Minimum Wage increase?

[jamil]

employees aren't entitled to benefits. They are only entitled the money they earned.

Employees are entitled to what's in their contract. If that includes minimum benefits, that's what they get. If an employer typically offers 2 weeks vacation and you negotiate for 3, you get 3 weeks. Just don't tell the other employees.

Obviously this only works in the "exempt" world.

 

[jamil]

Low wages don't hurt the economy? I wouldn't mind having what you're on...

If wages are too low, that's less income workers can spend. Less money being spent means lower revenues. Low revenues means cuts. Cuts usually mean more people on the unemployment line. Wages shouldn't be too low or too high, they should be at an equilibrium. Right now it's an employer's market so they can get away with crap wages. When it's an employee's market, employers have to compete with others for workers, so wages tend to be higher.

WTF are they teaching in college these days? Why do you think that government can concoct equilibrium?

Equilibrium happens when market supply and demand are equal. Too low wages means that wages are below demand. That happens when something other than supply and demand are influencing the market. Too high wages means that wages are above demand. Again, that happens when something other than supply and demand are influencing the market. Wages necessary to maintain a given standard of living have nothing to do with equilibrium. Equilibrium is market driven.

Sometimes political figures, seeking popularity, work to enact controls on wages, either setting a minimum wage limit for lower value jobs or a maximum wage limit for higher value jobs. Those are examples of outside influences that cause wages to be below or above the demand.

If I want an honest higher standard of living, I must make myself more valuable to employers. Or, I might try to start my own business, and produce something valuable enough that people are willing to pay what I need for the standard of living I want.

The difference between my way of thinking and the pro-minimum wage way of thinking is that I believe my existence alone, does not entitle me to someone else's money. If I want other people's money, I have to give them something they find valuable enough to trade for it.

 

[jamil]

Taxes. It's in the government's interest to have a minimum wage.

Really, I'm not picking on you. I'll get around to picking on BBI later.

The question was not, what is in the best interest of government. It's in the government's best interest to have ALL our money. Our Constitution is our protection FROM the government's interest.

So I'll ask GFGT's question again. What authority does the constitution give the federal government to control wages? Please name the article or amendment.

 

[Trigger Time]

So some ****tard who can't even speak English, makes
my sandwhich wrong every damn time it go there, can clean the bathrooms, dresses like a slob, smokes dope behind the dumpster, has zero customer service skills, wants a raise just because? Hahahahahaha uh NO! How about you earn a raise by working hard and showing your better than anyone around you. Take initiative. Be a leader. And make my damn sandwhich right and don't forget my straw!

 

[mrjarrell]

7th Stepper just forwarded this link to me. I read it and had to post.

If You Want To Know What Raising The Minimum Wage Does To The Economy, Look At Seattle - Chicks on the Right

You see, min wage, as presented by a former coworker, was the issue that showed me the flawed premise of liberalism. Once that card fell, the rest of the house went with it.

BTW, from the article, an average business owner was making $28K/yr.

At $15/hr, his employees are each making over $31 for full time work.

I guarantee that those business owners are putting in more than 40/wk. So.... where is it just that the guy taking the most risk and putting in the most work makes the least amount of money? Social justice, my a**!

Blessings,
Bill

Looks like the conservative talking points in the linked article were wrong. This is something the conservative pundits saw and heard from each other and ran with. Restaurants close for many reasons, but a law that won't even affect them for about 7 years is not one of them.

Truth Needle: Is $15 wage dooming Seattle restaurants? Owners say no | The Seattle Times

 

[jamil]

Looks like the conservative talking points in the linked article were wrong. This is something the conservative pundits saw and heard from each other and ran with. Restaurants close for many reasons, but a law that won't even affect them for about 7 years is not one of them.

Truth Needle: Is $15 wage dooming Seattle restaurants? Owners say no | The Seattle Times

So do you favor wage controls? Just curious what the progressive wing of the Libertarian Party thinks.

 

[mrjarrell]

So do you favor wage controls? Just curious what the progressive wing of the Libertarian Party thinks.

I have addressed this before, in the other multiple threads on the subject. I am against a minimum wage, in principle. But...we have been saddled with a minimum wage for about 70 years now and it is not going to go away, no matter how much we wish it would. Since it is not going away it would make some sense to peg it to the rate of inflation. When it was originally implemented, and for many a year after, it did constitute a "living wage", for an unmarried worker. There's no reason it could not, and should not do so, again. So, barring a sudden shift away from a minimum wage, it would make sense to raise it somewhat to keep pace with inflation and the devaluation of our currency. This is called pragmatism, not progressivism.

 

[KLB]

I have addressed this before, in the other multiple threads on the subject. I am against a minimum wage, in principle. But...we have been saddled with a minimum wage for about 70 years now and it is not going to go away, no matter how much we wish it would. Since it is not going away it would make some sense to peg it to the rate of inflation. When it was originally implemented, and for many a year after, it did constitute a "living wage", for an unmarried worker. There's no reason it could not, and should not do so, again. So, barring a sudden shift away from a minimum wage, it would make sense to raise it somewhat to keep pace with inflation and the devaluation of our currency. This is called pragmatism, not progressivism.

I am confused. If you are against the concept then why are you not in favor of just leaving it as is and letting it die a slow death? Do you think that just because there is a minimum wage that the market would not raise wages above that number?

 

[Indy317]

Needs to be $0.00.

Well, for most, that is what it is going to end up being. Funny thing is that most of the min. wage (or I would say a lot of the jobs that current pay under $10/hour) aren't filled with teens and the like. If there should be no minimum wage, then we need to get government out of providing partial wages as well. When the government steps in and provides housing, food stamps, direct cash subsidies, builds hotels, stadiums, etc., all that does is create a level where people who pretty much make poor decisions get a hand up while people who are unable to obtain better paying jobs, but don't make poor decisions, get screwed because pricing gets all messed up. So no minimum wage should mean no federal housing subsidies, no government involvement in things like pro-sports, the housing market, student loans, etc., no welfare, etc.. If we are going to have a true free market with wages, it should be a true for market so that prices can be reasonable for those only making a few dollars an hour.

 

[MisterChester]

Really, I'm not picking on you. I'll get around to picking on BBI later.

The question was not, what is in the best interest of government. It's in the government's best interest to have ALL our money. Our Constitution is our protection FROM the government's interest.

So I'll ask GFGT's question again. What authority does the constitution give the federal government to control wages? Please name the article or amendment.

I was not arguing in favor of it, more so saying the government thinks it has an interest (which I think is true) to set a minimum wage. They could cite the commerce clause and half of the electorate would say "oh okay yeah makes sense" while the other side can say "Nuh uh". The SCOTUS has upheld the minimum wage as constitutional and they did precisely cite the commerce clause. US v. Darby Lumber co.

 

[MisterChester]

WTF are they teaching in college these days? Why do you think that government can concoct equilibrium?

Equilibrium happens when market supply and demand are equal. Too low wages means that wages are below demand. That happens when something other than supply and demand are influencing the market. Too high wages means that wages are above demand. Again, that happens when something other than supply and demand are influencing the market. Wages necessary to maintain a given standard of living have nothing to do with equilibrium. Equilibrium is market driven.

Sometimes political figures, seeking popularity, work to enact controls on wages, either setting a minimum wage limit for lower value jobs or a maximum wage limit for higher value jobs. Those are examples of outside influences that cause wages to be below or above the demand.

If I want an honest higher standard of living, I must make myself more valuable to employers. Or, I might try to start my own business, and produce something valuable enough that people are willing to pay what I need for the standard of living I want.

The difference between my way of thinking and the pro-minimum wage way of thinking is that I believe my existence alone, does not entitle me to someone else's money. If I want other people's money, I have to give them something they find valuable enough to trade for it.

I didn't say the government should concoct an equilibrium, that's not really possible to do in our economy. That's set by the market. Wages are far from an equilibrium right now. It just so happens that we currently live in an employer's market, the dollar isn't as strong as it used to be, and wages have been stagnant at best for a long time. People need to work more for less money these days, and I don't think that's right. Not saying the government should force employers to pay more. I'm tired of being told by the likes of the GOP that a majority of Americans are overpaid, lazy, and undeserving of tax breaks that are given to the wealthiest. Most hardworking Americans such as myself have to sacrifice a few months of pay in taxes while those who have never had to flip a burger or break their back to work are subsidized by the government. The same government that mandates a minimum wage. I totally agree that you have to set yourself the standard of living. You have to make yourself valuable. However it's very, very difficult to do so if you aren't born lucky. It's much harder to leave the socio-economic group you're born into than most think. I recognize outliers exist like Bill Gates. Even if you do make it to school, you're hit with insanely expensive schooling. Many people will spend years or even decades paying off their education debt which they took so that they could have a chance of being more valuable. The more I think about it, the more it seems that it is rigged against the working American than anyone else. Alright, time to get off the soap box for now.

/rant

 

[zippy23]

This is not about money. This is not about math. This is not about the economy. This is about one thing. VOTES. Stupid people will vote themselves money. They hear two phrases that play into their greed and hate. "Living wage" and "The Rich Get Richer." Neither phrase means anything other than a democrat voter can get more money from the evil rich people(who of course they dont know and have never seen). It plays right into their greed, jealousy, and laziness. Its perfect. They hear it, they emotionally get pissed off and VOTE. They hate the other side, because its easy to hate others who you dont know and you think live in luxury. Its easy not to THINK for yourself, if all you have to do is vote yourself money, then sure!!!! This is nothing more than political, as is all things. You see, the liberals are creating another mess that they will get to blame on the conservatives, or the rich greedy people moving out of the city, then they will say vote for me, i'll get back at those rich people, and the idiots will continue to vote democrat in a never ending cycle of hate. Its truly "the dark side." And this hate they have is stronger than almost all religious faith. This is why you can prove a liberal wrong over and over and they will still hate you and call you a liar. Imagine trying to tell a religious fanantic that they are wrong.......imagine showing them a fact that proves their position wrong......the rage will be out of control. This is the entire ideology of the left. Hate. Rage. VOTE

 

[BehindBlueI's]

claiming that exploitation of children was not the main reason for those laws - it's an issue of wage protection for adults. I disagree with that,

Based on what? You don't like the idea so you reject it, or you've actually read some history of the FLSA of 1938 and the era? Protection of children and allowing them to go further in education was certainly part of it. Wage protection for adults was very much a part of it as well. Go back to the era and look at the laws that were passed. Child labor laws weren't passed alone. They were passed in conjunction with minimum wages and other reforms for the work place on maximum hours, etc. FLSA wasn't the first such law, there were regional or state laws and there were federal attempts that SCOTUS had struck down.

There are important reasons for controlling immigration which have nothing to do with wage protection (immigrants in large numbers are not culturally well-assimilated and end up placing large demands on public services, straining public budgets and raising tax burdens, for example).

Then how does a nation such as Qatar maintain a workforce that's 75% immigrants? Simple. Visas for the workers. When you're done working you go home. Where's the burden? If you truly believe in an unfettered free market, part of that is the ability of goods, services, and labor to enter and exit with no barriers, including political. It works so well you can hire an Indian block layer or brick mason for about $150 USD a month. They don't even bother to use cranes or fork lifts to get the block up to the 3rd or 4th story, because labor is so cheap its sounder economically to have a few Indians will pulleys bring them up on pallets. There system is WAY closer to free market labor than ours.

Of course that also shows one of the downsides of higher wages. The incentive to mechanize and automate jobs when human labor is too expensive. I freely admit its not all ups with no downs, and have from the beginning of this thread and in many others.

Your fallacy is that you apparently believe the negotiation has to be economically equal, in order to be fair.

What is the result of a negotiation when one side has all of the power? You take what they give you. The top percentage of folks are in a better position, those with unique skills, education, talent, etc. but by definition most people are average. Average people are easy to replace. It doesn't take much skill to do most of the jobs, numbers wise, are economy produces. Retail, transportation, manufacturing, these are generally unskilled or semi-skilled slots. If you read Adam Smith's books (the whole "Invisible Hand" supply/demand thing that's quoted in every economic text book ever) he puts forth the argument that a man's labor absent any special skills or requirements is worth the money required to live for him, his wife, and two children to live long enough to replace him in the work place. That's it. That's "what the job is worth." Your economic value as labor is solely your replacement value, which would be even less today as many families have both parents working. If that's what you believe you want for this country, keep pushing for the abolition of any protection for workers, busted unions, etc.

 

[jamil]

I have addressed this before, in the other multiple threads on the subject. I am against a minimum wage, in principle. But...we have been saddled with a minimum wage for about 70 years now and it is not going to go away, no matter how much we wish it would. Since it is not going away it would make some sense to peg it to the rate of inflation. When it was originally implemented, and for many a year after, it did constitute a "living wage", for an unmarried worker. There's no reason it could not, and should not do so, again. So, barring a sudden shift away from a minimum wage, it would make sense to raise it somewhat to keep pace with inflation and the devaluation of our currency. This is called pragmatism, not progressivism.

If we tie minimum wages to inflation, wouldn't that cause an element of positive feedback and cause inflation/minimum wage to spiral?

That sounds like a great way to introduce yet another cause for boom/bust cycles.

It seems if you're against minimum wage, even with the understanding of populist politics, that it won't go away, why not favor doing nothing? Eventually the natural market minimum will exceed the legal minimum wage anyway, and thus it will have no practical meaning. Heck, it's almost to that point now. Why argue to perpetuate it and potentially cause a wage spiral? Why create yet another mechanism for causing boom/bust cycles?

 

[BigMatt]

If we tie minimum wages to inflation, wouldn't that cause an element of positive feedback and cause inflation/minimum wage to spiral?

Exactly...

The minimum wage would increase and inflation would increase, which would in turn increase the minimum wage and that would raise inflation.

It's what you would call in Excel - a circular reference.

 

[jamil]

I was not arguing in favor of it, more so saying the government thinks it has an interest (which I think is true) to set a minimum wage. They could cite the commerce clause and half of the electorate would say "oh okay yeah makes sense" while the other side can say "Nuh uh". The SCOTUS has upheld the minimum wage as constitutional and they did precisely cite the commerce clause. US v. Darby Lumber co.

That was an example of how you MAKE something constitutional that was not previously.

I didn't say the government should concoct an equilibrium, that's not really possible to do in our economy. That's set by the market. Wages are far from an equilibrium right now. It just so happens that we currently live in an employer's market, the dollar isn't as strong as it used to be, and wages have been stagnant at best for a long time. People need to work more for less money these days, and I don't think that's right.

You're assigning a moral component to the value of labor.

Not saying the government should force employers to pay more. I'm tired of being told by the likes of the GOP that a majority of Americans are overpaid, lazy, and undeserving of tax breaks that are given to the wealthiest. Most hardworking Americans such as myself have to sacrifice a few months of pay in taxes while those who have never had to flip a burger or break their back to work are subsidized by the government. The same government that mandates a minimum wage. I totally agree that you have to set yourself the standard of living. You have to make yourself valuable. However it's very, very difficult to do so if you aren't born lucky. It's much harder to leave the socio-economic group you're born into than most think. I recognize outliers exist like Bill Gates.

I think too many people overemphasize luck as a factor, and misunderstand its real role in success. You can either make your own luck, or you can rely on someone else to make it for you. Sure, some people are born into money. Some people are born into families, wealthy or not, that teach their kids life lessons and prepare them for success. Some are born into families who have no clue about success and pass that knowledge on.

Even if you do make it to school, you're hit with insanely expensive schooling. Many people will spend years or even decades paying off their education debt which they took so that they could have a chance of being more valuable. The more I think about it, the more it seems that it is rigged against the working American than anyone else. Alright, time to get off the soap box for now.

/rant

What can you do? Self improvement and recognizing and pursuing the right opportunities is the best you can do. I can't look at everyone who is more successful than me with contempt. I can't assume that they got further because of luck. It's more reasonable to assume that they made their own luck. I can look at them with contempt if I think they got were they did by making their own luck dishonestly.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If we tie minimum wages to inflation, wouldn't that cause an element of positive feedback and cause inflation/minimum wage to spiral?

Do you suppose the wages of the lowest paid workers has that much affect on inflation? Compared to say, money supply, availability of goods, worker productivity, etc? Increased wages only support inflation when there are insufficient goods to purchase with those wages. Are you going to argue that the lowest paid workers have such purchasing power that they can affect this balance in any real way?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Thinking about it... I can't recall having ever worked for minimum wage, even in my first jobs.

Employers tend to pay fairly, and give raises regularly.

 

[MisterChester]

That was an example of how you MAKE something constitutional that was not previously.



You're assigning a moral component to the value of labor.



I think too many people overemphasize luck as a factor, and misunderstand its real role in success. You can either make your own luck, or you can rely on someone else to make it for you. Sure, some people are born into money. Some people are born into families, wealthy or not, that teach their kids life lessons and prepare them for success. Some are born into families who have no clue about success and pass that knowledge on.



What can you do? Self improvement and recognizing and pursuing the right opportunities is the best you can do. I can't look at everyone who is more successful than me with contempt. I can't assume that they got further because of luck. It's more reasonable to assume that they made their own luck. I can look at them with contempt if I think they got were they did by making their own luck dishonestly.

I don't hold them in contempt either. The ones I do are the ones who like you said are dishonest. Having the government force policies that align with what I said I agree seriously push the envelope of constitutionality. That's why it should be left up to the businesses to figure this out, but my faith in them to do the honest thing has fallen significantly since 2008. Business ethics are in the toilet.

 

[MisterChester]

Thinking about it... I can't recall having ever worked for minimum wage, even in my first jobs.

Employers tend to pay fairly, and give raises regularly.

It entirely depends on the kind of job. I can say from personal experiences I've been at employed at places that were better than average in these regards to where raises were nonexistent. I recently left a job where even the most exceptional employees can only get a 2% raise at the absolute most. Hightailed it out of there as soon as I got a better job that actually cared about employee retention.