Minimum Wage Does Not Destroy Jobs

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look at the unemployment rate--work isn't hard to get unless there's something wrong with your employability. (Note that this might be something beyond your control--you don't have the demand locally but relocation would cause other problems.)

If that is the case, why is the pay rate in the US so shitty for low income earners? If they had any real bargaining power would they not use it to secure better pay?

It's low because that's all they're worth.

Speaking about coming off as a completely apathetic person. Want to try that one again? This time, your motivation is that you are still talking about human beings. Human beings that aren't blessed with your intelligence or arrogance, among other things.

 

[DBT]

It's low because that's all they're worth.

Speaking about coming off as a completely apathetic person. Want to try that one again? This time, your motivation is that you are still talking about human beings. Human beings that aren't blessed with your intelligence or arrogance, among other things.

It's amazing. You'd expect to see that attitude in the dark ages coming from a Feudal Lord, a Robber Baron. It seems that they are still with us in this day and age, but in modified form.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No one thinks that. The wage should be entirely determined by 2 parties -- the worker and the employer, each one having the sovereign right to refuse any amount. And any amount they both agree to is the right wage for any worker to be paid, with no one else having any right to interfere to impose anything different than what the individual employer/company and individual worker agree to.

And along with this, the customer and the seller also need complete freedom to reject any price, and whatever price both agree to is the right price. So indirectly the customers/buyers help set the wage levels by their choice of what price to pay -- thus making everyone better off.

With the only caveat to the above being that neither the worker or employer, or the buyer or seller, commits fraud onto the other.

This rule for wage and price levels is the one which would lead (or does lead) to the best possible condition for all humans, because it results in the optimum production for human benefit.




No, what's "bizarre, degrading," etc. is anything other than the individual employer and individual worker deciding the amount, and free to accept or reject anything with no outside interference, thus making the world better off.

Meaning any desperate job-seeker must be free to accept a low wage in order to be able to get hired, i.e., free to choose a low-paying job rather than have no job at all -- and thus making everyone better off.

And to deny a desperate job-seeker the freedom to compete by offering his labor at a lower wage is bizarre, degrading, disgusting, etc., because denying the choice to work at a lower wage eliminates many jobs and needed production, thus making the world worse off.

That Americans are completely unaware of just how awful it is, is symptomatic of the wider insanity that includes this nutty idea that minimum wages far below subsistence levels are acceptable.

Meaning most wage levels in poor countries -- having a third or half the world's population -- are not acceptable. So, to make it "acceptable," those countries must be forced to increase all the wage levels up to "subsistence levels" -- meaning millions of people would starve who otherwise would live to an old age. Because when you force the wages up above "subsistence levels" in those countries, vast numbers of those jobs would be eliminated, tens of millions made poor, production vastly reduced > extreme scarcities of food and other necessities.

It would mean vast suffering and starvation, possibly a billion humans starving or brought to near starvation, in order to make it "acceptable."

In other words, it's a "nutty idea" that millions of humans should be able to live and not have to starve, as they would if all the world's wages were forced up to "subsistence level" and no jobs could exist which pay below that level.

And it's also a "nutty idea" that millions more are made better off, in the higher-income countries, from the benefits they buy from the poor countries at lower prices.

So "acceptable" means making everyone worse off, greatly increasing the world's suffering, and imposing starvation onto a billion or so humans. That's "acceptable" -- while making people better off, letting them improve their lives by taking advantage of cheap labor in poor countries, thus making poor people better off and less poor -- that's a "nutty idea."


Why?

Why is it "nutty" for people to be better off? And why isn't it "acceptable" unless a billion of them starve from increasing the wage to an "acceptable" level which would eliminate so much needed production?

So if you agree that wages should be set by only the employer and employee, then you agree with me that tipped work - where the customers set the pay rate without any regard to the employee or employer, is unacceptable?

Of course not -- in that case the customers are the employer. And the employee agrees to any amount, including zero if there's no tip.

 

[bilby]

So if you agree that wages should be set by only the employer and employee, then you agree with me that tipped work - where the customers set the pay rate without any regard to the employee or employer, is unacceptable?

Of course not -- in that case the customers are the employer. And the employee agrees to any amount, including zero if there's no tip.

Ah. That explains why waitstaff are always so happy to get stiffed.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, have any of the no minimum wage crowd posted any actual evidence for their position? I haven't seen any.

What exactly are you asking them about evidence for? Evidence that the minimum wage is contrary to their ideology? I think we can take that as read. Evidence that the minimum wage is contrary to your ideology? No, they haven't; but then the pro minimum wage crowd haven't posted any actual evidence that their position is compatible with their opponents' ideology either. So that makes them even. Evidence as to whose ideology is correct? Don't hold your breath on that one from either side.

So, in the absence of evidence from either side, how do you generally prefer to judge conflicts between on the one hand two consenting adults who want to do something together and on the other hand a third party who wants to stop them by force? Do you routinely favor banning an activity whenever a nonparticipant feels it's sinful?

Looks to me like it's the pro minimum wage crowd who have burden of proof. And they need to provide it without relying on their own ideology, unless all they're interested in is preaching to their own choir. So does there exist any criterion for goodness of positions that doesn't rely on ideology? Harm reduction, perhaps?

If either side could provide evidence that one position harms everyone and the other position helps everyone, that could settle the issue without appeal to ideology. Regrettably, the minimum wage harms some people but helps different people. So what exactly are you asking about evidence for? Are you requesting evidence that the people hurt by a minimum wage matter? In case you need evidence for that, well, the pro minimum wage crowd hasn't provided evidence that they don't matter. Are you requesting evidence that the people helped by a minimum wage don't matter? The no minimum wage crowd don't claim that those people don't matter. They just think the harm to those being harmed is a more important consideration than the help to those being helped. Are you asking them for evidence for that?

If that's what you're asking for, see above. It's the pro minimum wage crowd who want to outlaw behavior between consenting adults, so they have burden of proof. Have any of the pro minimum wage crowd posted any actual evidence that the benefit to those helped by the minimum wage they favor is a more important consideration than the harm to those it hurts?

Of course back in the real world, the real dispute isn't between the no minimum wage crowd and the pro minimum wage crowd. It's between the 'quo minimum wage crowd and the mo' minimum wage crowd. Which is probably as it should be, since help vs. harm calculations in economics are subject to the law of diminishing returns. The people helped by the minimum wage can be expected to be helped more by raising it from $11 to $12 than from $12 to $13; likewise, the people hurt by the minimum wage can be expected to be hurt less by raising it from $11 to $12 than from $12 to $13. So the real question should be, have any of the mo' minimum wage crowd posted any actual evidence that the benefit to those a further increase in the minimum wage will help is a more important consideration than the harm done to those whom it will hurt?

 

[Bomb#20]

The idea that a worker's income should be entirely at the whim of his employer's customers is bizarre, degrading, disguting, medieval, and ... beyond all reason.

Um, you do know that a tipped worker gets wages too, don't you? His income is partly at the whim of his employer's customers.

That Americans are completely unaware of just how awful it is, is symptomatic of the wider insanity that includes this nutty idea that minimum wages far below subsistence levels are acceptable.

I still remain astonished that your working classes have not risen in bloody revolution against their oppressors.

You appear to be getting carried away by your own rhetoric. Tipped jobs are sought after.

...And the employee agrees to any amount, including zero if there's no tip.

Ah. That explains why waitstaff are always so happy to get stiffed.

So the employees didn't agree to any amount including zero, which is why they're mad as hell if they don't get a tip, and they're also supposed to rise in bloody revolution against their oppressors because they do get tips?

The thing you need to understand about American tipping culture is that it isn't something inflicted on the poor oppressed waitstaff by the dining oppressors. It's a pain in the ass and the dining oppressors, by and large, would love to get rid of it and switch to the Australian model. So how would you suggest we go about doing that? By stiffing the waitstaff? As you point out, they are so happy to get stiffed. American tipping culture is waitstaff culture. They impose it on us, and thereby impose it on one another. Each kid joining the waitstaff profession gets socialized to expect tips, and to get mad if he doesn't get them, thereby insuring that the culture will propagate itself.

So what are we supposed to do, try to pass a law against tips? The waiters would have a collective cow and the legislature would back down. Should restaurant owners en masse agree to announce no-tipping policies to their customers and raise base wages and prices proportionately? The best waiters would quit from the restaurants that joined the anti-tipping movement and compete for jobs at whichever restaurants don't go along with the new meme. Retaining tipping would become an indicator of superior service, and thus a status symbol among restaurants, and thus a status symbol among waitstaff. Tipped jobs would become more sought after than ever.

If you want America to get rid of tipping, you don't need to convince the public it's bizarre, degrading, disgusting, and medieval. You need to convince the waiters it's bizarre, degrading, disgusting, and medieval. And you need to convince them to care more about that than about the extra money tipping gets them. Good luck with that. Seriously -- I hope your campaign succeeds. Did I mention tipping is a pain in the ass?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's low because that's all they're worth.

Speaking about coming off as a completely apathetic person. Want to try that one again? This time, your motivation is that you are still talking about human beings. Human beings that aren't blessed with your intelligence or arrogance, among other things.

Worth, as in the value they produce.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's low because that's all they're worth.

Speaking about coming off as a completely apathetic person. Want to try that one again? This time, your motivation is that you are still talking about human beings. Human beings that aren't blessed with your intelligence or arrogance, among other things.

Worth, as in the value they produce.

That was apparent, though terribly worded indicating a bit of indifference.

 

[laughing dog]

I already gave you the data and you obviously didn't even look at it, instead stupidly twisting what I said without understanding it. I didn't say 48% of the population is under 24--the actual value is more like 38. What I said was 48% of minimum wage workers are 24 or under.

You should study stat 101 because you would have understood the population was the population if minimum wage workers.

The point is you can't figure that below minimum wage means low pay.

First, still waiting for your alleged data about tipped workers, Second, try to use some reasoning. You are using the mean to draw conclusions about the distribution.

 

[Bomb#20]

Third, if you had bothered to actually read the insert, it does not claim to describe the current distribution of workers who are affected by the minimum wage. It clearly states "Statistics describe civilian workers, ages 16+ that would be affected by an increase in the federal minimum wage to $12.00 by 2020."

In other words, numbers pretty much pulled out of their ass.

There's no indication they pulled the numbers out of their ass. This isn't a speculative guess about the future you're looking at. What it almost certainly means is that they're counting the workers currently earning a wage under $12.00. You disagreed with their numbers not because they counted categorically wrong but because your category includes people making $7.25 and their category includes people making $10.00.

(Of course, this doesn't conflict with the hypothesis that EPI is categorically wrong. By calling the people they're counting "Who benefits from a higher minimum wage", they appear to be taking for granted that every one of those full-time-working 30+ women earning over half their families' total income won't lose her job if her boss is no longer allowed to pay her $10.00 an hour for her services.)

Means and medians are usually used as frame of reference. This data indicates that contrary to the myth, minimum wage workers are not primarily teenagers or people under 24.

Right. It means they're primarily teenagers or people 25 and under.

48%. To get to 31 by 2020 would take some major changes.

Without knowing the distribution, there is no way for us or you to know. It is possible the median is 31 right now.

But we do know the distribution. You need to click on "Table 7" in Loren's link to see it. 63% are 29 and under, which means it's impossible for the median to be 31 right now. Moreover, the numbers in each age bucket decline rapidly with age. That implies that the 14.5% from 25 to 29 includes more than 3% 25-year-olds and less than 3% 29-year-olds. Consequently at least 52% are 25 and under. 49% are 24 and under. Therefore the median age for current minimum wage earners right now is 25.

 

[laughing dog]

There's no indication they pulled the numbers out of their ass. This isn't a speculative guess about the future you're looking at. What it almost certainly means is that they're counting the workers currently earning a wage under $12.00. You disagreed with their numbers not because they counted categorically wrong but because your category includes people making $7.25 and their category includes people making $10.00.

(Of course, this doesn't conflict with the hypothesis that EPI is categorically wrong. By calling the people they're counting "Who benefits from a higher minimum wage", they appear to be taking for granted that every one of those full-time-working 30+ women earning over half their families' total income won't lose her job if her boss is no longer allowed to pay her $10.00 an hour for her services.)

Means and medians are usually used as frame of reference. This data indicates that contrary to the myth, minimum wage workers are not primarily teenagers or people under 24.

Right. It means they're primarily teenagers or people 25 and under.

48%. To get to 31 by 2020 would take some major changes.

Without knowing the distribution, there is no way for us or you to know. It is possible the median is 31 right now.

But we do know the distribution. You need to click on "Table 7" in Loren's link to see it. 63% are 29 and under, which means it's impossible for the median to be 31 right now. Moreover, the numbers in each age bucket decline rapidly with age. That implies that the 14.5% from 25 to 29 includes more than 3% 25-year-olds and less than 3% 29-year-olds. Consequently at least 52% are 25 and under. 49% are 24 and under. Therefore the median age for current minimum wage earners right now is 25.

Thank you. Apparently LP and I were like the blind men and the elephant.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually, actuarially it's a mouse. Estimating populations from extrapolated normal distribution presumptions is clearly wrong because extremes are better estimated from Chi distributions. Kurtosis my man, Kurtosis. Nothing normal about them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Many workers are not in a position to negotiate a wage rate. More often than not it's a case of 'this is the pay rate, take it or leave it.'

Yes and no. They can't negotiate with an individual employer but they still have their biggest weapon--their feet. The company that offers below-market wages will end up with shitty workers if they can find them at all.

(And note that unions demand seniority-based systems to deny workers their feet as a weapon so they have to rely on the union to get raises.)

If work is hard to get, feet don't get you to a new place that offers better pay or conditions.....which is why workers in that position do not have bargaining power and their situation is "this is the pay rate, take it or leave it"

It is the absolute right of ANY buyer, including employers, to say to any seller:

This is the compensation I offer -- take it or leave it!

Any customer in a store has the right to say this to the store owner: I will pay this price (or lower) and no higher. Take it or leave it.

And if as a result that store goes out of business and the owner starves to death, that's the store-owner's problem, not the customer who refused to pay more.

You can't give any reason or logic explaining why ANY buyer, no matter who, including an employer, has any obligation to pay any seller, including a job-seeker, any more than whatever amount that buyer is offering to pay or would pay to another more competitive seller (if one can be found).

There is nothing gained, no net benefit to society, by ever forcing any buyer to pay a higher price than this price. There's no data to show any net benefit gained for society by interfering with this right of any buyer, no matter what is being bought, including labor. (And ALL buying from sellers involves labor by sellers at some level in order to bring the product to market, so if you allow customers to set a maximum price, they are EXPLOITING labor somewhere down the line.)

There's no reason why a customer in a store should have this right to fix a maximum price and an employer running a business should not have the same right. Every buyer, rich or poor, has this right, or there is no such thing as a "right" to anything, and all "rights" are just fictions we use to bully and manipulate others into submitting to our aggression.

So minimum wage = a mob of stampeding animals trampling others down in order to satisfy their spontaneous impulse. Whatever superficial benefit is gained by the rampaging mob is offset by the damage to others who have to pay the cost.

 

[DBT]

If work is hard to get, feet don't get you to a new place that offers better pay or conditions.....which is why workers in that position do not have bargaining power and their situation is "this is the pay rate, take it or leave it"

It is the absolute right of ANY buyer, including employers, to say to any seller:

This is the compensation I offer -- take it or leave it!

Sure, they are allowed to say it, and they are in a position to say it. An imbalance of power is the problem. A problem for workers because it means that their incomes are low and stagnant for as long as the power imbalance remains in place. Which is why unions were formed in the first place, allowing collective bargaining for workers, giving them the ability to improve their pay and conditions.

 

[bilby]

If work is hard to get, feet don't get you to a new place that offers better pay or conditions.....which is why workers in that position do not have bargaining power and their situation is "this is the pay rate, take it or leave it"

It is the absolute right of ANY buyer, including employers, to say to any seller:

This is the compensation I offer -- take it or leave it!

Any customer in a store has the right to say this to the store owner: I will pay this price (or lower) and no higher. Take it or leave it.

And if as a result that store goes out of business and the owner starves to death, that's the store-owner's problem, not the customer who refused to pay more.

You can't give any reason or logic explaining why ANY buyer, no matter who, including an employer, has any obligation to pay any seller, including a job-seeker, any more than whatever amount that buyer is offering to pay or would pay to another more competitive seller ...

Sure we can - you're just not capable of grasping it. It's the EXACT SAME reason why almost all of libertarianism is abject nonsense:

The situation, and its solutions, are not as simple as you present them to be.

Employment is not a simple purchase transaction. Labour isn't a commodity, and people are not interchangeable parts. It's all very well to try to understand a situation by boiling it down to the bare essentials; But when you lose sight of what was discarded in the process of making it simple enough to comprehend, you start to believe in conclusions that are actually false.

Libertarianism is the art of oversimplifying economics to the point of absurdity, and then ridiculing everyone who disagrees with your erroneous conclusions as 'illogical'.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

We're all better off if every individual is free to say "Take it or leave it!" and also free to say "I'll take it" or "No thanks."

Or even to say "Shove it!"

If work is hard to get, feet don't get you to a new place that offers better pay or conditions.....which is why workers in that position do not have bargaining power and their situation is "this is the pay rate, take it or leave it"

It is the absolute right of ANY buyer, including employers, to say to any seller:

This is the compensation I offer -- take it or leave it!

Sure, they are allowed to say it, and they are in a position to say it.

Everyone is in a position to say it.

The point is that it's best for society if all buyers (including employers) are allowed to offer any price and pay it to any seller accepting that price (wage), no matter how low (as long as it's agreed to by the seller/worker). The whole economy, the whole population is made better off by allowing such free transaction between buyers/employers and sellers/workers.

An imbalance of power is the problem.

No, it's not a problem that either party to the transaction has more "power" than the other. There is nothing wrong with a multi-billionaire hiring a poor peasant to work for him at $3 or $4 per day, as long as both are making a free choice, meaning both are made better off by the transaction (which they are or they would not make that choice).

And also the hamburger-flipper is better off working for the billionaire-owner, at minimum wage or less, and so is everyone else in the economy made better off by it. So the imbalance is not a problem. The worker is better off by the transaction, even if he wishes he could make $20 an hour. Even so he's still better off at the very low wage, because if he was not better off he wouldn't make that choice as his best alternative.

A problem for workers because it means that their incomes are low and stagnant for as long as the power imbalance remains in place.

The power imbalance will always remain in place.

Some of the inequality could be reduced, but making it illegal to pay below a certain price/wage only makes the world worse off, reducing the living standard of all. If you want to reduce inequality, you should find a way to do it which won't inflict net suffering onto the world and make everyone worse off, like minimum wage does.

Which is why unions were formed in the first place, allowing collective bargaining for workers, giving them the ability to improve their pay and conditions.

Only by inflicting net damage onto the whole economy. I.e., by driving up prices consumers have to pay, and suppressing total production to a lower level than it would be without collective bargaining = wage-fixing which does the same damage as anticompetitive price-fixing by companies.

Price-fixing by companies/independent contractors also gives those parties the ability to improve their pay and conditions. But society overall is worse off. Cartels benefit only a few and hurt the economy generally.

Even price-fixing by poor independent contractors is bad for the economy. E.g., shoe-shiner collaborates with competing shoe-shiner 2 blocks down the street, resulting in higher price = bad for the economy.

 

[DBT]

Or even to say "Shove it!"

No, it's not a problem that either party to the transaction has more "power" than the other.

Of course it's a problem. If workers have little or no negotiating power and are told ''this is the rate of pay, take it or leave it'' they have no hope of negotiating a better rate. And if the offered rate is typical for the industry (no shortage to draw from in a pool of unemployed), that is what these workers are stuck with.

It doesn't help to go somewhere else or say 'shove it' because all employers in the sector are offering the same crap rate.....where is the choice?

Switching from one crap pay rate to another improves nothing.

About the only possible means of improvement is unionization and collective action. Something that workers are no longer willing to do, it seems.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Only solution: stop the whining and improve, become more valuable and thus worth a higher wage.

Or even to say "Shove it!"

No, it's not a problem that either party to the transaction has more "power" than the other.

Of course it's a problem.

Not for society. Of course anyone who is less competitive has a "problem," but it's only his problem, not society's problem. That he has less bargaining power than another is a problem only for him individually. Maybe his solution is to improve himself and become more competitive, or more valuable.

It's not a "problem" for society that this or that person isn't doing as well as someone else. Anyone who applies for a job and gets rejected has a "problem" which is not a problem for society. Or any seller whose price is too high and can't find a buyer has a "problem" which is not society's problem. Except maybe in the sense that this uncompetitive producer becomes a whining crybaby who thinks he's entitled to be equal to someone else who is being more productive, and so he throws a tantrum and demands pity from someone. I.e., this uncompetitive producer becomes a problem because everyone else has to put up with his whining. So in that sense maybe it's a problem.

If workers have little or no negotiating power and are . . .

WHICH WORKERS? Don't lump all "workers" into the same category. Some of them have plenty of negotiating power. Some are more competitive than others and don't need to be whining crybabies like you expect them to be. So name which workers you're talking about.

It's true that some of the less competitive ones have very little negotiating power. But that's their individual problem, not society's problem. They each need to find a solution to it. Some of them will grow up and find a solution, while others will just go whining to the government to artificially prop their wage up higher than their real value, or to protect them from the damn foreigners who can do the job for less.

. . . and are told ''this is the rate of pay, take it or leave it'' they have no hope of negotiating a better rate.

Of course not if the job isn't worth any more than that low rate. Why should they be paid more than the job is worth? The competitive market sets the wages and prices based on supply-and-demand. Why should they have hope of negotiating a better rate than what the job is worth? If there are a million job-seekers clamoring for that job, even offering to do it for less, whose problem is it that this worker has so little negotiating power? Not society's. Let those uncompetitive workers improve themselves if they want more, and let them become more valuable in the market, instead of whining, which is what you're saying they should do.

And if the offered rate is typical for the industry (no shortage to draw from in a pool of unemployed), that is what these workers are stuck with.

And what's wrong with that? That's their problem because they're so uncompetitive. What's wrong with them trying to improve themselves in order to make themselves more valuable in the economy? Why do you insist that the only solution is for them to whine louder and louder and throw a tantrum and demand pity? What's wrong with letting the uncompetitive be "stuck with" whatever they can get, at their low level of value, and either live with it, or do something to make themselves more valuable and thus increase their negotiating power?

Isn't that what a poor independent contractor has to do? Isn't that what any less competitive business has to do? They're either "stuck with" their low income, or they improve their business to make it more competitive and more valuable so they can charge a higher price, or expand to find more customers.

Why shouldn't ALL producers have to compete, and "take it or leave it" and be "stuck with" the market based on the value of their performance? Why should wage-earners be entitled to special privileges and be exempt from having to compete?

It doesn't help to go somewhere else or say 'shove it' because all employers in the sector are offering the same crap rate.....where is the choice?

Let them change their "sector" or whatever is necessary to improve themselves. Not all workers are down-and-out hopeless losers such as you're describing. Some can improve and make themselves more valuable -- to someone. Your suggested solution for them to throw a tantrum and demand pity is not a good solution for society.

Not all employers are offering the same crap. Workers with higher value are doing much better and are in much higher demand and have greater negotiating power.

There's plenty that's wrong with the market and the economy and the society, but the solution is never to pay uncompetitive crybabies more than they're worth.

Switching from one crap pay rate to another improves nothing.

What improves it is for the less competitive worker/producer to become more valuable, not whine louder and louder and throw more tantrums. There are ways to improve and become more valuable, to increase one's negotiating power and bring higher than the current crap pay rate. But increasing the pay to more than one's value, out of pity for the crybaby, also improves nothing, and really makes the whole economy worse, for everyone.

About the only possible means of improvement is unionization and collective action.

That would be true if the union philosophy was to improve the workers, improve their performance, and make them more valuable to society. But since all unions do is whine and demand higher wages than what the workers are really worth in the market, they do nothing to make any improvement, but only end up making the whole society worse, by driving up prices and putting restrictions on production, so that less is produced and the living standard to ALL CONSUMERS -- the whole population -- is reduced.

You need to find a solution which helps those workers without having to inflict damage onto the whole population, which is all you do when you turn them into whining crybabies.

Something that workers are no longer willing to do, it seems.

Hopefully you're right that most workers are choosing some other route than the whining and crybaby economics of the labor unions.

 

[DBT]

Not for society. Of course anyone who is less competitive has a "problem," but it's only his problem, not society's problem. That he has less bargaining power than another is a problem only for him individually. Maybe his solution is to improve himself and become more competitive, or more valuable.

The problem is a gross imbalance in money, power and position, Those in position can set the rules to benefit themselves while those with little money and no real choice cannot, their option being, ''that is our rate, take it or leave it.''

You need to find a solution which helps those workers without having to inflict damage onto the whole population, which is all you do when you turn them into whining crybabies.

False. It has been pointed out that wealth concentrating into the hands of an ever smaller percentage of the population is damaging to society and that a fairer distribution of wealth and generous incomes for workers makes for a vibrant, prosperous society.

What you claim is the very opposite of truth. And the crybabies appear to be the rich who feel their positions of power and wealth under threat, and those who defend a situation of gross inequality and what is essentially wage slavery.

Hopefully you're right that most workers are choosing some other route than the whining and crybaby economics of the labor unions.

It has nothing to do with whining or crying. It has everything to do with helping to tip the playing field in favour of workers, improving their lot, enabling better pay rates and getting better conditions.

Some reasons why gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:

''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.

''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice epitomised by globalisation nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''

''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''

''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''