So if there are a hundred other people willing to take a job you think is undervalued, is that job actually undervalued?
I don't think so, it just means that there are a lot of desperate people.
My aunt lives in Nicaragua. She doesn't have a lot of money, she's not "wealthy", but she does OK. She has 2 maids. How can she afford it? Well, they are willing to do the work for very little money because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family.
Nicaragua doesn't have a minimum wage. That's how people like my aunt can get away with it.
I don't think so, it just means that there are a lot of desperate people.
My aunt lives in Nicaragua. She doesn't have a lot of money, she's not "wealthy", but she does OK. She has 2 maids. How can she afford it? Well, they are willing to do the work for very little money because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family.
Nicaragua doesn't have a minimum wage. That's how people like my aunt can get away with it.
So is Nicaragua better if your Aunt only hires one maid and pays her more and let's the other live off the highly touted Nicaraguan welfare system?
Of course, you are always free to send these two maids some of your own money. Now that would show you care about them as people.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I don't think so, it just means that there are a lot of desperate people.
My aunt lives in Nicaragua. She doesn't have a lot of money, she's not "wealthy", but she does OK. She has 2 maids. How can she afford it? Well, they are willing to do the work for very little money because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family.
Nicaragua doesn't have a minimum wage. That's how people like my aunt can get away with it.
Let me ask you a very simple question. Your aunt is doing something wrong by paying these two people the money, without which they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family??????
Perhaps I'm confused, but are you suggesting these people should starve?
Noone has ever commented on the urban/rural question. Certainly you think the minimum wage in Chicago would be different than somewhere in the middle of Kansas, correct? So, who is this proposed minimum wage appropriate for? The city slickers or the country bumpkins? So even after the change, either the country folks are being overpaid or the city folks are underpaid. Shouldn't that be addressed?
in a land where all men are created equal; how do you justify different minimum wages?
I believe that there should be a raise in minimum wage, but it should be on a state by state basis. The cost of living is not the same in every state. The cost of living in Kansas is far lower than in New Jersey. Keep the federal government out of it and let each state decide based upon the average cost of living in that state.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Then that should tell you something about the actual value of that job.
On its own, the free market isn't capable of determining the value of someone's labor. Instead it creates a race to the top for the rich and a race to the bottom for the poor. Essentially, a fiefdom.
What an outrage!!!!! You mean you don't get paid by other people for providing zero value to them?
Humans aren't a "value." They're human. A person shouldn't have to start over everytime he or she loses a job. There's an interest in keeping as many people from falling below the standards of livable existence as possible. Unchecked capitalism cannot survive the strife it causes among people who cannot, for whatever reason, participate outside of a serf-like position. The longer it goes unchecked, the more people who fall into that position. Once it reaches a breaking point, those guns you're always talking about will literally be pointed at you - and they won't be pointed by anyone offering an avenue of appeal.
Is that not the highest ideal of "public welfare" and "altruism"??? Sacrificing yourself for others?
The highest ideal of public welfare is to provide welfare to those who come up short. Altruism isn't the issue here - realistic solutions for a functioning society are.
I believe that there should be a raise in minimum wage, but it should be on a state by state basis. The cost of living is not the same in every state. The cost of living in Kansas is far lower than in New Jersey. Keep the federal government out of it and let each state decide based upon the average cost of living in that state.
The federal government sets a bare minimum when it comes to minimum wage. States have every right to establish their own, provided it doesn't fall below the federal. Many States already do - and they do use their own cost of living as a measure.
Let me ask you a very simple question. Your aunt is doing something wrong by paying these two people the money, without which they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family??????
Perhaps I'm confused, but are you suggesting these people should starve?
Of course I'm not suggesting that people should starve and I'm a little bit offended at that insinuation.
I'm illustrating a point. When there is not minimum wage, employers will pay as little as they can to keep their employees. In the US, if there are people willing to do a job for minimum wage, that's how much they'll get paid. If there is a labor shortage, employers will pay more until the attrack enough people to get the job done. We saw this happen in New Orleans, where shopkeepers and restaurant owners couldn't attrack or keep enough employees because the reconstruction/clean up companies were paying so much more. This in effect raised the "minimum wage" there.
When you have skilled labor, you pay them more because experience and knowledge of the job is important. If an employer is about to lose their best employee because the pay is too low, they will pay them just enough to keep them, as long as it's in the interest and helps the bottom line of the company.
My aunt is not doing anything wrong. She's operating within the framework that's afforded to her.
On its own, the free market isn't capable of determining the value of someone's labor. Instead it creates a race to the top for the rich and a race to the bottom for the poor. Essentially, a fiefdom.
Your first sentence is unrelated to the second. You should change it to read:
"On its own, the free market isn't capable of determining what I believe that value of someone's labor should be"
The free market is certainly capable of determining the value of someone's labor. It does so everyday in this country. You do so everyday when you buy things at prices you feel are good, or reject thing at prices you feel are bad.
Certainly free market conditions can create a "race to the top/bottom". It does so when the value of certain labor is very high while the value of other labor is very low (you ignore, in your extreme language, the reality that most labor, however, is somewhere in between). What I'm failing to understand is why that's wrong.
You're perfectly free use wages to instill a competitive nature to your hiring practices - provided a bare minimum is met.
Why thank you!! How kind of you.
Humans aren't a "value." They're human.
Then why do you assign them a minimum value?
A person shouldn't have to start over everytime he or she loses a job. There's an interest in keeping as many people from falling below the standards of livable existence as possible. Unchecked capitalism cannot survive the strife it causes among people who cannot, for whatever reason, participate outside of a serf-like position. The longer it goes unchecked, the more people who fall into that position. Once it reaches a breaking point, those guns you're always talking about will literally be pointed at you - and they won't be pointed by anyone offering an avenue of appeal.
So in other words your guns are protecting me from their guns? That's quite a proposition.
I'm sorry, but I do not need or want your help. You suggest I have an "interest" in "keeping as many people from falling below the standards of livable existence as possible". I do have that interest, but that interest stops at protecting their freedoms, not sacrificing them. And since your proposal is the business of limiting freedoms, our interests stand opposed.
The highest ideal of public welfare is to provide welfare to those who come up short. Altruism isn't the issue here - realistic solutions for a functioning society are.
What you don't understand is that a "functioning society" is not my primary goal. If it is yours, I completely respect that and any steps you take toward that goal, short of forcing me to participate.
Altruism is the issue here, the instant you ask me to sacrifice something of mine for someone else. Unfortunately, you're not even really asking. If you were, I'd have no problem with it.
Of course I'm not suggesting that people should starve and I'm a little bit offended at that insinuation.
I'm illustrating a point. When there is not minimum wage, employers will pay as little as they can to keep their employees. In the US, if there are people willing to do a job for minimum wage, that's how much they'll get paid. If there is a labor shortage, employers will pay more until the attrack enough people to get the job done. We saw this happen in New Orleans, where shopkeepers and restaurant owners couldn't attrack or keep enough employees because the reconstruction/clean up companies were paying so much more. This in effect raised the "minimum wage" there.
When you have skilled labor, you pay them more because experience and knowledge of the job is important. If an employer is about to lose their best employee because the pay is too low, they will pay them just enough to keep them, as long as it's in the interest and helps the bottom line of the company.
My aunt is not doing anything wrong. She's operating within the framework that's afforded to her.
when computerized equipment can replace people; it will. computers don't call in sick and don't have to leave early for doctors appts; etc. when we had skilled machinists in the early 70's; we made $200/hour per man. now it's over $500/hour plus per man. not to mention the depreciation and tax right-offs for the equipment.
Of course I'm not suggesting that people should starve and I'm a little bit offended at that insinuation.
My apologies -- I was just trying to better understand what you're saying.
I'm illustrating a point. When there is not minimum wage, employers will pay as little as they can to keep their employees. In the US, if there are people willing to do a job for minimum wage, that's how much they'll get paid. If there is a labor shortage, employers will pay more until the attrack enough people to get the job done. We saw this happen in New Orleans, where shopkeepers and restaurant owners couldn't attrack or keep enough employees because the reconstruction/clean up companies were paying so much more. This in effect raised the "minimum wage" there.
You're talking about two different things. One is labor supply/demand, the other is a forced minimum wage that ignores supply/demand.
Without the forced minimum wage, there will still be a minimum wage -- the lowest amount people will accept for any particular job. Often times, that amount will certainly be less than your forced minimum wage. For most jobs, it won't be (and that's true today).
Employers will always seek to pay as little as they can for labor where it makes sense to do so. How is this any different than you seeking to pay as little as you can for a product that comes from this labor? Should I be able to follow you around Target and say "No, no, no qtegirl, that vacuum bag is priced below our MINIMUM CHARGE, so you can't buy it"???
When you have skilled labor, you pay them more because experience and knowledge of the job is important. If an employer is about to lose their best employee because the pay is too low, they will pay them just enough to keep them, as long as it's in the interest and helps the bottom line of the company.
Of course! So what?
My aunt is not doing anything wrong. She's operating within the framework that's afforded to her.
"The framework that's afforded to her"??? That "framework" is called free choice, and her maids operate in the same framework. Your language is creepy here -- it implies that you (or something else), is granting those choices as if it has a fundamental right to remove them.
The federal government sets a bare minimum when it comes to minimum wage. States have every right to establish their own, provided it doesn't fall below the federal. Many States already do - and they do use their own cost of living as a measure.
Thanks for making me look uninformed
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The federal government sets a bare minimum when it comes to minimum wage. States have every right to establish their own, provided it doesn't fall below the federal. Many States already do - and they do use their own cost of living as a measure.
and thus businesses move out of that state or move the labour portion out of that state.
"The framework that's afforded to her"??? That "framework" is called free choice, and her maids operate in the same framework. Your language is creepy here -- it implies that you (or something else), is granting those choices as if it has a fundamental right to remove them.
The framework that I'm talking about is the social and economic laws of the country she lives in which make it possible for her to be able to pay for two maids.
When she lived in Gainsville, FL, the labor laws, minimum wages, the price of the services, etc (the framework) in the US made it prohibitive for her to hire help for the house.
Your first sentence is unrelated to the second. You should change it to read:
"On its own, the free market isn't capable of determining what I believe that value of someone's labor should be"
The free market is certainly capable of determining the value of someone's labor. It does so everyday in this country. You do so everyday when you buy things at prices you feel are good, or reject thing at prices you feel are bad.
Certainly free market conditions can create a "race to the top/bottom". It does so when the value of certain labor is very high while the value of other labor is very low (you ignore, in your extreme language, the reality that most labor, however, is somewhere in between). What I'm failing to understand is why that's wrong.
Prior to the implementation of minimum wages and labor laws, the free market "provided" for the workers with 12 - 14 hour days, dirt for pay, and child labor to pick up the slack. That's why an unchecked market is wrong.
Why do you? Minimum value will always be set by someone. I prefer a majority opinion on the subject, within reason, of course. I'm simply not comfortable with your idea of the altruistic CEO.
So in other words your guns are protecting me from their guns? That's quite a proposition.
Yes, it is - and that's exactly what's happening. Raise an army if you want that changed - though I doubt a "revolution of the privilaged" will have the numbers necessary to take down the government and enslave the workers - or, rather, not enslave, but "paid" at a fair price determined by you. A revolution of a sizable number of underprivilaged, on the other hand...... well, you only need look at history.
I'm sorry, but I do not need or want your help. You suggest I have an "interest" in "keeping as many people from falling below the standards of livable existence as possible". I do have that interest, but that interest stops at protecting their freedoms, not sacrificing them. And since your proposal is the business of limiting freedoms, our interests stand opposed.
Considering you don't believe in labor laws, your interests aren't anymore about 'freedom' than mine - in fact, it's less. And, you do need my help. The money you make in this country is backed by the prosperity and stability of this country. Without that, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
What you don't understand is that a "functioning society" is not my primary goal. If it is yours, I completely respect that and any steps you take toward that goal, short of forcing me to participate.
Why not? You're forcing me to participate just as much as I'm forcing you. We're both citizens - and we both have voices. I suppose we're both pointing guns at each other. And, I suppose as long as that's the case, neither will pull the trigger. Will you be the first to put yours down? Helpful advice: I wouldn't if I were you.
However, if you have no interest in this functioning society, there are other options. I hear there's an old nautical law that says if you come across an unclaimed island covered in pigeon droppings, it's yours for the taking.
Altruism is the issue here, the instant you ask me to sacrifice something of mine for someone else. Unfortunately, you're not even really asking. If you were, I'd have no problem with it.
I'm asking you to "sacrifice" (not sure that's the best term, but cool) something of yours for yourself. Stability, my friend.
I attend college and wait tables for a lowly $2.13/hour in the state of Missouri. In November the state voted to raise minimum wage from 5.15 to 6.50.....w/o raising the wage of the service industry. So...therefore I'm stuck making $2.13 and hoping that guest tip properly. And if any of you out there are wondering what a proper tip is, its 15-20% of the entire cost of your dining ticket not including the taxes charged.
To be honest, its not as bad as it really seems. My job did help me finance 8 PJ shows to which I had to travel to last summer.....since they did not tour the SOUTH!
I wish I were the verb "to trust" and never let you down
and thus businesses move out of that state or move the labour portion out of that state.
Prior to the latest minimum increase (the one not implemented yet), 29 states had minimums set higher than the federal level. They seem to be doing all right. In fact, only Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee have/had no minimum wage law at all. If not having a wage set higher than the federal means more jobs - then, by all means, please bring some here and prove me wrong. We could use them.
Well, for the record, that wasn't always the case. It was during one of his terms that Bill Clinton granted States the right to set their own minimums.
Prior to the implementation of minimum wages and labor laws, the free market "provided" for the workers with 12 - 14 hour days, dirt for pay, and child labor to pick up the slack. That's why an unchecked market is wrong.
Why do you? Minimum value will always be set by someone. I prefer a majority opinion on the subject, within reason, of course. I'm simply not comfortable with your idea of the altruistic CEO.
First, this doesn't answer my question. You're the one who's saying that humans aren't a "value", while at the same time assigning them a minimum value.
Second, I'm the one saying humans are a value. Every human being has a value. Furthermore, every human has an economic value defined by what they can do for another in exchange for what that other can do for them.
I have no "idea of the altruistic CEO", anymore than I have an "idea of the altruistic minimum wage worker". What I do have an idea about is protecting each one's right to own their own personal labor and each one's right to freely assess the value of the other's.
Yes, it is - and that's exactly what's happening. Raise an army if you want that changed - though I doubt a "revolution of the privilaged" will have the numbers necessary to take down the government and enslave the workers - or, rather, not enslave, but "paid" at a fair price determined by you. A revolution of a sizable number of underprivilaged, on the other hand...... well, you only need look at history.
Threatening my fellow men with violence is what I'm rejecting. Why in God's name would I adopt thost tactics?
Considering you don't believe in labor laws, your interests aren't anymore about 'freedom' than mine - in fact, it's less.
I'm very much for labor laws that prevent human beings from kidnapping and enslaving each other. Willingly choosing to work a job at an agreed upon rate does not qualify as being kidnapped and enslaved, I'm afraid, even if that job stinks.
And, you do need my help. The money you make in this country is backed by the prosperity and stability of this country. Without that, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Hehe...funny that you mention this. What do you think the paper those making above their economic value is worth? What do you think that paper is backed by?
Why not? You're forcing me to participate just as much as I'm forcing you. We're both citizens - and we both have voices. I suppose we're both pointing guns at each other. And, I suppose as long as that's the case, neither will pull the trigger. Will you be the first to put yours down? Helpful advice: I wouldn't if I were you.
See, this is what you fail to understand. You've put us both in the same boat, and now you're attempting to claim we have an equal stake. We don't. I'll happily jump out of your boat if you'd let me. If you and your friends want to start businesses and agree upon a minimum wage for your operations and your employees, by all means do it. If you and your friends want to divvy up your own labor equally, regardless of merit, by all means do it. What right to I have to tell you otherwise? You need not participate in my "capitalistic utopia" if you don't want to.
The basic fact is that "you" need "me" more than "I" need "you". This fact is evidenced by your guns as opposed to my exchange. You propose holding employers to laws, whereas I propose holding workers to choice.
However, if you have no interest in this functioning society, there are other options. I hear there's an old nautical law that says if you come across an unclaimed island covered in pigeon droppings, it's yours for the taking.
I didn't say I have no interest in a functioning society. I said such a society was not my primary interest. A society only functions as well as its individual members do. And the glue that holds this society together is becoming more and more violent.
I'm asking you to "sacrifice" (not sure that's the best term, but cool) something of yours for yourself. Stability, my friend.
Again, don't pretend that you are asking or that my best interests are yours. If you were asking, or you actually cared about my best interests, you'd have absolutely no problem with me turning down your proposition.
Prior to the latest minimum increase (the one not implemented yet), 29 states had minimums set higher than the federal level. They seem to be doing all right. In fact, only Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee have/had no minimum wage law at all. If not having a wage set higher than the federal means more jobs - then, by all means, please bring some here and prove me wrong. We could use them.
we; and many; sent our work to china and mexico. without proper import taxes; we've got it made.
but minimum wage is set by the person. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM YOU WILL WORK FOR?
I'm all for laws that prohibit your friends from relocating those jobs to countries that do not share our labor standards. It's an ongoing process, you see.
But it's an interesting point you bring up. If you want an example of what this country would look like without our labor laws, take a look at a country where companies are allowed to function unchecked.
First, this doesn't answer my question. You're the one who's saying that humans aren't a "value", while at the same time assigning them a minimum value.
I'm not the only one that's not addressing every point. I'm working for my above minimum wage salary right now - I don't have time to hit everything.
Second, I'm the one saying humans are a value. Every human being has a value. Furthermore, every human has an economic value defined by what they can do for another in exchange for what that other can do for them.
Provided there are established rules to this game, I have no problem with that. One of those rules is worker's rights.
I have no "idea of the altruistic CEO", anymore than I have an "idea of the altruistic minimum wage worker". What I do have an idea about is protecting each one's right to own their own personal labor and each one's right to freely assess the value of the other's.
If I say my labor value is $100 per hour, and you and all your friends say no, it's only $.25, who do you think wins without an arbitrator? That's right, you do, and I'm stuck at the $.25 rate. Luckily, through collective bargaining - i.e. elected government when necessary - we can reach a more equitable compromise.
Threatening my fellow men with violence is what I'm rejecting. Why in God's name would I adopt thost tactics?
I'm very much for labor laws that prevent human beings from kidnapping and enslaving each other. Willingly choosing to work a job at an agreed upon rate does not qualify as being kidnapped and enslaved, I'm afraid, even if that job stinks.
Yet, from past posts of yours on this board, it's clear that your society would have no way of enforcing those laws.
Hehe...funny that you mention this. What do you think the paper those making above their economic value is worth? What do you think that paper is backed by?
See, this is what you fail to understand. You've put us both in the same boat, and now you're attempting to claim we have an equal stake. We don't. I'll happily jump out of your boat if you'd let me. If you and your friends want to start businesses and agree upon a minimum wage for your operations and your employees, by all means do it. If you and your friends want to divvy up your own labor equally, regardless of merit, by all means do it. What right to I have to tell you otherwise? You need not participate in my "capitalistic utopia" if you don't want to.
What you don't understand is that this isn't true. Short of a willingness to starve to death, I don't have that choice. So, since we're all in this boat together, you're damn right I'm going to demand a say in how it functions. You can jump and drown if you like, I won't stop you; but if you're going to participate, you've got to play by the rules. Luckily for both of us, those rules are flexible, and everyone has (or should have) a voice.
The basic fact is that "you" need "me" more than "I" need "you". This fact is evidenced by your guns as opposed to my exchange. You propose holding employers to laws, whereas I propose holding workers to choice.
Exchange can be used as a weapon just as deadly as a gun.
I didn't say I have no interest in a functioning society. I said such a society was not my primary interest. A society only functions as well as its individual members do. And the glue that holds this society together is becoming more and more violent.
I'm not so sure I see it, but if it is becoming more and more violent, it's curious that this violence is increasing alongside corporate profits and worker wage stagnation.
Again, don't pretend that you are asking or that my best interests are yours. If you were asking, or you actually cared about my best interests, you'd have absolutely no problem with me turning down your proposition.
You are completely free to turn down my proposition by not starting your own business.
we; and many; sent our work to china and mexico. without proper import taxes; we've got it made.
but minimum wage is set by the person. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM YOU WILL WORK FOR?
I'm not sure. In the past, I've certainly worked for less than what the new minimum wage is.
You're right, though, the China and Mexico issue is a problem. We need our tarifs back.
I'm not sure. In the past, I've certainly worked for less than what the new minimum wage is.
You're right, though, the China and Mexico issue is a problem. We need our tarifs back.
in the early 70's; maybe late 60's; the minimum was $2.15/ hr. i worked for that with many others and made enough to live on plus have plenty extra. the problem didn't start until our money started going overseas.
in the early 70's; maybe late 60's; the minimum was $2.15/ hr. i worked for that with many others and made enough to live on plus have plenty extra. the problem didn't start until our money started going overseas.
I'm not sure when it was $2.15, but in 1968 it was $1.60 - and, according to the minimum wage article on Wikipedia, in today's dollars that would be $9.12 per hour - and it was the highest puchasing power the minimum wage ever held. Yeah, the overseas problem is a big one.
I'm all for laws that prohibit your friends from relocating those jobs to countries that do not share our labor standards. It's an ongoing process, you see.
Of course! I bet you're also then all for laws that prohibit my friends from selling their products at prices the poor in this country can't afford. I bet you're also all for laws that prohibit my friends from doing anything that would require that they actually own their labors, as opposed to you.
The logical endgame of your "ongoing process" is a situation wherein the most valuable labor is punished and the most unvaluable labor is rewarded. Be careful what you wish for, because you will get it, particularly in economics.
Let me ask you a basic question: what do you envision being able to offer my friends to stay in this nation?
But it's an interesting point you bring up. If you want an example of what this country would look like without our labor laws, take a look at a country where companies are allowed to function unchecked.
You mean like Dubai? No, probably not. Rather, you probably mean somewhere like Bangladesh or rural China, or any of the places where corporations are allowed to enslave their workers or places where workers have no valuable skills.
It's funny that you rightly chided an earlier poster for suggesting that the minimum wage would destroy the US economy, yet you're doing the exact same thing here by suggesting that, without the minimum wage, we'd all be working in sweatshops.
I'm not the only one that's not addressing every point. I'm working for my above minimum wage salary right now - I don't have time to hit everything.
This doesn't answer my question either. If humans are not a "value", why are you assigning them a minimum value?
Provided there are established rules to this game, I have no problem with that. One of those rules is worker's rights.
Hehe...I already provided the established rules. "Every human has an economic value defined by what they can do for another in exchange for what that other can do for them." If you want further rules, feel free to come up with them. Just don't ask those who have no interest in your game to play by them.
If I say my labor value is $100 per hour, and you and all your friends say no, it's only $.25, who do you think wins without an arbitrator?
Whomever is right. If you labor value is $100 / hour, then that means someone will pay $100 / hour for it. If me and my friends say it's $.25, that means no one will pay over $.25. If you can find someone to pay $100 / hour, then you're right. If you can't find anyone to pay over $.25, then we're right.
That's right, you do, and I'm stuck at the $.25 rate. Luckily, through collective bargaining - i.e. elected government when necessary - we can reach a more equitable compromise.
I'm all for "collective bargaining". However, a gun is not a bargain, and a threat is not a negotiation.
Every worker has a fundamental right to join with other workers and make demands. If every single employee of mine got together and demanded a 10% raise, I would not question their right to do so. However, if every single employee of mine got together and threatened my life while demanding a 10% raise, I would certainly question their right to do so.
Yet, from past posts of yours on this board, it's clear that your society would have no way of enforcing those laws.
How so? A society may certainly enforce laws against slavery, and the enforcement of such laws may be as harsh as you wish, short of death. If a society wishes to put a slaveowner on his own slaveship and send him off naked and unarmed to wherever his typical targets lie, I have absolutely no problem with that.
Government fiat, I believe.
Oh!!! My mistake. I did not realize that proclamations from ivory towers actually had a value upon which money can be based.
Unfortunately, a governmental decree cannot build a house or grow corn or repair a car. In essence, such a decree is worth only the paper it's printed on, much like the money that extends from it.
What you don't understand is that this isn't true. Short of a willingness to starve to death, I don't have that choice.
Really? So if you quit your job, you'd starve to death? If you were fired, you'd be found lying in a gutter somewhere?
So, since we're all in this boat together, you're damn right I'm going to demand a say in how it functions.
Hehe..you can have the full say in how it functions!!! You can do anything you want in that boat, short of keeping me in it as it sinks.
You can jump and drown if you like, I won't stop you;
You said in your first paragraph that you support laws that would stop me.
but if you're going to participate, you've got to play by the rules.
I don't want to participate! That's what you're missing. I don't need anything you have to offer.
Luckily for both of us, those rules are flexible, and everyone has (or should have) a voice.
Lucky for both of us? Not really, no. First, luck isn't involved. You're willingly forcing people to do things. It's not "bad luck", it's violence. Secondly, I'm not getting benefits out of your deal that I'm not willing to give up in exchange for removing myself from the deal. So, no. Good for you, yes. Good for me, no. Lucky for either? Not at all.
Exchange can be used as a weapon just as deadly as a gun.
Most definitely! But a gun can never be an honest exchange. Get it?
I'm not so sure I see it, but if it is becoming more and more violent, it's curious that this violence is increasing alongside corporate profits and worker wage stagnation.
You forgot government revenues, which also are increasing. And you're ignoring the fact that corporate profits are primarily increasing for two major entities: those who circumvent your labor laws and those who climb in bed with your force machine and use it to their advantage. Furthermore, you're ignoring that "wage stagnation" isn't real. American make more money every year. Unfortunately, those you pretend to defend can't keep up with the inflation that results from the bad bargains you're selling them.
You are completely free to turn down my proposition by not starting your own business.
Haha.....that's like the slaveowner telling someone that they can turn down his proposition by cutting off their own arms.
The last time the minimum wage was raised, I was 16 years old working as a sacker in a grocery store. I was, needless to say, very happy about the only raise I received at that job over the 4 years I worked there.
Since then, I've understood arguments on either side to raise minimum wage or just abolish it all together. The thing I don't understand is why the proposed increases out there right now are so weak? Raising it $8 or $12 phased in over time. Screw that. I think we should raise the minimum wage to $24/hr. If you work a full 40 hour week for 52 weeks that puts you at about $50,000/yr. You can't tell me the true "poverty line" is lower than this. It's almost impossible to even own a car on this salary much less a house if you're trying to raise a family. Plus, having both parents work should not be a necessity so the entire family should be able to survive on one salary, that minimum salary in my mind is $50K.
So why not raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $24.00 an hour and really get this poverty thing over with. You don't think people will want to work at McDonald's for $24 an hour?
On a side note, it should be indexed for cost of living as well, so $24 in rural areas, something more like $35 in a city like Chicago, $45 in LA and $50 in NYC. I'm sick of seeing poor inner-cities, that needs to be corrected.
Raising the minimum wage is definitely popular. Voters in six states approved higher minimums last Election Day. State politicians in both parties are practically drooling with eagerness to "help" lower-income workers. After all, how can you call the current minimum, $5.15 an hour, a "living" wage? Who can live on that?
We all want the poor to make more money. So if government can raise wages by decree, why are the popular proposals so stingy? What good is a measly buck or two extra? Let's really do something for the poor. Let's raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. Even better, $50!
*****************
This would bankrupt most American companies and send our economy into a tailspin. The only way to compensate for this would be to raise the price of everything to offset it and that doesn't help anybody.
“May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
Dubai has a serious labor shortage problem. This has lead to a massive "importation" of low-wage foreign workers who, upon entering, are forced to give up their passports. From NPR: They typically live eight to a room and don't see [their families] for years at a time. Salaries are often withheld to pay "back loans" - and often for months on end - essentially creating indentured servants.
From Wikipedia:
"In December 2005, the Indian consulate in Dubai submitted a report to the Government of India detailing labour problems faced by Indian expatriates in the emirate. The report highlighted delayed payment of wages, substitution of employment contracts, premature termination of services and excessive working hours as being some of the challenges faced by Indian workers in the city.
On 21 March 2006, tensions boiled over at the construction site of the Burj Dubai as workers upset over low wages and poor working conditions rioted, damaging cars, offices, computers, and construction tools. A Dubai Interior Ministry official said the rioters caused approximately one million U.S. dollars in damage. On March 22 most workers returned to work but refused to work. The work stoppage also caused workers building a new terminal at Dubai International Airport to strike.
The online community in Dubai has also addressed the issue of worker abuse.The Dubai Life is one site that raised the issue about construction worker abuse since the riots of March 2006. Other sites have joined the campaign calling for a fair wage for the workers including setting up a Petition to that end.
Though officially there is a labour ministry where workers can go for redress, this is more so in name than in practice. Subcontintent labour from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh working in construction sites cannot speak either Arabic or English, and their claims can drag on in the Labour courts for months by which time the unpaid labourers have little option than to accept any given settlement."
But things are improving. At the end of last year, the UAE labor minister stated that Dubai will allow the formation of labor unions. So, if you want to get in on this paradise, you'd better hurry. Pretty soon it might not be any better than here.
Comments
My aunt lives in Nicaragua. She doesn't have a lot of money, she's not "wealthy", but she does OK. She has 2 maids. How can she afford it? Well, they are willing to do the work for very little money because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family.
Nicaragua doesn't have a minimum wage. That's how people like my aunt can get away with it.
Of course, you are always free to send these two maids some of your own money. Now that would show you care about them as people.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Let me ask you a very simple question. Your aunt is doing something wrong by paying these two people the money, without which they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family??????
Perhaps I'm confused, but are you suggesting these people should starve?
in a land where all men are created equal; how do you justify different minimum wages?
Hehe....
Men aren't paid for being created, men are paid for creating. I would think, as such a prolific businessperson, you would know that.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You're perfectly free use wages to instill a competitive nature to your hiring practices - provided a bare minimum is met.
Humans aren't a "value." They're human. A person shouldn't have to start over everytime he or she loses a job. There's an interest in keeping as many people from falling below the standards of livable existence as possible. Unchecked capitalism cannot survive the strife it causes among people who cannot, for whatever reason, participate outside of a serf-like position. The longer it goes unchecked, the more people who fall into that position. Once it reaches a breaking point, those guns you're always talking about will literally be pointed at you - and they won't be pointed by anyone offering an avenue of appeal.
The highest ideal of public welfare is to provide welfare to those who come up short. Altruism isn't the issue here - realistic solutions for a functioning society are.
I'm illustrating a point. When there is not minimum wage, employers will pay as little as they can to keep their employees. In the US, if there are people willing to do a job for minimum wage, that's how much they'll get paid. If there is a labor shortage, employers will pay more until the attrack enough people to get the job done. We saw this happen in New Orleans, where shopkeepers and restaurant owners couldn't attrack or keep enough employees because the reconstruction/clean up companies were paying so much more. This in effect raised the "minimum wage" there.
When you have skilled labor, you pay them more because experience and knowledge of the job is important. If an employer is about to lose their best employee because the pay is too low, they will pay them just enough to keep them, as long as it's in the interest and helps the bottom line of the company.
My aunt is not doing anything wrong. She's operating within the framework that's afforded to her.
Your first sentence is unrelated to the second. You should change it to read:
"On its own, the free market isn't capable of determining what I believe that value of someone's labor should be"
The free market is certainly capable of determining the value of someone's labor. It does so everyday in this country. You do so everyday when you buy things at prices you feel are good, or reject thing at prices you feel are bad.
Certainly free market conditions can create a "race to the top/bottom". It does so when the value of certain labor is very high while the value of other labor is very low (you ignore, in your extreme language, the reality that most labor, however, is somewhere in between). What I'm failing to understand is why that's wrong.
Why thank you!! How kind of you.
Then why do you assign them a minimum value?
So in other words your guns are protecting me from their guns? That's quite a proposition.
I'm sorry, but I do not need or want your help. You suggest I have an "interest" in "keeping as many people from falling below the standards of livable existence as possible". I do have that interest, but that interest stops at protecting their freedoms, not sacrificing them. And since your proposal is the business of limiting freedoms, our interests stand opposed.
What you don't understand is that a "functioning society" is not my primary goal. If it is yours, I completely respect that and any steps you take toward that goal, short of forcing me to participate.
Altruism is the issue here, the instant you ask me to sacrifice something of mine for someone else. Unfortunately, you're not even really asking. If you were, I'd have no problem with it.
when computerized equipment can replace people; it will. computers don't call in sick and don't have to leave early for doctors appts; etc. when we had skilled machinists in the early 70's; we made $200/hour per man. now it's over $500/hour plus per man. not to mention the depreciation and tax right-offs for the equipment.
My apologies -- I was just trying to better understand what you're saying.
You're talking about two different things. One is labor supply/demand, the other is a forced minimum wage that ignores supply/demand.
Without the forced minimum wage, there will still be a minimum wage -- the lowest amount people will accept for any particular job. Often times, that amount will certainly be less than your forced minimum wage. For most jobs, it won't be (and that's true today).
Employers will always seek to pay as little as they can for labor where it makes sense to do so. How is this any different than you seeking to pay as little as you can for a product that comes from this labor? Should I be able to follow you around Target and say "No, no, no qtegirl, that vacuum bag is priced below our MINIMUM CHARGE, so you can't buy it"???
Of course! So what?
"The framework that's afforded to her"??? That "framework" is called free choice, and her maids operate in the same framework. Your language is creepy here -- it implies that you (or something else), is granting those choices as if it has a fundamental right to remove them.
Thanks for making me look uninformed
and thus businesses move out of that state or move the labour portion out of that state.
When she lived in Gainsville, FL, the labor laws, minimum wages, the price of the services, etc (the framework) in the US made it prohibitive for her to hire help for the house.
Hey, no problem. Anything I can do for a fellow citizen of my country.
Why do you? Minimum value will always be set by someone. I prefer a majority opinion on the subject, within reason, of course. I'm simply not comfortable with your idea of the altruistic CEO.
Yes, it is - and that's exactly what's happening. Raise an army if you want that changed - though I doubt a "revolution of the privilaged" will have the numbers necessary to take down the government and enslave the workers - or, rather, not enslave, but "paid" at a fair price determined by you. A revolution of a sizable number of underprivilaged, on the other hand...... well, you only need look at history.
Considering you don't believe in labor laws, your interests aren't anymore about 'freedom' than mine - in fact, it's less. And, you do need my help. The money you make in this country is backed by the prosperity and stability of this country. Without that, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Why not? You're forcing me to participate just as much as I'm forcing you. We're both citizens - and we both have voices. I suppose we're both pointing guns at each other. And, I suppose as long as that's the case, neither will pull the trigger. Will you be the first to put yours down? Helpful advice: I wouldn't if I were you.
However, if you have no interest in this functioning society, there are other options. I hear there's an old nautical law that says if you come across an unclaimed island covered in pigeon droppings, it's yours for the taking.
I'm asking you to "sacrifice" (not sure that's the best term, but cool) something of yours for yourself. Stability, my friend.
To be honest, its not as bad as it really seems. My job did help me finance 8 PJ shows to which I had to travel to last summer.....since they did not tour the SOUTH!
Umm...your minimum wage hasn't eliminated those things. It's simply relocated them.
First, this doesn't answer my question. You're the one who's saying that humans aren't a "value", while at the same time assigning them a minimum value.
Second, I'm the one saying humans are a value. Every human being has a value. Furthermore, every human has an economic value defined by what they can do for another in exchange for what that other can do for them.
I have no "idea of the altruistic CEO", anymore than I have an "idea of the altruistic minimum wage worker". What I do have an idea about is protecting each one's right to own their own personal labor and each one's right to freely assess the value of the other's.
Threatening my fellow men with violence is what I'm rejecting. Why in God's name would I adopt thost tactics?
I'm very much for labor laws that prevent human beings from kidnapping and enslaving each other. Willingly choosing to work a job at an agreed upon rate does not qualify as being kidnapped and enslaved, I'm afraid, even if that job stinks.
Hehe...funny that you mention this. What do you think the paper those making above their economic value is worth? What do you think that paper is backed by?
See, this is what you fail to understand. You've put us both in the same boat, and now you're attempting to claim we have an equal stake. We don't. I'll happily jump out of your boat if you'd let me. If you and your friends want to start businesses and agree upon a minimum wage for your operations and your employees, by all means do it. If you and your friends want to divvy up your own labor equally, regardless of merit, by all means do it. What right to I have to tell you otherwise? You need not participate in my "capitalistic utopia" if you don't want to.
The basic fact is that "you" need "me" more than "I" need "you". This fact is evidenced by your guns as opposed to my exchange. You propose holding employers to laws, whereas I propose holding workers to choice.
I didn't say I have no interest in a functioning society. I said such a society was not my primary interest. A society only functions as well as its individual members do. And the glue that holds this society together is becoming more and more violent.
Again, don't pretend that you are asking or that my best interests are yours. If you were asking, or you actually cared about my best interests, you'd have absolutely no problem with me turning down your proposition.
we; and many; sent our work to china and mexico. without proper import taxes; we've got it made.
but minimum wage is set by the person. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM YOU WILL WORK FOR?
But it's an interesting point you bring up. If you want an example of what this country would look like without our labor laws, take a look at a country where companies are allowed to function unchecked.
I'm not the only one that's not addressing every point. I'm working for my above minimum wage salary right now - I don't have time to hit everything.
Provided there are established rules to this game, I have no problem with that. One of those rules is worker's rights.
If I say my labor value is $100 per hour, and you and all your friends say no, it's only $.25, who do you think wins without an arbitrator? That's right, you do, and I'm stuck at the $.25 rate. Luckily, through collective bargaining - i.e. elected government when necessary - we can reach a more equitable compromise.
Yet, from past posts of yours on this board, it's clear that your society would have no way of enforcing those laws.
Government fiat, I believe.
What you don't understand is that this isn't true. Short of a willingness to starve to death, I don't have that choice. So, since we're all in this boat together, you're damn right I'm going to demand a say in how it functions. You can jump and drown if you like, I won't stop you; but if you're going to participate, you've got to play by the rules. Luckily for both of us, those rules are flexible, and everyone has (or should have) a voice.
Exchange can be used as a weapon just as deadly as a gun.
I'm not so sure I see it, but if it is becoming more and more violent, it's curious that this violence is increasing alongside corporate profits and worker wage stagnation.
You are completely free to turn down my proposition by not starting your own business.
You're right, though, the China and Mexico issue is a problem. We need our tarifs back.
in the early 70's; maybe late 60's; the minimum was $2.15/ hr. i worked for that with many others and made enough to live on plus have plenty extra. the problem didn't start until our money started going overseas.
Of course! I bet you're also then all for laws that prohibit my friends from selling their products at prices the poor in this country can't afford. I bet you're also all for laws that prohibit my friends from doing anything that would require that they actually own their labors, as opposed to you.
The logical endgame of your "ongoing process" is a situation wherein the most valuable labor is punished and the most unvaluable labor is rewarded. Be careful what you wish for, because you will get it, particularly in economics.
Let me ask you a basic question: what do you envision being able to offer my friends to stay in this nation?
You mean like Dubai? No, probably not. Rather, you probably mean somewhere like Bangladesh or rural China, or any of the places where corporations are allowed to enslave their workers or places where workers have no valuable skills.
It's funny that you rightly chided an earlier poster for suggesting that the minimum wage would destroy the US economy, yet you're doing the exact same thing here by suggesting that, without the minimum wage, we'd all be working in sweatshops.
This doesn't answer my question either. If humans are not a "value", why are you assigning them a minimum value?
Hehe...I already provided the established rules. "Every human has an economic value defined by what they can do for another in exchange for what that other can do for them." If you want further rules, feel free to come up with them. Just don't ask those who have no interest in your game to play by them.
Whomever is right. If you labor value is $100 / hour, then that means someone will pay $100 / hour for it. If me and my friends say it's $.25, that means no one will pay over $.25. If you can find someone to pay $100 / hour, then you're right. If you can't find anyone to pay over $.25, then we're right.
I'm all for "collective bargaining". However, a gun is not a bargain, and a threat is not a negotiation.
Every worker has a fundamental right to join with other workers and make demands. If every single employee of mine got together and demanded a 10% raise, I would not question their right to do so. However, if every single employee of mine got together and threatened my life while demanding a 10% raise, I would certainly question their right to do so.
How so? A society may certainly enforce laws against slavery, and the enforcement of such laws may be as harsh as you wish, short of death. If a society wishes to put a slaveowner on his own slaveship and send him off naked and unarmed to wherever his typical targets lie, I have absolutely no problem with that.
Oh!!! My mistake. I did not realize that proclamations from ivory towers actually had a value upon which money can be based.
Unfortunately, a governmental decree cannot build a house or grow corn or repair a car. In essence, such a decree is worth only the paper it's printed on, much like the money that extends from it.
Really? So if you quit your job, you'd starve to death? If you were fired, you'd be found lying in a gutter somewhere?
Hehe..you can have the full say in how it functions!!! You can do anything you want in that boat, short of keeping me in it as it sinks.
You said in your first paragraph that you support laws that would stop me.
I don't want to participate! That's what you're missing. I don't need anything you have to offer.
Lucky for both of us? Not really, no. First, luck isn't involved. You're willingly forcing people to do things. It's not "bad luck", it's violence. Secondly, I'm not getting benefits out of your deal that I'm not willing to give up in exchange for removing myself from the deal. So, no. Good for you, yes. Good for me, no. Lucky for either? Not at all.
Most definitely! But a gun can never be an honest exchange. Get it?
You forgot government revenues, which also are increasing. And you're ignoring the fact that corporate profits are primarily increasing for two major entities: those who circumvent your labor laws and those who climb in bed with your force machine and use it to their advantage. Furthermore, you're ignoring that "wage stagnation" isn't real. American make more money every year. Unfortunately, those you pretend to defend can't keep up with the inflation that results from the bad bargains you're selling them.
Haha.....that's like the slaveowner telling someone that they can turn down his proposition by cutting off their own arms.
This would bankrupt most American companies and send our economy into a tailspin. The only way to compensate for this would be to raise the price of everything to offset it and that doesn't help anybody.
Agreed. This is the best reasoning I've heard yet on whether or not to raise the minimum wage. And I haven't heard anything to rebute this either.
From Wikipedia:
But things are improving. At the end of last year, the UAE labor minister stated that Dubai will allow the formation of labor unions. So, if you want to get in on this paradise, you'd better hurry. Pretty soon it might not be any better than here.