Minimum Wage BS

[Brooks]

1. Anyway, here's the point: human beings are free, and driven to survive. When you put a human being into an unfair situation, they may tolerate it to a certain point, but will eventually use their natural power to put right whatever disadvantages them. If the system we have is that employers employ people, but they do not provide a wage that is both a living wage, and is also reasonably fair, eventually, people will do something about it.

2. There's a lot more to be said about this, but that's the important point: if we don't provide a living wage and enough leisure time, eventually the system will be overtaken by people who are wronged by it.

1. When they stop tolerating it they will move on to a job more commensurate with their perception of their worth. That's the idea of minimum wage - your first unskilled job.
Employers do provide "a living wage, [that] is also reasonably fair" to the more skilled workers who are harder to replace.

2. First of all, it's not "we". It's, in some cases, a struggling small businessman who can't afford to make an unskilled worker's life livable.
There are some businesses who won't be able to afford ANY workers at the "livable wage". What are they supposed to do?

 

[Vern]

1. The question was how much does a minimum wage worker have to make per hour to support himself. I set it up over 7 days and you said it should be 5. The funny part is, the answer would be the same, and still hasn't been answered.
And I don't expect it will be now.

on a quick side note, you didn't tell anybody your work week was 7 days and your 'after the fact' excuse was pretty lame. anyhoo, where's your research, knowledge base or debating skills . fyi, demanding someone answer questions isn't really a debating skill. You've expressed displeasure with the phrase "livable wage" and posted some other republican narratives but you've provided no research, knowledge base or debating skills. Make clear straightforward statements and back them up.

 

[johndylan1]

Many here see business as ExxonMobil but there's also the guy who owns a pizz place.
If he has a low skilled, easily replaced employee, why should he be forced to pay more than is necessary? Especially this still undefined "livable wage".

I agree in principal, but that low skill employee still will consume his basic needs, whether he pays or not. Someone will subsidize those needs. Should the pizza maker pay the employee a living wage, the cost of pizza will rise and he will have to be more efficient hold prices down in order to keep his profit margin. In return he will receive a tax code that reduces his tax and that will help with his efforts to maintain his profit margin. Now the worker will need no public benefit, so that there is less stress on the federal tax system. In addition the worker now has a sense of self sufficiency that will be passed down to his progeny, which helps with generational dependency. The amount of the living wage is the problem. We certainly would end up with an ever moving and increasing sense of what that would be, I agree. And to that point is why I remain conflicted. If a suitable and stable formula could be developed for a living wage that wouldn't result in excessive required wages it may be worth considering.

 

[Kermz]

I disagree. Look, we form societies and economies because doing so tends to ensure better outcomes for all individuals. But we do all this by agreement, and that agreement involves some guiding principles, one of which is the concept of fairness. Wealth should be distributed fairly.

Who is doing this by agreement? I didn't agree to minimum wage laws. I didn't agree to where my tax and outrageously high ticket fees go. Or am I automatically a part of this "social contract" where a select few choose how to redistribute people's wealth? Wealth is created, not distributed.

It was an Enlightenment concept that this could be washed by a system of contracts. But this depends on a number of false assumptions about the nature of human psychology. It turns out that fairness cannot be ensured that way. But we need to be clear about this point: fairness is the goal, and the ideas of market economics and contractual binding were meant to ensure it. The concept of liberty entered the picture, but not in the way we would think about it today. John Locke had some interesting remarks about this point.

Anyway, here's the point: human beings are free, and driven to survive. When you put a human being into an unfair situation, they may tolerate it to a certain point, but will eventually use their natural power to put right whatever disadvantages them. If the system we have is that employers employ people, but they do not provide a wage that is both a living wage, and is also reasonably fair, eventually, people will do something about it. There's a lot more to be said about this, but that's the important point: if we don't provide a living wage and enough leisure time, eventually the system will be overtaken by people who are wronged by it.

Fairness is the goal. But it is never achieved, because the laws we have are inherently unfair. Taking from somebody else, or favoring one group (wealthy OR poor) over another is unfair. And who is putting the human being into an unfair situation? The employer? What if somebody has 2 jobs? Do both employers now agree to split the burden of the employees living expenses? Seeing as their wages no longer would depend on the value of their work, it seems to me that's the only way you could fairly determine their wages.

I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise. You may as well say that because people are sometimes murdered, no one should get the idea that murder is wrong.

I see murder as taking away somebody's right to life. You aren't taking away somebody's rights when you pay them a low wage. They have a right to leave. It's not slavery. You see low wages as morally wrong, I don't.

Well...it seems to be a lot more up to the situation lately, but your position is such as not to recognize this point.

Is my employer responsible for whatever situation I'm in? What if my employer was no longer in business, who would be responsible for my well being? And what if I owned a business? Do my customers have an obligation to pay me a living wage?

I agree that minimum wage and overtime laws have not been well-implemented. But the solution is not to trash them, but to implement them properly so they will have the intended effect.

How do you properly implement these laws then? Because I think the basic function of these laws make them flawed from the start.

 

[Brooks]

er uh Brooks, what research, knowledge base or debating skills have you brought to the thread you started? The only thing I actually learned in this thread is you don't like the phrase "livable wage" and math is not your strong suit.

If you don't have the time to make clear straightforward statements and back them up, why are you at a debate forum?

After over 100 posts it appears most people have learned a lot from the different ideas they've exchanged with others.

You have to read more carefully, I said your type of posting require research, knowledge base or debating skills. I didn't say anyone on this thread did any research. Do you see where I wrote that because I don't. Did you imagine it? I envy your imagination.

An example of a debating skill would be someone listening to what another has said, interpreting it and responding with a comment that rebuts those aspects with which they disagree. For the most part, pretty much everyone has done that. Pretty much.

And since this wasn't a topic that required a lot of research, most of what you're hearing is from individuals' knowledge base.

I've yet to read any of this in any of your posts.

Snotty is no substitute for interesting.

And STILL nothing substantive to add to the actual topic, eh?

 

[Brooks]

Roughly what Adam Smith thought. He called it the "liberal reward of labor." Business owners ought to make a reasonable profit, but pay their employees as close as possible to what their efforts would bring if they could sell their goods on their own.
There's a lot of complexity involved in figuring this out. For instance, it's not so easy to value what an IT guy does this way, but I think with a little thought, it could be worked out.
Yes, this is correct.
I have managed and owned businesses (and did quite well, I might add) before I decided to go back into academia. I don't have antipathy towards business qua business. I do have considerable antipathy towards the current manifestation of business in our country. I think, based on my own fairly long experience in the corporate world, that dishonesty is at the very heart of how we do business these days...though it is far less a problem for small businesses. Ultimately, I think it is a very harmful process.
The good news is that I don't think business necessarily has to run this way.

1. I think business owners have an economic responsibility to their employees that mirrors the economic responsibility they have to their families. It seems to me that people have responsibilities towards each other. The underlying principles are the same, but the specifics of implementation depend on context. If I have a responsibility to help a starving child (as I certainly do), then if I am a business owner, I have a responsibility to my employees. They have responsibilities toward me as well, but there is a power differential, and the business owner has a correspondingly different responsibility.

2. In general, I think people should only seek power as a means of service to others. Unfortunately, this isn't why most people seek power.

3. Yeah, I really dig these guys.

1. Based on that I think our disagreement is fundamental. Everyone has their own self interest.
An employer wants a business to succeed or he won't have a job, but it's not because he feel indebted to the owner.
It's not like helping a starving child, that type of charity gives you nothing material in returen.
The employer gives compensation for the labor he himself can't provide and the employee gives labor for the compensation he doesn't have. It's a break even. They don't even have to care about each other.

2. Another fundamental difference in our thought process. I don't see businesses as power and business owners as power hungry.
For the purposes of a discussion on minimum wage, we're probably not talking about the Fortune 500, we're talking about the gas station owner.

3. Excellent. Common ground.

 

[Brooks]

I agree in principal, but that low skill employee still will consume his basic needs, whether he pays or not. Someone will subsidize those needs. Should the pizza maker pay the employee a living wage, the cost of pizza will rise and he will have to be more efficient hold prices down in order to keep his profit margin. In return he will receive a tax code that reduces his tax and that will help with his efforts to maintain his profit margin. Now the worker will need no public benefit, so that there is less stress on the federal tax system. In addition the worker now has a sense of self sufficiency that will be passed down to his progeny, which helps with generational dependency. The amount of the living wage is the problem. We certainly would end up with an ever moving and increasing sense of what that would be, I agree. And to that point is why I remain conflicted. If a suitable and stable formula could be developed for a living wage that wouldn't result in excessive required wages it may be worth considering.

When I was 16 I worked in a camp kitchen, worked as a busboy and cut lawns.
Sometimes over 40 hours a week.
This "livable wage" will force employers to pay unskilled 16 year olds support-yourself money. It just doesn't make any sense.

Anyone supporting a family shouldn't be making minimum wage at this point in their lives and yes, if they are there is government assistance available. Heck, close to 50% of the country is receiving EBT (food stamps). I'd much rather see that being applied to the smaller number of minimum wage household supporters than paying every 16 year old food and apartment money on the backs of small business owners.

 

[Brooks]

1. on a quick side note, you didn't tell anybody your work week was 7 days and your 'after the fact' excuse was pretty lame.

2. anyhoo, where's your research, knowledge base or debating skills . fyi, demanding someone answer questions isn't really a debating skill. You've expressed displeasure with the phrase "livable wage" and posted some other republican narratives but you've provided no research, knowledge base or debating skills. Make clear straightforward statements and back them up.

1. Were I reading the OP, the moment I read 4.5 hours a day totaling 30 hours I would have realized that it meant 7 days.
We went to school in very different eras.

2. And STILL nothing substantive to add to the actual topic, eh?

 

[johndylan1]

When I was 16 I worked in a camp kitchen, worked as a busboy and cut lawns.
Sometimes over 40 hours a week.
This "livable wage" will force employers to pay unskilled 16 year olds support-yourself money. It just doesn't make any sense.

Anyone supporting a family shouldn't be making minimum wage at this point in their lives and yes, if they are there is government assistance available. Heck, close to 50% of the country is receiving EBT (food stamps). I'd much rather see that being applied to the smaller number of minimum wage household supporters than paying every 16 year old food and apartment money on the backs of small business owners.

I appreciate your perspective,as I am conflicted and just throwing out ideas for the sake of thinking it through. One thing for sure I disagree that entitlement programs such as ebt are preferable. Full employment is the key, but in this service economy where wal-mart and Mc Donalds are the largest employers and the manufacturing base and new construction is diminished; people that are not teens are being forced to take low pay low skill jobs despite their qualifications. In order to keep out wage intervention, our economy has to produce a majority of jobs that produce, not jobs that service. This also adds to the wealth Gap. EPA and other regualatory agencies staffed with advocates and not realists is also a problem.

 

[lolabird]

And STILL nothing substantive to add to the actual topic, eh?

Keep trying, maybe you'll find something of substance to say.

 

[lolabird]

Ok, unless you are his wife or you are sleeping with his mistress, you know squat. You are attempting to portray Duke's mindset and motivations and yes, you know squat.

And you are a Saudi King?

 

[lolabird]

reporting this becuase i posted to a different [wrong]member before.



really?....OK i will post them from Madison himself, since you will listen to left leaning professors, and not read Madison on words and deeds.

federalist 10--The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Madison states here that democratic government is very ( factious, or full of special interest) to limit that faction ,that special interest the founders choose republican government.

the u.s. Constitution article 4 section 4-- The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

what is republican government, it is a mixed constitution, as stated by Madison.



The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

what is mixed government or mixed constitution?

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.


separations of powers?

the house is of (all) the people it is a democracy , the senate is of the (few) states it is an aristocracy.

that aristocracy of the senate is there to stop the collectivist mentality of the people, by being a bulwark against any collectivist ideas..........as Madison states in federalist 63--The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.

madison states the people can vote collectively for there congressman, however they cannot vote collectively, on whims and desires the people may have to embellish themselves with things, at the expense of the minority.

becuase the senate is the first bulwark against that kind of collectivist activity, and the court being the second..........the senate because its interest are not the same as the house's interest, keep faction, /special interest limited.

I had no idea you rode with Madison.

 

[lolabird]

Mr. Dukes is not being paid by taxpayer money.
He's being paid by a large percentage of lower income people who have availed themselves of lower priced items at a more convenient location.
That's was Mr. Dukes has done to the poor.

It's true, you can't fix stupid.

 

[Master PO]

I had no idea you rode with Madison.

don't need to, all I have to do is look at his writings, and prove my case.

 

[lolabird]

don't need to, all I have to do is look at his writings, and prove my case.

I'll stick with the likes of Noam Chomsky.

 

[Master PO]

I'll stick with the likes of Noam Chomsky.

you stated what I said was false, I used Madison on words to prove what I said was correct, now you have no rebuttal to those facts i posted.

 

[lolabird]

you stated what I said was false, I used Madison on words to prove what I said was correct, now you have no rebuttal to those facts i posted.

I quoted Madison and gave you examples of the system of fragmentation he devised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

[Master PO]

I quoted Madison and gave you examples of the system of fragmentation he devised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

you posted a statement about men and sited Madison, and tied it to a CEO.

I made the point that the statement has nothing to do with a CEO, it has to do with the structure of government, Madison stated that senators are appointed by their state legislators , and because of that action, legislators will always appoint men who are experienced in the political realm to the senate, Madison considered states to be a guardian of rights against the power of the federal government, and senators would protect the rights of the minority, from the collective democracy of the house, by having the senate serving as a block against any legislation which would be created by the house to take away rights of the people.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I quoted Madison and gave you examples of the system of fragmentation he devised.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

No, but you can slaughter it, cut it up and sell it as if it were something other than horse - which is precisely what you did with Madison.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Requires no research, knowledge base or debating skills.
Why would you be on a political forum?

I envy your spare time.

And STILL nothing substantive to add to the actual topic, eh?

Patience, grasshopper.

 

[FederalRepublic]

on a quick side note, you didn't tell anybody your work week was 7 days and your 'after the fact' excuse was pretty lame. anyhoo, where's your research, knowledge base or debating skills . fyi, demanding someone answer questions isn't really a debating skill. You've expressed displeasure with the phrase "livable wage" and posted some other republican narratives but you've provided no research, knowledge base or debating skills. Make clear straightforward statements and back them up.

I doesn't take a genius to work backwards from 30 hours/week and less than 4.5 hours per day. He respected you enough to think you'd figure that one out on your own...

 

[FederalRepublic]

Accept employment or what?

Just curious.. but what would folks do if the wages offered were not acceptable?

Be hungry, or look elsewhere (if 20 million Mexicans can do it...)

 

[Velvet Elvis]

There is an element of coercion in employment these days. Adam Smith recognized the problem: once all the land is owned, the people who own the land can force everyone else to work for them and will generally be the ones who determine working conditions and wages. Human beings need land to produce food and water, and those are necessary to survive. Not taking a job because the wages are too low may lead to you starving or dying of thirst. At least, it may lead to a very tough life of sleeping under a bridge and pulling your own abscessed teeth with a pair of rusty plyers. Employers are able, collectively, to threaten people with that fate if they don't take the wages on offer.

Well then, it's a good thing your cockamamie story doesn't exist, isn't it?

 

[Brooks]

I appreciate your perspective,as I am conflicted and just throwing out ideas for the sake of thinking it through. One thing for sure I disagree that entitlement programs such as ebt are preferable. Full employment is the key, but in this service economy where wal-mart and Mc Donalds are the largest employers and the manufacturing base and new construction is diminished; people that are not teens are being forced to take low pay low skill jobs despite their qualifications. In order to keep out wage intervention, our economy has to produce a majority of jobs that produce, not jobs that service. This also adds to the wealth Gap. EPA and other regualatory agencies staffed with advocates and not realists is also a problem.

I agree with you, both of our outlooks will result in some unfairness to someone.

 

[Brooks]

Keep trying, maybe you'll find something of substance to say.

I've been on several different politica fora and you, and a few others, are examples of something I've never understood.

Some people enjoy debating, some enjoy learning, some enjoy the research and the challenge of trying to keep up with a topic they don't readily understand. But I don't know where you, and a few others, fit in. It seems as though you WANT to be angry and fight and insult. If I sound like I'm picking on you personally I'm sorry, but I seriously don't get it.