Shadowy Man
Contributor
So, how much money does an 18 year old need to keep him alive while he attends college?
Where does he live? And should he have any expectation that he should be able to choose where he lives?
So, how much money does an 18 year old need to keep him alive while he attends college?
Well, I would presume it is. For concreteness' sake, let's say a wage needs to be $10/hr in order for a person to buy himself a "minimally acceptable" standard of living with it. Presumably the whole point of requiring a wage to be that high is because without that $10/hr his quality of life will be worse -- he'll be living on the street and eating nothing but soup at the Salvation Army or wherever. If the $10/hr weren't making his life any better then why insist on it in the first place? Just in order to make some third party feel ideologically well-satisfied?Yes, that is a valid aspect, IF increasing quality of life is a part of what we would like to call "minimally acceptable"...some minimum increment an employer must improve an employee's quality of life by.
I don't understand your answer. If the business owner has to make the employee's life better by whatever he can buy himself for $10/hr, but the employee doesn't have to make the business owner's life better by whatever she could buy herself for $10/hr, then how do you figure the owner and the employee are identical in this respect? That sounds pretty unidentical.I suppose we would have to be... It's not the focus of this discussion, but an important aspect, I agree.Do you also want to try to be fair to employers?
Not in my opinion... if by "employer" you mean the business itself. That is more of a Performance Management issue between employer and employee. The "employer", as an individual manager or business owner, is identical to the worker (employee), in this respect, in my opinion.Is there any corresponding minimally acceptable amount for an employee to increase an employer's quality of life by?
Sorry, again I don't understand. What are you saying is "not so", in your opinion? Do you mean you don't believe any people exist who don't have the ability to make an employer better off by $10/hr? [Or whatever minimum wage you think appropriate.]well, not so, in my opinion,If so, what would you propose to do about people who don't have the ability to make an employer better off by that increment?
Sure; and more often, if an employer doesn't expect to benefit from her employee then she won't hire him in the first place. Either way, assuming there does exist a person who isn't able to make an employer $10/hr better off than she'd be without him, that person will not get a wage at all. So the question is, do you have any method in mind for keeping him from living on the street and eating nothing but soup at the Salvation Army?but if an employer is not benefiting from their employee, then they need to fire them and hire a "better" employee, or look more carefully at their business processes and increase efficiency.
If the business owner has to make the employee's life better by whatever he can buy himself for $10/hr, but the employee doesn't have to make the business owner's life better by whatever she could buy herself for $10/hr, then how do you figure the owner and the employee are identical in this respect? That sounds pretty unidentical.
That's not an explanation for how the owner and the employee are identical in this respect; that's an explanation for why you think it's a good idea for the owner and the employee not to be treated as identical in this respect. I was asking for a clarification to Malintent's answer to "Is there any corresponding minimally acceptable amount for an employee to increase an employer's quality of life by?". If you have a different answer to that question, that's fine; but there was a followup question for that case. Do you have any method in mind for motivating employers to hire employees they don't benefit from?If the business owner has to make the employee's life better by whatever he can buy himself for $10/hr, but the employee doesn't have to make the business owner's life better by whatever she could buy herself for $10/hr, then how do you figure the owner and the employee are identical in this respect? That sounds pretty unidentical.
The owner is not putting in an hour of labor that the employee is profiting from. The principle has to do with a person getting some minimal compensation in exchange for giving an hour of their own labor toward someone else's profit. The employee giving an hour of their labor does not mean the employer has given an hour of their labor, so there is no reason that the employer should get any compensation for someone else giving their labor.
You appear to be asserting that trading your labor to someone belongs in an entirely different mental category from trading anything other than labor to someone. Do you have any empirical evidence that every person who doesn't impose the same mental categorizations on the world that you impose on the world in fact endorses slavery? Or are you making that accusation as a way of poisoning the well and thereby shutting down challenges to your ethical assumptions? Tell us what you endorse; let others speak for themselves.It’s a rather simple and obviously ethical principle to anyone that does not endorse slavery.
When a libertarian calls a person a slave because his labor is taxed to pay for some government program that doesn't benefit him, normal people laugh at that libertarian for his over-the-top rhetoric. When I volunteered to help sort donations for a few hours at a charity, I received no compensation. So according to your theory, if one of the poor people who received a handout turned around and pawned his handout for a cash profit, that means I was a slave. The test for slavery is not whether you receive compensation. It is not whether someone else makes a profit. It is whether someone will make you come back to work if you walk off the job.A person getting no compensation for their labor that others profit from is a slave,
That's over-the-top rhetoric. If there is not a minimum amount they get in return for it they go on the dole. This makes the theory that they must get a minimum amount or they'll die kind of implausible.and tiny amounts of compensation are only slightly better than slavery. A person has finite labor to give, so if there is not a minimum amount they must get in return for it, they suffer and die.
Would you agree that people who are neither owners nor employees also deserve "minimally acceptable" life opportunities? We provide for orphans, for the elderly and disabled, even for people who can't hold down a job because they're chronic screwups. Apart from criminals we deliberately deprive of some life opportunities as punishment, the whole society is identical in that respect, yes? When one of us can't provide for himself, all of us chip in who can.I'm saying that the owner and the employee are identical in that they both deserve "minimally acceptable" life opportunities.
What caused us to pay people to work is that ten thousand years ago a subset of our species took up farming. This caused a population explosion, which caused there to be far too many mouths to feed for them all to survive on the limited amount of game and wild edible plants in the environment. Consequently, there was a lot of work that needed doing, and there were a lot of people willing to trade work for food. When a willing buyer meets a willing seller, trade ensues. So there is no grand plan, no collective general decision to pay people to work; there are just billions of people willing to make deals for mutual benefit. There isn't any single reason "we" pay people to work; instead there's just person A's reason to pay person B, and person C's reason to pay person D, and so on and so forth and such like.It is important to understand why we pay people to work in order to understand what is fair compensation for work, I guess.
Certainly. Determining a price based on philosophy strikes me as exactly as sensible as determining a price based on religion. It's exactly as sensible as telling somebody else which sex to choose sex partners from based on philosophy or religion.would anyone like to disagree that minimum wages should be a calculated value based on these philosophical issues - such as the ability to gain wealth.
I don't think you will have any chance of figuring out why we have it and what it's for until you try to come to grips with the question I asked you at the beginning. What would you propose to do about people who don't have the ability to make an employer better off by whatever number of dollars per hour we set the minimum wage at? Are those people going to get minimally acceptable life opportunities too?Why do we even have a minimum wage.. what is it for?
That's not an explanation for how the owner and the employee are identical in this respect; that's an explanation for why you think it's a good idea for the owner and the employee not to be treated as identical in this respect. I was asking for a clarification to Malintent's answer to "Is there any corresponding minimally acceptable amount for an employee to increase an employer's quality of life by?". If you have a different answer to that question, that's fine; but there was a followup question for that case. Do you have any method in mind for motivating employers to hire employees they don't benefit from?The owner is not putting in an hour of labor that the employee is profiting from. The principle has to do with a person getting some minimal compensation in exchange for giving an hour of their own labor toward someone else's profit. The employee giving an hour of their labor does not mean the employer has given an hour of their labor, so there is no reason that the employer should get any compensation for someone else giving their labor.
You appear to be asserting that trading your labor to someone belongs in an entirely different mental category from trading anything other than labor to someone.It’s a rather simple and obviously ethical principle to anyone that does not endorse slavery.
Do you have any empirical evidence that every person who doesn't impose the same mental categorizations on the world that you impose on the world in fact endorses slavery? Or are you making that accusation as a way of poisoning the well and thereby shutting down challenges to your ethical assumptions? Tell us what you endorse; let others speak for themselves.
It is not obvious to me that the principle you propose is ethical. To me your principle looks like a rather simple and entirely ordinary tribal double-standard, one rule for your in-group and a different rule for your out-group.
According to you, that means I endorse slavery. You're wrong. I do not endorse slavery. Slavery is evil.
When a libertarian calls a person a slave because his labor is taxed to pay for some government program that doesn't benefit him, normal people laugh at that libertarian for his over-the-top rhetoric. When I volunteered to help sort donations for a few hours at a charity, I received no compensation. So according to your theory, if one of the poor people who received a handout turned around and pawned his handout for a cash profit, that means I was a slave.A person getting no compensation for their labor that others profit from is a slave,
The test for slavery is not whether you receive compensation. It is not whether someone else makes a profit. It is whether someone will make you come back to work if you walk off the job.
That's over-the-top rhetoric. If there is not a minimum amount they get in return for it they go on the dole.and tiny amounts of compensation are only slightly better than slavery. A person has finite labor to give, so if there is not a minimum amount they must get in return for it, they suffer and die.
This makes the theory that they must get a minimum amount or they'll die kind of implausible.
IF we are to agree that this minimum pay for minimum work should be something that can provide a certain standard of life for a certain number of family members. beyond that, what is that methodology for calculation, and upon what should it be based?
IF we are to agree that this minimum pay for minimum work should be something that can provide a certain standard of life for a certain number of family members. beyond that, what is that methodology for calculation, and upon what should it be based?
If the minimum wage must provide for the basic needs of a household, then it is just a crude method for outsourcing the welfare state to private employers, and should be abolished.
Wages should not be tied to cost of living at all. A household's basic costs should be paid by a basic income, while additional costs such as dependents should be paid by parent/guardian/carer payments.
Markets work when the price acts as a signal to consumers and suppliers--a low price signals to suppliers that they should not add more supply to the market--but suppliers in the unskilled labour market are compelled to disregard this signal in order to earn whatever money they can to pay for their basic needs. Without a price floor on unskilled labour there would be much more poverty and far less economic activity due to the loss of consumers.
If people's basic needs are paid for by the welfare state then the labour market can function without a price floor. Many suppliers will withdraw from the unskilled labour market and the market will reach equilibrium.
If the minimum wage must provide for the basic needs of a household, then it is just a crude method for outsourcing the welfare state to private employers, and should be abolished.
Wages should not be tied to cost of living at all. A household's basic costs should be paid by a basic income, while additional costs such as dependents should be paid by parent/guardian/carer payments.
Markets work when the price acts as a signal to consumers and suppliers--a low price signals to suppliers that they should not add more supply to the market--but suppliers in the unskilled labour market are compelled to disregard this signal in order to earn whatever money they can to pay for their basic needs. Without a price floor on unskilled labour there would be much more poverty and far less economic activity due to the loss of consumers.
If people's basic needs are paid for by the welfare state then the labour market can function without a price floor. Many suppliers will withdraw from the unskilled labour market and the market will reach equilibrium.
So what are people's basic needs, then? You seem to be lumping everything into "basic" and "not basic". I'll go with that, if "basic" can be defined.
What are the basic needs of (a household or an individual?) that a minimum wage should guarantee. I understand that you seem to believe that capitalism, in the area of meeting individual needs, is wrong.. but that is a different discussion. I probably agree with you at least half-way in that area.
Given that any needs in this society has a cost, what are the needs that should be guaranteed by having the most basic of employment?
I am of the opinion that basic human rights should have no cost, and be guaranteed by all levels of government. Those needs (in my opinion) include clean water and air, physical security, health care, and an education (and more, I am sure I am not thinking of on the spot). NOT included (in my opinion) as a guaranteed right is the ability to reproduce / sustain children, own property, engage in any form of entertainment whatsoever, or have a cell phone... and much, much more...
Backing up for a sec... should minimum wage represent the buying power to access basic needs that are not provided for free or should it represent something other than that?
Bigfield said:employment need not guarantee any needs
I think I agree with everything you are saying. I am curious about this, though..
Bigfield said:employment need not guarantee any needs
Then why do people insist on a 'minimum wage'? I think I understand that you would like to separate 'wage' from 'income', in that one should be a guarantee and the other should not. However, most people do not separate that (as the concept of socialism versus capitalism philosophically is not a part of economics in America).
So, forgetting employment for a moment, what is means for determining the dollar value that one individual should be guaranteed as an income (in this capitalist society) to support the 'minimally acceptable' existence? If one were to take that dollar value, and divide by 180 working days a year, divided by 8 working hours a day, would one have calculated the "fair" minimum wage?
Regarding children... a sticking point for me when it comes to accommodations for parents that non-parents cannot benefit from - like dependent child tax deductions... I agree that reproduction is not a right (but physical security is - so forced sterilization would still be a human rights violation), and that it is the responsibility OF THE PARENT to support their children. What I strongly disagree with is the idea that people have the RIGHT to have as many children as they can and the cost of support the children falls upon society. That is the parent failing to meet their responsibilities, if they cannot afford to feed their 19 children on their existing income... they had no RIGHT to have that 19th child if they could not support it in a minimally acceptable way.
Related to this discussion, I guess I am saying that NO part of calculating what a minimum wage (or income) is has anything to do with children, and further, that having children is not a basic need and society holds no FINANCIAL responsibility to support them.
However, most developed countries that have a minimum wage also have a welfare state, and the welfare state is better suited to paying for those basic needs. Some cultures (USA, Australia) are much more hostile that that idea than others (Netherlands).