• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What's Wrong With A Living Wage?

A word on why raising the wages of workers works

higher minimum wage doesn’t necessarily increase business costs. It draws more job applicants into the labor market, giving employers more choice of whom to hire. As a result, employers often get more reliable workers who remain longer – thereby saving employers at least as much money as they spend on higher wages.

A higher wage can also help build employee morale, resulting in better performance. Gap, America’s largest clothing retailer, recently announced it would boost its hourly wage to $10. Wall Street approved. “You treat people well, they’ll treat your customers well,” said Dorothy Lakner, a Wall Street analyst. “Gap had a strong year last year compared to a lot of their peers. That sends a pretty strong message to employees that, ‘we had a good year, but you’re going to be rewarded too.’”

Even when raising the minimum wage — or bargaining for higher wages and better working conditions, or requiring businesses to provide safer workplaces or a cleaner environment — increases the cost of business, this doesn’t necessarily kill jobs.

Most companies today can easily absorb such costs without reducing payrolls. Corporate profits now account for the largest percentage of the economy on record. Large companies are sitting on more than $1.5 trillion in cash they don’t even know what to do with. Many are using their cash to buy back their own shares of stock – artificially increasing share value by reducing the number of shares traded on the market.

Walmart spent $7.6 billion last year buying back shares of its own stock — a move that papered over its falling profits. Had it used that money on wages instead, it could have given its workers a raise from around $9 an hour to almost $15. Arguably, that would have been a better use of the money over the long-term – not only improving worker loyalty and morale but also giving workers enough to buy more goods from Walmart (reminiscent of Henry Ford’s pay strategy a century ago).

There’s also a deeper issue here. Even assuming some of these measures might cause some job losses, does that mean we shouldn’t proceed with them?

Americans need jobs, but we also need minimally decent jobs. The nation could create millions of jobs tomorrow if we eliminated the minimum wage altogether and allowed employers to pay workers $1 an hour or less. But do we really want to do that?

Likewise, America could create lots of jobs if all health and safety regulations were repealed, but that would subject millions of workers to severe illness and injury.

Lots of jobs could be added if all environmental rules were eliminated, but that would result in the kind of air and water pollution that many people in poor nations have to contend with daily.

If the Affordable Care Act were repealed, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have to go back to working at jobs they don’t want but feel compelled to do in order to get health insurance.

We’d create jobs, but not progress. Progress requires creating more jobs that pay well, are safe, sustain the environment, and provide a modicum of security. If seeking to achieve a minimum level of decency ends up “killing” some jobs, then maybe those aren’t the kind of jobs we ought to try to preserve in the first place.

Finally, it’s important to remember the real source of job creation. Businesses hire more workers only when they have more customers. When they have fewer customers, they lay off workers. So the real job creators are consumers with enough money to buy.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/7-r...l-kill-jobs-bunk?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark

This from the article quoted above - Corporate profits now account for the largest percentage of the economy on record - is the reason I laugh (and ignore) at every claim of higher payroll costs hurting businesses as an argument against a living wage
 
Unless you've colluded with your competitors not to hire away each other's workers which I'm sure never happens in a free market.

Or unless there is widespread unemployment.

The labour market might, given full employment, work in the way Loren implies. In the real world, a worker who is underpaid has the choice of 'take it or leave it'.

Individually, yes, it's usually take it or leave it. You negotiate with your feet, not your mouth. If company A is actually underpaying you to go to company B instead. It's the competition for workers that drives wages. Since only about 1% (historically, I don't know the current data) of US workers actually work for minimum wage (beware of the misleading 3% number that includes those working for less--ie, tipped workers) it's obvious that in the vast majority of cases it *DOES* work.

A free market in wages would probably work, if unemployment was zero (or very, very low). But when unemployment is high, the 'natural' level of wages for low-skilled work is one penny more than the LOWEST amount of welfare provided to the unemployed - so unless we are happy to see the streets filled with the rotting corpses of those who have starved to death, SOMETHING has to be done. One of those 'somethings' is to provide welfare to ALL unemployed persons that is sufficient to live. Another is to place a floor under wages, to debar corportations from indulging in a race to the bottom.

In good times unemployment is effectively zero. (It will never reach a true zero because you can't operate without a certain amount of slack in the system, not to mention that there are people out there not worth hiring.) The Fed acts to cool the economy down because otherwise inflation will take off.

I don't give a fuck whether somebodies labour is sufficiently valuable to a potential employer as to ensure that employing him will increase profits; as a whole, our society can afford to feed everyone, and if economics won't lead to that result, then it is necessary to impose a solution using something other than economics. That something is government redistribution of wealth. The rich must be taxed, such that the poor can be fed.

And do you see any of us objecting to this notion?

What I am objecting to is off-the-books welfare--and things like the minimum wage are a form of off-the-books welfare. I consider off-the-books accounting to be categorically wrong even if the motives are good.
 
Implicit in the phrase "living wage" is the idea that the wage is enough to live on. Not "live on with government assistance" or "live on in subsidized housing" or "live on depending upon food banks to put dinner on the table." Why is that a terrible idea?
As near as I can tell, their every argument boils down to "some people just don't deserve it"
 
Or unless there is widespread unemployment.

The labour market might, given full employment, work in the way Loren implies. In the real world, a worker who is underpaid has the choice of 'take it or leave it'.

Individually, yes, it's usually take it or leave it. You negotiate with your feet, not your mouth. If company A is actually underpaying you to go to company B instead.
Really? It's that simple to find a new job is it? You seriously need to get out more.
It's the competition for workers that drives wages.
Yes, that is the problem.
Since only about 1% (historically, I don't know the current data) of US workers actually work for minimum wage (beware of the misleading 3% number that includes those working for less--ie, tipped workers) it's obvious that in the vast majority of cases it *DOES* work.
That is completely irrelevant; if it fails for 1% of Americans, that's about 3 million emaciated corpses rotting in the streets. Saying "But 99% of people are fine" is completely insane; we need to look after the people who are NOT fine - it is a moral imperative that we do this, and the fact that their numbers are small simply demonstrates that the cost of solving the problem is small - so we should get the fuck on with it and stop bullshitting about how there isn't 'much' of a problem.
A free market in wages would probably work, if unemployment was zero (or very, very low). But when unemployment is high, the 'natural' level of wages for low-skilled work is one penny more than the LOWEST amount of welfare provided to the unemployed - so unless we are happy to see the streets filled with the rotting corpses of those who have starved to death, SOMETHING has to be done. One of those 'somethings' is to provide welfare to ALL unemployed persons that is sufficient to live. Another is to place a floor under wages, to debar corportations from indulging in a race to the bottom.

In good times unemployment is effectively zero. (It will never reach a true zero because you can't operate without a certain amount of slack in the system, not to mention that there are people out there not worth hiring.) The Fed acts to cool the economy down because otherwise inflation will take off.
So fucking what?? A person who is hungry today cannot wait for good times; the whole point of humanitarian problems is that it is the BAD times and the unfortunate FEW we need to think about. It doesn't matter if the majority of people are fine, or if the majority of the time everyone is fine; we MUST deal with the cases where things are NOT fine. If the problem is small, as you seem to think, then the solution will be cheap, so lets just fucking do it already.
I don't give a fuck whether somebodies labour is sufficiently valuable to a potential employer as to ensure that employing him will increase profits; as a whole, our society can afford to feed everyone, and if economics won't lead to that result, then it is necessary to impose a solution using something other than economics. That something is government redistribution of wealth. The rich must be taxed, such that the poor can be fed.

And do you see any of us objecting to this notion?
Yes. Yes I do. You object to helping the poor, if to do so it is necessary to break your precious system of book-keeping. You would apparently rather a thousand starved to death than one person gamed the system to get a few bucks he didn't need or deserve.
What I am objecting to is off-the-books welfare--and things like the minimum wage are a form of off-the-books welfare. I consider off-the-books accounting to be categorically wrong even if the motives are good.

I consider allowing people to starve, to lose their homes, or to suffer easily curable medical conditions, to be categorically wrong, even if in order to help them we might need to ditch a few theoretical economic principles of dubious accuracy, or even (shock) allow some of the figures published by economists and governments to be inaccurate.

Heads up - not one economic measure is accurate anyway. Accountants like to think that their figures reflect reality, but as anyone who provides data to accountants can tell you, most of their inputs are pulled from someone's backside - usually because they are asking for something that is not known, and often because they insist on a figure for something unknowable. The books are almost completely worthless; they are neither sacred nor worthy of your defence on any level. They certainly don't trump human suffering as a priority for assistance.

Fuck bookkeeping. We will have plenty of time to get the bookkeeping right when everyone is fed, clothed and housed.
 
Heads up - not one economic measure is accurate anyway. Accountants like to think that their figures reflect reality, but as anyone who provides data to accountants can tell you, most of their inputs are pulled from someone's backside - usually because they are asking for something that is not known, and often because they insist on a figure for something unknowable. The books are almost completely worthless; they are neither sacred nor worthy of your defence on any level. They certainly don't trump human suffering as a priority for assistance.

Side note: we had an account once insisting on balancing the books on a several billion dollar account. There was $416 she could not find (which out of a billion dollars is 0% off) and hounded my boss and I for months until we just wrote up a fake receipt so she could sleep at night.

AS for your above assessment: I agree wholeheartedly.
 
Heads up - not one economic measure is accurate anyway. Accountants like to think that their figures reflect reality, but as anyone who provides data to accountants can tell you, most of their inputs are pulled from someone's backside - usually because they are asking for something that is not known, and often because they insist on a figure for something unknowable. The books are almost completely worthless; they are neither sacred nor worthy of your defence on any level. They certainly don't trump human suffering as a priority for assistance.

Side note: we had an account once insisting on balancing the books on a several billion dollar account. There was $416 she could not find (which out of a billion dollars is 0% off) and hounded my boss and I for months until we just wrote up a fake receipt so she could sleep at night.

AS for your above assessment: I agree wholeheartedly.

As an accountant myself that sounds completely accurate.
 

Still only 10% and note it generally runs something like half that.
Corporations are not stealing from workers to pump up their profits.

Those with power in the corporations are stealing from workers and giving the money to themselves.

We have a system of institutionalized and widespread theft from workers. A marvelous achievement. It works exactly as constructed.
 
Side note: we had an account once insisting on balancing the books on a several billion dollar account. There was $416 she could not find (which out of a billion dollars is 0% off) and hounded my boss and I for months until we just wrote up a fake receipt so she could sleep at night.

AS for your above assessment: I agree wholeheartedly.

My wife is an accountant and she's somewhat the same way, worries way too much about pennies.
 
Side note: we had an account once insisting on balancing the books on a several billion dollar account. There was $416 she could not find (which out of a billion dollars is 0% off) and hounded my boss and I for months until we just wrote up a fake receipt so she could sleep at night.

AS for your above assessment: I agree wholeheartedly.

My wife is an accountant and she's somewhat the same way, worries way too much about pennies.

I've been doing this shit for a long time now and ime the chick accountants get way more worried about stuff like this and the dude accountants just want to get the project done and worry about the pennies later. Especially when you consider that during an audit something isn't generally significant if it's under $50,000 and in some places I've worked it's not significant if it's under $150,000.
 
I remember the first time I found people 'rounding up to the nearest million'
 
I remember the first time I produced a check for over a million dollars. I remember thinking to myself, "oh why can't it be pay to the order of ME!"
 
I remember the first time I produced a check for over a million dollars. I remember thinking to myself, "oh why can't it be pay to the order of ME!"


Oh man! I still remember that too. 1.5 million!!! Right here in my grubby little lower middle class palm.
 
It's a lot closer now--underpay a worker and you'll find him working for your competitor instead.

Unless you've colluded with your competitors not to hire away each other's workers which I'm sure never happens in a free market.

Note what's happening to the guys who tried that approach.
Yeah, they are being punished by the government. Not the free market.

The point is they are losing because of it.

There are times the government must step in to prevent collusion, I have no problem with this.
 
Then you shouldn't have a problem with the government also stepping in to stop the collusion to bring wages down as low as possible.
 
Then you shouldn't have a problem with the government also stepping in to stop the collusion to bring wages down as low as possible.

The government already does that. Are you aware of a specific real-world example where this is happening and the attorney general, or other lawyers, has not filed suit?
 
Side note: we had an account once insisting on balancing the books on a several billion dollar account. There was $416 she could not find (which out of a billion dollars is 0% off) and hounded my boss and I for months until we just wrote up a fake receipt so she could sleep at night.

AS for your above assessment: I agree wholeheartedly.

My wife is an accountant and she's somewhat the same way, worries way too much about pennies.

Yup--I've had to deal with the accountants. My encounters were mostly due to an obsession over pennies with no real understanding of what's going on. I just about made the head of accounting's head explode with a few line items on a statement of "Roundoff correction". As originally written the pennies that fell into this crack were simply ignored but that meant the numbers didn't add up. Since there was no way to avoid the pennies falling into the cracks I simply counted them and printed a correction line if need be.

The basic problem was that I had the cost of the goods and the final contract price, I had to figure out all the numbers in between and there was no guarantee that there was a valid solution. If you want the final bill to be $x, what should the before-tax amount be? Oops, the odds of there being no possible before-tax number is the same as the tax rate. (Yeah, it surprised me also when I realized how common the problem is.)
 
wat.

figuring out a pre-tax dollar amount should be simple arithmetic.
 
Back
Top Bottom