Senate Passes Minimum Wage After All

[ParanoiA]

Originally Posted by ParanoiA

Children can be given up for adoption.

 

I have to believe that you neither have siblings nor children.

 

Ok' date=' I didn't say that. That's not my quote.

 

 

The Gilded Age America was a capitalist country. We are a socialist-capitalist hybrid -- we are talking about minimum wage aren't we? One of the US's socialist measures?

 

Yes, and we are talking about how we disagree with said socialist measures. We are a hybrid, nonetheless.

 

Why do Employers have reasons to take care of employees ParanoiA? In a real capitalist country an employer could pay your MBA degree holding friends $2.50 and hour if he could make a deal with other companies who employed similar people. I agree (as an employer) not to hire people for more than $3 an hour, and so will you, then our company makes more money. Are you saying that if there were no law regarding economic (ie were were "capitalist") then there would be no businesses doing this? By agreeing to hire people for less they could make more money? Is it even possible to believe that no one with get screwed?

 

And that has been attempted and has failed as much as succeeded. Labor Unions and competition can crash that house of cards. But it can also work real well and reinvent slavery - so it doesn't go unnoticed.

 

Besides, I'm not saying we don't need laws to keep the free market in check. I'm not even necessarily against minimum wage, I just took issue with some comments being made and I'm fighting off one assumption after another.

 

The rich are no more evil or greedy than you or I. When I smell lobsided bullshit from people who want to make out like rich people are the equivalent of a supervillian out of a batman comic book, it just blows my mind. I'd pay 10 cents for a cheeseburger if I could. I don't care if they're losing money in the process.

[Pangloss]

Socialism is the little bit of legislation that that protects us from the failings of capitalism, as capitalism is the piece of freedom that shields us from government over-control.

 

An interesting way to put it.

[Pangloss]

communist russia was a despotic communism, which had the US spend quite alot of money trying to make it fall, and the majority of western europe wasnt exactly friendly towards russia.

 

i think it's clear that russia demonstrated merely a slightly atypical experiment in despotism. and, like all despotisms, conditions were not nice. (tho, interestingly, they were quite fair -- they were decades ahead of the west in terms of racial and sexual equality)

 

so, what have we learnt? well, communism is not enough to counterbalance despotism. that's all. see also despotic communist (lately hibrid) china. or any other despotism, for that matter.

 

I could dig out a few links of despotic capitalisms if you want, to prove that it's the despotism -- and not the comunism -- that caused the nastyness.

 

if you're talking of economic instablility, then communist china -- which, iirc, wasn't part of commiform and so wasn't targeted as heavily by the US -- is still going strong, and, my history's a tad wonky, but iirc democratic capitalistic US's economy kinda collapsed around the same timeish that russia folded.

 

Both Russian and Chinese experiments in socialism failed, not because of despotism, but because when you take away someone's incentive to work then they stop being productive and your business stops being competitive. Sure China's going strong now, because they've chucked economic socialism and embraced a capitalistic approach.

 

But that last bit that I bolded above -- the US economy collapsed in 1990?! So we were all out in the street with empty store shelves begging to swap governments with the Soviets, is that it? Come on, that's a ridiculous comparison. Not even in the same ballpark. Do you have *any idea* what the people of Eastern Europe and Russia were going through in the early 1990s?

 

The US suffered a minor recession at that time, and another one at the end of the Clinton presidency. Blips on the radar.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not sure i get your point? people should, at the least, get enough to live on to an acceptable standard. that means no $2/hour jobs, even if the companies could get away with it without legislation.

 

Do you hear yourself? You're looking at the person, not the job. Why? Why should any person think that the skill of putting labels on buckets for Home Depot should pay for their whole life? You want to force business to pay out the ass for every little bit of labor they get. While you on the other hand, still want to pay a dollar for a cheeseburger.

 

If you have a family to feed, then why on earth are you getting jobs like these? I'll tell you why, because it's an easy job to obtain. It will maintain a certain money level, pay for rent, food, drugs, enough to idle. Trying for more takes effort, drive and will - qualities lacking among the poor, which is, in my opinion, why they stay generally poor.

 

These jobs are meant for newbies to the job scene. This is the sucky ass job you get when you're 16. It's what was supposed to teach you to work hard in school and move on from this shit - but instead generation after generation of losers began working these jobs as careers. Now here you are trying to advocate a fast food newbie job should pay per my living standards.

 

You wouldn't pay 50 bucks for a disposable razor would you? Those things are a dime a dozen, almost literally. So why would you market your labor to minimum wage jobs? Again, not my problem. Your labor is no different than any other product or service in this country. You're selling your services to business. It's not my fault you're aiming low and shooting lower.

 

In this country, we still pay for goods and services based on their market value, not based on the needs of their producers.

[CPL.Luke]

paranoia I think your missing an imporant point in this debate. In the day of lazzeis (I know thats the wrong spelling, but its late, and its the superbowl over here) fair capitalism in the US it was common to have very little automation in the factories, because it was cheaper to hire large numbers of unskilled laborers that could easily be replaced than it was to build larger more complex machines that required fewer employees to operate but also required skilled labor.

 

as long as the factories could get away with paying low wages, and providing poor conditions there was no reason to invest in such machinery, but after the minimum wage was put into place the factories adapted and built more complex machinery that required fewer employees, this freed up more labor and put more money into the hands of more people.

 

what happens when you have more people with more money with access to labor? more businesses.

 

this is one example of how the economy adapts to more expensive labor and leads to growth.

 

Do you hear yourself? You're looking at the person' date=' not the job. Why? Why should any person think that the skill of putting labels on buckets for Home Depot should pay for their whole life? You want to force business to pay out the ass for every little bit of labor they get. While you on the other hand, still want to pay a dollar for a cheeseburger.

[/quote']

 

 

well than maybe home depot won't hire someone to put labels on buckets anymore. That guy will be out of a job and he'll have to go fin a new one, but when he does it will be one that is worth the new and higher wage, do we really need labels on all of the buckets that are sold?

 

forcing a minimum wage on the economy helps to make business's re-evaluate what jobs they need and which ones they can do without, whe they lay off the extra people these people need more jobs, and there will be enough of them to fill up entirely new business's, allowing business to pay whatever they want leads the to stagnate, forcing them to have a stricter hiring policy due to a wage increase leads to them becoming more efficient and to take better care of their workers.

[-Demosthenes-]

communist russia was a despotic communism ... I could dig out a few links of despotic capitalisms if you want, to prove that it's the despotism[/u'] -- and not the comunism -- that caused the nastyness.

 

Our culture is not capable of communism without despotism. This is why communism has failed and will fail.

 

Ok, I didn't say that. That's not my quote.

 

My copy/paste mistake.

 

Both Russian and Chinese experiments in socialism failed, not because of despotism, but because when you take away someone's incentive to work then they stop being productive and your business stops being competitive. Sure China's going strong now, because they've chucked economic socialism and embraced a capitalistic approach.

 

I disagree. Communism (which is not exactly the same as socialism) takes away the motivation of gain -- money. You work, and trust that you will be taken care of. In all cultures that have tried it, despotism (in some form) was required to take the place of the motivation of gain.

 

It's human nature to simply not do what they are not motivated to do. When they don't do what they are supposed to the government can give up and bring back the motivation of gain, or they can force them (despotism).

 

China has succeeded because their culture is more susceptible to communistic ideas. They are more collectivist in nature. But no so much as to allow communism to rule unhindered, without the farmer's markets (to create the motivation of gain -- a reason to grow food) and letting western businesses do business there, there would be no communist government in China. So we actually have a communist government putting capitalist measures into their country because communism can't work on it's own.

 

I think capitalism works better than communism, especially in western cultures, but neither works on their own.

 

If you have a family to feed, then why on earth are you getting jobs like these? I'll tell you why, because it's an easy job to obtain. It will maintain a certain money level, pay for rent, food, drugs, enough to idle. Trying for more takes effort, drive and will - qualities lacking among the poor, which is, in my opinion, why they stay generally poor.

 

Everyone who works minimum wage takes drugs, and isn't motivated, so they don't deserve enough money to live on?

 

I work in unskilled labor, when your young and you have no skills you have to. But if it paid $2 an hour I couldn't go to school, I couldn't get ahead. Making 60 dollars a week after taxes, that can barely afford a really cheap apartment with maybe a hundred left over a month to get food, some warm water, and clothes. How should I move ahead from there? Save $50 a month and take a semester of school every 2 years? Or is college only for the rich?

[Pangloss]

China has succeeded because their culture is more susceptible to communistic ideas. They are more collectivist in nature. But no so much as to allow communism to rule unhindered, without the farmer's markets (to create the motivation of gain -- a reason to grow food) and letting western businesses do business there, there would be no communist government in China. So we actually have a communist government putting capitalist measures into their country because communism can't work on it's own.

 

Indeed. I agree with those who say that China is teaching us something very fundamental and historically important about the relationship between capitalism and the western concept of freedom. We've always assumed that the two run hand-in-hand, but really they don't.

 

(But the balance in China is an extremely delicate one, and it remains to be seen if they can actually pull it off over the long haul.)

 

At any rate, I think anybody who sees China as a pure communism or socialism is thinking a pretty odd thing. After all, that is a society where the difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" should have even Noam Chomsky screaming for a ticket on the next flight home.

[Dak]

Both Russian and Chinese experiments in socialism failed, not because of despotism, but because when you take away someone's incentive to work then they stop being productive and your business stops being competitive.

 

there are ways to circumvent this, same as there are ways to prevent the problems associated with raw capitalism but it's slightly OT.

 

you asked for a more scientific aproach earlyer: i'd accept russia as a 'failed experiment in communism' ONLY if it all else was equal to succesfull countries, thus allowing the failure to be asigned to communism. ie, if it were a democratic communism that was left alone to succede or fail on it's own, as opposed to a despotic communism that had to tolerate WWII and america throwing billions at trying to make it fall.

 

Sure China's going strong now, because they've chucked economic socialism and embraced a capitalistic approach.

 

as you said later, china's a hybrid, not a capitalism.

 

But that last bit that I bolded above -- the US economy collapsed in 1990?! So we were all out in the street with empty store shelves begging to swap governments with the Soviets, is that it? Come on, that's a ridiculous comparison. Not even in the same ballpark. Do you have *any idea* what the people of Eastern Europe and Russia were going through in the early 1990s?

 

heh, my history's a bit off. i was talking about the wall st crash.

 

my point was just that it's not as simple as 'communism doesn't work, capitalism does'. capitalisms have failed before, communism has never, imo, been given a 'fair run'. there are problems with both, but also ways to circumvent these problems (eg: minimum wage laws)

 

Do you hear yourself? You're looking at the person, not the job. Why? Why should any person think that the skill of putting labels on buckets for Home Depot should pay for their whole life?

 

do you hear yourself? perhaps because they have to live? or, what, should they foad?

 

seriously, if you actually think about what you said... it's not interesting, but our countries run on menile tasks like putting labels on buckets. we need people to do these jobs. it's just a case of wether or not they should be exploited.

 

You want to force business to pay out the ass for every little bit of labor they get. While you on the other hand, still want to pay a dollar for a cheeseburger.

 

I never said that. i'd be prepared to pay more for services. ultimately i'd pay either way, be it through tax for social security, or through COL increases for minimum wage.

 

If you have a family to feed, then why on earth are you getting jobs like these? I'll tell you why, because it's an easy job to obtain. It will maintain a certain money level, pay for rent, food, drugs, enough to idle. Trying for more takes effort, drive and will - qualities lacking among the poor, which is, in my opinion, why they stay generally poor.

 

again, i'm pretty sure that poor people -- what with their lack of money being quite hard for them to ignore -- have, in actual fact, concidered the posibility of getting a better payed job.

 

if you think that poor people are 'bumming about' in low payed jobs and idling-about taking drugs, as opposed to working much more than you do just to make enough to make rent and bills, with bearly enough left over to buy food, let alone drugs, then you are just a teensy bit out of touch with reality.

 

this is about people who are unskilled, and competing for jobs with lots of other unskilled people, and who the companies will pay pittance to if they can get away with it -- and who have a sub-acceptable level of existance (no, sub-acceptable doesn't mean 'cant buy enough drugs').

 

These jobs are meant for newbies to the job scene. This is the sucky ass job you get when you're 16. It's what was supposed to teach you to work hard in school and move on from this shit - but instead generation after generation of losers began working these jobs as careers. Now here you are trying to advocate a fast food newbie job should pay per my living standards.

 

ok, seriously out of touch with reality. fast food outlets aren't the only plases that pay minimum wage, lots of factories, manual labour, etc, plases also pay minimum wage in the uk, and i'd assume it's similar in the us.

 

and no, no ones trying to advocate that minimum wage gives someone 'your level of living standards' (asuming your moderately confortable), just that it's enough to guarantee that someone isn't in abject poverty. they seriously won't be buying any ferraris on minimum wage.

 

You wouldn't pay 50 bucks for a disposable razor would you? Those things are a dime a dozen, almost literally. So why would you market your labor to minimum wage jobs? Again, not my problem. Your labor is no different than any other product or service in this country.

 

yet, i'm sure you'd be first in line to complain if all the companies in your sector got together and agreed to not pay anyone more than minimum wage.

 

"oh, but my labours worth more than that" you'd cry.

 

"meh, but we're getting your labour for as cheap as we can. Your a resourse, bitch, and now you're a cheap one".

 

you'd winge about illegal cartels, and 'unfairness', and your inability to get another job 'cos they're all that low payed, nor a job in another sector 'cos your only skilled in this one... but think it's perfectly ok for other people to be in exactly the same situation sans cartel? or would you accept the above state?

[Pangloss]

Not to change the subject, but just to inject a note of realism into the discussion, let me talk briefly about how my wife's business handles this sort of thing. I think it's an interesting example of how the compromise between socalism and capitalism works out pretty well.

 

They're a small manufacturing firm that makes garage doors that are hurricane proof. They're better than other doors they compete with, and often their doors are the only ones of their type that pass the tough building codes set by the state government to deal with hurricanes. IMO this is a great example of the innovation of capitalism meeting the safety control of popular government (not socialism I admit, but it's a nod in that direction). Doors are safer, businesses get a chance to innovate and compete with one another, and in the final analysis everyone wins.

 

Because the company is successful at making better doors, it can afford to pay its workers more (starting laborers make a couple bucks more than minimum wage, and it scales up from their based on skill improvements and development and length of service). But it runs deeper than that -- one of the reasons they're competitive is because they hire workers who are competent, and competent workers means paying more money. So again, hiring smart and paying more equals a win-win situation. In this case the "socialist" contribution would be that the minimum wage constitutes a low water mark that our heroes can base their pay on (i.e. they pay more than that amount, which attracts better workers).

 

The competition, well, one company in particular is often joked about in our house, and just doesn't seem to get it. They hire anybody off the street, they pay bare minimum wage, and their doors don't pass inspection. They skate by because of infrequency of inspection and (as recent arrests have revealed) corruption in the system. They undersell "our" doors in price, but only the shoddy builders buy from them. Most of them know that if they want good doors they have to come to "us". (I say "us" and "our" because of course I'm married to someone who works there, but aside from stories at the dinner table I'm not really involved.)

 

Under this new regulation our company will be more or less unaffected. Some of the lower-paid, more recently employed workers may complain that they're not making as much over minimum wage as they were before the law was put into effect, but that's easily resolved by bumps they probably would have earned anyway. The law also includes a tax incentive for small businesses which may benefit the company in some way.

 

The other company, however, may well be harmed by the new law. They'll have to pay their workers more, and they won't have an increase in business to absorb that cost. These are the guys we'll hear about in the media when the law hits the books, I guess.

 

The point being that in my opinion the compromise between left-leaning social consciousness and right-leaning capitalist profit motive is alive and working very well in our society. It certainly isn't a perfect situation and we read every day about failures and problems. But I think the back-and-forth nature of these dilemmas has brought about a unique kind of innovative spirit that keeps driving us forward.

[-Demosthenes-]

my point was just that it's not as simple as 'communism doesn't work, capitalism does'. capitalisms have failed before, communism has never, imo, been given a 'fair run'. there are problems with both, but also ways to circumvent these problems (eg: minimum wage laws)

Neither work gosh dangit.

 

The point being that in my opinion the compromise between left-leaning social consciousness and right-leaning capitalist profit motive is alive and working very well in our society. It certainly isn't a perfect situation and we read every day about failures and problems. But I think the back-and-forth nature of these dilemmas has brought about a unique kind of innovative spirit that keeps driving us forward.

 

I whole-heartedly agree.

[ParanoiA]

do you hear yourself? perhaps because they have to live? or, what, should they foad?

 

Yes I hear myself quite clearly. If I have to live, then it would be stupid to get a job that doesn't pay for my life huh? There are plenty of entry level full time jobs that are not minimum wage and will adequately pay for my life. I just have to go get one. Instead of taking the easy way out and landing the first job that agrees to put up with my presence doing some super easy task that anybody can do. Then forcing employers to pretend as if that job is competitive and pay me as if it is. How nice it is to not have to compete, yet receive competitive salaries.

 

I wonder if the consuming public will like that idea. I wonder how the public will feel about paying full time wage and benefits to the lawn boy down the street - because it should pay for his whole life, according to your thinking. It doesn't matter that anyone can mow a lawn, it only matters that the lawn guy can make a living at it. Marketing, supply and demand, consumerism - that's all for "businesses" - not for regular folk. We shouldn't have to compete with one another should we Dak?

 

Just what kind of responsibility are you willing to put on your fellow countrymen? None at all? You don't appear to expect anything out of anyone. If I want to peel gum from the sidewalk as my living then according to you, I should get paid enough to live my whole life by doing this menial task.

 

And according to your thinking, a shirt should cost just as much as an automobile. Because we're not basing pay on value in Dak's world - we're basing pay on the needs of the producer. It doesn't matter if the job is specialized, skilled labor, or childish pick-it-up and throw-it-away work, it all should have to pay for your whole life.

 

See, here's the slippery slope and error in logic, that started a long time ago, which is why I believe many of you think the way you do:

 

I have a small business, and I need someone to stack cabinets in the corner of my shop. I have back problems and it's really the only task I need at the moment. It's a full time job for one guy, a part-time job for two guys. Anyone can do this job, so college degrees, high school diplomas - none of this is necessary. I envision this job for a couple of high school kids, but instead I get grown men trying to get this job. There's a huge difference in needs between these two groups. The high school kids just need some gas and beer money, a place to start their working life. The grown men need to raise a family.

 

I just need some cabinets stacked. I don't have 30,000 a year and benefits to give this guy - it's just me running this shop. I don't even have any employees yet. Stacking cabinets isn't worth that kind of money - that's bad business sense and quite frankly, just flat out stupid. But the laws of this country won't allow me to choose the high school kid over the grown man - even though I know this is not the job for a grown man with a family. Your laws won't let me make that decision. So, after reviewing the applications and interviews, I have to hire the grown man. Now all of the bleeding hearts pour out of the woodwork telling me how terrible I am for not providing all of this money, benefits and fundamentals of this guys life and family.

 

I just needed some stuff stacked, wanted to hire somebody for this menial task, and opened a can of bureaucratic worms. How ridiculous.

 

You may think this is not the norm, or some isolated example I dreamt up. It's not. Small business is the backbone of this country. Everytime you screw around with business laws trying to "get back" at big business, you hurt the small businesses. This is why manufacturing is leaving the country - because employers are losing control of their businesses to this weird idealism that everyone's life should be covered regardless of the work they do. Regardless of the stupid decisions they've made for providing for themselves and their family.

 

again, i'm pretty sure that poor people -- what with their lack of money being quite hard for them to ignore -- have, in actual fact, concidered the posibility of getting a better payed job.

 

if you think that poor people are 'bumming about' in low payed jobs and idling-about taking drugs, as opposed to working much more than you do just to make enough to make rent and bills, with bearly enough left over to buy food, let alone drugs, then you are just a teensy bit out of touch with reality.

 

this is about people who are unskilled, and competing for jobs with lots of other unskilled people, and who the companies will pay pittance to if they can get away with it -- and who have a sub-acceptable level of existance (no, sub-acceptable doesn't mean 'cant buy enough drugs').

 

Quite frankly Dak, you don't know what you're talking about. I lived next these people for many years. I've been in that world for many years of my life. I've seen all of this from both perspectives. I flew right by them as I merely made an "attempt" to get myself out of the filth. They're still there. I could visit tomorrow and many of those people will still be there.

 

It is a mental condition. Conditioned by adaptability. Humans are adaptable creatures. They adapt to the lifestyle and it becomes easier to accept, the depression, the drugs, lack of will - it's all tangled up together. Drugs are to provide some semblance of joy in their lives, to smile amongst the squaller.

 

The depression keeps will from surfacing and motivating. It's quite depressing to be poor, to look at your dirty kids and give them a reason to be proud of something.

 

My heart is with these people. Minimum wage and communist ideas of wealth redistribution will solve nothing - it will only increase the numbers of the poor and empower nonmotivation. It will keep them beat down and depressed.

 

If you really care about these people, then do something to fix it. I've said it over and over again, and I'll say it again, poverty is an attitude. Poverty is in your head. They need motivation, a reason to try hard - kind of like children. They are very much like that because most are not very educated, not thinkers in the least, let alone critical thinkers. They have a childish view of the world, government, economics - like 12 year olds.

 

Sorry, this is quite long, but I could write pages and pages more on this topic. Your noble view of the poor is out of touch - inaccurate and seems to be the image hollywood gave you. Most people who don't know anything about the truly poor from any sort of experience, think the way you do. They have this weird, noble idea of the poor. Only a small fraction of the poor behave the way you summarize all of them.

 

Most people would be disgusted at the way welfare people think. You'd either laugh or cry...but you would no longer wonder why they're in that position...

 

yet, i'm sure you'd be first in line to complain if all the companies in your sector got together and agreed to not pay anyone more than minimum wage.

 

"oh, but my labours worth more than that" you'd cry.

 

"meh, but we're getting your labour for as cheap as we can. Your a resourse, bitch, and now you're a cheap one".

 

you'd winge about illegal cartels, and 'unfairness', and your inability to get another job 'cos they're all that low payed, nor a job in another sector 'cos your only skilled in this one... but think it's perfectly ok for other people to be in exactly the same situation sans cartel? or would you accept the above state?

 

You bet I'd be the first to complain. I did complain. And I would never advocate not complaining. I advocate doing something about it - not crying to the government to "fix it for me". "The free market has outsmarted me and my laziness, so make them stop" - No, we organize and demand. It's called labor unions. And god bless them.

 

There are more consumers and employees in this country than there are businesses. Again....it's a free market, and when people quit crying to uncle sam everytime the free market gets the best of them, they'll soon learn than organization is their weapon. Unions recognized this years and years ago - and have demonstrated their value by exploiting this - and still people don't get it.

 

But there will never be a Union for them, because they have the government setting their wage for them. They won't get paid less, and they won't get paid much more either - and they won't get paid fairly. Not until a Union can start scaring big business into increasing their salaries. There's no incentive to get that market going, so we're stuck with minimum wage jobs.

 

There's your socialist fix for you. You're holding them down by taking the market out of play for unions. Good job. Yeah, I see how you really care...

[Dak]

Yes I hear myself quite clearly. If I have to live, then it would be stupid to get a job that doesn't pay for my life huh? There are plenty of entry level full time jobs that are not minimum wage and will adequately pay for my life. I just have to go get one. Instead of taking the easy way out and landing the first job that agrees to put up with my presence doing some super easy task that anybody can do. Then forcing employers to pretend as if that job is competitive and pay me as if it is. How nice it is to not have to compete, yet receive competitive salaries.

 

this is going round in circles.

 

if it was as simple as getting a better payed job, there wouldn't be so many poor people. ergo, 'they should just get higher payed jobs' is not an answre.

 

I wonder if the consuming public will like that idea. I wonder how the public will feel about paying full time wage and benefits to the lawn boy down the street - because it should pay for his whole life, according to your thinking. It doesn't matter that anyone can mow a lawn, it only matters that the lawn guy can make a living at it. Marketing, supply and demand, consumerism - that's all for "businesses" - not for regular folk. We shouldn't have to compete with one another should we Dak?

 

if it's not worth minimum wage, then it'll be uneconomical, and they'll be no lawn men. simple. kids will no doubt pick up the job.

 

i'm certainly not reccomending that adults get minimum wage for paper rounds. or, rather, they should if they do it, but i see no reason why kids shouldn't do that work.

 

Just what kind of responsibility are you willing to put on your fellow countrymen? None at all? You don't appear to expect anything out of anyone. If I want to peel gum from the sidewalk as my living then according to you, I should get paid enough to live my whole life by doing this menial task.

 

if not, then there are only two alternative options:

 

1/ the person has a full-time job, but doesn't earn enough to live on. what then? crime? starvation? being supported by state handouts?

 

2/ no one peels gum off the pavement. menile, yes, but still needs to be done.

 

of all these options, i think minimum wage is, at the least, the 'least bad'.

 

And according to your thinking, a shirt should cost just as much as an automobile. Because we're not basing pay on value in Dak's world - we're basing pay on the needs of the producer. It doesn't matter if the job is specialized, skilled labor, or childish pick-it-up and throw-it-away work, it all should have to pay for your whole life.

 

not quite what i said.

 

you still haven't answred what these people should do instead of these crappy jobs? there aren't enough decent payed jobs to go round, and the crappy jobs really do need doing by someone. so how would you propose we solve this conundrum?

 

I have a small business, and I need someone to stack cabinets in the corner of my shop. I have back problems and it's really the only task I need at the moment. It's a full time job for one guy, a part-time job for two guys. Anyone can do this job, so college degrees, high school diplomas - none of this is necessary. I envision this job for a couple of high school kids, but instead I get grown men trying to get this job. There's a huge difference in needs between these two groups. The high school kids just need some gas and beer money, a place to start their working life. The grown men need to raise a family.

 

I just need some cabinets stacked. I don't have 30,000 a year and benefits to give this guy - it's just me running this shop. I don't even have any employees yet. Stacking cabinets isn't worth that kind of money - that's bad business sense and quite frankly, just flat out stupid. But the laws of this country won't allow me to choose the high school kid over the grown man - even though I know this is not the job for a grown man with a family. Your laws won't let me make that decision. So, after reviewing the applications and interviews, I have to hire the grown man. Now all of the bleeding hearts pour out of the woodwork telling me how terrible I am for not providing all of this money, benefits and fundamentals of this guys life and family.

 

meh. that's wrong. i allready said i think kids should be exempt from minimum wage, pretty much for the reason you outline above.

 

but then, kids dont need to support themselves.

 

You may think this is not the norm, or some isolated example I dreamt up. It's not. Small business is the backbone of this country. Everytime you screw around with business laws trying to "get back" at big business, you hurt the small businesses. This is why manufacturing is leaving the country - because employers are losing control of their businesses to this weird idealism that everyone's life should be covered regardless of the work they do. Regardless of the stupid decisions they've made for providing for themselves and their family.

 

how is that so hard to get? if someone contributes to our societies, then they should be able to live their lifes to a basic minimum standard.

 

more valuable work should get more pay, yes, but no-one who works should be payed so little that they cannot survive to a certain level.

 

Quite frankly Dak, you don't know what you're talking about. I lived next these people for many years. I've been in that world for many years of my life. I've seen all of this from both perspectives. I flew right by them as I merely made an "attempt" to get myself out of the filth. They're still there. I could visit tomorrow and many of those people will still be there.

 

It is a mental condition. Conditioned by adaptability. Humans are adaptable creatures. They adapt to the lifestyle and it becomes easier to accept, the depression, the drugs, lack of will - it's all tangled up together. Drugs are to provide some semblance of joy in their lives, to smile amongst the squaller.

 

The depression keeps will from surfacing and motivating. It's quite depressing to be poor, to look at your dirty kids and give them a reason to be proud of something.

 

My heart is with these people. Minimum wage and communist ideas of wealth redistribution will solve nothing - it will only increase the numbers of the poor and empower nonmotivation. It will keep them beat down and depressed.

 

If you really care about these people, then do something to fix it. I've said it over and over again, and I'll say it again, poverty is an attitude. Poverty is in your head. They need motivation, a reason to try hard - kind of like children. They are very much like that because most are not very educated, not thinkers in the least, let alone critical thinkers. They have a childish view of the world, government, economics - like 12 year olds.

 

Sorry, this is quite long, but I could write pages and pages more on this topic. Your noble view of the poor is out of touch - inaccurate and seems to be the image hollywood gave you. Most people who don't know anything about the truly poor from any sort of experience, think the way you do. They have this weird, noble idea of the poor. Only a small fraction of the poor behave the way you summarize all of them.

 

Most people would be disgusted at the way welfare people think. You'd either laugh or cry...but you would no longer wonder why they're in that position...

 

i'm not naiive. i'm well aware that 'the poor' include many drug-abusing, wellfare scrounging criminals, who doss about in crappy jobs and actually get more than most people do, when added to their social security and crime takings.

 

i just objected to your 'all poor people have never bothered looking for a better job' attetude, as if all they need is an epiphany to get the local paper, go job hunting, and actually ask the wages being payed before accepting the job, and -- heer's the cunning bit -- accepting the one that pays the most, and then all their troubles will be over and they'll no longer be poor. or that all they have to do is buy less drugs, maybe...

 

You bet I'd be the first to complain. I did complain. And I would never advocate not complaining. I advocate doing something about it - not crying to the government to "fix it for me". "The free market has outsmarted me and my laziness, so make them stop" - No, we organize and demand. It's called labor unions. And god bless them.

 

There are more consumers and employees in this country than there are businesses. Again....it's a free market, and when people quit crying to uncle sam everytime the free market gets the best of them, they'll soon learn than organization is their weapon. Unions recognized this years and years ago - and have demonstrated their value by exploiting this - and still people don't get it.

 

But there will never be a Union for them, because they have the government setting their wage for them. They won't get paid less, and they won't get paid much more either - and they won't get paid fairly. Not until a Union can start scaring big business into increasing their salaries. There's no incentive to get that market going, so we're stuck with minimum wage jobs.

 

There's your socialist fix for you. You're holding them down by taking the market out of play for unions. Good job. Yeah, I see how you really care...

 

again, tho, poor people are poor cos they have shitty jobs and little chance to get better jobs. there are actually enough poor people that if they strike en mass, they can be replaced. to take (non-kid) mcdonalds employees as an example: if they all struck, do you think they'd get higher wages? or sacked and replaced with other people, who also get payed as little as possible?

 

with most jobs, that cannot be done. but with poor, unskilled jobs, it can be. so, strikes are relatively inefective.

 

the simple fact that no unions/strikes have fixed the problem since the last minimum wage increase pretty much demonstraits that your claim -- that it'll fix itself better without govournment interference -- is wrong.

 

--------

 

I do kinda see where you're coming from. for example, if a poor person was being supported by the govournment to the point where they could afford to have 10 kids, i think that'd be stupid. if someone can't support 10 kids, they shouldn't have 10 kids (i know you didn't state this, just fishing for some common ground). If minimum wage was too high, i'd share most your concerns. and if kids aren't employable for menile work/aren't exempt from minimum wage then i think there'll be a whole boat-load of problems associated with that. but i feel that your approach is inpracticle.

 

answre this one question: what should the situation be, with reguards to low-payed jobs?

 

should they not be done because they dont pay enough (in which case, who will collect our bins, work our shitty factories, etc), or should the people who work in them just accept that they'll have a crap quality of life in return for servicing our society? or should they be given state hand-outs (which we'll have to pay for) in order to cover medical etc? or should they turn to crime when their car breaks down, and they can't afford to get it fixed but still need to go to work?

 

or should they just get payed enough in the first place to afford basics, and get money for luxuries if they earn it by performing more valuable work?

 

pangloss' story pretty-much illustrates my point:

 

Because the company is successful at making better doors, it can afford to pay its workers more (starting laborers make a couple bucks more than minimum wage, and it scales up from their based on skill improvements and development and length of service). But it runs deeper than that -- one of the reasons they're competitive is because they hire workers who are competent, and competent workers means paying more money

 

[...]

 

The competition, well, one company in particular is often joked about in our house, and just doesn't seem to get it. They hire anybody off the street, they pay bare minimum wage, and their doors don't pass inspection. They skate by because of infrequency of inspection and (as recent arrests have revealed) corruption in the system. They undersell "our" doors in price, but only the shoddy builders buy from them. Most of them know that if they want good doors they have to come to "us". (I say "us" and "our" because of course I'm married to someone who works there, but aside from stories at the dinner table I'm not really involved.)

 

if someone is skilled, they can go to pang's whife's buisness, and earn more because their labour is worth more. if they're less skilled, they wil go with 'the competition', and get payed less, as their labour is worth less.

 

this is as it should be, in order to give people encoragment to work hard*.

 

however, consider that you're one of the unskilled workers for 'the competition'

 

by your argument, you should fix your situation by getting a job that pays more -- eg, at pangloss's whife's place.

 

but pangloss' whife will not hire you.

 

so....... you're stuck at the bottom of the heap. and, with no one below you, theres nothing to stop your wages sinking. theres no incentive on 'the competition' to not lower your wages, 'cos you can't quit and go somewhere else, because the only places that will hire you pay equally shit. the sheer volume of minimum-wage jobs testifies to this fact.

 

you can't afford to, say, go on a door-making cource because you're poor...

 

so, what happens? minimum wage ensures that you dont get shat upon too much. theres a minimum you can get payed, so your full time work will at least get you food, shelter, gas etc. if you want to make more money, you'll have to figure out a way to improve your door-making skills and get a job with pangloss' whife. otherwize, you're stuck making the bare minimum neccesary to survive (if you really read this last centance, you should savvy why i'm having trouble understanding your objections... do people who put in 9-5/5 work -- most of their waking life -- not deserve this?).

 

----

* note that, despite your strawmans, i never claimed that workers should not have to compete, just that there should be a minimum that they can get payed. no-one should work full-time and not be able to afford a basic lifestyle.

[ParanoiA]

this is going round in circles.

 

if it was as simple as getting a better payed job, there wouldn't be so many poor people. ergo, 'they should just get higher payed jobs' is not an answre.

 

Yes it is. It really is. You have to try harder to get these jobs. You have to try harder to keep these jobs too. And they have to work hard on the job as well. They are not willing to do any of these things. It's easier to get a minimum wage job. The work is easy. The expectation is low. Easy job to keep. Most of these are close to home since we're talking fast food, restaraunt, grocery store etc.. None of the work required in getting, maintaining and advancing in a better paying job.

 

if it's not worth minimum wage, then it'll be uneconomical, and they'll be no lawn men. simple. kids will no doubt pick up the job.

 

i'm certainly not reccomending that adults get minimum wage for paper rounds. or, rather, they should if they do it, but i see no reason why kids shouldn't do that work.

 

Oh you are a piece of work. So, now if I want cabinets stacked in the corner of my shop I have to pay little kid to do it? Otherwise, it's 30,000 dollars a year plus benefits, FMLA, vacation, retirement - just to stack some boxes?

 

It was economical for a teenager (the proverbial kids you mentioned above), it's not economical for a grown freaking man.

 

This whole thing reminds me of 16 year old boys going trick or treating. They've outgrown that crap. Grown men with families shouldn't be peddling themselves for minimum wage work and then crying to us that it won't pay for their life.

 

Next, adults are going to demand some kind of law so that paper routes and kool aid stands will pay them enough to raise their family on.

 

if not, then there are only two alternative options:

 

1/ the person has a full-time job, but doesn't earn enough to live on. what then? crime? starvation? being supported by state handouts?

 

2/ no one peels gum off the pavement. menile, yes, but still needs to be done.

 

of all these options, i think minimum wage is, at the least, the 'least bad'.

 

1) The person should say..."hmm, this job sucks. I'm going to demand a raise, and if I don't get it then I'm going to quit and spend the afternoon getting a better job". This is literally what I did. I quit Greathouse Cabinets in the afternoon after a demand for compensation for an beneficial idea was rejected. I found a job paying 2 more dollars an hour the next day. I had to drive farther, get up earlier and meet all new people - but it was a better job.

 

2) I don't know if someone peels gum off of the sidewalks, but my point has been all along that your labor is your business. Whether everyone in this country realizes it or not, we are all businessmen and women. We sell our labor for profit. If your labor isn't demanded, then you won't make any money at it. You'll need to make some adjustments to make your labor valuable to someone - that's business. That's life. That's hunting and gathering for the modern human. Much simpler and nicer than how our ancestors had it.

 

Now, let's use your logic on business rather than individuals...

 

1) Business A doesn't make enough money to pay for the owner's cost of living. So what now? Crime? Starvation? Government handouts? Where is the minimum wage for small business owners? Shouldn't we have a "minimum purchase" for them? These are people who have families. They shouldn't be required to compete with others. We're talking about life here, right Dak?

 

Seems to me a minimum purchase is the "least bad" idea.

 

you still haven't answred what these people should do instead of these crappy jobs? there aren't enough decent payed jobs to go round, and the crappy jobs really do need doing by someone. so how would you propose we solve this conundrum?

 

Ahh..popular misconception. Another generalization made by people who really don't know - just heard it here and there throughout their life.

 

When all of the good jobs are filled - then we'll talk. They've never been completely filled. Never. The answer has and always will be, that they have to want them and work for them - just like the people who have them.

 

meh. that's wrong. i allready said i think kids should be exempt from minimum wage, pretty much for the reason you outline above.

 

but then, kids dont need to support themselves.

 

You totally missed it. Not even close to a reply to my post. I said that I have a choice between a 17 year old and a grown man. The needs of each are vastly different. I just want to provide a simple job - a minimum wage job for a local student that needs some money. But your laws make me have to consider grown men with families and baggage to get this job. So I end up having to provide all of these benefits and pay just to get some cabinets stacked. That's stupid.

 

I'll get to the rest later...I have to get back to work - haha!!

[ParanoiA]

to take (non-kid) mcdonalds employees as an example: if they all struck, do you think they'd get higher wages? or sacked and replaced with other people, who also get payed as little as possible?

 

Yes, let's take that example. You don't think a strike at McDonald's would inscrease pay or benefits? Think that through Dak. McDonald's...picket lines at every store, signs desparaging pay and benefits - the handicapped out there - everyone demonizing McDonald's. You don't think they'd budge? That's one of the few businesses where people really can boycott without any real negative impact. McDonald's needs smiling patrons, happy kids - propaganda out the ying yang.

 

yes I think it would work brilliantly...

[Tetrahedrite]

Yes, let's take that example. You don't think a strike at McDonald's would inscrease pay or benefits? Think that through Dak. McDonald's...picket lines at every store, signs desparaging pay and benefits - the handicapped out there - everyone demonizing McDonald's. You don't think they'd budge? That's one of the few businesses where people really can boycott without any real negative impact. McDonald's needs smiling patrons, happy kids - propaganda out the ying yang.

 

yes I think it would work brilliantly...

 

It really is funny how people can turn themselves inside out in an arguement. What you are advocating here is exactly what the trade unions do: putting pressure on companies/organisations/governments through strikes, bans, etc to get higher wages and better conditions. Collective action, as you describe, leads to a sort of minimum wage/set of standards for all employees in that particular sector/company. Trade unions in Australia also push for the national minimum wage to be raised.Trade unions are demonised (incorrectly IMO) for being socialistic and even communistic in many countries, and this seems to be the complete opposite of what you were advocating in previous posts?

[Dak]

Oh you are a piece of work. So, now if I want cabinets stacked in the corner of my shop I have to pay little kid to do it? Otherwise, it's 30,000 dollars a year plus benefits, FMLA, vacation, retirement - just to stack some boxes?

 

wtf are you talking about? you were the one who said that you wanted to hire kids:

 

I have a small business' date=' and I need someone to stack cabinets in the corner of my shop. I have back problems and it's really the only task I need at the moment. It's a full time job for one guy, a part-time job for two guys. Anyone can do this job, so college degrees, high school diplomas - none of this is necessary. [b']I envision this job for a couple of high school kids[/b], but instead I get grown men trying to get this job. There's a huge difference in needs between these two groups. The high school kids just need some gas and beer money, a place to start their working life. The grown men need to raise a family.

 

I just need some cabinets stacked. I don't have 30,000 a year and benefits to give this guy - it's just me running this shop. I don't even have any employees yet. Stacking cabinets isn't worth that kind of money - that's bad business sense and quite frankly, just flat out stupid. But the laws of this country won't allow me to choose the high school kid over the grown man - even though I know this is not the job for a grown man with a family. Your laws won't let me make that decision. So, after reviewing the applications and interviews, I have to hire the grown man. Now all of the bleeding hearts pour out of the woodwork telling me how terrible I am for not providing all of this money, benefits and fundamentals of this guys life and family.

 

now i'm a 'piece of work' for sujjesting what you yourself wanted to do?

 

if you hire an adult to do it full-time, pay him enough to survive on.

 

if you hire kids (imo, this is kids work -- crap, low pay, but an easy way for them to demonstrait that they're reliable and get a refferene) you dont/shouldn't have to pay minimum wage. that's good for jobs like the one above, and it's good for the kids too, as it actually gets them enployed despite their lack of refferences/experience/etc.

 

 

1) The person should say..."hmm, this job sucks. I'm going to demand a raise, and if I don't get it then I'm going to quit and spend the afternoon getting a better job". This is literally what I did. I quit Greathouse Cabinets in the afternoon after a demand for compensation for an beneficial idea was rejected. I found a job paying 2 more dollars an hour the next day. I had to drive farther, get up earlier and meet all new people - but it was a better job.

 

the above plainly hasnt, for one reason or another, happened en mass. so minimum wage.

 

2) I don't know if someone peels gum off of the sidewalks, but my point has been all along that your labor is your business. Whether everyone in this country realizes it or not, we are all businessmen and women. We sell our labor for profit. If your labor isn't demanded, then you won't make any money at it. You'll need to make some adjustments to make your labor valuable to someone - that's business. That's life. That's hunting and gathering for the modern human. Much simpler and nicer than how our ancestors had it.

 

well, that's ok then. money doesn't grow on trees, so, if someones labour isn't demanded, isn't valuable enough for minimum wage, then the enterprise will shut down. if the labout is valuable enough for minimum wage, it wont, and the labourer will get payed.

 

if a job is worth someone getting payed minimum wage, then they'll get payed it to do it. if not, they wont (what, you think MW laws obligate companies to hire people they dont need?).

 

note -- again -- that i'm not against the above, so long as it doesn't result in people having jobs that doesn't pay enough for them to support themselves.

 

Now, let's use your logic on business rather than individuals...

 

1) Business A doesn't make enough money to pay for the owner's cost of living. So what now? Crime? Starvation? Government handouts? Where is the minimum wage for small business owners? Shouldn't we have a "minimum purchase" for them? These are people who have families. They shouldn't be required to compete with others. We're talking about life here, right Dak?

 

Seems to me a minimum purchase is the "least bad" idea.

 

I agree

 

small buisness owners are self-enployed. you can try telling them they have to pay themselves a certain amount if you want. if they can't afford to pay anyone -- themselves included -- then they can't afford to pay. so they dont. buisness folds, simple economics.

 

again, you're strawmanning by trying to make out that i'm saying competition is bad. competition is good, but should not result in people getting payed below a certain amount.

 

point out the part where i said no one should have to compete, as opposed to that the effects of competition should have a lower-cap.

 

Ahh..popular misconception. Another generalization made by people who really don't know - just heard it here and there throughout their life.

 

When all of the good jobs are filled - then we'll talk. They've never been completely filled. Never. The answer has and always will be, that they have to want them and work for them - just like the people who have them.

 

?

 

obviously, most jobs are filled, or your country would have 0% unenployment.

 

12% of the US is below the poverty line -- there certainly aren't enough vacancies in decent jobs to accomodate these 12%

 

or, what, the good jobs have tonnes of vacancies, but poor people dont want to take these decent payed jobs?

 

You totally missed it. Not even close to a reply to my post. I said that I have a choice between a 17 year old and a grown man. The needs of each are vastly different. I just want to provide a simple job - a minimum wage job for a local student that needs some money. But your laws make me have to consider grown men with families and baggage to get this job. So I end up having to provide all of these benefits and pay just to get some cabinets stacked. That's stupid.

 

minimum wage laws make you chose a grown man with families over a 17 year old? how?

 

i was under the impression that minimum wage laws just limit how low you can pay adults per hour, not force you to hire an adult instead of a 17 year old? or are you saying that you have to pay the 17 year old as if he were an adult?

[ParanoiA]

It really is funny how people can turn themselves inside out in an arguement. What you are advocating here is exactly what the trade unions do: putting pressure on companies/organisations/governments through strikes, bans, etc to get higher wages and better conditions. Collective action, as you describe, leads to a sort of minimum wage/set of standards for all employees in that particular sector/company. Trade unions in Australia also push for the national minimum wage to be raised.Trade unions are demonised (incorrectly IMO) for being socialistic and even communistic in many countries, and this seems to be the complete opposite of what you were advocating in previous posts?

 

Not at all. I know my posts were quite lengthy so I won't poke at you for not catching that earlier. Trade unions are exactly what I advocate. I see them as a market solution. It's business, it's american, it works. I don't agree with anyone who would call it socialist, it's simply leverage being used in a capitalist environment.

 

Not that I'm in love with unions, I have severe issues with unions. I think unions are doing far too much bad than good right now in america. I also believe that will change as jobs move out of the country.

 

The problem with unions are they don't promote the value of the american worker. They seem to be all about taking everything they can from your employer like a personal injury lawyer. You're supposed to be selling your services and just about every union employee I know does more to get out of work than actually doing work. We are not an asset. We are a thorn in our employer's side. This is not smart business. That's why they all want to get rid of us - not because they have to pay us good.

 

I think unions need to make a big change in their business strategy for our future's sake. We should be pushed by our unions, if anything, to be worth our money. Unions should start selling us like the service we are. Give my employer a reason to spend the money on me that we're asking. Our employer shouldn't be bogged down with bullshit greivances and employees that refuse to work and can't fire.

 

I still see unions as the right solution to exploitive business, nonetheless. Hopefully they'll change direction when fear of extinction finally nears.

[ParanoiA]

wtf are you talking about? you were the one who said that you wanted to hire kids:

 

now i'm a 'piece of work' for sujjesting what you yourself wanted to do?

 

if you hire an adult to do it full-time, pay him enough to survive on.

 

if you hire kids (imo, this is kids work -- crap, low pay, but an easy way for them to demonstrait that they're reliable and get a refferene) you dont/shouldn't have to pay minimum wage. that's good for jobs like the one above, and it's good for the kids too, as it actually gets them enployed despite their lack of refferences/experience/etc.

 

minimum wage laws make you chose a grown man with families over a 17 year old? how?

 

i was under the impression that minimum wage laws just limit how low you can pay adults per hour, not force you to hire an adult instead of a 17 year old? or are you saying that you have to pay the 17 year old as if he were an adult?

 

16 years of age is legal working age. Minimum wage applies to them as well as the family guy trying to sell his sweeping skills to pay for an apartment, wife, kids, insurance, cars, clothes, food...etc..

 

I'm saying that grown men with families are scoring teenager jobs, trying to live off of it because they don't want to have to work harder and go to more trouble to keep a better job.

 

My cabinet shop example was an attempt to demonstrate how a typical small business might need one helper (like a high school or college kid - 16 or so) to come in do something simple like stacking some boxes, but turn into a nightmare of wages and insurance because family men are trying to provide for their whole damn life on some kiddo job. And I believe minimum wage emboldens this.

[Dak]

yeah, well, i'll agree that that implimentation of MW legislature is a bit stupid.

 

i still think that if an adult does that job, he should be payed minimum wage -- like i said tho, 16 y/o's shouldn't have the same minimum wage.

 

that way, menile tasks like cabinate-stacking can go to kids. small buisnesses get cheap menile labour, kids get work experience, and if a kid can't do it it's not all that menile and an adult gets minimum wage, and it all sorts itself out.

 

eg, In the uk, it's done like this:

 

> 22 £5.35 an hour

 

18-21 £4.45

 

16-17 £3.30

 

<16 no minimum wage

 

http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/pay/national-minimum-wage/index.html

 

that allows a pretty neat balance of ensuring people get payed enough to live on, whilst allowing for the availability of a small cheep (young) workforse. 'kids' jobs are generally done by kids, 'cos they're cheaper than adults.

 

----

 

£5.53 is 10.49 US$ btw

 

and your minimum wage increase to $7.25 translates as £3.69

 

hmm... you were on a minimum of $2.10/hour... thats... £1.07/hour

 

****ing hell, that can't be right?

[ParanoiA]

^^ yeah, I think that explains a few things. I like your system better. That makes more sense - of course I could see "equal employment" issues coming out of that too. Everyone looking for a 16 yr old and ignoring all of the older crowd. But, if we're talking kiddo jobs, then I'm all for it.

 

I'm not sure about your conversion there. I can't believe it's been that long already, but when I was 16 (which was about 19 years ago...) minimum wage was $3.35 an hour - something like that. I remember it going up a couple of times (or maybe I just dreamed it) by the time I was 18 and moved on to shop work. I started my shop job at $5.00 an hour and I was ecstatic, so I doubt it went up much.

[Dak]

WASHINGTON Feb 1, 2007 (AP)— The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to boost the federal minimum wage by $2.10 to $7.25 an hour over two years, but packaged the increase with controversial tax cuts for small businesses and higher taxes for many $1 million-plus executives.

 

ah, increase by $2.10, not from. that's a little less harsh. $5.15 is still only £2.83 tho... i know stuff is cheaper in your country, but still...

 

by-the-by, you might be interested in this. looks like it's designed to achieve the same thing that the uk's multiple MWs are.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, but I still don't like it. Yes it's better than just flat minimum wage. But none of this is a market solution so it will be a hinderance.

 

The reason I like market solutions is because they are sensitive to where the needs are. The squeeky wheel gets the grease sort of thing. Laws and legislation stay on the books forever, and don't discriminate, cause a LOT of collateral damage that never goes away or gets changed / fixed.

 

A market solution will disolve if it's no longer required. There has to be a "need" for it to thrive. Once the need is removed, the solution dies. Laws don't.

 

Also, market solutions apply where they are needed - rather than blanketly classifying an entire group and punishing them all. If an employer is treating his people well, paying them fairly, then a union will not be able to unionize their employees. If another employeer is exploiting or not treating their people well, then they are ripe for a union to come in and rock their world. A law, would punish both of them. See the difference?

 

You see big business and want to do whatever it takes to reign them in. I see the little businesses you step on trying to do that. I find it aggitating that no one seems to give a shit about who gets stepped on doing their "nobility legislation", trying to squeeze the dirty rotten rich guy that stole all of our money...blah blah blah

 

I also wouldn't say the market solves everything and everyone would live happily ever after. I just prefer the method of working with a given system (hands off, little is more...), rather than irregardless of the system.

[Dak]

Well, yeah. I see what you're saying. 'the market' would feel direct feedback from those operating within it, so, if the system were good enough, it would naturally react to fix this problem, then ease off if and when the problem dissapeared. that'd be the most eloquent solution. kinda like comparing evolution to the concept of somehow manually patching each spiecies in responce to chanages in environment -- evolution is better (as long as you dont count 'being extremely harsh' against it )

 

But, no system is perfect, including the market system. like i said, the market system naturally leads to monopolies and cartels, and anti-competiton behaviour (which break the system imo), child labour, unsafe work conditions, 7-day weeks, undeniably stupid disreguard for preservation of nature (see: british industiral revolution), lying and risking other peoples health in order to make money (see: early america), along with other bad stuff -- like capitalising on peoples poverty in order to get their labour at the cheapest possible rate, even if it's arguably too harsh (12% below poverty line in a developed nation¹..? i'm thinking the 5.6 million who make below the new MW² contribute mightily to that stat)

 

So, theres some manual tinkerage to fix the problems. I agree that manual tinkerage can screw the system up, and that you have to be careful, and that a 'natural' fix by the system itself would be prefferable, but the fact that no natural fix has been forthcoming kinda justifies the manual tinkerage imo.

 

if that makes sence?

 

how would you fix the problem? i know you'd prefer unions and strikes, but you have to acknowledge the fact that none have occoured to solve this problem, and none likely will of their own accord.

 

oh, and little buisness' will get compensatory tax breaks (see source 2) to make up for the new MW. personally, i think the uk way would be a more eloquent way of achieving the same, and given that the capitalist market system (even reigned in, as in the US and UK) lend itself to a 'the ginormouse dogs have et the little dogs' state of affairs, i think some minor tinkerage in the form of tax breaks to small buisnesses might be justified irreguardless of MW.

 

I guess, whilst i share your 'hands off is best' approach, i'm a little less inclined to actually believe that hands-off will work, espescially in this case.

[ParanoiA]

My idea to fix it depends on other changes that may not appear to be connected.

 

I'm more inclined to ditch most of the tax laws, to the point that the US becomes more of a tax "shelter" rather than a tax burden. Attracting manufacturing and business around the globe so that we get a larger 'demand' for jobs, with just enough 'supply' of workers to guarantee good wages. Unions and strikes can fill in any gaps if necessary, but I doubt they would be needed quite as much to complete the balance - they'll still be needed, but I don't think they'll have to work too hard to get us decent pay when supply and demand is in our favor.

 

I'm not pretending I'm an economics whiz, but I've read about this approach to the free market - it's a libertarian concept. I just don't agree with the idea that ALL taxes should be repealed, which most libertarians would advocate.

 

So, there's my fix. You might stick with the MW thing after all...