To start the discussion I submit the following article for critique.  I'm sure many of you can guess my stance on this subject so I'll let the article speak for me :)

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/16/minimum-wage-labor-economics-opinions-contributors-art-carden.html

Why should we keep or repeal the federal minimum wage?  Please post your opinions and any articles you have that could benefit the discussion :)

Thanks for reading!

Basically the answer is a moral one -- if one owns their business, they  have the right to set what they will offer employees. If not, that is the government taking ownership rights from that business. Similarly, if one is a worker, the government has no right to take your negotiating power away from you.

In both instances it is a violation of basic, fundamental property rights.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Basically the answer is a moral one -- if one owns their business, they  have the right to set what they will offer employees. If not, that is the government taking ownership rights from that business. Similarly, if one is a worker, the government has no right to take your negotiating power away from you.

In both instances it is a violation of basic, fundamental property rights.

I disagree here, this is nothing to do with morality.

The first question is what exactly negotiation power the worker has or is able to have.

Secondly what negotiating power the business has.

Minimun wage as I see it, is more a necessary evil that stems from the reality that lower class (and sometimes middle class) worker has little to no ability to negotiate anything.

So far from what I have seen there is nothing pointing out that without it the worker will fare better. Only speculation.

Originally posted by sniperg

I disagree here, this is nothing to do with morality.

The first question is what exactly negotiation power the worker has or is able to have.

Secondly what negotiating power the business has.

Minimun wage as I see it, is more a necessary evil that stems from the reality that lower class (and sometimes middle class) worker has little to no ability to negotiate anything.

So far from what I have seen there is nothing pointing out that without it the worker will fare better. Only speculation.

How do you explain the huge black market for marginal labor then?  I.E. Illegal Immigrants

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Basically the answer is a moral one -- if one owns their business, they  have the right to set what they will offer employees. If not, that is the government taking ownership rights from that business. Similarly, if one is a worker, the government has no right to take your negotiating power away from you.

In both instances it is a violation of basic, fundamental property rights.

I disagree here, this is nothing to do with morality.

The first question is what exactly negotiation power the worker has or is able to have.

Secondly what negotiating power the business has.

Minimun wage as I see it, is more a necessary evil that stems from the reality that lower class (and sometimes middle class) worker has little to no ability to negotiate anything.

So far from what I have seen there is nothing pointing out that without it the worker will fare better. Only speculation.

To me, property ownership, and self ownership are moral issues.

If the government commands a business owner to pay a certain wage, that is taking ownership of his business, is a violation of rights, and that is immoral.

If a government commands a worker to charge a certain price for his work, that means the government is claming ownership of his mind and/or body, and is thus a violation of rights, which is immoral.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

To start the discussion I submit the following article for critique.  I'm sure many of you can guess my stance on this subject so I'll let the article speak for me :)

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/16/minimum-wage-labor-economics-opinions-contributors-art-carden.html

Why should we keep or repeal the federal minimum wage?  Please post your opinions and any articles you have that could benefit the discussion :)

Thanks for reading!

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/04/26/minimum_wage,_maximum_folly

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080101.asp

http://www.csuchico.edu/~jeckalbar/Econ%20103/minimum%20and%20%22living%22%20wage/Thomas%20Sowell%20'Living%20wage'%20kills%20jobs.htm

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2009/07/29/a_minimum_wage_equals_minimum_jobs?page=full&comments=true

 If they would get out of Nafta and Free trade they wouldnt need a minimum wage due to return of competition for good employees.If the jobs keep going over seas at the same time population of the United States keeps increasing it keeps lowering raises.

 Regardless of what Obama(or anyone else who was President including MCcain) does, it will not work due to constant outsourcing of jobs

 Bring all those jobs back=more people working=higher wages due to competition of employers=more people with more money=more people buying things=more people now able to pay taxes=lower tax burden on everyone=less crime due to more people being able to have a halfway decent standard of living= America a better place.

 I knew when Pres Bill Clinton passed that back early 90's it wouldnt pan out.



 

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by sniperg

I disagree here, this is nothing to do with morality.

The first question is what exactly negotiation power the worker has or is able to have.

Secondly what negotiating power the business has.

Minimun wage as I see it, is more a necessary evil that stems from the reality that lower class (and sometimes middle class) worker has little to no ability to negotiate anything.

So far from what I have seen there is nothing pointing out that without it the worker will fare better. Only speculation.

 

How do you explain the huge black market for marginal labor then?  I.E. Illegal Immigrants

How do I explain the black market exists you mean?

Illegal immigrants have no negotiation power to begin with. Will they fare better without the law of minimun wage?

Originally posted by Scubie67

 If they would get out of Nafta and Free trade they wouldnt need a minimum wage due to return of competition for good employees.If the jobs keep going over seas at the same time population of the United States keeps increasing it keeps lowering raises.

 Regardless of what Obama(or anyone else who was President including MCcain) does, it will not work due to constant outsourcing of jobs

 Bring all those jobs back=more people working=higher wages due to competition of employers=more people with more money=more people buying things=more people now able to pay taxes=lower tax burden on everyone=less crime due to more people being able to have a halfway decent standard of living= America a better place.

 I knew when Pres Bill Clinton passed that back early 90's it wouldnt pan out.



 

I don't think protectionism is the answer.

The reason jobs are being exported is because the US has created a hostile environment for business through high taxes and oppressive regulations. This makes it more economically advantageous to produce goods in places more friendly to economic development.

Just the results of America embracing socialism while the rest of the world is starting to embrace the future of free markets. We are no longer a free country and it's having its effect on our economy.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Basically the answer is a moral one -- if one owns their business, they  have the right to set what they will offer employees. If not, that is the government taking ownership rights from that business. Similarly, if one is a worker, the government has no right to take your negotiating power away from you.

In both instances it is a violation of basic, fundamental property rights.

I disagree here, this is nothing to do with morality.

The first question is what exactly negotiation power the worker has or is able to have.

Secondly what negotiating power the business has.

Minimun wage as I see it, is more a necessary evil that stems from the reality that lower class (and sometimes middle class) worker has little to no ability to negotiate anything.

So far from what I have seen there is nothing pointing out that without it the worker will fare better. Only speculation.

To me, property ownership, and self ownership are moral issues.

If the government commands a business owner to pay a certain wage, that is taking ownership of his business, is a violation of rights, and that is immoral.

If a government commands a worker to charge a certain price for his work, that means the government is claming ownership of his mind and/or body, and is thus a violation of rights, which is immoral.

If you present it by itself yes it is immoral.

But the context here is that a worker has no negotiating power in most situations hence their rights are of little to no importance to begin with.

In general from what I see the minimun wage rules affect the small businesses and some middle ones, but really I am not really sure how it affects anyone else other than the low class worker.

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Basically the answer is a moral one -- if one owns their business, they  have the right to set what they will offer employees. If not, that is the government taking ownership rights from that business. Similarly, if one is a worker, the government has no right to take your negotiating power away from you.

In both instances it is a violation of basic, fundamental property rights.

I disagree here, this is nothing to do with morality.

The first question is what exactly negotiation power the worker has or is able to have.

Secondly what negotiating power the business has.

Minimun wage as I see it, is more a necessary evil that stems from the reality that lower class (and sometimes middle class) worker has little to no ability to negotiate anything.

So far from what I have seen there is nothing pointing out that without it the worker will fare better. Only speculation.

To me, property ownership, and self ownership are moral issues.

If the government commands a business owner to pay a certain wage, that is taking ownership of his business, is a violation of rights, and that is immoral.

If a government commands a worker to charge a certain price for his work, that means the government is claming ownership of his mind and/or body, and is thus a violation of rights, which is immoral.

If you present it by itself yes it is immoral.

But the context here is that a worker has no negotiating power in most situations hence their rights are of little to no importance to begin with.

In general from what I see the minimun wage rules affect the small businesses and some middle ones, but really I am not really sure how it affects anyone else other than the low class worker.

A situation created by the government usurping property rights should not be "solved" by further usurpation of rights. Once again like so many other collectivist moves it is drinking a larger glass of the poison that caused the problem in the first place.

The minimum wage effects everyone in the form of higher prices for everything -- but it mostly effects everyone by getting people used to accepting the immoral transgressions of government as a matter of course.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Basically the answer is a moral one -- if one owns their business, they  have the right to set what they will offer employees. If not, that is the government taking ownership rights from that business. Similarly, if one is a worker, the government has no right to take your negotiating power away from you.

In both instances it is a violation of basic, fundamental property rights.

I disagree here, this is nothing to do with morality.

The first question is what exactly negotiation power the worker has or is able to have.

Secondly what negotiating power the business has.

Minimun wage as I see it, is more a necessary evil that stems from the reality that lower class (and sometimes middle class) worker has little to no ability to negotiate anything.

So far from what I have seen there is nothing pointing out that without it the worker will fare better. Only speculation.

To me, property ownership, and self ownership are moral issues.

If the government commands a business owner to pay a certain wage, that is taking ownership of his business, is a violation of rights, and that is immoral.

If a government commands a worker to charge a certain price for his work, that means the government is claming ownership of his mind and/or body, and is thus a violation of rights, which is immoral.

If you present it by itself yes it is immoral.

But the context here is that a worker has no negotiating power in most situations hence their rights are of little to no importance to begin with.

In general from what I see the minimun wage rules affect the small businesses and some middle ones, but really I am not really sure how it affects anyone else other than the low class worker.

 

A situation created by the government usurping property rights should not be "solved" by further usurpation of rights. Once again like so many other collectivist moves it is drinking a larger glass of the poison that caused the problem in the first place.

The minimum wage effects everyone in the form of higher prices for everything -- but it mostly effects everyone by getting people used to accepting the immoral transgressions of government as a matter of course.

Of course it raises the prices, the problem lies that we have first to determine what is the alternative.

That is what happens without such a law. Because if you abolish ONLY that, it is very probable that it will affect negatively only the workers who will have no legal way to uphold their rights. (Unless we count union bullying as legal)

The thing is that the whole thing needs to be reworked so both sides will have an actual chance to exercise their rights and not one leeching from the other.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Scubie67

 If they would get out of Nafta and Free trade they wouldnt need a minimum wage due to return of competition for good employees.If the jobs keep going over seas at the same time population of the United States keeps increasing it keeps lowering raises.

 Regardless of what Obama(or anyone else who was President including MCcain) does, it will not work due to constant outsourcing of jobs

 Bring all those jobs back=more people working=higher wages due to competition of employers=more people with more money=more people buying things=more people now able to pay taxes=lower tax burden on everyone=less crime due to more people being able to have a halfway decent standard of living= America a better place.

 I knew when Pres Bill Clinton passed that back early 90's it wouldnt pan out.



 

 

I don't think protectionism is the answer.

The reason jobs are being exported is because the US has created a hostile environment for business through high taxes and oppressive regulations. This makes it more economically advantageous to produce goods in places more friendly to economic development.

Just the results of America embracing socialism while the rest of the world is starting to embrace the future of free markets. We are no longer a free country and it's having its effect on our economy.

Thats because our corporate tax rate is 2nd highest in the world after Japan .That is another change that needs to be made to complete the recipe
 

American government has made a hostile environment to have a business in the US, especially small business and manufacturing.    As someone else has stated in this thread, America rushes off toward Socialism while the rest of the world is moving away from it.    Our government has such a tight grasp on American business that eventually it'll be either outright owned by the government or so heavily controlled that the US government might as well be the owners.    China, a so called Communist country, has seen enormous growth in the GDP despite the global recession and this last quarter it still did far better than was expected.  

Screw it our whole governent is mucked up to the point that it is nothing like what our founding fathers created.   It has become an overbearing, bloated, and corrupted system that is powered by the rich and the elite.

The use of illegal immigrants has been a way to get around minimum wage.  If anything by increasing the minimum wage, you would be increasing the amount of illegals in the work force.

I have been opposed to the minimum wage because it disregards market principles.  Just because you increase the cost of labor doesn't mean you increase the profit coming in.  If anything it will have a negative effect on profit as the prices on goods has to rise to meet labor costs.  Or you have to cut the salaries of more experience and skilled labor.

If you were to repeal it, you should see an almost instantaneous severe drop in actual unemployment.  Also the cost of living should go down as the prices would be adjusted to labor costs.  All at the same time increasing US manufacturing which this country needs more of.

However, rescently I have stopped caring about minimum wage since the destruction of the dollar means inflation is going to skyrocket where minimum wage will be a non-issue.

For all the talks about the use of illegal immigrants and outsourced jobs, they're perfect illustrations of exactly why minimum wage laws exist. It'd be ass backwards to open up a labor pool of poverty-level employment. So yes, it is a moral decision, and we as a nation decided against purposefully facilitating poverty in that matter.

We can't worry about things such as outsourced jobs either. Most we don't need back, and wouldn't want back. We'd have to go beyond minimum wage law and attack other things such as child labor, gender and age discrimination, overtime laws and etc.

Let's look at it from this side. What is the minimum amount of money you would work for? If there was no minimum wage would you work for less than that amount? I know when I was looking for a job I always looked for jobs that were above minimum wage anyways so it definitely wouldn't have mattered for me when I was looking, whether we had a minimum wage law or not. I think without a minimum wage law people would be more likely to haggle over their wages rather than just accept that they are getting minimum wage. Instead as it is now most people go into a job and the job says we pay minimum wage and they just say ok sounds good to me. Realistically though who looks for a job that is minimum wage other than kids going into their first jobs?

Originally posted by Teala

American government has made a hostile environment to have a business in the US, especially small business and manufacturing.    As someone else has stated in this thread, America rushes off toward Socialism while the rest of the world is moving away from it.    Our government has such a tight grasp on American business that eventually it'll be either outright owned by the government or so heavily controlled that the US government might as well be the owners.    China, a so called Communist country, has seen enormous growth in the GDP despite the global recession and this last quarter it still did far better than was expected.  

Screw it our whole governent is mucked up to the point that it is nothing like what our founding fathers created.   It has become an overbearing, bloated, and corrupted system that is powered by the rich and the elite.

"America rushes towards Socialism while the rest of the world is moving away from it."  I  think you or whoever stated this is confused.  It is a common perception that "socialism" is the new buzz.  Many governments are moving towards a hybird of socialism that is more pluralistic and less state centered much like the system China currently uses.  South America is a good example.   Even in Uruguay where there is an upcoming election, the socialist candidate is leading in the polls. 

http://schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/sp15.html

"Unable to employ themselves, the nominally free laborers are forced by their competition with each other to pay as rent all their earnings above a bare living, or to sell their labor for wages which give but a bare living; and as landowners the ex-slaveholders are enabled as before, to appropriate to themselves the labor or the produce of the labor of their former chattels, having in the value which this power of appropriating the proceeds of labor gives to the ownership of land, a capitalized value equivalent, or more than equivalent, to the value of their slaves. They no longer have to drive their slaves to work; want and the fear of want do that more effectually than the lash. They no longer have the trouble of looking out for their employment or hiring out their labor, or the expense of keeping them when they cannot work. That is thrown upon the slaves."

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: "Mas George, you say you sot us free; but 'fore God, I'm wus off than when I belonged to your father." The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say: "How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves." How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can."

In the interests of what you call liberty you would sell your fellow man into all but slavery by name.

Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

Originally posted by Teala

American government has made a hostile environment to have a business in the US, especially small business and manufacturing.    As someone else has stated in this thread, America rushes off toward Socialism while the rest of the world is moving away from it.    Our government has such a tight grasp on American business that eventually it'll be either outright owned by the government or so heavily controlled that the US government might as well be the owners.    China, a so called Communist country, has seen enormous growth in the GDP despite the global recession and this last quarter it still did far better than was expected.  

Screw it our whole governent is mucked up to the point that it is nothing like what our founding fathers created.   It has become an overbearing, bloated, and corrupted system that is powered by the rich and the elite.

 

"America rushes towards Socialism while the rest of the world is moving away from it."  I  think you or whoever stated this is confused.  It is a common perception that "socialism" is the new buzz.  Many governments are moving towards a hybird of socialism that is more pluralistic and less state centered much like the system China currently uses.  South America is a good example.   Even in Uruguay where there is an upcoming election, the socialist candidate is leading in the polls. 

The socialism that is being created is more or less a hybrid yes, but it is a form of a socialist republic...which maybe the way to go.  Weird I know...but if it works...use it.   It is a different time then when the founding fathers created of the US.  Social needs change due to all kinds of underlying issues and circumstances.   What the founding fathers of the US faced in their time is much different than what the US and the rest of the worlds countries face in our time.    Our government was not perfect and so that is why it needs to be flexible to a point that it can change as needed to reflect the changes in society as a whole.    Personally I hate large central governments...I believe more in local based goernments- the smaller the better.    Since that is not the world we live in than we the people need to consider what is best - clearly democracy is not the best - it is a failed system, pure communism would work, but it never will due to the nature of men/women, pure socilism will fail as well(again due to the failings of human nature and a pure republic fails because it is easily corrupted....however a hybrid government that is socialist and republic, a true hybrid, might actual work.