Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/28/2002 2:36:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2002 2:40:09 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Current Federal minimum wage is $5.15/hour for "nonexempt" jobs, though individual states may have higher minimum wages. There's an ongoing effort by the Democ[b]rat[/b]s and Republic[b]rat[/b]s to raise it to $6.65/hour. Their reasoning is usually this: * A single earner working full time on the current minimum wage only earns $10,712 per year — nearly $4,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. * Approximately 7 million workers (6% of the workforce) would [u]directly[/u] benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to $6.65 per hour by 2003. Also, because employers often like to maintain wage differentials between entry-level workers and those who have advanced beyond entry-level status, several million more workers who already make more than the new minimum wage would still benefit from the increase. [b] What is your opinion of raising the Federal minimum wage?[/b] I have opinions on this, but this time I'd just like to see what y'all think.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 2:44:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2002 2:48:32 PM EDT by Mr-T]
From what I've seen, minimum wage laws have only managed to force prices and costs of living up. If someone knows everyone's getting an extra dollar more every hour, are they going to be content charging them the same amount they did previously for goods or services, and not getting more money for themselves? Also, whatever service or product the minimum wagee was employed in will have its price raised due to extra costs, you can be assured. Edit: Oh, and it wouldn't matter here in Kali, because the generous* gov't here has it at $6.75 an hour. *Generous, with everyone else's money
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 2:48:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 2:51:59 PM EDT
Brought to you by the genius that hatched the "luxury tax." The common detachment from reality is the belief that added cost will somehow NOT alter behavior. In the case of the luxury tax, yacht buyers began buying used yachts and avoiding the tax, putting several very old yachtbuilders out of business. In the case of minimum wage, it is the belief that the owner will accept the government mandated pay cut and take no action, such as sweeping the floor himself and paying less workers. 1) The myth of a family of four struggling to make ends meet on a minimum wage income is just that, a myth. 2) To anyone actually trying to raise a family on minimum wage income, I suggest better family planning, more education, and a better job, in that order. 3) If it WERE possible for the heavy hand of govermment to "fix" the wage scale without having any other effect on the economic equation, why stop at $6 or even $20 an hour. Let's mandate a million dollars a year for everyone! Doesn't sound like it would work? Why is it any different?
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 2:54:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2002 3:00:20 PM EDT by jz02]
While I agree with most libertarian causes, I disagree with abolishing minimum wage laws. I think this is very much necessary and akin to the environmental laws. While you can argue all you want that environmental laws are unconstitutional government interference in private enterprise, the fact that the environment belongs to all of us means that their destruction by private interests represent an externality not covered by their costs and thus do not reflect the true economic cost of production. Similarly, minimum wage laws help ensure that businesses pay their fair share of production costs. When a minimum wage worker can not make ends meet on his wages, he will need to rely on social services to provide for himself and his family. He will generate costs to society since he can't cover it with his wages. The total economic cost of keeping this worker alive and in working condition exceeds the wages that he is earning, so the employer is in effect getting subsidized by our tax dollars. They get to pay their workers less because they know that the government will cover the rest. I don't know how many of you are in favor of corporate welfare, but I'd say subsidizing cost of labor would definitely fall under it. Edited to add, I am very opposed to systemic welfare. Corporate or otherwise. I don't think anyone should be profiting off of subsidies funded by my tax dollars. Since minimum wage issues affect the bottom rung of workers, those borderline welfare recipients, it's only fair that employers pay a living wage so their workers don't have to live off of public benefits.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 2:54:52 PM EDT
I can't believe people over the age of 16 actually work for minimum wage, find a skill do something. The only thing it does is drive up the costs.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 2:56:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2002 2:56:36 PM EDT by cluster]
when a pvt with a fam. earns a living wage.. then we can talk about giving the hamburger flippers a raise that will at some point be pased down to you and me..
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 2:56:15 PM EDT
Each, and every time the minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of living..The numbers probably look good to those writing the laws, but there is a VERY high probability that they never worked a minimum wage job in their lives, let alone existed on said wages.. Meplat-
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:06:12 PM EDT
How many people are at the minimum wage today? I think I seem to recall that it was like 3% of the working population.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:06:36 PM EDT
Before all of you start bashing minimum wage laws, read a book called Nickeled and Dimed. Now I'm no liberal, but even I think there's something wrong with people working two jobs and still not getting by. BTW, getting new skills will only solve problems of the individual, this is a systemic problem. We will always need waitresses, cleaners, low end jobs with little material or mental rewards. The challenge is how to make these jobs in general at least sustainable. As in not working these people like animals only to have them end up on welfare payrolls and medicare benefits when they are no longer able to work. What I'm asking is, why are these employers entitled to exploit their workers only to have society pick up the tab? It's no different than a lumber company logging a whole forest clean only to have the government pickup the cleanup costs. (BTW, a PFC has his pride in serving his country, these floor scrubbers not only don't make a lot, they are also see as almost non-persons)
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:13:42 PM EDT
every time they raise the minimum wage it just cost more to produce anything and the prices ultimately just go up. but 1 dollar is still one dollar. every time they raise the minimum wage it only degrades the value of the dollar.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:15:40 PM EDT
The true economic cost of maintaining that worker will remain the same. The only difference is where it will come from, the price for the goods you buy or the taxes which will pay social benefits to cover what the worker's wage didn't. What will you prefer? I think this shouldn't be a hard question for a true conservative.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:17:27 PM EDT
jz02, we're all friend here, but I gotta call BS. Explain how this is "exploiting workers": "I'd like a job." "Pays $3 an hour, it's hard work, but you're inside and it's steady." "OK" I mean, come on with the patronizing "WE gotta take care of those poor guys." There's not enough PROFIT in fast food, etc, to pay what you call "decent" wages, and if there IS enough profit, the boss deserves it, he's the only reason there any jobs there at all. If they don't want to work for minimum wage, or don't want tosweep floors, learn something else. You're right, somebody's always going to need to sweep floors and clean toilets. In high school, that guy was me, and it taught me to stay in school and learn a skill, preferably more than one skill. I saw an "expose" on 20/20 or something, supposed to be this shocking "sweatshop" deal in NYC or some place. Guy walks out on the corner in the garment district, theres a MOB of people waiting for him. He asks who will work for $5 an hour, all the hands go up, then $4.50, then on down. Guess what? Even though some hands went down, he turned people away, they wanted the work. He gave it to them. Mandate higher pay, he'd hire fewer people. Your statement about people sweeping the floor being seen as "non-persons" is puzzling. Am I going to look at them differently knowing they make $5, $10, or even $20 an hour at a job I left 20 years ago? No, but not because of what they are paid, but because I had that job and know it sucks, at any price. Where's the extra $$ supposed to come from so that these guys can "squeak by" and feel better about not having a marketable skill? Should the owner take a PAY CUT? Because that's what happens when you pull money out of the equation.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:24:20 PM EDT
But tkae my argument, can you tell me why I should subsidize the owner of some sweat shop with my tax dollars because with my tax dollars going toward social services to keep his $3 dollar an hour worker alive to work for him, I'm subsidizing him. Can you explain why this is more fair than paying the worker a living wage so that my tax dollars won't be used to subsidize a private enterprise, which for all purposes should be able to stand on its own cost structures and not rely on government subsidies. In a true competitive world, the people willing to work for $3 dollars an hour would die off and this would raise wages, but since we lived in civilized society here, we don't let people just starve to death, hence social benefits. This however cost my tax dollars, which brings me back to, why is it considered fair for the owner of some business to maximize his profits with my tax dollar subsidies?
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:27:28 PM EDT
Fair enough, you have raised two problems, I can solve both. REPEAL minimum wage laws, and Cancel the social programs that drain society worse than minimum wage laws ever could. And guess what, it's STILL a civilized society and we STILL wouldn't let people starve.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:30:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2002 3:32:07 PM EDT by jz02]
umm, your explanation of the economics involved is a bit lacking on the details. Would you care to explain how your proposal would actually solve both problems while still not starving people to death?
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:38:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2002 3:46:14 PM EDT by Francisco_dAnconia]
Originally Posted By jz02: Similarly, minimum wage laws help ensure that businesses pay their fair share of production costs. When a minimum wage worker can not make ends meet on his wages, he will need to rely on social services to provide for himself and his family. He will generate costs to society since he can't cover it with his wages. The total economic cost of keeping this worker alive and in working condition exceeds the wages that he is earning, so the employer is in effect getting subsidized by our tax dollars. They get to pay their workers less because they know that the government will cover the rest. I don't know how many of you are in favor of corporate welfare, but I'd say subsidizing cost of labor would definitely fall under it.
View Quote
And if the increase in labor prices forces the employer to lay this person off, then [i]all[/i] of the "cost of keeping this worker alive" will be borne by "society" because the worker will be [b]prevented[/b] from providing, even marginally, for any of his own welfare.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:42:05 PM EDT
Well, now, if we're gonna be specific, we're BOTH gonna be specific. How is mean old Mr McDonalds owner "subsidized" by the existance of social programs? Where is that extra money to pay X dollars an hour COMING from? Say Mr Mcdonalds, after supplies, taxes, utilities, all that, suppose he has 1000 left over to pay all his workers and himself. Say he's got 5 workers, and they get $100 a month under the current minimum wage, he takes home $500, that's the whole 1000. Where does the extra payroll come from? My specifics are as follows: Unencumbered by government interference on how to best run his business, Mr Mcd hires as many workers as he can afford at wages they both agree to. He needs help to run his biz, they need money. No one will agree to $1 an hour, but if they did, he could hire them. He needs a certain level of ability, those workers can go elsewhere if his wages are too low, and he knows that. If he tries to pay nothing or close to it, there will be nobody to help, he'll die of exhaustion and nobody will buy food from him because his service stinks. But HE knows what he can afford and how many workers he needs, the gov't is CLUELESS. Second specific: Abolish social hammocks like welfare. Those people can either sit in their subsidized housing and slowly starve or seek out Mr Mcd and arrange to barter their sweat for money to buy food. The rest of us taxpayers will have more disposable income because we are taxed LESS. That means TWO things, we will buy more stuff, because Amercians refurse to save any money, meaning we will buy more burgers, meaning Mr M makes more money, can hire more workers or give raises. The second thing it means is charitable contributions will go up, as every study shows they do, when income goes up. Your turn.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:49:07 PM EDT
Let market forces decide the worth of a job. If the wage of a job falls below what public assistance pays, or what can be made from charity by not being employed, and there are no other resons to take the job, the meployer will have to raise the rate. As it is now a raise fuels an increase in all costs. a jump of one dollar in the wage minimum means everyone wages must increase 20% or they aill lose that much real buying power.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:50:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 3:55:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: The true economic cost of maintaining that worker will remain the same. The only difference is where it will come from, the price for the goods you buy or the taxes which will pay social benefits to cover what the worker's wage didn't. What will you prefer? I think this shouldn't be a hard question for a true conservative.
View Quote
Gee, a choice between government taxes for welfare and government price fixing. Which of these is obvious for a conservative to pick? I'm not sure because both of these are illegitimate uses of government power.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:04:28 PM EDT
Labor Union contracts are often indexed (among other things) to the minimum wage. This is why Dimocrats and Labor always want to raise the minimum wage although they always cite the poor and down-trodden !
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:07:34 PM EDT
First, the economic arguement that minimum wage reduces employment, this only happens in theory. In reality, it only reduces employment marginally because it has been found by research into actual economic data that many low income jobs actually have enough wage flexibility to pay more. For someone who's homeless because he isn't willing to work period, that's something completely different from someone who's willing to work a full time job and is still not able to support himself with the wages from the job. The implicit assumption in your argument is that the owner truly deserve that 500 dollars. Let me give you my scenerio. Let's say I'm a farmer, and my true cost per dollar of revenue is $1.05 when I sell $100,000 of farm goods. That means I lose 5 cents per dollar I sell. Economic reality dictates that I should make less goods or get out of the business. However, the government decides that me, as the embodiment of the independant American farmer, is too valuable a national treasure to let go out of business. They pass a farm bill to lower my costs. They decide to pay workfare to all those farmhands who work full time and make below $14K a year. So I say to myself, hmm, right now I pay each of my farm hands 14K a year, but if I cut them to $10K a year each, the government will pick up the $4K a year necessary to keep my farmhands alive to work for me. So I save $4K a year a head, and that makes my new cost of revenue $0.95 per dollar at the same level of sales. What does that tell me? I should increase production and sell my goods at a lower price to move them until my marginal cost of revenue is $1.00 per dollar. Subsidies distort economic reality. Maybe if they raised minimum wages high enough to cover living costs (no national minimum wage, local ones to reflect local costs of living), we wouldn't need all these welfare and workfare programs and they can lower taxes so those who actually use these services pay for them instead of having the costs spread over the general public.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:09:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shooter69: How many people are at the minimum wage today? I think I seem to recall that it was like 3% of the working population.
View Quote
Read the post.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:16:50 PM EDT
But you can similarly argue that the government demanding a company cleanup after its mining or logging operations illegitimate use of governmental power. My arguement is grounded on the basis that private enterprise should cover the true economic costs of their operations from the revenues generated from their operations, including such externalities such as environmental costs of pollution or the social cost of inadequately paid workers. If their cost structure can not allow that all of the costs of operations be covered from revenue generated by operations alone, then in the long run they will have to go bankrupt. Such is the nature of capitalism. Who do you think should be responsible for the social costs of the unlivable wages of the working poor? The taxpayers or the business owner? (As I've said, in a civilized society where we don't practice strict social darwinism and let the poor starve to death, the poor can not bear this cost)
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:20:57 PM EDT
Get rid of it. It is a free market isn't it???
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:21:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: Labor Union contracts are often indexed (among other things) to the minimum wage. This is why Dimocrats and Labor always want to raise the minimum wage although they always cite the poor and down-trodden !
View Quote
Forgot to add I voted to abolish the minimum wage. Let the market place set the minimum wage and screw the labor unions.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:30:06 PM EDT
yes, let's also allow the marketplace to set how much our welfare payrolls subsidize businesses. There isn't a perfect solution to this, but it has to be addressed. For those of you who are in favor of abolishing both minimum wage and social welfare, how do you propose the working poor survive? Certainly their wages don't cover costs of living. BTW, for those of you who are believers in the market, I do believe in freemarkets, but I don't have a blind faith in them. The thing is, markets aren't always efficient at the margin.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:31:09 PM EDT
1) The myth of a family of four struggling to make ends meet on a minimum wage income is just that, a myth.
View Quote
So you're saying the families that live off of minimum wage don't exist. They're just a "myth" (to use your word). I guess if we say they don't exist, they don't. I work with several guys with young children that don't make much more than minimum wage. Many of them are former police officers that didn't make much more than minimum wage when they worked for a small town. I personally haven't made much more than that in years.
2) To anyone actually trying to raise a family on minimum wage income, I suggest better family planning, more education, and a better job, in that order.
View Quote
Family planning? You sound like a liberal. Are you really going to tell a married couple that they can't have kids? You going to suggest mandatory abortions for married couples living off of minimum wage? A better job? You make it sound like you just have to snap your fingers to find one. Good luck to you if you end-up not being able to work in your chosen profession. I used to tutor college students and later worked my way into teaching. Now, with the degree requirements the accreditation boards have, I can no longer teach. My second profession was working in Textiles. There aren't many textile plants left in this country. How am I going to just find a better job, like you suggested? Back to the original topic, I'm against minimum wage increases. I know too many people that don't have an extra job that are willing to work for less, but can't.z
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:31:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2002 4:40:46 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
Originally Posted By jz02: First, the economic arguement that minimum wage reduces employment, this only happens in theory. In reality, it only reduces employment marginally because
View Quote
Tell the guy who used to sweep the floor at my buddy's pizza place his FORMER job is a marginal effect, but suck it up, it's for your own good. Also, FALSE. Minimum wage law destroys the jobs it tries to help. Simple economics.
The implicit assumption in your argument is that the owner truly deserve that 500 dollars.
View Quote
Uh, that's disgusting. Who are you, or worse yet, who is the government, to tell ANYONE what they "truly deserve." What's your formula for determining what the guy who bet his future on an empty building, works 80 hours a week, and sets up this machine that, among other things, employs many people, "deserves"? WTF? Why wouldn't he deserve every penny of the $500. And, more importantly to this disucussion, what do you think he'll do when you tell him he doesn't "deserve" all his money, that he has to pay workers $150 per month instead of 100, so he'll be taking less money home to pay his bills and feed his family. You think, MAYBE, he'll make due with fewer workers, maybe fire one and do that job himself to avoid a gov't mandate PAY CUT?!?! HUH??? Also, you have not provided any specifics since asking for mine. Please review above and address my concerns.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:33:40 PM EDT
zoom, I'd be interested in hearing why you oppose minimum wage increases. Granted I dont' think it should be a federal standard since cost of living vary, but why would you oppose it given your personal experiences?
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:36:42 PM EDT
list what portions of my argument is lacking and I will write it out for you. I don't think he deserves all of the $500 because part of it came from savings he made by fleecing the taxpayer, me. Certainly if I worked 80 hours a week fleecing the government and the taxpayers, you wouldn't think I actually deserve the money would you?
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:40:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2002 4:42:38 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
zoom wrote
I work with several guys with young children that don't make much more than minimum wage. Many of them are former police officers that didn't make much more than minimum wage when they worked for a small town. I personally haven't made much more than that in years.
2) To anyone actually trying to raise a family on minimum wage income, I suggest better family planning, more education, and a better job, in that order.
View Quote
Family planning? You sound like a liberal. Are you really going to tell a married couple that they can't have kids? You going to suggest mandatory abortions for married couples living off of minimum wage? A better job
View Quote
A liberal? Wow, that's the first time anyone said that. Struggling to make ends meet with kids, huh? Exactly how is that MY problem? Either as a taxpayer or an employer, HOW IS THAT MY PROBLEM?!?!?! I have a kid myself. Know what? I WAITED UNTIL I COULD AFFORD TO PROVIDE FOR HER. Wow, what a concept. FAMILY PLANNING, meaning, PLAN before they have kids they can't afford, OK? Still sound liberal? Have as many kids as you want, but don't use them to appeal for more wages or gov't handouts. I don't care how many kids somebody has, I'm just not going to make policy because some people are idiots and pop out kids that they can't afford. I know it's tough, I scrubbed toilets for a couple years, but I got a skill and I use it every day. Anyone without a skill or a job that pays enough can do whatever they want, just don't come crying to me when money's tight.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:40:17 PM EDT
But you can similarly argue that the government demanding a company cleanup after its mining or logging operations illegitimate use of governmental power.
View Quote
If all of the pollution and other damage is restricted to the private property of the company in question, then yes, it is an illegitimate use of government power. However, if the pollution leaves that private property and harms others or their property, then the company can be forced to pay for the damages and clean up the mess. Governmental force in situation two is legit because they have harmed (i.e. infringed upon the right to life, property, etc.) others.
My arguement is grounded on the basis that private enterprise should cover the true economic costs of their operations from the revenues generated from their operations, including such externalities such as environmental costs of pollution or the social cost of inadequately paid workers. If their cost structure can not allow that all of the costs of operations be covered from revenue generated by operations alone, then in the long run they will have to go bankrupt. Such is the nature of capitalism.
View Quote
You have this backwards. An "underpaid" worker is not a negative externality. Hiring this person is actually a positive externality because he reduces the cost borne by society to support this person.
Who do you think should be responsible for the social costs of the unlivable wages of the working poor? The taxpayers or the business owner? (As I've said, in a civilized society where we don't practice strict social darwinism and let the poor starve to death, the poor can not bear this cost)
View Quote
The person responsible for is the worker himself. He should do what he can to improve his earnings so that he can pay his way in the world. If he cannot do so himself, he can and should rely on family, friends, and other private charity. I don't know why you are so insistent that government solutions are required.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:41:22 PM EDT
Our income should be determined by our actual economic contributions. Now by economic contributions I don't mean just our labors, but also the economic contributions of the capital that we own. Since part the cost of revenue came form the tax payers in your example, I don't think the owner deserves all $500 of profit. He should payback the portion that came from the taxpayers or alternatively, pay the workers more so they don't have to use taxpayer funded social benefits. Eitherway, the business owner should pay his own costs.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:46:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: yes, let's also allow the marketplace to set how much our welfare payrolls subsidize businesses. There isn't a perfect solution to this, but it has to be addressed. For those of you who are in favor of abolishing both minimum wage and social welfare, how do you propose the working poor survive? Certainly their wages don't cover costs of living.
View Quote
Let the altruists voluntarily take care of them, and if that doesn't happen, let them die. Survival of the fittest. Seems like it would raise the average intelligence of the population. I'm tired of leeches sucking on my paycheck. If I want to help someone, I'd like it to be my choice.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:48:11 PM EDT
But if the worker has to rely on family, friends, private charity, or the government, regardless, it's an external cost not factored into the cost of revenue. Yet the costs of living to just make the worker available for work another day exceeds the income of wages. This is a negative externality to society because the business does not bear the full costs of its input, society picks up the balance.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:48:55 PM EDT
From [url]http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm[/url] The Case Against a Higher Minimum Wage The voices clamoring for a minimum wage hike are getting ever louder. Proponents argue that the current wage level does not provide an adequate incentive for work. Also, they argue that an increase in the minimum wage will have only a very minor impact on jobs. These arguments are not grounded in fact. The impact of raising the minimum wage has been studied since its inception. All credible research has come to the same conclusion: raising the minimum wage hurts the poor. It takes away jobs, keeps people on welfare, and encourages high-school students to drop out. Policy makers should be clear on the consequence of higher minimum wages. Jobs and the Minimum Wage Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. See also[url]http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-01-99.html[/url] and [url]http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/theory/bgup275.html[/url] Please point me to ANY study that shows minimum wage laws help lower unemployment, because I have never seen one.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:51:45 PM EDT
Once again, my argument is grounded on the belief that social darwinism is NOT an acceptable solution in a civilized society. We don't just let people starve to death.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:53:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: Since part the cost of revenue came form the tax payers in your example, I don't think the owner deserves all $500 of profit. He should payback the portion that came from the taxpayers or alternatively, pay the workers more so they don't have to use taxpayer funded social benefits. Eitherway, the business owner should pay his own costs.
View Quote
What makes you think the workers deserve this imaginary govt. subsidy? This so called living wage is a load of crap. How much easier would it be to "live" if these welfare leeches laid off of the booze, learned to cook with staples--- this site lays out how to eat on very little money [url]http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods000.htm[/url] try that. When you can make more money then you can buy ravioli and smokes, until then, eat poor mans food.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:53:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 4:56:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: But if the worker has to rely on family, friends, private charity, or the government, regardless, it's an external cost not factored into the cost of revenue. Yet the costs of living to just make the worker available for work another day exceeds the income of wages. This is a negative externality to society because the business does not bear the full costs of its input, society picks up the balance.
View Quote
... and if society doesn't pick up the balance, then business will slow down and things will balance out.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:05:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:08:06 PM EDT
Citadel, I'd take what the heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute have to say with a grain of salt. They are after all, political think tanks with political agendas. I've never seen any substantial research that shows that minimum wage laws in fact significantly increase unemployment among the working poor. AlCenin, I never said they deserve the government handouts, but for all practical purposes, we can't just let them starve. It's a matter of practicality, not principal. In principal we shouldn't have to give them anything they didn't earn. I disagree that minimum wage will never keep up with costs of living. There are many factors that go into inflation in addition to rising labor costs. Modern American businesses have adopted many new practices that have in fact improved our productivity. Per unit labor output has increased since the 70s. This means that buying power should've went up. A lot of it also has to do with monetary policy. The Federal Reserve screwed up majorly in the 70s, maybe that has something to do with your low cost candy bars costing so much now.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:08:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: .......let's also allow the marketplace to set how much our welfare payrolls subsidize businesses.
View Quote
YES !
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:14:24 PM EDT
I'm a high school senior, and no, this is just purely my personal argument. I used to support abolishing minimum wage in fact when I was taking economic last year. My teacher gave the same economic arguments that some of you do now, that it hurts the very people it was designed to help. But I think of it more in terms of externalities. The economy exists not only to manage the production of wealth, but also the distribution of it. On the flip side, there's the distribution of costs. Who should pay the costs, and who should enjoy the benefits. In all material societies, this is something that needs to be resolved. I don't think everyone should get the same amount of economic wealth. However, I do believe that one should not pocket what is not his. That can generally be categorized as theft. Using government subsidies to increase profits falls under that, as it's the illegitimate use of governmental powers to redistribute wealth. (through welfare)
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:14:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jz02: AlClenin, I never said they deserve the government handouts, but for all practical purposes, we can't just let them starve. It's a matter of practicality, not principal. In principal we shouldn't have to give them anything they didn't earn.
View Quote
If you give them money to keep them from starving are you giving them something they didn't earn?
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:14:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:19:09 PM EDT
Oops, misread you. In principal, right. So let me revise the question. Why is it "practicle" to have boatloads of shiftless yahoos leeching off of the workers?
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:24:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: I'm far too tired of seeing "poor" people on welfare (including some distant relatives) with cell phones and DVD players paid for by my tax money (and, yes, I'm serious).
View Quote
This is something that really bothers me too. Here's a snip from the kurt saxon article:
HUNGER IN AMERICA By Kurt Saxon Last week PBS aired a weird program entitled "Hunger In America". It was weird because not one of the families shown as examples of hungry Americans were destitute. They all had living quarters, some had jobs and even land and each had the money or food stamps which should have provided them with a more than adequate diet. The commentator was in full sympathy with those hungry people and lamented the fact that nothing more was done. I watched this bizarre exhibition of the helplessness of the otherwise able and heard the pity of the "there but for the grace of God go I crowd". I harked back to tales of other starvelings. In 1845 the Irish potato blight raged and hundreds of thousands starved in the resulting famine. Yet, it was found that on farms where whole families had starved, the barns held corn, oats, rye and barley in the cattle feed bins. In France and Belgium, millions were starving after WW I. America sent boatload after boatload of corn and the people were insulted at being sent food for horses and cattle. Stalin deliberately starved millions of kulaks in the '30's. When his henchmen moved in to cart off the bodies of the rebellious farmers, there too, was found plenty of grain in the feed bins. Of course, the livestock had been eaten but the livestock's food was not considered fit for humans to eat. That people would starve to death before eating corn is a misleading concept. Had the corn been ground and made into cornmeal mush those people would have survived. But they simply didn't relate to corn as food. Of course, you've heard of the African Bushmen and the Australian Aborigines. They can thrive where Europeans wouldn't see any food at all. But that is an extreme. The point is that people tend to see as food, only that which they are accustomed to eating. The people on the program were accustomed only to prepared foods bought at the supermarket. One couple with four kids got $390.00 a month in food stamps. The man was an auto mechanic who had quit work since he couldn't afford his wife's medical expenses and his loafing would entitle her to Medicare. They had four children and lamented the fact that the $390.00 in food stamps were all used up before the next month's dole. Oh, you know food prices today and how $390.00 for a family of six doesn't go far. I don't suppose they spent every bit of it on TV dinners and in the deli section. Nonetheless, to a Survivalist family, $390.00 would buy about four months' food for six; maybe more. That reminds me of 1967 when I was a bum in San Francisco. I was living in a $10.00 a week sleeping room and worked off and on as a fry cook and a freelance house-painter. For a no-sweat $5.00 a week I was selling my blood and so contracted infectious hepatitis...
View Quote
continued [url]http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods001.htm[/url] Makes a pretty good argument that starving to death is a choice or due to ignorance in most instances.
Link Posted: 5/28/2002 5:24:31 PM EDT
jz02 wrote:
but why would you oppose it given your personal experiences?
View Quote
Because I know people that are willing to work more than 40 hours per week, but their employer can't afford to (or the job isn't worth) pay them minimum wage * 1.5. Also, I know of several jobs that just aren't worth minimum wage. I pay for several of those here at work on a job basis (contract). The people doing them are happy to get the work. If they weren't, they wouldn't do it in the first place. When I worked for a local textile company, there were many jobs we just couldn't justify paying someone so much per hour to do even though we knew many people that would be will to work for less. Most of these jobs were things that could be done at any time such as, for example, janitorial work, going through scrap to recycle, or painting, so they would appeal to someone. CITADELGRAD87 wrote:
HOW IS THAT MY PROBLEM?!?!?!...FAMILY PLANNING, meaning, PLAN before they have kids they can't afford, OK?
View Quote
When did I say it was your problem to help pay them? I even argued against raising the minimum wage (and indirectly your cost of living). You were critical of someone trying to raise a family on minimum wage. What's a family, without any prospects of being able to find better jobs, to do? Are you going to tell them they just can't have kids? That was what I was negative about. That is what I meant by liberal: government control of who can have kids and when. In other words, a "you must have this much income to have 2 kids" requirement.z
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top