Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Draq

If you have the choice to hire 60 people at $5 or 30 people at $10, and you are a major source of employment in the area like a Super Wal-Mart, then the choice you will make is to hire 30 people at $5 and pocket the extra.

This is why we need a minimum wage.

 

This is true for most large companys. But lots of Mom and pop companys would rather have the extra hands so they can be more flexable.

 

Good point, which is why I say "IT DEPENDS." every business, every market, ever economic situation is different. therefore, prices need to be flexible enough to accommodate that. the minute the government steps in and sets a price for labor, they screw that up.

realistically, if government wanted to "set prices," they would really have to set it differently for every community. every business, every market. Governments are simply incapable of doing what is necessary to set prices. Only individuals interacting can do this.

This is why in addition to the federal minimum wage, we also have a state minimum wage. Whether or not we should leave a minimum wage entirely up to the states is an interesting discussion I'm not prepared to make, but we do need a minimum wage.

Originally posted by Draq

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Bingo!  So if business is about profit for owners/shareholders and in order to maximise their profit margin they need to control their overhead or cost of doing buisiness there in lies the conundrum.  If business is about making profit for the shareholders and they don't give a squat for their labor force why would I pay my unskilled labor any more than I wanted... every dollar I save is one more dollar of potential profit right?  Because I am most likely not going to provide them any health insurance or 401k.  Again more potential profit for my stakeholders.  Right?

Because if you aren't paying enough to even get unskilled workers to show up you will have no workers. If your company is paying $2h and another company shows up paying $4h your previously unskilled workers will leave your business to go make more money. Eventually if you want to keep your workers or hire more you will have to pay the same wages as others around you or even go higher. This is driven by the economy not by a law forcing people to pay an MW. Everything that is right about the economy is about it being a free market. We don't have a free market anymore. At least not like what it used to be.

You seem to think your company works in a vacuum and can just totally shit on their employees. It won't happen because companies get bad names for treating people poorly or bad wages and people leave or don't go there seeking employment.

 

Right now do companies paying less than MW have a problem getting employees?  Well maybe when INS does a sweep.  I'm confused, is there or is there not a glut of unskilled labor out there?  I do not see that I will have any problem filling my vacancies at $2.00/hour, its about my profits, bottom line.  You seem to think that the unskilled labor pool has a strong negotiation platform, they don't; sure some will go to the $4/hour business but then their position will be filled - they are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.  So no I will not have to pay my workers a higher wage - if its about profit I just need to produce an equitable or superior product and with lower overhead I could sell it at a lower price.  How much I pay my unskilled workers will have no impact on my companys success.  If you disagree prove it with actual facts and not economic theory. 

I suppose in theory you could continuously run your company below what everyone else is but you would have an extremely high turnover rate and be constantly paying to train new illegal workers. This in turn would make your product inferior to others. Also the backlash of people railing against your company's business practices would probably drive you out of business. As people would probably boycott your product.

1. Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage (24 years before minimum wage laws were enacted), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. (Using the Consumer Price Index, this was equivalent to $111.10 per day in 2008 dollars.) The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs. Ford called it "wage motive." The company's use of vertical integration also proved successful when Ford built a gigantic factory that shipped in raw materials and shipped out finished automobiles.

2. Wages in the 1910's
    child in textile mill.................$3.54/week
    housekeeper..........................$5.00/week
    girl in sweatshop...................$8.76/week
    meat packer............................$9.50/week

    Ford auto worker, 1913............$2.00/day
    Ford auto worker, 1914............$5.00/day

After Henry Ford installed his assembly line in 1914, workers quit their boring and monotonous new jobs in droves. Ford instituted a $5.00 per day wage as an incentive for them to stay. This higher wage drove wages up all across the country. Not just in the local area but the WHOLE country.

    average salary, 1912................$592/year
    average salary, 1914................$627/year
    average salary, 1916................$708/year

Those average salary numbers are countrywide. Amazing what one company paying good wages can do!

3. Minimum wages were first proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries. The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly." Over time, the focus changed to helping people, especially families, become more self sufficient. Today, minimum wage laws cover workers in most low-paid fields of employment.

4. According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers. One such textbook says:

"If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Other, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force."

Maybe we don't need to repeal the minimum wage but it doesn't need to continuously go up as others believe. Damn this was way longer than I intended and might even be unreadable. Hell, I don't even know if a made a point LOL.

 

 

An entertaining and facinating bit of history, that.  However, it's also irrelevent. Businesses have always competed for SKILLED labor. These are the mechanics, the engineers, the degree holders that make FAR more than minimum wage as it is, and whose jobs require both training and experience. But there is no shortage of UNskilled labor. A dog could probably run a cash register at wal-mart. 

And I'll see your textbook and raise you Malthus's essay on the oversaturation of unskilled labor in the world. Malthus said the low wages we see are a direct result of the massive unskilled labor resources the world has today. It's all about competition, but the competition is between laborers, not between employers. Rather than the highest bidding company winning labor, the lowest bidding worker wins a job.

An assembly line worker is about as unskilled as it gets. You say there is an over saturation of unskilled workers. This is a direct result of the minimum wage. There are so many unskilled workers because no one can afford to hire them because of the minimum wage. Please don't tell me your relying on Thomas Malthus to support your argument.

Originally posted by Draq

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by Draq

If you have the choice to hire 60 people at $5 or 30 people at $10, and you are a major source of employment in the area like a Super Wal-Mart, then the choice you will make is to hire 30 people at $5 and pocket the extra.

This is why we need a minimum wage.

 

This is true for most large companys. But lots of Mom and pop companys would rather have the extra hands so they can be more flexable.

 

Good point, which is why I say "IT DEPENDS." every business, every market, ever economic situation is different. therefore, prices need to be flexible enough to accommodate that. the minute the government steps in and sets a price for labor, they screw that up.

realistically, if government wanted to "set prices," they would really have to set it differently for every community. every business, every market. Governments are simply incapable of doing what is necessary to set prices. Only individuals interacting can do this.

 

This is why in addition to the federal minimum wage, we also have a state minimum wage. Whether or not we should leave a minimum wage entirely up to the states is an interesting discussion I'm not prepared to make, but we do need a minimum wage.

It still doesn't work any better. It still creates unemployment and is a usurpation pf property rights and self ownership rights.

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Draq

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Bingo!  So if business is about profit for owners/shareholders and in order to maximise their profit margin they need to control their overhead or cost of doing buisiness there in lies the conundrum.  If business is about making profit for the shareholders and they don't give a squat for their labor force why would I pay my unskilled labor any more than I wanted... every dollar I save is one more dollar of potential profit right?  Because I am most likely not going to provide them any health insurance or 401k.  Again more potential profit for my stakeholders.  Right?

Because if you aren't paying enough to even get unskilled workers to show up you will have no workers. If your company is paying $2h and another company shows up paying $4h your previously unskilled workers will leave your business to go make more money. Eventually if you want to keep your workers or hire more you will have to pay the same wages as others around you or even go higher. This is driven by the economy not by a law forcing people to pay an MW. Everything that is right about the economy is about it being a free market. We don't have a free market anymore. At least not like what it used to be.

You seem to think your company works in a vacuum and can just totally shit on their employees. It won't happen because companies get bad names for treating people poorly or bad wages and people leave or don't go there seeking employment.

 

Right now do companies paying less than MW have a problem getting employees?  Well maybe when INS does a sweep.  I'm confused, is there or is there not a glut of unskilled labor out there?  I do not see that I will have any problem filling my vacancies at $2.00/hour, its about my profits, bottom line.  You seem to think that the unskilled labor pool has a strong negotiation platform, they don't; sure some will go to the $4/hour business but then their position will be filled - they are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.  So no I will not have to pay my workers a higher wage - if its about profit I just need to produce an equitable or superior product and with lower overhead I could sell it at a lower price.  How much I pay my unskilled workers will have no impact on my companys success.  If you disagree prove it with actual facts and not economic theory. 

I suppose in theory you could continuously run your company below what everyone else is but you would have an extremely high turnover rate and be constantly paying to train new illegal workers. This in turn would make your product inferior to others. Also the backlash of people railing against your company's business practices would probably drive you out of business. As people would probably boycott your product.

1. Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage (24 years before minimum wage laws were enacted), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. (Using the Consumer Price Index, this was equivalent to $111.10 per day in 2008 dollars.) The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs. Ford called it "wage motive." The company's use of vertical integration also proved successful when Ford built a gigantic factory that shipped in raw materials and shipped out finished automobiles.

2. Wages in the 1910's
    child in textile mill.................$3.54/week
    housekeeper..........................$5.00/week
    girl in sweatshop...................$8.76/week
    meat packer............................$9.50/week

    Ford auto worker, 1913............$2.00/day
    Ford auto worker, 1914............$5.00/day

After Henry Ford installed his assembly line in 1914, workers quit their boring and monotonous new jobs in droves. Ford instituted a $5.00 per day wage as an incentive for them to stay. This higher wage drove wages up all across the country. Not just in the local area but the WHOLE country.

    average salary, 1912................$592/year
    average salary, 1914................$627/year
    average salary, 1916................$708/year

Those average salary numbers are countrywide. Amazing what one company paying good wages can do!

3. Minimum wages were first proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries. The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers, and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly." Over time, the focus changed to helping people, especially families, become more self sufficient. Today, minimum wage laws cover workers in most low-paid fields of employment.

4. According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers. One such textbook says:

"If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Other, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force."

Maybe we don't need to repeal the minimum wage but it doesn't need to continuously go up as others believe. Damn this was way longer than I intended and might even be unreadable. Hell, I don't even know if a made a point LOL.

 

 

An entertaining and facinating bit of history, that.  However, it's also irrelevent. Businesses have always competed for SKILLED labor. These are the mechanics, the engineers, the degree holders that make FAR more than minimum wage as it is, and whose jobs require both training and experience. But there is no shortage of UNskilled labor. A dog could probably run a cash register at wal-mart. 

And I'll see your textbook and raise you Malthus's essay on the oversaturation of unskilled labor in the world. Malthus said the low wages we see are a direct result of the massive unskilled labor resources the world has today. It's all about competition, but the competition is between laborers, not between employers. Rather than the highest bidding company winning labor, the lowest bidding worker wins a job.

An assembly line worker is about as unskilled as it gets. You say there is an over saturation of unskilled workers. This is a direct result of the minimum wage. There are so many unskilled workers because no one can afford to hire them because of the minimum wage. Please don't tell me your relying on Thomas Malthus to support your argument.

LOL. malthus = the most disproven guy in the history of socioeconomic thought.

Originally posted by seabass2003

 See below

(My original post)

Right now do companies paying less than MW have a problem getting employees? Well maybe when INS does a sweep. I'm confused, is there or is there not a glut of unskilled labor out there? I do not see that I will have any problem filling my vacancies at $2.00/hour, its about my profits, bottom line. You seem to think that the unskilled labor pool has a strong negotiation platform, they don't; sure some will go to the $4/hour business but then their position will be filled - they are a dime a dozen and easily replaced. So no I will not have to pay my workers a higher wage - if its about profit I just need to produce an equitable or superior product and with lower overhead I could sell it at a lower price. How much I pay my unskilled workers will have no impact on my companys success. If you disagree prove it with actual facts and not economic theory. 

The Gold type are quotes from Seabass2003 last post:

 I suppose in theory you could continuously run your company below what everyone else is but you would have an extremely high turnover rate and be constantly paying to train new illegal workers. This in turn would make your product inferior to others. Also the backlash of people railing against your company's business practices would probably drive you out of business. As people would probably boycott your product.

In my above scenario there is no MW and you are making some very critical assumptions, 1) A high turnover will result in hiring training costs? So what is it, unskilled labor is easy to train or requires a lot of training? It also assumes that there is a job market availibe to absorb them? 2) You assume that because I have to retrain employees I will have an inferior product? Really, do fast food chains have a hard time keeping folks buying their product as they have extremely high turn over rates? So to assume that my product is inferior assumes that product quality is based on my unskilled labor and the oversight of my skilled labor (i.e. quality control/supervisors) ability to oversee the production of a good product. 3) Business practices? Is it poor business practice to want to make a profit? Is it poor business practice to want to maximise that profit? It is after all the number one goal of my business and as long I remain true to my next goal which is providing a equitable or superior product to my competion and do not run sweat shops I'm good. I offer my workers a fair wage as determined by the market demand - I do not force people to work at my business and they are welcome to seek other employeement, but your assumption that my company would be boycotted does not hold water.

1. Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage (24 years before minimum wage laws were enacted), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. (Using the Consumer Price Index, this was equivalent to $111.10 per day or $13.89/hour and MW is what?  in 2008 dollars.)  How many unskilled labor workers are making $13.89/hour these days?  The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics (unskilled labor?) in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing in their human capital and expertise(unskilled labor?), raising productivity, and lowering training costs. Ford called it "wage motive." The company's use of vertical integration also proved successful when Ford built a gigantic factory that shipped in raw materials and shipped out finished automobiles. <--- Ford's success also came from this use of the assembly line which allowed him to increase productivity per man hour.

2. Wages in the 1910's
child in textile mill.................$3.54/week
housekeeper..........................$5.00/week
girl in sweatshop...................$8.76/week
meat packer............................$9.50/week

Ford auto worker, 1913............$2.00/day
Ford auto worker, 1914............$5.00/day

After Henry Ford installed his assembly line in 1914, workers quit their boring and monotonous new jobs in droves. Ford instituted a $5.00 per day wage as an incentive for them to stay. This higher wage drove wages up all across the country. Not just in the local area but the WHOLE country.

average salary, 1912................$592/year  $2.28/hour wage
average salary, 1914................$627/year  $2.41/hour wage, thats an increase of $0.13 in two years
average salary, 1916................$708/year  $2.72/hour wage, that an increase of $0.44 in four years or only an average of $0.11 a year from 1912 to 1916; and a whopping $2.28/hr less than Ford was paying in 1914. 

Those average salary numbers are countrywide. Amazing what one company paying good wages can do!  Not really!  However, I am not dismissing that Mr. Ford's decision did not have a significant impact on the economy for skilled labor.  Let me illustrate, If I have 100 employees and pay:

Year 1   95 - $10/wk; 4 - $25/wk; and 1 - $150/wk = average salary  $624.00/year

Year 2  95 $10/wk; 4 $35/wk; and 1 $250/wk = average salary $696.80/year

Year 3 95 - $10/wk; 4 - $45/wk; and 1 - $350/wk = average salary $769.60/year

While averages are helpful they don't always give an acurate account and I will admit that my example is overly simplistict.

3. Minimum wages were first proposed as a way to control the proliferation of sweat shops in manufacturing industries (Really even after Mr. Ford's landmark decision to increase his employees wages which in turn "drove wages up across the country" there were "sweat shops".  Do tell, what did these "sweat shops" do?  The sweat shops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered to be substandard wages. Really?  Who determined the wage was substandard? Why I'm confused with why the free market didn't balance itself almost a quarter of a century after Ford's ground breaking increase of his workers salarys.  I mean based on economic theory the increased wages of other unskilled labor would naturally drive up the wages of all unskilled labor.  I wonder if its beacuse these "sweat shops" justified these wages because woman and children were seen as unskilled workers. The sweatshop owners were thought to have unfair bargaining power over their workers (Do you mean like my ability to set my workers wage at $2.00/hour and if they don;t like it they can go find a job somewhere else?  How is this unfair and who has the right to tell me how much I should be paying my employees?  The right to force me to pay them more than what I think is a "fair" wage for their work?), and a minimum wage was proposed as a means to make them pay "fairly." Over time, the focus changed to helping people, especially families, become more self sufficient (Which in America is a very bad thing, right? Its how big government gets their foot in the door and controls my business).  Today, minimum wage laws cover workers in most low-paid (unskilled) fields of employment.  I don't buy this, this is all about the government or someone else controlling(forcing) how much I choose to pay my employees.  If $2.00/hr is not enough for them they can get another job or find work somewhere else. 

4. According to the model shown in nearly all introductory textbooks on economics, increasing the minimum wage decreases the employment of minimum-wage workers, because I have to pay them more and this cuts into the my profits. One such textbook says:

"If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Other, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force."

Maybe we don't need to repeal the minimum wage but it doesn't need to continuously go up as others believe. Damn this was way longer than I intended and might even be unreadable. Hell, I don't even know if a made a point LOL.

 

.

Originally posted by biofellis

Anyone who thinks that the market influeces of small businesses and corporations should govern the abilty of people in this country to survive is... misguided.

It's only through the existance of minimum wage that we can even approach an area where you can think the corporations can only make it 'at worst, only so much worse'

The argument focusing on skilled vs unskilled labor has 2 flaws-

1. It ignores the need for the unskilled to survive and raise families (guess they shouldn't have them then), and
2. It ignores that the future is about less and less need for skilled jobs due to increasing technlogy and information systems.

We're already getting outsourced to death here- wonder why? Is it because the buinesses care about people and want to make sure they have a livable wage? I think not.

The only way wages increase is due to competition, and need for retention. But businesses only need so many skilled workers. Products get mass produced, and Information gets mass distributed. Services are the only things that are 1-1, and less and less 'conversational' services are being respected in the US (outsourced or computerize)- so explains to some degree the healthcare boom (and the quieter cosmetology/nail technology (yes there is such a thing) growth).

In most other respects, it is a 'hirer's market- there are too many unemployed for it not to be. Sure, there are some 'minimum' standard for wages- but those are ignored all the time in isolated cases. The skilled will always earn more than the unskilled, true- but how much more is a matter for the future. You're probably in hock for mortgage, auto, maybe with kids who need to eat- so you'll take a salary cut if asked. You'll look around for better work, and you'll realize that everyone's offering the same deal. Like cell phones. Except that one 'slightly better guy' only has so many positions. This is already here. You may think kicking the guys at the bottom won't hurt you, but the threat of you joining them will- because there are so many people traine with your skills and only so many openings. And there are so many bad manager they may not even care what they actually need- overburdening the remaining workforce.

Remove the minimum expectation now, and it will bite you in the ass in the future. And the future isn't as far away as you might think. But ultimately, it is a moral/ethical choice- a decision to say 'in this country, every man is worth 'this much'. Honestly- people are undervalued. All these corps with CEOs getting the sallary of 20 times that of their 'skilled' underlings. And every one of them is worth it, right?

Think of it like health care maybe. Free health care keeps diseases in check, so the rich don't have to worry so much about getting the plague or an STD when slumming. Minimum wage would likewise keep people employed at the minimum, except so many business are so greedy that the workforce is always penalized/cut 1st. Twice as many people employed at half salary so there's more people below the povertyline and not able to make ends meet though they bust thir ass every day is a good idea- really. The revolution will come and blood will run in the streets, and people will say 'those people just don't wanna work' as they scorn what they don't want to understand.

So fight for it. We'll be right back where we started, but with more pain and social divide than before.

The moral/ethical choice is: do people own themselves. I say they do, and therefore I say no to minimum wage. That is the government taking away self ownership rights from the worker to negotiate for the pay he feels he needs.

It also takes away the self ownership rights of the business owner to negotiate for the workers he needs. To me that's the entire moral argument. If you think the state owns you, minimum wage is the way to go.

Originally posted by biofellis

1. It ignores the need for the unskilled to survive and raise families (guess they shouldn't have them then), and

If you cannot support your kids, you are an unfit parent who should not have had children in the first place. One should have adequate financial ability to care for their child, not rely on government social programs such as food stamps, CHIPS, et cetera because of the irresponsibility of the "parents".

Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the employer to care for the employee's family - only the work performed by the employee.

.

Originally posted by biofellis

Originally posted by Fishermage

The moral/ethical choice is: do people own themselves. I say they do, and therefore I say no to minimum wage. That is the government taking away self ownership rights from the worker to negotiate for the pay he feels he needs.

It also takes away the self ownership rights of the business owner to negotiate for the workers he needs. To me that's the entire moral argument. If you think the state owns you, minimum wage is the way to go.

First, ownership is an illusion. You 'own' yourself only because outside forces 'allow' it. Look at any period of slavery, genocide, and persecution, and thank your lucky stars you have the luxury to think in such an convenient manner. Your premise is based on entitlement- which is true- people 'should' be entitled to 'own' themselves, but that doesn't change that outside forces may have other ideas.

It doesn't take a disaster like Katrina to wipe people out. Lower class and middle class people are often doing their best- and they survive- but people should have a right to live. People in this country work harder, longer hours, and get less income and die earlier than a lot of countries that we pretend that we're 'better' than. Clearly we're doing something right with this 'laissez-faire' capitalism ideal.

Just because the government may 'take away' or more accurately 'limit' an outside forces ability to control your 'self-ownership', doesn't mean it's a bad thing. There's another thread here where a girl was raped by several guys and no one helped. According to you- she owns herself. Guess she should've done something different, huh? Why it is people see physical protection and laws as good, but economic protections and laws as bad boggles the hell out of me. You can beat a person and never control their will or mind- but deprive them or support them and you can control offices of people who would not otherwise look the other way, except that their mortgage or kid's college depends on it.

That's the problem. And it's good that wherever you are things are fine, or you have the education and resources to handle whatever crops up. But everyone is not so blessed. You want to leave people to their bosses bad decisions, the collapse of the dow? Past mutual fund debacles, The joke of social security, being raised in a hellhole with crap education, having to runaway from sexual predators, etc, etc. There are untold stories in this country- and to you they have nothing to do with minimum wage, or the potential of exploitation that our great 'benefactors'- the random businessman could exploit. Why is it you'd rather any one person, or group of people, or corporate chain determine- unrestricted- your worth in the marketshare? Are they really such experts? The best and the brightest have been bailed out or assisted because of their crap- when they weren't abusing money, priveledges or shredding viital documents- but hey= let them determine what you're worth. After all- all they want is to make the highest profit at the lowest cost. Surely that should work to your advantage?

This is a true moral/ethical choice. To choose people over money.

nah the true moral choice is whether to choose freedom or force. You choose force. I choose freedom.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by biofellis

1. It ignores the need for the unskilled to survive and raise families (guess they shouldn't have them then), and

If you cannot support your kids, you are an unfit parent who should not have had children in the first place. One should have adequate financial ability to care for their child, not rely on government social programs such as food stamps, CHIPS, et cetera because of the irresponsibility of the "parents".

Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the employer to care for the employee's family - only the work performed by the employee.

 

 

Dek, I have to say that this has to be one of the most judgmental, narrow minded and offensive statements I have read in some time.  You fail to appreciate that sometimes financial misfortune strikes families, unemployment or serious illness, and this does not mean they are "unfit" parents.  How many million families out there right now have lost their jobs in this present recession!  Do you have children?  I hope misfortune never strikes you, because karma can be a bitch!

I do share your opinion about those who have families with no intention of ever being gainfully employed; living off of charity and government programs.  I do not like the fact that my tax dollars supports this sort of lifestyle.

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by biofellis

1. It ignores the need for the unskilled to survive and raise families (guess they shouldn't have them then), and

If you cannot support your kids, you are an unfit parent who should not have had children in the first place. One should have adequate financial ability to care for their child, not rely on government social programs such as food stamps, CHIPS, et cetera because of the irresponsibility of the "parents".

Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the employer to care for the employee's family - only the work performed by the employee.

 

 

 

Dek, I have to say that this has to be one of the most judgmental, narrow minded and offensive statements I have read in some time.  You fail to appreciate that sometimes financial misfortune strikes families, unemployment or serious illness, and this does not mean they are "unfit" parents.  How many million families out there right now have lost their jobs in this present recession!  Do you have children?  I hope misfortune never strikes you, because karma can be a bitch!

I do share your opinion about those who have families with no intention of ever being gainfully employed; living off of charity and government programs.  I do not like the fact that my tax dollars supports this sort of lifestyle.

You make a fair point; circumstances are circumstances, and people can't always control everything that happens to them. However that in no way entitles them to violate the rights of others. It just means they have to turn to others and ASK for help, not turn to others with a gun and and take that help.

Now as to the present recession -- it was caused by the same sort of thinking that produces ideas such as minimum wage. Had we not gone down the road of government ownership and control over people and their economic activities, we wouldn't have the severe boom/bust cycle we have.

That ol' law of unintended consequences will bite you in the ass every time you go down the path of force and the violation of individual rights in the name of some "higher good."

.

Originally posted by biofellis

First, ownership is an illusion. You 'own' yourself only because outside forces 'allow' it. Look at any period of slavery, genocide, and persecution, and thank your lucky stars you have the luxury to think in such an convenient manner. Your premise is based on entitlement- which is true- people 'should' be entitled to 'own' themselves, but that doesn't change that outside forces may have other ideas.

It doesn't take a disaster like Katrina to wipe people out. Lower class and middle class people are often doing their best- and they survive- but people should have a right to live. People in this country work harder, longer hours, and get less income and die earlier than a lot of countries that we pretend that we're 'better' than. Clearly we're doing something right with this 'laissez-faire' capitalism ideal.

Just because the government may 'take away' or more accurately 'limit' an outside forces ability to control your 'self-ownership', doesn't mean it's a bad thing. There's another thread here where a girl was raped by several guys and no one helped. According to you- she owns herself. Guess she should've done something different, huh? Why it is people see physical protection and laws as good, but economic protections and laws as bad boggles the hell out of me. You can beat a person and never control their will or mind- but deprive them or support them and you can control offices of people who would not otherwise look the other way, except that their mortgage or kid's college depends on it.

That's the problem. And it's good that wherever you are things are fine, or you have the education and resources to handle whatever crops up. But everyone is not so blessed. You want to leave people to their bosses bad decisions, the collapse of the dow? Past mutual fund debacles, The joke of social security, being raised in a hellhole with crap education, having to runaway from sexual predators, etc, etc. There are untold stories in this country- and to you they have nothing to do with minimum wage, or the potential of exploitation that our great 'benefactors'- the random businessman could exploit. Why is it you'd rather any one person, or group of people, or corporate chain determine- unrestricted- your worth in the marketshare? Are they really such experts? The best and the brightest have been bailed out or assisted because of their crap- when they weren't abusing money, priveledges or shredding viital documents- but hey= let them determine what you're worth. After all- all they want is to make the highest profit at the lowest cost. Surely that should work to your advantage?

This is a true moral/ethical choice. To choose people over money.

If you would care to go back a read my earlier post you will see that it is about increasing profit and lowering overhead.   You can come work for me for $2.00/hr, if you work out you can expect an $0.11 raise within the year. 

Originally posted by biofellis

Wow- you completely ignored a pretty good position because of your own agenda, without considering a single point I raised

And funny enough, this is exactly the kind of 'bargaining power' you'll be faced with against your 'boss' if there was no minimum wage.

But we'll move past that to your very conveniently defined concepts of 'freedom' and 'force'

Freedom is about having options. Many of those have to do with making money (sad but true). Why do you think that somehow, people making less money will feel in any respect more 'free'? Poverty controls more than the bars of prison some say. Living hand to mouth- working crazy hours just to cover bills- it's what needs to be done at the current salaries- but you'd change that. The immediate effect would be unskilled job wages would drop. So a bunch of people barely making it suddenly are worse off than they were. They convenient theory is that those employers would be able to hire more workers= spread the pain around- which eventually would be almost true- except costs don't go down- so all those people who's salaries were lowered are going to fill these 'created' jobs so that they can maintain what they had! So, you have people working more hours for the same wages (if they can get there)- and they should definantly feel more 'Free'

And force?

Mandated education is force. Get rid of that.

Public libraries are paid for taxes, excised from the people by force- screw those.

Likewise Public healthcare. Force.

Police protection. So many ways... Force.

And the moral choice that you've brought make the rift between the 'have's and the 'have not's even bigger and unassailable- after all, the rich are carrying the poor by force. Matter of fact, get rid of the government altogether. Let the rich police themselves and the poor run for their lives (if they can). Let people own other weaker people- it's a service to the community. After all, if you don't mind it economically, why should it matter literally?

Force? You don't know what you're talking about. But of course, you just believe in the 'freedom' of the corporate wallet, so big suprise there.

How the hell can you even believe removing the 'minimum wage' will make salaries go up?

Wait. You don't. You know they will go down, and think those people are worth less. Worthless because they don't have some 'imagined' minimal level of skill that would 'guarrantee' a higher wage.

Nice morals.

Well, those 'higher wages'? Only higher than the minimum. If they go down- it ALL follows.

But can you follow?

Bravo!  But you are of course just some bleeding heart liberal who wants to steal money from the rich and give it to the lazy poor, bacause all of the poor are lazy and unemployed. 

.

Originally posted by biofellis

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by biofellis

Originally posted by Fishermage

The moral/ethical choice is: do people own themselves. I say they do, and therefore I say no to minimum wage. That is the government taking away self ownership rights from the worker to negotiate for the pay he feels he needs.

It also takes away the self ownership rights of the business owner to negotiate for the workers he needs. To me that's the entire moral argument. If you think the state owns you, minimum wage is the way to go.

First, ownership is an illusion. You 'own' yourself only because outside forces 'allow' it. Look at any period of slavery, genocide, and persecution, and thank your lucky stars you have the luxury to think in such an convenient manner. Your premise is based on entitlement- which is true- people 'should' be entitled to 'own' themselves, but that doesn't change that outside forces may have other ideas.

It doesn't take a disaster like Katrina to wipe people out. Lower class and middle class people are often doing their best- and they survive- but people should have a right to live. People in this country work harder, longer hours, and get less income and die earlier than a lot of countries that we pretend that we're 'better' than. Clearly we're doing something right with this 'laissez-faire' capitalism ideal.

Just because the government may 'take away' or more accurately 'limit' an outside forces ability to control your 'self-ownership', doesn't mean it's a bad thing. There's another thread here where a girl was raped by several guys and no one helped. According to you- she owns herself. Guess she should've done something different, huh? Why it is people see physical protection and laws as good, but economic protections and laws as bad boggles the hell out of me. You can beat a person and never control their will or mind- but deprive them or support them and you can control offices of people who would not otherwise look the other way, except that their mortgage or kid's college depends on it.

That's the problem. And it's good that wherever you are things are fine, or you have the education and resources to handle whatever crops up. But everyone is not so blessed. You want to leave people to their bosses bad decisions, the collapse of the dow? Past mutual fund debacles, The joke of social security, being raised in a hellhole with crap education, having to runaway from sexual predators, etc, etc. There are untold stories in this country- and to you they have nothing to do with minimum wage, or the potential of exploitation that our great 'benefactors'- the random businessman could exploit. Why is it you'd rather any one person, or group of people, or corporate chain determine- unrestricted- your worth in the marketshare? Are they really such experts? The best and the brightest have been bailed out or assisted because of their crap- when they weren't abusing money, priveledges or shredding viital documents- but hey= let them determine what you're worth. After all- all they want is to make the highest profit at the lowest cost. Surely that should work to your advantage?

This is a true moral/ethical choice. To choose people over money.

 nah the true moral choice is whether to choose freedom or force. You choose force. I choose freedom.

Wow- you completely ignored a pretty good position because of your own agenda, without considering a single point I raised

And funny enough, this is exactly the kind of 'bargaining power' you'll be faced with against your 'boss' if there was no minimum wage.

But we'll move past that to your very conveniently defined concepts of 'freedom' and 'force'

Freedom is about having options. Many of those have to do with making money (sad but true). Why do you think that somehow, people making less money will feel in any respect more 'free'? Poverty controls more than the bars of prison some say. Living hand to mouth- working crazy hours just to cover bills- it's what needs to be done at the current salaries- but you'd change that. The immediate effect would be unskilled job wages would drop. So a bunch of people barely making it suddenly are worse off than they were. They convenient theory is that those employers would be able to hire more workers= spread the pain around- which eventually would be almost true- except costs don't go down- so all those people who's salaries were lowered are going to fill these 'created' jobs so that they can maintain what they had! So, you have people working more hours for the same wages (if they can get there)- and they should definantly feel more 'Free'

And force?

Mandated education is force. Get rid of that.

Public libraries are paid for taxes, excised from the people by force- screw those.

Likewise Public healthcare. Force.

Police protection. So many ways... Force.

And the moral choice that you've brought make the rift between the 'have's and the 'have not's even bigger and unassailable- after all, the rich are carrying the poor by force. Matter of fact, get rid of the government altogether. Let the rich police themselves and the poor run for their lives (if they can). Let people own other weaker people- it's a service to the community. After all, if you don't mind it economically, why should it matter literally?

Force? You don't know what you're talking about. But of course, you just believe in the 'freedom' of the corporate wallet, so big suprise there.

How the hell can you even believe removing the 'minimum wage' will make salaries go up?

Wait. You don't. You know they will go down, and think those people are worth less. Worthless because they don't have some 'imagined' minimal level of skill that would 'guarrantee' a higher wage.

Nice morals.

Well, those 'higher wages'? Only higher than the minimum. If they go down- it ALL follows.

But can you follow?

Sorry I don't consider your position worth considering. I simply don't believe anything you said trumps self ownership. You made an argument to utility in place of an argument to morality. You then tried to turn an argument to utility AS an argument to morality. You created a false dichotomy (people vs profits -- as if profits are not merely PEOPLE doing things that other people like and thus profiting from it).

Sorry nothing really worth considering or hasn't already been argued better on this forum. Old, weak, tired and specious arguments, combined with obvious leaps in contexts and equivocations.

I have no interest in playing any of those games.

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by biofellis

Wow- you completely ignored a pretty good position because of your own agenda, without considering a single point I raised

And funny enough, this is exactly the kind of 'bargaining power' you'll be faced with against your 'boss' if there was no minimum wage.

But we'll move past that to your very conveniently defined concepts of 'freedom' and 'force'

Freedom is about having options. Many of those have to do with making money (sad but true). Why do you think that somehow, people making less money will feel in any respect more 'free'? Poverty controls more than the bars of prison some say. Living hand to mouth- working crazy hours just to cover bills- it's what needs to be done at the current salaries- but you'd change that. The immediate effect would be unskilled job wages would drop. So a bunch of people barely making it suddenly are worse off than they were. They convenient theory is that those employers would be able to hire more workers= spread the pain around- which eventually would be almost true- except costs don't go down- so all those people who's salaries were lowered are going to fill these 'created' jobs so that they can maintain what they had! So, you have people working more hours for the same wages (if they can get there)- and they should definantly feel more 'Free'

And force?

Mandated education is force. Get rid of that.

Public libraries are paid for taxes, excised from the people by force- screw those.

Likewise Public healthcare. Force.

Police protection. So many ways... Force.

And the moral choice that you've brought make the rift between the 'have's and the 'have not's even bigger and unassailable- after all, the rich are carrying the poor by force. Matter of fact, get rid of the government altogether. Let the rich police themselves and the poor run for their lives (if they can). Let people own other weaker people- it's a service to the community. After all, if you don't mind it economically, why should it matter literally?

Force? You don't know what you're talking about. But of course, you just believe in the 'freedom' of the corporate wallet, so big suprise there.

How the hell can you even believe removing the 'minimum wage' will make salaries go up?

Wait. You don't. You know they will go down, and think those people are worth less. Worthless because they don't have some 'imagined' minimal level of skill that would 'guarrantee' a higher wage.

Nice morals.

Well, those 'higher wages'? Only higher than the minimum. If they go down- it ALL follows.

But can you follow?

 

Bravo!  But you are of course just some bleeding heart liberal who wants to steal money from the rich and give it to the lazy poor, bacause all of the poor are lazy and unemployed. 

nah he is just a poor arguer who uses arguments to utility in place of arguments to morality and then acts like an argument to utility is an argument from morality.

I never said anything negative about the poor or unskilled, I just said that the state does not own them and that they have the right to negotiate for wages without the state pointing a gun to everyone's heads over it.

Actually you are saying the poor are too stupid to think for themselves, so they need government and guns to think for them. I disagree.

.

Originally posted by biofellis

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by biofellis

1. It ignores the need for the unskilled to survive and raise families (guess they shouldn't have them then), and

If you cannot support your kids, you are an unfit parent who should not have had children in the first place. One should have adequate financial ability to care for their child, not rely on government social programs such as food stamps, CHIPS, et cetera because of the irresponsibility of the "parents".

Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the employer to care for the employee's family - only the work performed by the employee.

I didn't say anything about any of that. You can't win an argument by putting words in your opponents mouth.

There are many families- lower class to middle class, who were at one point fine (or close enough) then experienced the changes in the economy- or whatever. All your assumed 'government support' bs is totally unrelated to minimum wage. Further, the true benefactors of government support programs have always been to an overwhelming degree- big businesses.

• Shit happens.
• Life happens.
• Change happens.

Minimum wage does not prevent, but potentially limits that

Exploitation happens.

If you want people to have more money -- GIVE. None of this entitled you to use a gun to take over people's choices.