What's Wrong With A Living Wage?

[ksen]

There is a demand for it. Internships are one way around it. But considering that unemployment for teens and especially black teens is high they go and do other things like crime instead of getting a job since they can't get a job that pays less than minimum wage.

- - - Updated - - -

I not only think that is a good idea, but an inevitability if current economic practices are to last bast this century.

Some of us have sufficient imagination and comprehension to see past the point when we deal with entire problems and do not confine our thinking to fractional adjustments that do little or nothing to rectify problems. You are right, Athena.

Actually this is the idea that more economists support.

so let me get this straight.

Teens engage in criminal activity (that pays them hundreds of dollars a week) because they can't find jobs that would pay them five dollars an hour?

Minor correction: coloradoatheist said "black" teens

 

[untermensche]

If it was something we cared to value people with a lot more imagination than you would figure out methods to make accurate estimates of the value of labor.

In other words you don't have an answer, just a fantasy of how you want things to be.

No. I just don't pretend something is impossible, or even difficult without even trying to figure it out.

Your comments are nothing but hand waving dismissals. Dismissals made from complete ignorance.

 

[coloradoatheist]

In other words you don't have an answer, just a fantasy of how you want things to be.

No. I just don't pretend something is impossible, or even difficult without even trying to figure it out.

Your comments are nothing but hand waving dismissals. Dismissals made from complete ignorance.

Except you do need to come up with the alternative and say how it would work.

 

[untermensche]

No. I just don't pretend something is impossible, or even difficult without even trying to figure it out.

Your comments are nothing but hand waving dismissals. Dismissals made from complete ignorance.

Except you do need to come up with the alternative and say how it would work.

Ridiculous. The issue was about creating a system that tied worker pay to the value of labor in an enterprise.

It is absurd to think some approximate system couldn't easily be devised by actuaries and economists and statisticians.

But then of course capitalists would have to accept that all labor has intrinsic value, not just the labor of the capitalist. A heresy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except you do need to come up with the alternative and say how it would work.

Ridiculous. The issue was about creating a system that tied worker pay to the value of labor in an enterprise.

It is absurd to think some approximate system couldn't easily be devised by actuaries and economists and statisticians.

But then of course capitalists would have to accept that all labor has intrinsic value, not just the labor of the capitalist. A heresy.

What is the value of the labor that you put into writing that post? If there was intrinsic value then you should get paid for responding to my post and I should be paid. Who is going to pay us and how much? Should we make the same amount a doctor makes for the same amount of time put into the posts? If it took your 5 minutes to write your post but it took me ten, did I work twice as I hard as you?

 

[Trausti]

Ridiculous. The issue was about creating a system that tied worker pay to the value of labor in an enterprise.

It is absurd to think some approximate system couldn't easily be devised by actuaries and economists and statisticians.

But then of course capitalists would have to accept that all labor has intrinsic value, not just the labor of the capitalist. A heresy.

What is the value of the labor that you put into writing that post? If there was intrinsic value then you should get paid for responding to my post and I should be paid. Who is going to pay us and how much? Should we make the same amount a doctor makes for the same amount of time put into the posts? If it took your 5 minutes to write your post but it took me ten, did I work twice as I hard as you?

It's a wildly uninformed view of labor. It'd require an ad hoc determination of each employer-employee relationship. Who makes that decision? A new government agency with appointed high-minded internet forum users? What a monstrous idea. Why not let the employer and employee decide for themselves without the self-righteous interlopers?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A living wage raises all boats.

Except of the unemployed--of which there will be a *LOT* in a system where the minimum wage is a "living wage". We can't push the shit jobs off on the blacks and third-worlders anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words you don't have an answer, just a fantasy of how you want things to be.

No. I just don't pretend something is impossible, or even difficult without even trying to figure it out.

Your comments are nothing but hand waving dismissals. Dismissals made from complete ignorance.

But you don't try to figure it out, you just pretend your fantasy system would work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except you do need to come up with the alternative and say how it would work.

Ridiculous. The issue was about creating a system that tied worker pay to the value of labor in an enterprise.

It is absurd to think some approximate system couldn't easily be devised by actuaries and economists and statisticians.

But then of course capitalists would have to accept that all labor has intrinsic value, not just the labor of the capitalist. A heresy.

What's absurd is your lack of understanding of the problem.

The fundamental problem is that you have a case of 2 + 2 = 5. How do you define where that extra 1 came from? (In reality there are a lot more than 2 terms involved.)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren,

How much will unemployment increase if a national living wage was instituted?

And "ALOT" and all its synonyms DO NOT constitute a sufficient answer.

 

[untermensche]

Ridiculous. The issue was about creating a system that tied worker pay to the value of labor in an enterprise.

It is absurd to think some approximate system couldn't easily be devised by actuaries and economists and statisticians.

But then of course capitalists would have to accept that all labor has intrinsic value, not just the labor of the capitalist. A heresy.

What's absurd is your lack of understanding of the problem.

The fundamental problem is that you have a case of 2 + 2 = 5. How do you define where that extra 1 came from? (In reality there are a lot more than 2 terms involved.)

There is nothing at all difficult in trying to tie worker salaries to the value of labor. A company brings in X. That amount is not imaginary. It is not a fantasy. And the people in the company, all of them, are responsible for bringing in that amount. It didn't magically appear because some dictator at the top made a decision.

Since all the workers brought in the amount they all have a right to some of it.

Various methods could easily be devised to assign a value to all labor in some company. Of course it would at first be arbitrary but over time better and better methods could be devised. And according to the value of the labor you get your share of the amount available to pay employees.

There is nothing difficult about it. In fact this is the way many salaries of managers are figured out now.

All it would take would be an extension of the idea that labor has value, beyond management, to all workers and an end to this system of theft called a market wage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren,

How much will unemployment increase if a national living wage was instituted?

And "ALOT" and all its synonyms DO NOT constitute a sufficient answer.

I don't think anyone can answer that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is nothing at all difficult in trying to tie worker salaries to the value of labor. A company brings in X. That amount is not imaginary. It is not a fantasy. And the people in the company, all of them, are responsible for bringing in that amount. It didn't magically appear because some dictator at the top made a decision.

Since all the workers brought in the amount they all have a right to some of it.

Various methods could easily be devised to assign a value to all labor in some company. Of course it would at first be arbitrary but over time better and better methods could be devised. And according to the value of the labor you get your share of the amount available to pay employees.

There is nothing difficult about it. In fact this is the way many salaries of managers are figured out now.

All it would take would be an extension of the idea that labor has value, beyond management, to all workers and an end to this system of theft called a market wage.

You're already messing up here.

That amount came in. It came from multiple sources, though:

1) The worker's labor.
2) Management's organizing things to work well.
3) The tools used to make the products.

Furthermore, you're assuming cookie-cutter workers.

I'm once again in the cabinet industry, this time it's a smaller outfit, there are only about 20 workers in the production system. I don't think there are more than two that do any given job. How do you apportion the value of the labor amongst people with different jobs and different skill levels? Some of the lower level people could be moved around with minimal training but none of the higher level people.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing at all difficult in trying to tie worker salaries to the value of labor. A company brings in X. That amount is not imaginary. It is not a fantasy. And the people in the company, all of them, are responsible for bringing in that amount. It didn't magically appear because some dictator at the top made a decision.

Since all the workers brought in the amount they all have a right to some of it.

Various methods could easily be devised to assign a value to all labor in some company. Of course it would at first be arbitrary but over time better and better methods could be devised. And according to the value of the labor you get your share of the amount available to pay employees.

There is nothing difficult about it. In fact this is the way many salaries of managers are figured out now.

All it would take would be an extension of the idea that labor has value, beyond management, to all workers and an end to this system of theft called a market wage.

You're already messing up here.

That amount came in. It came from multiple sources, though:

1) The worker's labor.
2) Management's organizing things to work well.
3) The tools used to make the products.

Furthermore, you're assuming cookie-cutter workers.

I'm once again in the cabinet industry, this time it's a smaller outfit, there are only about 20 workers in the production system. I don't think there are more than two that do any given job. How do you apportion the value of the labor amongst people with different jobs and different skill levels? Some of the lower level people could be moved around with minimal training but none of the higher level people.

Let me get this straight?

Your objection is first that there are different activities being done by different people? And there are costs other than labor costs. And you make a list. Yet nothing but a list as if a list is an argument.

Sorry with no coherent argument there is nothing to say.

Then you say I make the assumption of cookie-cutter workers. This was pulled from thin air as I made no such statement and nobody that values labor would think that. I fully believe that expertise and experience have value. Nobody ever said they didn't. Except of course capitalists who say that the value of labor should be determined in an arbitrary market. There is no intrinsic value.

And with 20 workers you could devise many systems to determine the value of labor. Arbitrarily say an unskilled worker's labor is worth .05. Then a worker with a special skill would be worth more, say 0.1. So out of all the money available to pay workers, not every cent made, the unskilled worker would get 5% and the highly skilled worker would get 10%.

You really have no valid objections, as said, nothing but hand waving dismissals.

 

[Axulus]

I believe the implicit assumption is that being alive is the skill to justify the living wage. It is a social not economic argument.

Then what on earth does work got to do with it? Why tie it to employment at all, and why make employers the sole party responsible for paying it?

 

[Axulus]

The idea that usefulness to business is somehow a yardstick as to whether or not you are worthy enough to be able to earn enough to live is kind of disgusting.

Is it better for them to work and try and learn some new skills or not to work?

How about not work while learning new skills? Have you ever tried to learn a new skill while the foremost worry in your life is where your next meal is going to come from or if the electricity is going to get shut off?

That's why I support a basic income guarantee.

You are speaking out of both ends of your mouth. On the one hand you believe that one's ability to land a job as a means to staying alive is disgusting (which is why you support a basic income guarantee), and yet on the other hand you seem to support the idea that employers should be required to pay a "living wage" (which means that you support the notion that someone must land a job to have enough to live, which will only happen if their value of their labor exceeds the living wage they must be paid).

 

[Axulus]

If a 'market' economy cannot provide a reasonable income for all of its productive members, I'd say there's something seriously wrong with that economy. Most likely in its wealth distribution structures. No limit in scale for some, millions of dollars per annum, but those in lower end of the scale need to tighten their belts because the 'economy' only allows them a few lousy dollars....and 'why should a company be forced to pay more,' eh?

Why do you assume that the problem is the economy rather than the problem being that the work isn't really all that valuable in the current state of the economy? In a post scarcity society, where robots are cheap and can do work far more efficiently than human labor, would you say that there is something wrong with this economy if no one would hire a worker to compete with the robots unless that worker was paid far less than a "living wage"?

 

[DBT]

Except of the unemployed--of which there will be a *LOT* in a system where the minimum wage is a "living wage".

That's not the case in other developed Nations, UK, Australia, etc, that have higher MW (adjusted for cost of living) without significantly higher unemployment levels.

My question is: why are some employees expected to work for a pittance, essentially subsidizing a company's profit margin and the huge salaries within the upper echelons, which is practically unquestioned, even when the company they manage is struggling?

Not that a cleaner should get just as much as an executive, but a better rate than they currently get.

Why do we not question this excessive difference in pay, which has been widening for decades? Why do we accept this double standard in ethics?

 

[Axulus]

Loren,

How much will unemployment increase if a national living wage was instituted?

And "ALOT" and all its synonyms DO NOT constitute a sufficient answer.

That's going to depend in large part on the state of the economy. One thing we do know is that making unskilled labor more expensive means that there will be greater rewards to those who find substitutes as well as increasing the relative value of those who are more productive, and will also generally increase the return to capital.

If I can hire an unskilled worker who produces 5 units of economic value/hr for $15/hr ($3 per economic value unit) or hire a skilled worker who produces 15 units of economic value/hr for $30/hr ($2 per economic value unit), or can buy a machine with long-run costs $2.50 per economic value unit of production, I won't be hiring the unskilled worker at the $15/hr and will probably go with the skilled worker for $30/hr, whereas I might hire 3 of them at $10 an hour.

You agree that there are substitutes to all sorts of unskilled labor positions, I presume? I'm not saying all, but rather a non-trivial number.

 

[Axulus]

Except of the unemployed--of which there will be a *LOT* in a system where the minimum wage is a "living wage".

That's not the case in other developed Nations, UK, Australia, etc, that have higher MW (adjusted for cost of living) without significantly higher unemployment levels.

My question is: why are some employees expected to work for a pittance, essentially subsidizing a company's profit margin and the huge salaries within the upper echelons, which is practically unquestioned, even when the company they manage is struggling?

Not that a cleaner should get just as much as an executive, but a better rate than they currently get.

Why do we not question this excessive difference in pay, which has been widening for decades? Why do we accept this double standard in ethics?

How much does it cost to buy a cleaning robot? Can the company make do with one less cleaner on staff and maybe settle for having the place be a little bit less clean? Or perhaps the company can now have a selection of experienced/faster cleaners at the living wage price and can ditch all those cleaners who may be a little bit slower (or who may have been a little bit risky to hire, such as a convicted felon) but were still earning their keep at $10/hr.

It's not a question of why _should_ the cleaner get so much less than an executive, it's a question of what is the price of other substitutes and what kind of impact will there be by having fewer cleaners at the company?

It's a question of how does reality actually work and, given that, is this the best policy that works within this reality?

 

[DBT]

That's not the case in other developed Nations, UK, Australia, etc, that have higher MW (adjusted for cost of living) without significantly higher unemployment levels.

My question is: why are some employees expected to work for a pittance, essentially subsidizing a company's profit margin and the huge salaries within the upper echelons, which is practically unquestioned, even when the company they manage is struggling?

Not that a cleaner should get just as much as an executive, but a better rate than they currently get.

Why do we not question this excessive difference in pay, which has been widening for decades? Why do we accept this double standard in ethics?

How much does it cost to buy a cleaning robot? Can the company make do with one less cleaner on staff and maybe settle for having the place be a little bit less clean? Or perhaps the company can now have a selection of experienced/faster cleaners at the living wage price and can ditch all those cleaners who may be a little bit slower (or who may have been a little bit risky to hire, such as a convicted felon) but were still earning their keep at $10/hr.

It's not a question of why _should_ the cleaner get so much less than an executive, it's a question of what is the price of other substitutes and what kind of impact will there be by having fewer cleaners at the company?

It's a question of how does reality actually work and, given that, is this the best policy that works within this reality?

Why do we form social systems? Is it meant for the benefit of all its members in terms of living standards? Or just to benefit the elite? Is to ultimately build robots that do the manual work, and we as employees end up on the scrapheap with no prospects or income? Thereby creating a minority of super wealthy people and a huge pool of beggars? What is this ultimate reality?

What is the aim and purpose for human society and its economic systems?