Minimum Rage: The remix

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

no I'm not.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

And how is this a bad thing?

 

[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.

And how is this a bad thing?

The more automation the fewer employed. Since we don't have enough jobs to around that means higher unemployment.

 

[bilby]

If your objection to unemployment is that unemployed people are a burden on the resources of the state, then reducing it by employing people at wages that do not remove their dependence on the state is not addressing the problem - it is just hiding it.

Given the choice between 1,000 people with no work, receiving money from the taxpayers to cover their basic needs; or 100 people with no work plus 900 people with 40+ hours work a week, all of whom are receiving money from the taxpayers to cover their basic needs, I would say that the former is less harmful to the people themselves; to the utility of the economic signals received by other parts of the economy; and to the political will to fix the real problems.

By hiding unemployment in the guise of jobs that pay too little to survive, you help nobody.

If a job can be done by a machine, get a machine to do it.

If a person is unemployed, find him a real job.

If there really are not enough real jobs, then stop blaming the unemployed person for a situation that is outside his control; give him enough money to survive with dignity, and give him the time and opportunity to make a job for himself; or to train himself to fit a job that does exist.

There are plenty of jobs to go around; but you can't effectively train people to write high quality software, or to design bridges, or to perform surgery, while they are flipping burgers 60 hours a week.

 

[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.

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.

How is that determined? If a product cannot generated sufficient profit in order to give the employer a good profit and provide the employees, who produce the product with their time, skill and labour a good standard of living, there is either something wrong with the product or business practice or marketing. Or a combination of all of these factors.

 

[DBT]

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?

And what happens if that becomes widespread? Who has the money to buy goods and services if they are out of work and have no money to spend on goods and services, whether automated or not? What happens to social order?

 

[Trausti]

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?

And what happens if that becomes widespread? Who has the money to buy goods and services if they are out of work and have no money to spend on goods and services, whether automated or not? What happens to social order?

Minimum wage workers are 4.7% of the work force. The sky will not fall. But the consequence of forcing employers to pay above market wages will no doubt adversely affect the young and unskilled. My first job was fast food at minimum wage ($4.25). I was a teenager. I had no marketable skills and no experience on my resume. I took it for what it was: an entry level job. Unfortunately, the pathological altruism of some would prefer to deny other teenagers the opportunity to get that all-important first job. Shame on them.

 

[DBT]

Minimum wage workers are 4.7% of the work force. The sky will not fall. But the consequence of forcing employers to pay above market wages will no doubt adversely affect the young and unskilled. My first job was fast food at minimum wage ($4.25). I was a teenager. I had no marketable skills and no experience on my resume. I took it for what it was: an entry level job. Unfortunately, the pathological altruism of some would prefer to deny other teenagers the opportunity to get that all-important first job. Shame on them.

If automation becomes widespread, which it most it likely will, it is going to effect employment well beyond those that are in the 4.7% bracket.

 

[Togo]

Minimum wage workers are 4.7% of the work force. The sky will not fall. But the consequence of forcing employers to pay above market wages will no doubt adversely affect the young and unskilled. My first job was fast food at minimum wage ($4.25). I was a teenager. I had no marketable skills and no experience on my resume. I took it for what it was: an entry level job. Unfortunately, the pathological altruism of some would prefer to deny other teenagers the opportunity to get that all-important first job. Shame on them.

Hm.. So you reckon that a rise in the minimum wage will mean that people simply stop hiring the inexperienced, and will rely on skilled burger flippers only? How? Is there a huge pool of experienced burger flippers who have priced themselves out of the market by a matter of cents per hour?

The cost of hiring an inexperienced worker is training, putting up with them until they get far enough up the learning curve to be productive, and wage. The last is probably the least important. Flipping burgers is an unpleasant job. It involves unsociable hours, working retail with little real support, an awful lot of cleaning, few perks, and silly uniforms. Raise the pay a little, and it's still an unpleasant job. By what mechanism do you believe the number of jobs will change?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

"Don't raise the MW because then inexperienced people won't be hired"

Besides being a threat bordering on extortion, it demands, in order to be believed, that everyone accept that market models explain and predict human behavior with uncanny accuracy and reliability, and there are no such things as lurking variables which have as much if not more effect on wages, or the simple fact that a great many people see this as a moral issue not just a money one and find poverty wages appalling.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If your objection to unemployment is that unemployed people are a burden on the resources of the state, then reducing it by employing people at wages that do not remove their dependence on the state is not addressing the problem - it is just hiding it.

Given the choice between 1,000 people with no work, receiving money from the taxpayers to cover their basic needs; or 100 people with no work plus 900 people with 40+ hours work a week, all of whom are receiving money from the taxpayers to cover their basic needs, I would say that the former is less harmful to the people themselves; to the utility of the economic signals received by other parts of the economy; and to the political will to fix the real problems.

I totally don't see how this is supposed to be less harmful to the people. I favor a system in which working always betters your situation--none of this 1:1 reduction in welfare as you earn more.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

How is that determined? If a product cannot generated sufficient profit in order to give the employer a good profit and provide the employees, who produce the product with their time, skill and labour a good standard of living, there is either something wrong with the product or business practice or marketing. Or a combination of all of these factors.

This is still just a version of get rid of the bad jobs. Never mind that this won't magically make good jobs appear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Minimum wage workers are 4.7% of the work force. The sky will not fall. But the consequence of forcing employers to pay above market wages will no doubt adversely affect the young and unskilled. My first job was fast food at minimum wage ($4.25). I was a teenager. I had no marketable skills and no experience on my resume. I took it for what it was: an entry level job. Unfortunately, the pathological altruism of some would prefer to deny other teenagers the opportunity to get that all-important first job. Shame on them.

The cartoon does an excellent job of describing what's going on.

The 4.7% is far higher than I've run into in the past although I could believe that it's a result of today's economy. In the past the numbers were about 3%--but 2% were sub minimum wage. Note that sub minimum wage means tips. My wife worked in such jobs for some months--and actually took home at least 3x minimum wage despite working in low-tipping places. Thus only 1% actually were taking home only minimum wage.

- - - Updated - - -

"Don't raise the MW because then inexperienced people won't be hired"

Besides being a threat bordering on extortion, it demands, in order to be believed, that everyone accept that market models explain and predict human behavior with uncanny accuracy and reliability, and there are no such things as lurking variables which have as much if not more effect on wages, or the simple fact that a great many people see this as a moral issue not just a money one and find poverty wages appalling.

Pointing out reality is not extortion.

 

[ksen]

Sometimes extortion happens in reality.

 

[Togo]

This is still just a version of get rid of the bad jobs. Never mind that this won't magically make good jobs appear.

Never mind that a bad job disappearing won't make magic pixies gun down your old customers and ensure they never buy hamburgers again.

The 4.7% is far higher than I've run into in the past although I could believe that it's a result of today's economy. In the past the numbers were about 3%--but 2% were sub minimum wage. Note that sub minimum wage means tips. My wife worked in such jobs for some months--and actually took home at least 3x minimum wage despite working in low-tipping places. Thus only 1% actually were taking home only minimum wage.

I'm having trouble parsing this. You're saying that half of all minimum wage workers are actually earning several times the minimum wage, based on an anecdote about your wife?

Heck, I've had to take legal action against 10% of my employers to get my paycheck paid out, so clearly we should reduce our calculations by 10% to take account of people not being paid what they're due.


That said, sure some minimum wage workers get perks to boost their income. But that only strengthens the case for raising the wage.

 

[bilby]

...

The 4.7% is far higher than I've run into in the past although I could believe that it's a result of today's economy. In the past the numbers were about 3%--but 2% were sub minimum wage. Note that sub minimum wage means tips. My wife worked in such jobs for some months--and actually took home at least 3x minimum wage despite working in low-tipping places. Thus only 1% actually were taking home only minimum wage.

I'm having trouble parsing this. You're saying that half of all minimum wage workers are actually earning several times the minimum wage, based on an anecdote about your wife?

...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#86
DBT

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.

A "fair rate" is the market rate, based on supply-and-demand. Just like the "fair" price for a loaf of bread is the market price, set by supply-and-demand.

This price is "fair" because it is best for consumers. It ensures that the price or wage is high enough in order to get the production done, for the consumer's benefit, but no higher than the minimum necessary to accomplish this production.

Nothing is more important in the economy than making sure that the production gets done at the lowest possible cost or price, because this is what is best for all consumers, and thus for the whole country.

What could be more "fair" than whatever serves the whole country?

If the wage that employees get for their labour is inadequate to meet their cost of living, that becomes a social problem.

No, that's an individual problem for that one employee. Another employee might be able to do that job at the low wage. The individual employee has to decide if the wage level is agreeable, and if it is not, there is a solution: RESIGN! Only a crybaby demands more than this. If you can't make the deal, you part company. Let the job be done by someone else who will accept those terms. Why should consumers be punished with higher prices because an employee is a crybaby demanding more than necessary to get the job done?

A minimum wage is determined by the CPI. We also have award rates for skilled work.

The right price for anything, including labor, for any job, is whatever the market determines, based on supply-and-demand. This price is always the right price, because it best serves the interests of the whole society, or the whole country, because it's best for consumers. This always takes priority over the interest of an individual producer.

The producers, including wage-earners, have to adjust to accommodate the interests of consumers. They exist to serve consumers. But consumers do not exist to serve producers, or to be an outlet for their production. The producers have to keep changing and modifying their requirements until they find terms which are good for consumers. Those who instead get subsidized or get charity payments given to them out of pity, such as through minimum wage, are parasites, and a drain on society, and the world is made worse off because of these parasites.

 

[bilby]

#86
DBT



A "fair rate" is the market rate, based on supply-and-demand. Just like the "fair" price for a loaf of bread is the market price, set by supply-and-demand.

This price is "fair" because it is best for consumers. It ensures that the price or wage is high enough in order to get the production done, for the consumer's benefit, but no higher than the minimum necessary to accomplish this production.

In magical free-trade wonderland, where no person ever gets any income unless he works for it, this might be true (although that is debatable, and certainly has not been demonstrated).

In the real world, where taxpayer money is used to prevent people from selfishly cluttering up the public highways with their famished corpses, the market price is distorted by this subsidy. Pretending that the real world doesn't exist, because you would rather it didn't, is not a good way to make policy, which is why everyone laughs at your suggestions.

Nothing is more important in the economy than making sure that the production gets done at the lowest possible cost or price, because this is what is best for all consumers, and thus for the whole country.

Is the economy more, or less, important than the people?

What could be more "fair" than whatever serves the whole country?

The last I checked, the 'whole' country includes poor people. Your policy implies the exact opposite of 'serves the whole country'; you are suggesting that poor people should be required to serve the wealthy.

If the wage that employees get for their labour is inadequate to meet their cost of living, that becomes a social problem.

No, that's an individual problem for that one employee.

If it is just one guy, then I will give him a job at $15 an hour tomorrow. But it isn't; it is an entire section of society - millions of people.

Another employee might be able to do that job at the low wage. The individual employee has to decide if the wage level is agreeable, and if it is not, there is a solution: RESIGN! Only a crybaby demands more than this. If you can't make the deal, you part company. Let the job be done by someone else who will accept those terms. Why should consumers be punished with higher prices because an employee is a crybaby demanding more than necessary to get the job done?

Your ideas are simplistic, crude and stupid. Your lack of compassion defies belief; I would strongly recommend that you seek professional assistance for what I suspect is a severe personality disorder. You should get a proper diagnosis from a psychiatrist, it might help you and those around you.

A minimum wage is determined by the CPI. We also have award rates for skilled work.

The right price for anything, including labor, for any job, is whatever the market determines, based on supply-and-demand. This price is always the right price, because it best serves the interests of the whole society, or the whole country, because it's best for consumers. This always takes priority over the interest of an individual producer.

The producers, including wage-earners, have to adjust to accommodate the interests of consumers. They exist to serve consumers. But consumers do not exist to serve producers, or to be an outlet for their production. The producers have to keep changing and modifying their requirements until they find terms which are good for consumers.

Preaching is prohibited by the TOU of this board. If you want to make assertions of this kind, you should back them with evidence.

Those who instead get subsidized or get charity payments given to them out of pity, such as through minimum wage, are parasites, and a drain on society, and the world is made worse off because of these parasites.

Insulting people does not bolster your argument. Your assessment of people who have the misfortune to require assistance as 'parasites' says nothing about their charater, but speaks volumes about yours.

 

[Jayjay]

The cost of hiring an inexperienced worker is training, putting up with them until they get far enough up the learning curve to be productive, and wage. The last is probably the least important. Flipping burgers is an unpleasant job. It involves unsociable hours, working retail with little real support, an awful lot of cleaning, few perks, and silly uniforms. Raise the pay a little, and it's still an unpleasant job. By what mechanism do you believe the number of jobs will change?

1) While it s true that the wages are just one aspect of the costs, it is still a cost and raising it will cause some marginal jobs to become useless.
2) Higher wage attracts some marginally higher-skill workers who would otherwise not seek the jobs, thus the jobs available to the unskilled decreases.

That being said, whether these mechanisms have significant impact is another thing. Raising minimum wage could have positive impact that might cancel out the slightly reduced job opportunities.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#87
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.

No, there is no "cost to continue the availability of 1 human" which the employer pays. A human may be available and yet get no wage at all because he can't get hired. The cost of making him available is not borne by the employer. The employer pays for the labor supplied by the worker, not for the "availability" of the worker.

The same work in some cases might be done by either a machine or by a worker. If the result of the "work" is the same, whether by the machine or by the worker, then the value of that work, or the price that should be paid for it, is the same. If the worker's availability cost goes up and yet he wants to keep that same job, the wage or price for his labor remains the same, despite the higher cost of the worker's availability.

The value of that job is unrelated to the worker's availability cost, except in the sense that the worker might choose to resign if his availability cost goes up, because he might seek a better-paying job. But the value of that job does not go up just because the worker's availability cost went up.

Just as an increasing availability cost of a shopkeeper does not automatically cause his prices to go up. If his customers don't want to pay higher prices, they can take their business elsewhere.

The price or value does not increase just because the availability cost of one producer goes up -- if other producers are available to perform the same service, then the value of that product or service remains the same regardless of the increasing availability cost of this or that producer.

As long as other producers/job-seekers are waiting in line to take over that job or service, and will perform it at the same lower price, then the higher availability cost of this or that producer, or their demand for a higher price, does not change the market price or the value or ideal price to be paid for that commodity. If that price is propped up artificially, then there is a decreasing demand for it by the buyers and a loss to the society.

You are saying that as the consumer of milk I have no duty to pay the farmer enough to owning the cow, . . .

There is no "duty" to pay anything other than what is agreed to between the individual buyer and seller, and whatever price they agree on is right. The farmer has every right to demand 10 times or 100 times the cost of owning the cow -- however much he can get from a desperate consumer. But in some cases he may have to take a loss because he paid too much for the cow, and so now he sells the milk at a loss, to minimize his losses.

The correct price is generally influenced by the producer's cost. This plays into the supply factor in determining the market price. But it is always existing supply-and-demand that sets the price, the value, of the item, not the factors that lead up to the current supply-and-demand.

Hypothetically, if another cow suddenly appears from nowhere, or 10 more cows, the current price of milk (at that one location) suddenly decreases. It's the producer's function (in this case the farmer's) to make sure he is providing a product or service that will be in demand and will not be in oversupply. It's good for the producer to be under this pressure to make sure he is meeting a market need and not contributing to an oversupply.

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.

The market alone takes care of this and ensures that you pay that price. No minimum wage or minimum price needs to be mandated by anyone. The individual buyer and seller(s) alone will make this happen, with no intervention by anyone else. (This doesn't rule out the possibility of a tax on cow farts or other pollution from the cows. That is added to the production cost and could drive up the price.)

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?

(You mean "could NOT care less".)

The employers and their customers who benefit from low-wage labor are not demanding that anyone else pay anything to support the low-paid workers, nor are they benefiting from any such payment by others.

They are paying a price for the service provided by the worker, not for the worker's "support" or maintenance. The correct price, or the market price, or the value of the work, is whatever figure is agreed to by the buyer (employer) and seller (worker). This is the correct price, which could be 100 or 1000 times the maintenance cost of the worker, or only 1/10 or 1/100 of that cost. Whatever the buyer and seller agree to is the correct price and nothing else.

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.

No it is not. It is the responsibility of the buyer and seller (employer and worker) to set the terms, regardless of any cost of having humans available. Those humans are available whether they do work or not. Those who don't work are not paid even though they are available. Obviously it's not their availability they're being paid for but the actual work they do.

The higher-value work is paid more, even though the availability cost may be the same. The availability is irrelevant.

All that is necessary is that they be free to make the choice whether to work or not and under what terms, and also that the employer be free, and that neither can impose his/her terms onto the other, but that both freely agree to the terms without outside interference.

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.

Yes, this has arbitrarily been imposed onto workers and employers. And because of this interference our economy is worse off and the standard of living is lower, because less needed work gets done and consumers have to pay higher prices than necessary and have fewer choices in the market.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sometimes extortion happens in reality.

But extortion requires that the person describing the bad consequences will be part of bringing them about. Pointing out an existing hazard is *NOT* extortion. Otherwise every safety inspector is guilty of extortion when they point out a problem.