Minimum Rage: The remix

[Loren Pechtel]

LP, we argue that nobody but the employer who pays a person for doing the thing they do ought need to subsidize the person for doing the thing. If I need a human to do a stupid human trick, I need to pay enough to sustain that human to the extent anyone can be expected to sustain doing the trick and otherwise remain a well adjusted member of society. I object outright to your request that I must pay taxes so that mcdonalds can maintain wage slavery.

Either way, the same amount of work gets done. But in the higher work/wage situation, the worker gets robbed of less of their value added, and the owners still have more, they just don't have AS MUCH more. Will you really scoff at someone for wanting less of their value added taken from them by people whose only contribution was accidental?

But the human already exists. The employer didn't create the human and thus didn't create the needs of that human. Thus I do not believe the employer has an obligation to cover those costs.

As for "less of their value added"--you're simply assuming that they're being robbed in the first place. Since it's not exactly unheard of for employers to simply shut down if they can't pass on cost increases it's not at all obvious that they're being robbed in the first place. The "logic" showing such robbing always ignores many of the costs.

This is the same mythical infinite pool of profits argument that I have referred to many times in the past--you figure no matter what you take it's still there to take from.

 

[DBT]

What about the one's who aren't? Perhaps those who are trying to get through Uni, pay the rent, transport costs, food, clothing, buy books, etc?

Look for a better paying job?

Is that always easy?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

They [Krueger and Card] also have made pathbreaking contributions to the analysis of the minimum wage, showing that moderate increases do not have the destructive impact on employment that many critics fear.

Again, it's just not true that they showed any such thing. All they found is that they could not determine what impact minimum wage has on employment levels. They came nowhere close to covering all the variables to isolate minimum wage increase as an influence on employment levels.

All that is impressive in their study is the enormous mass of facts and figures, and everyone just assumes that such a massive barrage of numbers must prove whatever they are propagandizing for. But their numbers indicate nothing about the impact of minimum wage.

The case where we do have evidence of MW impact on the economy is that of Samoa, where there was a large-enough impact on the economy to be measurable. And it's clear that MW is detrimental.

They received international attention for their 1994 study comparing fast-food employment in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after the New Jersey minimum wage increase.

That's right -- all they received was "attention" but no endorsement of any claim that they proved what the impact of MW is on the economy. They could not determine any impact.

Minimum wage crusaders need to stop deluding themselves into believing that science has disproved the basic market principles of supply-and-demand and shown that labor is exempt from supply-and-demand and competitive market forces that apply to all other commodities bought and sold in the market.

Until they make a real case, we have to assume that labor is subject to the market forces just as anything else bought and sold in the economy.

These crusaders are driven by emotional impulse only, and by employer-bashing hate, not by any science or legitimate research.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#72
Jarhyn

I don't see how that changes the expectation that if a business wants someone to do a job for which human labor is necessarily the cheapest option, that they pay at least enough to maintain that person without subsidy.

Maintaining that worker is not the employer's function. The employer's role in the economy is to get the production done in order to serve the consumers, not to provide babysitting services for the workers.

Maintenance of the worker is the worker's problem, not the employer's. The worker has the solution -- s/he can quit.

Instead of the government, you are placing the expectation of the subsidy on parents.

If you insist that the worker needs a babysitter, then let it be the parents who spawned that worker. Why should the employer become the babysitter? The employer's attention must go to serving the customers, not providing babysitting services to job-seekers.

Well guess what: it is even less equitable when you shrug that burden onto parents, particularly since it . . .

The least equitable is to turn the employer into the babysitter, which drives up prices to all consumers, and depresses employment and thus production.

. . . disproportionately harms parents and young adults in low income families who cannot afford to subsidize their young adults.

Then those parents should stop spawning parasites who have to be babysitted and who must rely on charity handouts from an employer instead of earning their way and being paid what they're worth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

Most of them don't--because they're still living at home.

What about the one's who aren't? Perhaps those who are trying to get through Uni, pay the rent, transport costs, food, clothing, buy books, etc?

IT'S NOT THE EMPLOYER'S PROBLEM. Why do employers have to made into the babysitters of their workers? Why is it their problem to worry about the worker's Uni, rent, transportation, clothing, school books, medical care, etc.?

Why must someone running a business have to take on all these personal problems of the employees? Are wage-earners today such crybabies that they cannot look after these matters for themselves?

 

[DBT]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

Most of them don't--because they're still living at home.

What about the one's who aren't? Perhaps those who are trying to get through Uni, pay the rent, transport costs, food, clothing, buy books, etc?

IT'S NOT THE EMPLOYER'S PROBLEM. Why do employers have to made into the babysitters of their workers? Why is it their problem to worry about the worker's Uni, rent, transportation, clothing, school books, medical care, etc.?

Why must someone running a business have to take on all these personal problems of the employees? Are wage-earners today such crybabies that they cannot look after these matters for themselves?

What employees do with their money is not the concern of an employer, but an employer has a business and a social obligation to pay a fair rate for both the skill of employees and the work that is being performed by the employee on behalf of that business. If the wage that employees get for their labour is inadequate to meet their cost of living, that becomes a social problem. A minimum wage is determined by the CPI. We also have award rates for skilled work.

 

[Jarhyn]

The business itself requires the services of N humans. The cost to continue the availability of 1 human is exactly a minimum wage, for a job with no special requirements. LP et al, you are saying that as the consumer of milk I have no duty to pay the farmer enough to owning the cow, at least to the extent that I consume milk. If I am the only person anywhere who wants cow based products, I must bite the bullet And pay at least the full cost to maintain a stable population of cows. How unethical would it be for me to demand for my own selfish sake that others who could care less about cows chip in to support my cow addiction?

To the same extent, it is exactly the responsibility of those who have a demand for human labor to pay the cost of having humans available to do that labor. Thankfully, money serves well as a way to abstract that responsibility. It has been worked out that the cost for that is about 11 bucks per hour of work, plus health insurance, and give or take a dollar.

 

[ksen]

buncha secular inhumanists up in here

 

[AthenaAwakened]

buncha secular inhumanists up in here

it really is a moral question, isn't it?

Just what kind person should one aspire to be and what kind of society should we aspire to build?

And is the pursuit of an employer's profit more important than and in opposition to employees' pursuit of security?

 

[ksen]

That's pretty much what it boils down to for me.

I'm not going to cry too hard if corporations are going to see a little less profit if that means more workers can sleep better at night because they are now a little more financially secure.

 

[Playball40]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

Most of them don't--because they're still living at home.

What about the one's who aren't? Perhaps those who are trying to get through Uni, pay the rent, transport costs, food, clothing, buy books, etc?

IT'S NOT THE EMPLOYER'S PROBLEM. Why do employers have to made into the babysitters of their workers? Why is it their problem to worry about the worker's Uni, rent, transportation, clothing, school books, medical care, etc.?

Why must someone running a business have to take on all these personal problems of the employees? Are wage-earners today such crybabies that they cannot look after these matters for themselves?

So employers have no responsibility to any stakeholders at all?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It isn't a question of employers and employees and stakeholders and stockholders but a question of human beings being humane to one another.

 

[Trausti]

That's pretty much what it boils down to for me.

I'm not going to cry too hard if corporations are going to see a little less profit if that means more workers can sleep better at night because they are now a little more financially secure.

And neither will you cry too hard if some employees lose their jobs as their employers attempt to adjust costs and others move to automation?

 

[ksen]

That's pretty much what it boils down to for me.

I'm not going to cry too hard if corporations are going to see a little less profit if that means more workers can sleep better at night because they are now a little more financially secure.

And neither will you cry too hard if some employees lose their jobs as their employers attempt to adjust costs and others move to automation?

Where'd you get that dumb idea? Certainly not from anything I've posted.

But thanks for continuing to support secular inhumanism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, it seems like your view, max, is that unskilled and young workers just don't need to eat, get medical attention, or have shelter.

Most of them don't--because they're still living at home.

What about the one's who aren't? Perhaps those who are trying to get through Uni, pay the rent, transport costs, food, clothing, buy books, etc?

IT'S NOT THE EMPLOYER'S PROBLEM. Why do employers have to made into the babysitters of their workers? Why is it their problem to worry about the worker's Uni, rent, transportation, clothing, school books, medical care, etc.?

Why must someone running a business have to take on all these personal problems of the employees? Are wage-earners today such crybabies that they cannot look after these matters for themselves?

What employees do with their money is not the concern of an employer, but an employer has a business and a social obligation to pay a fair rate for both the skill of employees and the work that is being performed by the employee on behalf of that business. If the wage that employees get for their labour is inadequate to meet their cost of living, that becomes a social problem. A minimum wage is determined by the CPI. We also have award rates for skilled work.

What you are missing is that a fair rate for what they contribute is not necessarily a rate that's sufficient to meet their cost of living.

 

[ksen]

For the period ending 3/31/2014 Mcdonalds had over 35% return on equity. They routinely have a return on equity in the 31%-38% range since 2009. To me that says they are not paying a fair rate of pay to the employees that make that return possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The business itself requires the services of N humans. The cost to continue the availability of 1 human is exactly a minimum wage, for a job with no special requirements. LP et al, you are saying that as the consumer of milk I have no duty to pay the farmer enough to owning the cow, at least to the extent that I consume milk. If I am the only person anywhere who wants cow based products, I must bite the bullet And pay at least the full cost to maintain a stable population of cows. How unethical would it be for me to demand for my own selfish sake that others who could care less about cows chip in to support my cow addiction?

To the same extent, it is exactly the responsibility of those who have a demand for human labor to pay the cost of having humans available to do that labor. Thankfully, money serves well as a way to abstract that responsibility. It has been worked out that the cost for that is about 11 bucks per hour of work, plus health insurance, and give or take a dollar.

What you are missing is that the business has no involvement in the production of those humans or their needs. The humans and the needs predate the employment situation--the business isn't responsible for them.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't a question of employers and employees and stakeholders and stockholders but a question of human beings being humane to one another.

You're mixing up humane with welfare.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's pretty much what it boils down to for me.

I'm not going to cry too hard if corporations are going to see a little less profit if that means more workers can sleep better at night because they are now a little more financially secure.

And neither will you cry too hard if some employees lose their jobs as their employers attempt to adjust costs and others move to automation?

Exactly. We have already seen a fair amount of this--look how lightly staffed fast food places are compared to the old days.

 

[ksen]

What you are missing is that the business has no involvement in the production of those humans or their needs. The humans and the needs predate the employment situation--the business isn't responsible for them.

That makes about as much sense as saying that a business that buys widgets isn't responsible for paying for the cost to produce those widgets. No one in their right mind would make that argument.

But when it comes to buying human labor the argument gets made all the time.

I don't understand why some people have more humanity towards inanimate widgets than they do for their fellow human beings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's pretty much what it boils down to for me.

I'm not going to cry too hard if corporations are going to see a little less profit if that means more workers can sleep better at night because they are now a little more financially secure.

And neither will you cry too hard if some employees lose their jobs as their employers attempt to adjust costs and others move to automation?

Where'd you get that dumb idea? Certainly not from anything I've posted.

But thanks for continuing to support secular inhumanism.

He got that idea from reality.