Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BlindKitty]

Yeah, there are a few problems with minimum wage, that I can see/know of. And a few more with wages in general, especially CEO-level ones. But first a minor disclaimer: I'm right-winged, hardcore Laissez-Faire proponent; I don't live in USA; I have some economical knowledge, but it is not gained during formal studies (but I was using university-level materials to gain it).

So, I'm from Poland, as some of you might or might not know. As we are going through elections right now, the minimum wage is (of course!) being discussed here, too. If mix something up in regards to American regulations, please, let me know. Our laws are probably somewhat different than American (*) so I might confuse something.

The main problem we need to address is that pointed out to HugoLuman: with increased minimum wage, there is a risk of lay-offs. Not only in small companies that won't be able to afford to increase wages, although that will surely happen too; there are some things that are barely profitable with minimum wage of 7.25$, and they will just stop working after an increase. But think also of big companies. If there are only minimum wage workers, and the wage is increased by 10%, the management might try to get away with letting 10% of the crew go and just working the rest harder, since they are already getting 10% more. They will cut hours in fast food joints and the hamburgers that fallen on the floor will lay there until rush hour ends and somebody is free to pick them up.
In general: those with jobs will earn more, but there will be less people with jobs.

Work is a resource, like everything else. Let's say cheap milk costs 1$ a gallon, and expensive brand costs 1.5$ per gallon, and there are people buying a gallon a week of cheap one. And suddenly there is a minimum price of milk: 1.25$ a gallon. Some people will start paying 1.25$, but others won't, they will go back to drinking water barbarians. And some will think 'well, since the cheap one is almost as expensive as the expensive one, I will just buy the expensive one'. But generally, there will be less milk sold, because nobody will start to think 'since the milk is more expensive, I will now buy more milk!'...

Spoiler: (*) (click to show/hide)

 For starters, our minimum wage is monthly, not hourly; but much more importantly, our minimum wage is tied to a number of other values declared by law, like unemployment benefits, various social payments (for disabled or other), level of taxes paid by some people (not only minimum-wage earners, but also self-employed, if I'm not messing anything) etc. This means that changing our minimum wage has much bigger repercussions that one might think.

[Frumple]

*grumbles vaguely* Problem with the milk example is that wages aren't a one-way street. The only variable involved isn't the price of the metaphorical milk. If setting the minimum price on milk subsequently caused everyone involved to be able to afford $1.25* milk, purchases would almost certainly increase. Certainly for stuff like that, demand isn't really going to change that much -- milk prices have something like freaking doubled in my lifetime, from what I recall**, and consumption damn sure hasn't halved. You could -- and do -- have demand shifts into other resources, but that's generally not (even remotely) a net economic loss. Money spent on water is still money spent, and whatever the price difference is between the water and milk gets spent on other things (like hey, maybe healthcare or education or personal business investments or housing or, y'know, stuff like that).

Work isn't really a resource that functions like a perishable item, though. Very different dynamics going on with it.

*Incidentally, that's hella' cheaper than actual milk is selling here in the states, but that's neither here nor there.
**Though that recall could definitely be spotty considering how volatile milk prices are on a monthly/seasonal basis. Also don't ask me about inflation adjustments, it's 3 in the morning and I haven't slept since yesterday.
---

Last I checked, pegging the minimum wage in the states to inflation (i.e. it would skyrocket) would almost certainly not cause a significant GDP drop -- there would be a little instability (followed almost certainly by a notable increase, as demand shifts upward and in to less marginal items), and maybe the jackasses on top would have to stop raking it in quite so hard (on a per-worker basis, anyway), but the economy can frankly afford to double or better the minimum wage. Might not be able to double or better everything else, but shit, most of the everything else is already managing a living wage so m'personally less than concerned about that.

Sounds like it'd be a nice thing, to me. Min-wage folks might actually be able to live, and invest themselves in to doing something besides min-wage stuff, without breaking themselves in half in the process.

[wobbly]

.

The main problem we need to address is that pointed out to HugoLuman: with increased minimum wage, there is a risk of lay-offs. Not only in small companies that won't be able to afford to increase wages, although that will surely happen too; there are some things that are barely profitable with minimum wage of 7.25$, and they will just stop working after an increase. But think also of big companies. If there are only minimum wage workers, and the wage is increased by 10%, the management might try to get away with letting 10% of the crew go and just working the rest harder, since they are already getting 10% more. They will cut hours in fast food joints and the hamburgers that fallen on the floor will lay there until rush hour ends and somebody is free to pick them up.
In general: those with jobs will earn more, but there will be less people with jobs.

Work is a resource, like everything else. Let's say cheap milk costs 1$ a gallon, and expensive brand costs 1.5$ per gallon, and there are people buying a gallon a week of cheap one. And suddenly there is a minimum price of milk: 1.25$ a gallon. Some people will start paying 1.25$, but others won't, they will go back to drinking water barbarians. And some will think 'well, since the cheap one is almost as expensive as the expensive one, I will just buy the expensive one'. But generally, there will be less milk sold, because nobody will start to think 'since the milk is more expensive, I will now buy more milk!'...

Seems to me this kind of logic makes a lot of sense to people but doesn't stack up if you look at the real world. I live in a country where minimum wage is much higher than in the US and yet the unemployment rates are roughly the same. In my experience businesses will employ the minimum number of staff they can to get the job done. The minimum no. of workers doesn't actually change whether you're paying them $5, $10 or $50/hr. As long as it's not so high that the business can't actually turn a profit the number of workers employed tends to stay the same.

[martinuzz]

In my opinion, as long as we are in a situation were there is no basic income for everyone yet, minimum wage should be such, that a person who works 40h a week earns enough to pay rent, gas/water/electricity bills, eat healthy, be insured for healthcare, have money to send kids to school (if not provided for free by the government), and some extra for recreation.

In a situation where someone works 40h a week and does not have access to those basic commodities, I do not regard it as a crime if those people engage in illegal activities to supplement their income (as long as you don't cause harm to another person while doing that. And no, I do not regard stealing a million dollar painting from a billionaire, for example, as 'causing harm to another person'.

In some ways, the black slaves in America before the Abolition were better off than many poor sods who are forced nowadays to accept flex-contracts for minimum wage; at least the slaves had job security and free housing [/sarcasm]

[evilcherry]

Why not just tax, and if people go to the BVI, nationalize what they leave in Delaware.

Minimum wage is for those places which do not have the bureaucracy for a welfare state. The ideal situation should be that people on both ends of the income scale should live in similar houses in similar areas, should have similar access to basic services, and should have similar protection if they can no longer work. The US constitution, afaik, never forbids cradle to grave schemes.

[Zrk2]

And no, I do not regard stealing a million dollar painting from a billionaire, for example, as 'causing harm to another person'.

Why?

Anyways, here in Ontario the minimum wage is $11/hr, and IIRC CPI is about 25% higher than (average) America. So we're slightly ahead. I know people working 35-40hr/wk and while they are not doing great, the bills do get paid and they do get to have some fun. On the whole I'm okay with where our minimum wage is for now.

[WillowLuman]

$11 is much more reasonable. The talk is of rasing the Federal minimum wage (the minimum minimum wage, if you will) from its current value which makes those who can only get minimum wage jobs have to either turn to crime or work multiple jobs just to survive.

[martinuzz]

And no, I do not regard stealing a million dollar painting from a billionaire, for example, as 'causing harm to another person'.

Why?

Because I believe that the acquisition of the majority of the world's capital by a select few extravagantly rich parties, which is basically what capitalism is all about, is the biggest threat to democracy and world peace, and a crime against humanity. Besides, someone who owns a billion or more in private capital has to be so much of a sociopath, that he will not lose a half night's sleep over a painting being stolen, which his insurance will mostly refund.
 
Also, because I still naively believe there is such a thing as a 'gentleman crime'. Which would be a crime where loot is obtained, preferably by a party without malicious intent, without traumatizing (or even interacting with) a victim.
Clubbing a billionaire over the head to get the painting is not okay! Dodging laser beam alarm systems while hanging upside down is!
I just hope that every time an art theft or vaultcrack happens, the money will go to people who actually need it to sustain themselves, or save lives. Sad thruth is, I fear, that most of these crimes nowadays are carried out as a lucrative side job for criminal or terrorist organisations.

But hey - who doesn't like Robin Hood? He's the good guy in the story, remember kiddos?

[Zrk2]

Hey, at least you can articulate your reasoning with something more than "hurr durr fuck the rich." Good job.

[wierd]

For me, it depends on what one constitutes theft, in regard to the painting.

A highly sought after classical painting from a classical master artist has value because of its cultural significance.  Culture belongs to everyone. Private ownership and enjoyment of such cultural relics is a gross injustice to society, at least IMHO.

The painting BELONGS in a public exhibit in a museum so that theoretically anyone can go and see it.  Not held in some private vault some somebody with too much money can feel even more virile in their money grubbing prowess, and scratch their egotistical self-promotional itch.

If the painting is more just a sentimental piece, say made by a deceased grandmother or something, then the appropriation of the piece becomes more troubled.

There are too many undeclared variables in that question to give a broad stroke answer.  For the most part, wealthy people appropriate priceless art pieces to scratch the egotistical self-promotion itch, rather than to have mere sentimentality over something personal to themselves or their past. So, for the most part, stealing the priceless painting from the rich bastard is more likely to result in greater benefit to society than permitting the rich bastard to retain ownership and feel smug about his purchase.

[Graknorke]

Well in the UK 21% of welfare payments go to working families who don't earn enough to actually live on, so at the end of the day raising the wage and making some of those people unemployed wouldn't be as big a deal as some would like to make out. That is, assuming that it would directly lead to lower rates of employment.

[Pwnzerfaust]

Frankly, the fact that the minimum wage is not a living wage is just fucked. Anyone working full time should be making enough to support themselves without resorting to government aid. Minimum wage should be set at a local level to be enough to live on reasonably without working over 40 hours to do it.

[SirQuiamus]

Higher minimum wage would be good, but not good-enough to "fix" capitalism all by itself. We'd also need laws against arbitrary contract termination, combined with steeper progressive taxation. How about taxing the lowest income percentile at a 1% rate, and the highest percentile at a whopping 99%? Sounds like a recipe for instant degrowth!

...but really, taxes are nothing but outdated pinko-pie-in-the-sky, totally unworthy of any well-adjusted individual's attention, whereas basic income is – I shit you not – actually gaining popularity in European neoliberalist circles. It stands to reason, against all reason: Companies want to increase their "agility," which implies demanding more "flexibility" from the workforce, which implies untold shit-tons of lay-offs, unemployment, and ridiculous zero-hour contracts, which implies lots of angry people in the streets. If the present trend continues, half of the population in every developed country will soon be unemployed or "flexibly-employed," and at that point it will become societally necessary to figure out "alternatives for employment," as the consults are calling it. I'm not against basic income by any means, but I'm slightly miffed that the money-mugwumps have appropriated it as a potential tool for resuscitating a moribund capitalist system.

Spoiler: drunkpost (click to show/hide)

...they will go back to drinking water barbarians.

Urist McThirsty drinks The Water Barbarian!
The Water Barbarian has been struck down!
Urist McThirsty looks sick!

                     

[ChairmanPoo]

The more specialized, the higher the pay, and the more distorted the view becomes.  Say, Doctors-- After spending more than 8 years in college, they spend another 4 at least doing their residency where they get worked like F-ing dogs, on call 24/7, but they make freaking BANK after that, and can command lots of respect through their profession.

I'm so tired of listening to this lie over and over again.

Doctors don't make that much. Even in countries where wages are somewhat better, the overhead costs are insane. And the tendency is for the wages to be miserable, compensated only by doing shift duty (which is pretty bad in itself. Have you ever been awake for 24 hours, working? I assure you it's far from pleasant/healthy. And it's only in the last ten years that the right for a day of rest after 24 hours of continuous work has begun to be recognized by law -let alone to have managers actually comply with that law-)

Same with attorneys. Most attorneys don't make anywhere near the cash people think they do. 
Same with air controllers. Same with pilots.

Same with any of the so-called "priviledged" professions.

 Do you even fathom the cost-of-opportunity of entering any of these fields? The workplace stress? The risks and responsability involved? How it all adds up?


I think it's a traditional "divide and conquer" approach by employers: They peddle a pipedream about  doctors/lawyers/air controllers being "priviledged", and then convince people that they're being "selfish" for not agreeing to have their labor rights cut.

I kind of wonder about the people that keep spreading this bs though: If you think they have it so easy why don't you go and do it? Enter medical/law/flight school and afterwards live the life loca. Isn't that how it works?

[Levi]

24 hours straight working?  Are they exempt from labor laws or something?

Anyway, I agree that you shouldn't worry so much about what other people make.  What is important is that everybody gets a living wage, it doesn't matter if some hockey player or actor makes a million dollars a year.