your lawn boy example.

Not everybody has the same standard for what constitutes "living wage".

What gives you the right to decide how much I should be paid for my labor? What gives you the right to decide how much I should have to pay for someone else's labor?

 

[The_Animus]

What gives you the right to decide how much I should have to pay for someone else's labor?

There are no such things as rights. But there is such a thing as treating people with dignity.

A quote from Doctor Who concerning the Second Great and Bountiful Human Empire.

Donna: A great big empire, built on slavery.
The Doctor: It's not so different from your time.
Donna: Oy, I haven't got slaves.
The Doctor: Who d'you think made your clothes?

 

[Neally]

If a job is not worth a day's provisions, it is not neccessary to begin with.

You make a false assumption that there are jobs which are not worth a day's provisions.

Then why worry about imposing a minimum wage or raising the minimum wage since no such jobs would even exist? Not only could they not be found, no one would want to do them if they were there since no one would even want to work for less than a day's provisions.

 

[bikerdruid]

There are no such things as rights. But there is such a thing as treating people with dignity.

A quote from Doctor Who concerning the Second Great and Bountiful Human Empire.

excellent post.
all workers deserve to live with dignity.
a minimum wage helps keep employers honest.

 

[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?

Ahem!

 

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by 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?


Ahem!

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.

 

[The_Animus]

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?

A worker who earns $0/hr is a slave. A great many businesses around the world pay little more than that for the labor they receive.

By the way, why can a company afford to pay it's employees $7.24/hr but not $7.25?

 

[leftysergeant]

Then why worry about imposing a minimum wage or raising the minimum wage since no such jobs would even exist?

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.

 

[shuize]

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.

*Of course, there are some cases in which both parties come out ahead even when working for less than minimum wage, as you've acknowledged.

Moreover, your argument that any job which pays less than minimum wage is not necessary is easily falsified using your own example: By agreeing to work for the wages offered, the unemployed worker (who would otherwise get nothing) indicates that the job is necessary to him, and by agreeing to pay to have the work done the employer shows that the job is necessary on his end as well.

 

[Neally]

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.

So now you are say that there would be less than living wage jobs. Make up your mind. First there isn't, now there is.

You really ought to take this discussion to the conspiracy forum with all this talk of whiney swiney capitalists conspiring to pay people pennies for their production. (We need an alliteration forum too.)

 

[Grizzly Adams]

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.

So, the reason it is better for a worker to be unemployed than earn one cent less than minimum wage is that it keeps capitalists honest?

That's not much (if any) of an answer.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

A worker who earns $0/hr is a slave. A great many businesses around the world pay little more than that for the labor they receive.

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.

 

[leftysergeant]

*Of course, there are some cases in which both parties come out ahead even when working for less than minimum wage, as you've acknowledged.

Moreover, your argument that any job which pays less than minimum wage is not necessary is easily falsified using your own example

No. I am not trying to benefit financially from the other person's labor. I am out the entire amount i pay him.

If I expect to make a profit, it is my duty to take care of him first. If I make more than he does from his labor and leave him suffering, why should he work for me? If the entire investor class tries to profit from the labor of the working class and leave the working class to starve, why should the working class not rise up and kill and eat the investor class? The species can survive very well without an investor class.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

Yes, it is.

Given the choice between starving to death quickly or slowly, you are better off starving slowly, right?

But why should you starve if someone else is getting fat off the fruits of your labor?

Starving workers fattening a capitalist should consider a diet of "long pig."

 

[shuize]

No. I am not trying to benefit financially from the other person's labor. I am out the entire amount i pay him.

You're out the amount you pay him but you're also able to spend the time you'd otherwise be cutting grass to devote to something you feel is more worthwhile -- which is obviously why you're paying him. It's very easy to imagine a scenario in which you pay the lawn mower $5.00/hr. so that you can earn $50.00/hr. doing something more productive. He obviously believes the $5.00/hr. is worth his time because he's agreed to it. Thus, you have both benefited financially and are both better off.

If I expect to make a profit, it is my duty to take care of him first.

I just explained how you (or someone exactly like you) profit by paying less than minimum wage for personal lawn care, a scenario in which you agree both parties come out ahead.

If I make more than he does from his labor and leave him suffering, why should he work for me?

First, you're assuming he is suffering, starving, etc.

Second, as to why he should work for you, that's been answered: He feels it is the best use of his time to do so.

This is actually really basic stuff.

 

[leftysergeant]

You're out the amount you pay him but you're also able to spend the time you'd otherwise be cutting grass to devote to something you feel is more worthwhile -- which is obviously why you're paying him.

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.