What's Wrong With A Living Wage?

[arkirk]

Axulus: Your thinking keeps focusing on the worthlessness of the worthless human beings. That according to you is why we should "ditch" those low skill people. You speak as if everything you get in this life you pay for. Do you breathe? Does not most of the natural world function to provide our entire society with what it needs? I frankly think you are missing the point of even living with your arguments. Yours must be a lonely world where people can just be "ditched" when they don't meet the expectations of an employers or slave owner or ideologue. The world you think about is cut and dried, when the real world is dynamic and changing. Yesterday's answers will not solve today's problems. If we are growing a huge underclass, give them a chance to be otherwise even if the state has to help them. Don't bail out on your social responsibility or someday you will turn up the one being "ditched." I just want you to know, there will always be a place for you in my staff of cleaners when other opportunities dry up for you...or would you prefer to be "ditched?"

 

[Axulus]

Axulus: Your thinking keeps focusing on the worthlessness of the worthless human beings. That according to you is why we should "ditch" those low skill people. You speak as if everything you get in this life you pay for. Do you breathe? Does not most of the natural world function to provide our entire society with what it needs? I frankly think you are missing the point of even living with your arguments. Yours must be a lonely world where people can just be "ditched" when they don't meet the expectations of an employers or slave owner or ideologue. The world you think about is cut and dried, when the real world is dynamic and changing. Yesterday's answers will not solve today's problems. If we are growing a huge underclass, give them a chance to be otherwise even if the state has to help them. Don't bail out on your social responsibility or someday you will turn up the one being "ditched." I just want you to know, there will always be a place for you in my staff of cleaners when other opportunities dry up for you...or would you prefer to be "ditched?"

Is the only worth of a person in your mind their labor, and hence the wage is the exact value of that worth? Your post sure sounds like you are making that assumption.

My post focuses on the economic value of the _labor_, not any other kind of value. Something which leftists think can be magically changed by passing a law. What other kind of value did you think I was talking about?

 

[bleubird]

Way too many corporate dick suckers on this thread.
Good night!

 

[Axulus]

Way too many corporate dick suckers on this thread.
Good night!

The failure to understand the difference between "pro-market" vs. "pro-business" is a common shortcoming of those on the left. The idea that corporate profits are improved when market wages are lower and that living wages will reduce corporate profits in the long run is a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts shown to us through the study of economics that is symptomatic of economic ignorance on the left in general.

 

[Togo]

Axulus: Your thinking keeps focusing on the worthlessness of the worthless human beings. That according to you is why we should "ditch" those low skill people. You speak as if everything you get in this life you pay for. Do you breathe? Does not most of the natural world function to provide our entire society with what it needs? I frankly think you are missing the point of even living with your arguments. Yours must be a lonely world where people can just be "ditched" when they don't meet the expectations of an employers or slave owner or ideologue. The world you think about is cut and dried, when the real world is dynamic and changing. Yesterday's answers will not solve today's problems. If we are growing a huge underclass, give them a chance to be otherwise even if the state has to help them. Don't bail out on your social responsibility or someday you will turn up the one being "ditched." I just want you to know, there will always be a place for you in my staff of cleaners when other opportunities dry up for you...or would you prefer to be "ditched?"

Is the only worth of a person in your mind their labor, and hence the wage is the exact value of that worth? Your post sure sounds like you are making that assumption.

My post focuses on the economic value of the _labor_, not any other kind of value. Something which leftists think can be magically changed by passing a law. What other kind of value did you think I was talking about?

What makes you think that the economic value of the labour is reflected in wages?

A bus driver in Sweden is paid more than a bus driver in Nairobi. Is that because the economic value of bus driving is higher in Sweden, or is related to the replacement cost of the labour?

 

[Axulus]

Is the only worth of a person in your mind their labor, and hence the wage is the exact value of that worth? Your post sure sounds like you are making that assumption.

My post focuses on the economic value of the _labor_, not any other kind of value. Something which leftists think can be magically changed by passing a law. What other kind of value did you think I was talking about?

What makes you think that the economic value of the labour is reflected in wages?

A bus driver in Sweden is paid more than a bus driver in Nairobi. Is that because the economic value of bus driving is higher in Sweden, or is related to the replacement cost of the labour?

The economic value is higher. Swedes, being far more economically productive than Kenyans due to their far superior education, infrastructure, capital investment, and superior governance, have many other productive jobs that the bus driver could otherwise fill. Additionally, far more Swedes can afford a bus trip than Kenyans (due to the productivity reasons listed above), so demand is likely to be higher for such trips (although bus trips are probably an inferior good, so this may not be all that important of a factor).

 

[ksen]

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.



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).

It's not speaking out of both sides of my mouth. I support a basic income guarantee as the best option. But until that's a reality then I support a living wage.

 

[ksen]

My post focuses on the economic value of the _labor_, not any other kind of value.

Sure, because separating the "labor" from the "laborer" is the height of beep boop.

 

[Togo]

What makes you think that the economic value of the labour is reflected in wages?

A bus driver in Sweden is paid more than a bus driver in Nairobi. Is that because the economic value of bus driving is higher in Sweden, or is related to the replacement cost of the labour?

The economic value is higher.

!!! Ok. Let's see if you can support that

Swedes, being far more economically productive than Kenyans due to their far superior education, infrastructure, capital investment, and superior governance, have many other productive jobs that the bus driver could otherwise fill.

That increases the scarcity of drivers. How does that change the economic value of driving a bus?

Additionally, far more Swedes can afford a bus trip than Kenyans (due to the productivity reasons listed above), so demand is likely to be higher for such trips (although bus trips are probably an inferior good, so this may not be all that important of a factor).

No, the buses in Nairobi are much more crowded, while in Sweden they are run even when mostly empty. The demand in Nairobi is higher.

Still not seeing anything to support the idea that driving a bus in Sweden produces more economic value.

If it helps, I believe the wage is roughly 17 times higher in Sweden, so that's the kind of value differential we're looking for. One where driving one Swedish bus is roughly equivalent in value to driving 17 buses in Nairobi.

Personally, I'm leaning towards the idea that the wage is set by scarcity, and not economic value. The reason why the bus driver in Nairobi is paid so little is because lots of other people will do the same for very low wages. Because it seems pretty obvious that while economic value might limit how much a wage would go up, it does nothing to limit how much a wage will go down, except in conditions of scarcity of labour.

Which means in turn that the case for minimum wage is bound up in ensuring that the massive disparity in negotiating power between worker and employer doesn't lead to entire sections of the workforce not being able to support themselves.

 

[bleubird]

Economics is not a hard science.Has it ever been good at predicting anything?
It all seems to be about ideology,not science.
"left in general",more economic science?
Jobs are created by humans that can afford to buy stuff.The consumer creates jobs.
Symbiosis
capital needs consumers.workers are good consumers.
pay workers to be better costumers.
Henry Ford.

 

[Jayjay]

The economic value is higher.

!!! Ok. Let's see if you can support that

Swedes, being far more economically productive than Kenyans due to their far superior education, infrastructure, capital investment, and superior governance, have many other productive jobs that the bus driver could otherwise fill.

That increases the scarcity of drivers. How does that change the economic value of driving a bus?

Additionally, far more Swedes can afford a bus trip than Kenyans (due to the productivity reasons listed above), so demand is likely to be higher for such trips (although bus trips are probably an inferior good, so this may not be all that important of a factor).

No, the buses in Nairobi are much more crowded, while in Sweden they are run even when mostly empty. The demand in Nairobi is higher.

Still not seeing anything to support the idea that driving a bus in Sweden produces more economic value.

If it helps, I believe the wage is roughly 17 times higher in Sweden, so that's the kind of value differential we're looking for. One where driving one Swedish bus is roughly equivalent in value to driving 17 buses in Nairobi.

Personally, I'm leaning towards the idea that the wage is set by scarcity, and not economic value. The reason why the bus driver in Nairobi is paid so little is because lots of other people will do the same for very low wages. Because it seems pretty obvious that while economic value might limit how much a wage would go up, it does nothing to limit how much a wage will go down, except in conditions of scarcity of labour.

Which means in turn that the case for minimum wage is bound up in ensuring that the massive disparity in negotiating power between worker and employer doesn't lead to entire sections of the workforce not being able to support themselves.

I suspect that the reason why buses in Nairobi are more crowded isn't that there aren't enough bus drivers to go around. The limiting factor is number of buses. And if the passengers also have roughly 17 times the income in Sweden compared to Nairobi, you could say that by saving their time and carrying them to work the Swedisj bus is indeed creating 17 times more value.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Sure, you could devise a scheme. That doesn't make it the right answer.

And in the real world there is a range of skill, not just skilled vs unskilled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) All the crowdsourced attempts to compare cost of living show considerably higher discrepancies than the government data. By the crowdsourced numbers there's little difference.

2) Many of those places with high minimum wages have training wages--providing much of the same effect that our lower minimum wage has. If you aren't a trainee and are still only making minimum wage you're a loser.

3) Those places tend to have higher welfare loads--their losers live on welfare rather than low-wage jobs.

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?

I know someone who cleans houses for a living. She makes more than 2x minimum wage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A bus driver in Sweden is paid more than a bus driver in Nairobi. Is that because the economic value of bus driving is higher in Sweden, or is related to the replacement cost of the labour?

The value produced is much higher.

What does a bus driver produce? People moved from point A to point B. Thus the value of bus driving is a portion of the value people put on getting from A to B.

Lets take a low end worker in Nairobi. They're making something like $10/day.

Sweden is more problematic as I'm not finding much on low level jobs there. I did manage to find cashiers making around $100/day, though.

Thus a low level worker there is making about 10x what they are in Kenya--and thus getting from point A to point B is going to be 10x as valuable to them.

The service delivered is worth 10x, is it any wonder the service provider gets more??

 

[untermensche]

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.

Sure, you could devise a scheme. That doesn't make it the right answer.

And in the real world there is a range of skill, not just skilled vs unskilled.

Worthless criticism. I never said this represented a perfect model. Only that it shows some of the considerations needed to make a real world system.

It is perfectly possible to devise a system that correlated pay to the value of labor. Reducing labor to a market is a choice. And we could easily choose differently.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Sure, you could devise a scheme. That doesn't make it the right answer.

And in the real world there is a range of skill, not just skilled vs unskilled.

Worthless criticism. I never said this represented a perfect model. Only that it shows some of the considerations needed to make a real world system.

It is perfectly possible to devise a system that correlated pay to the value of labor. Reducing labor to a market is a choice. And we could easily choose differently.

Find a new system isn't that easy. You need to come up with and how it would work. You can't just say this sucks.

 

[ksen]

Worthless criticism. I never said this represented a perfect model. Only that it shows some of the considerations needed to make a real world system.

It is perfectly possible to devise a system that correlated pay to the value of labor. Reducing labor to a market is a choice. And we could easily choose differently.

Find a new system isn't that easy. You need to come up with and how it would work. You can't just say this sucks.

You also can't just criticize an idea for a new system simply because it isn't perfect. Our current system isn't perfect.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Find a new system isn't that easy. You need to come up with and how it would work. You can't just say this sucks.

You also can't just criticize an idea for a new system simply because it isn't perfect. Our current system isn't perfect.

True. But his system is just this sucks, but a great miracle will happen in mine. Don't know how...it just will.

 

[untermensche]

Worthless criticism. I never said this represented a perfect model. Only that it shows some of the considerations needed to make a real world system.

It is perfectly possible to devise a system that correlated pay to the value of labor. Reducing labor to a market is a choice. And we could easily choose differently.

Find a new system isn't that easy. You need to come up with and how it would work. You can't just say this sucks.

It's a system that changes one thing. The way workers pay is determined.

It changes nothing else.

You have to provide a reasonable argument why simply changing the way workers are paid will make the whole thing collapse.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Find a new system isn't that easy. You need to come up with and how it would work. You can't just say this sucks.

It's a system that changes one thing. The way workers pay is determined.

It changes nothing else.

You have to provide a reasonable argument why simply changing the way workers are paid will make the whole thing collapse.

And what is your new system for how workers are paid?