NationStates Jolt Archive

Please post your opinion.

Minimum wage law
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice Strength: Strong Proposed by: Fungjingi
Description: We believe it is unfair many people around the nationstates globe(s) need to survive of a way to low budget because their government has abolished minimum wage laws. We think it is fairer when every country would have a minimum wage law:
The minimum wage in every country should be at least 10% of the average monthly citizen income. All UN member states should agree with this law or else face ejction from the UN.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 121 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 24 2003

There is no valid reason to impose restrictions on the agreements employers and employees may enter into. Therefore, any sane, moral nation will vehemently oppose this proposal.

There is no valid reason to impose restrictions on the agreements employers and employees may enter into. Therefore, any sane, moral nation will vehemently oppose this proposal.

Vehement is such a lovely word. I vehemently oppose this!!

Minimum wage laws represent excessive government interference in the processes of economy that actually harm, not help, the poor and disadvantaged. Labor is a limited commodity, thus, laborers are paid as a means of distributing and conpensating for that limited resource. When the government establishes arbitrary prices, however, employers may become less willing (or indeed in the case of many smaller businesses, unable) to employ people. As a result, increasingly higher and higher compulsory wages will cause *more* unemployment, as busnesses are either unable or unwilling to justify the increasing cost for the same level of skill and labor.

Governments, ergo, should NOT endorse any legislation requiring a minimum wage of any kind. If and when The Commonwealh of Marineris Colonies gains full membership in the UN, it plans to vote against all proposals that would establish a minimum wage.

We fully support a minimum wage law. Suppose a company would pay it's employees a mere $4 an hour, what would that amount to in an eight hour shift? $40 a day x 5 days = $240 a week. Who could possibly live off of that, or pay for their schooling? Don't think that they wouldint put their employees in that situation because companys are here for one thing, money at the expense of their workers. We can't let them do as they feel otherwise we'll put ourselves back another 60 years when slavery was legal. Every company can make more jobs if they cut a little more off of their profit and put it back into their company. You want to make a short lived killing, pay your workers as little as you can. You want great quality work thats long lived, pay your workers respectively. ! reason why a number 1 company made it to number 1, its workers.

Gen. Urukai

We fully support a minimum wage law. Suppose a company would pay it's employees a mere $4 an hour, what would that amount to in an eight hour shift? $40 a day x 5 days = $240 a week. Who could possibly live off of that, or pay for their schooling? Don't think that they wouldint put their employees in that situation because companys are here for one thing, money at the expense of their workers. We can't let them do as they feel otherwise we'll put ourselves back another 60 years when slavery was legal. Every company can make more jobs if they cut a little more off of their profit and put it back into their company. You want to make a short lived killing, pay your workers as little as you can. You want great quality work thats long lived, pay your workers respectively. 1 reason why a number 1 company made it to number 1, its workers.

Gen. Urukai

We fully support a minimum wage law. Suppose a company would pay it's employees a mere $4 an hour, what would that amount to in an eight hour shift? $40 a day x 5 days = $240 a week. Who could possibly live off of that, or pay for their schooling? Don't think that they wouldint put their employees in that situation because companys are here for one thing, money at the expense of their workers. We can't let them do as they feel otherwise we'll put ourselves back another 60 years when slavery was legal. Every company can make more jobs if they cut a little more off of their profit and put it back into their company. You want to make a short lived killing, pay your workers as little as you can. You want great quality work thats long lived, pay your workers respectively. ! reason why a number 1 company made it to number 1, its workers.

Gen. Urukai

You ignore at least four facts:
1) No one has a right to demand a living from anyone else. If you don't like what your employer pays you, you're free to go elsewhere. If that's not a viable option, then you'll just have to deal with it. You don't have the right to demand that your employer change to suit you.
2) The employees would be nothing without the brains of management that got everything started in the first place and keeps it going efficiently and smoothly.
3) Slavery is not determined by the wages. It's determined by whether or not people are forced there against their will and prevented from leaving.
4) There is no valid reason to place any sort of limitation on the agreements an employer and employee may reach except that they may not cause harm to anyone who has not voluntarily consented to the arrangement. It's a simple moral issue.

Obviously, you don't know right from wrong and are nothing more than evil scum.

We fully support a minimum wage law. Suppose a company would pay it's employees a mere $4 an hour, what would that amount to in an eight hour shift? $40 a day x 5 days = $240 a week. Who could possibly live off of that, or pay for their schooling? Don't think that they wouldint put their employees in that situation because companys are here for one thing, money at the expense of their workers. We can't let them do as they feel otherwise we'll put ourselves back another 60 years when slavery was legal. Every company can make more jobs if they cut a little more off of their profit and put it back into their company. You want to make a short lived killing, pay your workers as little as you can. You want great quality work thats long lived, pay your workers respectively. ! reason why a number 1 company made it to number 1, its workers.

Gen. Urukai

You ignore at least four facts:
1) No one has a right to demand a living from anyone else. If you don't like what your employer pays you, you're free to go elsewhere. If that's not a viable option, then you'll just have to deal with it. You don't have the right to demand that your employer change to suit you.
2) The employees would be nothing without the brains of management that got everything started in the first place and keeps it going efficiently and smoothly.
3) Slavery is not determined by the wages. It's determined by whether or not people are forced there against their will and prevented from leaving.
4) There is no valid reason to place any sort of limitation on the agreements an employer and employee may reach except that they may not cause harm to anyone who has not voluntarily consented to the arrangement. It's a simple moral issue.

Obviously, you don't know right from wrong and are nothing more than evil scum.

OOC>Evil scum? Ha ha. Watch your mouth little man.

Tell me something, where is one to go if all employers pay the same?

Wherever he can get hired, or nowhere at all.

What about it?

Why should someone be forced to work so they don't starve to death and at the same time be fed the shit end of the stick? Look, if all employers pay the exact same wage, what difference would it be to look for a job somewhere else? 1 simple fact you forget is, no one should be forced to be paid a mere $5 an hour. What does that pay for? Obviously you know nothing of the real world. Live off of mom and dad do you? Next.

Why should someone be forced to work so they don't starve to death and at the same time be fed the shit end of the stick? Look, if all employers pay the exact same wage, what difference would it be to look for a job somewhere else? 1 simple fact you forget is, no one should be forced to be paid a mere $5 an hour. What does that pay for? Obviously you know nothing of the real world. Live off of mom and dad do you? Next.

Wherever he can get hired, or nowhere at all.

What about it?

Now what if all the employers paid the same, but that payment wasn't enough to survive on. Then what?

Wherever he can get hired, or nowhere at all.

What about it?

Now what if all the employers paid the same, but that payment wasn't enough to survive on. Then what?

Then all the workers starve and die, leaving no one to do the work in the companies, so said companies collapse and die too. This is why companies *don't* pay all the same, but compete for labor to attract the most workers, so they don't collapse and die. You compete for labor by offering more pay and benifits.

If anything exists that would create a situation where all employers paid the same, creating the situation you describe, its minimum wage. What's to guarentee that down the road, government bureaucrats will be so generous with their compulsory wage requirements? How come self-interested businesses whos only concern is profit can't be trusted in this manner, but self-interested politicians whose only concern is re-election can be?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Wherever he can get hired, or nowhere at all.

What about it?

Now what if all the employers paid the same, but that payment wasn't enough to survive on. Then what?

Then all the workers starve and die, leaving no one to do the work in the companies, so said companies collapse and die too. This is why companies *don't* pay all the same, but compete for labor to attract the most workers, so they don't collapse and die. You compete for labor by offering more pay and benifits.

If anything exists that would create a situation where all employers paid the same, creating the situation you describe, its minimum wage. What's to guarentee that down the road, government bureaucrats will be so generous with their compulsory wage requirements? How come self-interested businesses whos only concern is profit can't be trusted in this manner, but self-interested politicians whose only concern is re-election can be?

I agree and don't agree, because all cases aren't the same. Mc Donalds is a perfect example. Unskilled labour which pays minimum wage, as with the rest of the fast food chains as far as I know. Where's the competition in wages there?

When I worked at McDonald's, starting pay was $7.00/hour.

And at any rate, if they all starve and die, that'll be too bad. No one has a right to a living at the expense of someone else.

(All this is OOC)

This is all simplified, so don't rag me out for leaving out some small nuanced point.

Anyways, minimum wage has a lot to do with unemployment. I'm not talking about causing unemployment, but because of unemployment.

For starters, some unemployment is good for a country. If there was no unemployment you'd run into a situation where the employees had absolute power over the employer. The result of that wouldn't be good, employees could demand higher pay, knowing that there was a large job market out there. So pay goes up, that means the prices of goods and services also goes up, since the employers still have to make a living. Of course, since the prices go up, the employees want raises to cover these increased expenses... See where I'm heading here?

Now, on the other hand, if there's too much unemployment the employers have a huge advantage over the employees. "You're going to take these pay cuts and you're going to like it because there's nothing you can do about it." Now, a competitor also lowers his wages, after all he needs to compete with me on a profit margin and there's a large enough labour pool that it doesn't matter what the difference between the two companies' wages are. Now, it's not creating more jobs as I'm not hiring extra people, I'm just paying them less -- therefore the labour pool stays the same size regardless. This cycle continues, and the wages keep dropping lower and lower. You don't like it? Well you can quit, there's always someone who doesn't have a job who's willing to work for less than what you were being paid. See what I'm getting at here? This type of thing has happened (i.e. Okies who went to pick fruit in California during the 30s. There were more people available than there were jobs, therefore the jobs would often go to whomever was willing to work cheaper...and there was always someone willing to work cheaper than what you were paying the last person.)

That type of situation is partially why minimum wage exists. It's an attempt to add some stability to a fluctuating job market.

That said, I wouldn't support this resolution as it's unworkable. By setting the minimum wage at a percentage of the average monthly wage you'd never be able to get a minimum wage. Since the income of those making minimum wage would be part of the average monthly income any changes in minimum wage would therefore result in a change in average income which would result in a change in minimum wage etc etc ad nauseum.

Wherever he can get hired, or nowhere at all.

What about it?

Now what if all the employers paid the same, but that payment wasn't enough to survive on. Then what?

Then all the workers starve and die, leaving no one to do the work in the companies, so said companies collapse and die too. This is why companies *don't* pay all the same, but compete for labor to attract the most workers, so they don't collapse and die. You compete for labor by offering more pay and benifits.

Well, let's look at the Western world during the industrial revolution as an example.

Working-class families were paid wages that were so low that the entire family had to work all day in order to survive. No one in the family had the time (much less the money) for an education, for starting a side business, or for doing anything other than woking in factories. And since factories were so efficient that man-made labor simply couldn't compete, and were so expensive that none but the wealthiest could afford them, working class families were, for all intents and purposes, slaves. A handful were able to succeed and become wealthy, but the vast majority were stuck in a perpetual cycle of poverty until the government stepped in and give them basic rights, including, but not limited to, minimum wage.

So this has happened, and will happen again if it is made legal to do so.

Of course, if your ideal government is fascist, workers without any rights are just fine and dandy ;)

As for the proposal itself, I disagree. Having a minimum wage law that relies on the average wage as it's base is bound to fail, because it assumes that the average wage is a livable one, and it doesn't take into account wealth gaps that would bring the minimu wage up to insane levels.

A better idea would be to specify a minimum wage that would allow the worker to be able to afford the essentials (food, water, electricity, a place to live), as well as higher education (this can vary if education for the poor is partially or fully subsidized by the state).

Your proposal is a socialist band-aid for a capitalist device (in this case, money), and simply won't work.

when you have a minimum wage law, guess how much people in low end jobs get paid. you guessed it. the minimum.

next, this proposal ignores regions that have 100% tax rates. 10% of what? zero? nice work.

Well, let's look at the Western world during the industrial revolution as an example.

Working-class families were paid wages that were so low that the entire family had to work all day in order to survive. No one in the family had the time (much less the money) for an education, for starting a side business, or for doing anything other than woking in factories.
But how does this justify placing restrictions on what agreements individuals are allowed to enter into?
And since factories were so efficient that man-made labor simply couldn't compete, and were so expensive that none but the wealthiest could afford them, working class families were, for all intents and purposes, slaves.
Wrong. They were free to leave at any time. The consequences of doing so may not have been desirable, to be sure, but no one has the right to a living at the expense of another.
A handful were able to succeed and become wealthy, but the vast majority were stuck in a perpetual cycle of poverty until the government stepped in and give them basic rights, including, but not limited to, minimum wage.
Umm...there is no right to steal or demand that others change to suit you. If anything, the rights of businessmen (because they, like everyone else, are individuals and so have the same rights as everyone else) were trampled upon wantonly.

but no one has the right to a living at the expense of another.

You keep saying that. Aren't the rich people employing the poor at substandard wages living at the expense of others?

As for setting an actual minimum wage, I see no problem with that, but not as outlined in this proposal.

Marineris, quality of life was lower during teh industrial revolution than today for the same reason it was lower in the middle ages than in the industrial revolution.... TECHNOLOGY.

Also about your minimum wage it is perfectly feasbile for a country to have a minimum wage that doesn't negatively affect it... this happens when teh country sets its minimum wage below the equilibrium wage. So if the US lowered its minimum wage to say $1/hour, all of the problems associated with it would be gone.

Germany, with the highest minimum wage in Europe, has been hit hardest by the global recession. It now has the highest unemployment on the Continent and many Germans are mailing Chancellor Schroder T-Shirts with the old German saying "take my last shirt" to protest recent tax hikes.

We discussed this idue ages ago. Look at the thread on this topic that has 14 or so pages... then read it and see why the minimum wage prevents upward mobility and actually harms the standard of living of the lower classes.

but no one has the right to a living at the expense of another.

You keep saying that. Aren't the rich people employing the poor at substandard wages living at the expense of others?

You're incredibly dense...

It's not at their expense...they choose to be there, and they agree to the wages offered (otherwise they wouldn't be working there).

but no one has the right to a living at the expense of another.

You keep saying that. Aren't the rich people employing the poor at substandard wages living at the expense of others?

You're incredibly dense...

It's not at their expense...they choose to be there, and they agree to the wages offered (otherwise they wouldn't be working there).

Actually, I am fairly dense. I tend to sink in the water, and not float. I attribute it to the fact that I don't have a lot of body fact, which would also explain why I get cold easily, with not fat to insulate me.

So, because the only other alternative is not working at all, this "choice" of working for very little money means that they are not being exploited? If an employer knows that his employees will work for him no matter how little he pays them because they have no other viable alternative, so he lowers their wages in order to create a greater profit margin for himself, are they not being used?

And how does establishing a minimum wage mean that the workers are living at the expense of the employers? Perhaps I misunderstood you.

How can you be so sure that the worker is being "exploited." They certainly are not being "exploited" if they are being paid what their work is worth to the company, no matter how little. If a minimun wage makes employers pay certain workers more than their work is worth, than it it the employers that are in fact being exploited.

Working-class families were paid wages that were so low that the entire family had to work all day in order to survive. No one in the family had the time (much less the money) for an education, for starting a side business, or for doing anything other than woking in factories. And since factories were so efficient that man-made labor simply couldn't compete, and were so expensive that none but the wealthiest could afford them, working class families were, for all intents and purposes, slaves. A handful were able to succeed and become wealthy, but the vast majority were stuck in a perpetual cycle of poverty until the government stepped in and give them basic rights, including, but not limited to, minimum wage.

I'd just like to step in and say that capitalism did not create what you describe, but simply inherited it from early economic systems. That said, capitalism allowed the accumulation of wealth necessary in order to improve upon this situation. Also, I would like to know what those workers were paid in real wages, and compare it to how laborers faired previously.

The entire capitalist system requires that employers live at the expense of their workers. This is also true in the case of stockholding. The stockholder purchases the "right" to live at the expense of a company's workers in the form of a stock certificate.

Anyway, as Jello Biafra 2 and its sister nation of Jello Biafra have abolished the wage system, we do not approve of this proposal.

You ignore at least four facts:
1) No one has a right to demand a living from anyone else. If you don't like what your employer pays you, you're free to go elsewhere. If that's not a viable option, then you'll just have to deal with it. You don't have the right to demand that your employer change to suit you.
2) The employees would be nothing without the brains of management that got everything started in the first place and keeps it going efficiently and smoothly.


Obviously, you don't know right from wrong and are nothing more than evil scum.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth believe the right to organise and demand fair working condidtions and wages is currently in the NSun charter and as such people do have the right to demand a living wage, just as employers have a right not to pay it.
We also can only assume that you are in a management position, as everyone knows "all good works are done inspite of management" (Catch 22).

We the PROA feel that you should be considering yourselevs when you are out hunting evil...

but no one has the right to a living at the expense of another.

You keep saying that. Aren't the rich people employing the poor at substandard wages living at the expense of others?

You're incredibly dense...

It's not at their expense...they choose to be there, and they agree to the wages offered (otherwise they wouldn't be working there).

Actually, I am fairly dense. I tend to sink in the water, and not float. I attribute it to the fact that I don't have a lot of body fact, which would also explain why I get cold easily, with not fat to insulate me.

So, because the only other alternative is not working at all, this "choice" of working for very little money means that they are not being exploited? If an employer knows that his employees will work for him no matter how little he pays them because they have no other viable alternative, so he lowers their wages in order to create a greater profit margin for himself, are they not being used?
No...they're free to leave at any time. They just have to decide what's more important to them--free time or continued life. If they value continued life, that's great, but if they're going to expect someone else to provide them with what they need to continue living then they'll have to take it on the terms offered (after all, it's the offerers to offer or not as he pleases) or not at all.

but no one has the right to a living at the expense of another.

You keep saying that. Aren't the rich people employing the poor at substandard wages living at the expense of others?

You're incredibly dense...

It's not at their expense...they choose to be there, and they agree to the wages offered (otherwise they wouldn't be working there).

Actually, I am fairly dense. I tend to sink in the water, and not float. I attribute it to the fact that I don't have a lot of body fact, which would also explain why I get cold easily, with not fat to insulate me.

So, because the only other alternative is not working at all, this "choice" of working for very little money means that they are not being exploited? If an employer knows that his employees will work for him no matter how little he pays them because they have no other viable alternative, so he lowers their wages in order to create a greater profit margin for himself, are they not being used?
No...they're free to leave at any time. They just have to decide what's more important to them--free time or continued life. If they value continued life, that's great, but if they're going to expect someone else to provide them with what they need to continue living then they'll have to take it on the terms offered (after all, it's the offerers to offer or not as he pleases) or not at all.

We the PROA must side with the FLOT on this issue. People work because they must, not because they want to. Employers know this and many try to tak as much advantage of their workers as possible. This is why the labour movement started in western society, however not all the countries of the world have such organisation amongst it's workers, nor such tolerant governments, and not all can take care of their own rights. A minimum wage law will be a step towards helping these peopel gain what the "have" countries already got.

Again, you have yet to explain how the fact that people want to live justifies violating the property, contract, and association rights of other individuals.

In particular:

If I am an employer, why should I have my right to do as I wish with my property, associate with whom I choose, and enter into agreements with other individuals without outside coercion violated simply because someone whom I have no control over decided to (a) live and (b) seek the means to sustain that living from me?

If I'm providing the money, then I have every right to dictate how much of my money someone else will get.

I'm going to have to agree with everything Ithuania has said. Owners of business don't OWE you anything even before you start a job. But if they don't pay good wages, they won't get workers. Competiton will raise wages. Competition works out all the horrible problems people assume would happen if there were no minimum wage.

Difference between us and people who worked in factories during the industrial revolution is that those livings were an IMPROVMENT for people back then, but now it would be a downgrade. It would never be that bad because we have better to compaire it to. No one would put up with that. It just would never happen.

I'm going to have to agree with everything Ithuania has said. Owners of business don't OWE you anything even before you start a job. But if they don't pay good wages, they won't get workers. Competiton will raise wages. Competition works out all the horrible problems people assume would happen if there were no minimum wage.

Difference between us and people who worked in factories during the industrial revolution is that those livings were an IMPROVMENT for people back then, but now it would be a downgrade. It would never be that bad because we have better to compaire it to. No one would put up with that. It just would never happen.

But without some sort of protection at the bottom and without some sort of protection against collusion and wage-setting, companies have nothing to keep them from turning a largely captive workforce into wage slaves--it's happening already, thanks to the gutting of the NLRB and so-called "right-to-work" states.
And as to your argument that it would never happen--compare real wages in the manufacturing and food production industry in the 1950's and 60's in the US to today--the difference between strong unions and weak ones--and you'll see how we are indeed reverting to the days of the early industrial revolution. OSHA has been gutted, Worker's Compensation laws now favor employers instead of employees, and companies have the right to replace striking workers with permanent replacements in many states. Without the protections afforded by labor laws, workers become slaves to companies, if only because the world has changed too greatly for us to revert to individualistic, agrarian society.

I'm going to have to agree with everything Ithuania has said. Owners of business don't OWE you anything even before you start a job. But if they don't pay good wages, they won't get workers. Competiton will raise wages. Competition works out all the horrible problems people assume would happen if there were no minimum wage.

Difference between us and people who worked in factories during the industrial revolution is that those livings were an IMPROVMENT for people back then, but now it would be a downgrade. It would never be that bad because we have better to compaire it to. No one would put up with that. It just would never happen.

Competition works both ways, if company A pays $3 per hour and company B pays $4 per hour often time it will be company B that lowers their wages not the other way around, but on the plus side their product will probablly cost less, unless they just take a bigger profit margin. All praise competition...

I'm going to have to agree with everything Ithuania has said. Owners of business don't OWE you anything even before you start a job. But if they don't pay good wages, they won't get workers. Competiton will raise wages. Competition works out all the horrible problems people assume would happen if there were no minimum wage.

Difference between us and people who worked in factories during the industrial revolution is that those livings were an IMPROVMENT for people back then, but now it would be a downgrade. It would never be that bad because we have better to compaire it to. No one would put up with that. It just would never happen.

But without some sort of protection at the bottom and without some sort of protection against collusion and wage-setting, companies have nothing to keep them from turning a largely captive workforce into wage slaves--it's happening already, thanks to the gutting of the NLRB
Yes, heaven forbid people should be allowed to enter into their own agreements.
and so-called "right-to-work" states.
Yes, heaven forbid someone might choose NOT to join a union because he's capable of deciding for himself what's acceptable.

and companies have the right to replace striking workers with permanent replacements in many states.
Well, yeah. Why shouldn't they be allowed to hire people who ARE willing to work and get rid of those who AREN'T?
Without the protections afforded by labor laws, workers become slaves to companies,

I really can't understand what's so difficult about this. They're free to leave at any time; therefore, they're NOT slaves.

The Problem, as we the PROA, see it is that in a employer/worker relationship most of the power is in the hands of the employer. The employer decided how much to pay, vacation time, hours of work, and basically everything that applies to the workers employment. In skilled industries where there is a shortage of skilled labourers, such as computer programmers the employer must use pay and benefits to hire people with the experience and skills necessary to their needs, these are not minimum wage jobs. In general labour and no skill jobs, however, there is usually an excess of labour so all the power is in the hands of the employer. In situations like this the "praised" competition that everyone mentions will solve all the worlds problems will only drive workers wages lower, because workers can be competitive also. This is why minimum wage is important.

There are many instances where the rights of the individual is restricted for the percieved benefit to society. There are gun laws, prostitution laws, labour relation laws, controlled substances (alcohol age limits, prescription medications, tobacco advertising laws, advertising restrictions, etc.), speed limits These are all examples of resticting one's personal property and bargaining rights with societial interest as the justification. Perhaps if that is your only objection you should be against these too?

In general labour and no skill jobs, however, there is usually an excess of labour so all the power is in the hands of the employer. In situations like this the "praised" competition that everyone mentions will solve all the worlds problems will only drive workers wages lower, because workers can be competitive also. This is why minimum wage is important.
You have yet to explain how this justifies violating the property, contract, and association rights of the employer (hint: it doesn't, ever, period)

There are many instances where the rights of the individual is restricted for the percieved benefit to society. There are gun laws, prostitution laws, labour relation laws, controlled substances (alcohol age limits, prescription medications, tobacco advertising laws, advertising restrictions, etc.), speed limits These are all examples of resticting one's personal property and bargaining rights with societial interest as the justification. Perhaps if that is your only objection you should be against these too?
Who said I'm not against them? Unlike you, I know right from wrong.

In general labour and no skill jobs, however, there is usually an excess of labour so all the power is in the hands of the employer. In situations like this the "praised" competition that everyone mentions will solve all the worlds problems will only drive workers wages lower, because workers can be competitive also. This is why minimum wage is important.
You have yet to explain how this justifies violating the property, contract, and association rights of the employer (hint: it doesn't, ever, period)

There are many instances where the rights of the individual is restricted for the percieved benefit to society. There are gun laws, prostitution laws, labour relation laws, controlled substances (alcohol age limits, prescription medications, tobacco advertising laws, advertising restrictions, etc.), speed limits These are all examples of resticting one's personal property and bargaining rights with societial interest as the justification. Perhaps if that is your only objection you should be against these too?
Who said I'm not against them? Unlike you, I know right from wrong.

The justification is the second part of the quote...

You know the part that says "These are all examples of resticting one's personal property and bargaining rights with societial interest as the justification."

I am in favor of a minimum wage law. Indeed. There should also be a maximum wage.

We, the Free Land of Tipayimisoowin, formally request that the Ithuania take its self-righteous preaching elsewhere. While, for the most part, we are opposed to the opinions of the nation of Ithuania, we respect their right to express their opinions. However, we do not feel that this right extends to namecalling and other degrading forms of action. We enjoy a healthy debate, but feel that Ithuania's presence right now is not shedding any new light on the argument. Therefore, we request that the respected leaders of the nation of Ithuania leave this forum and its threads, or change its approach when entering into discussions in this forum.

Thank You.

Respectfully,
The FLOT

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE NEW LAW

I AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT ABOVE

and companies have the right to replace striking workers with permanent replacements in many states.
Well, yeah. Why shouldn't they be allowed to hire people who ARE willing to work and get rid of those who AREN'T?
Without the protections afforded by labor laws, workers become slaves to companies,

I really can't understand what's so difficult about this. They're free to leave at any time; therefore, they're NOT slaves.

They aren't exactly free to leave if there are no other options, or if the businesses in the area have colluded to ensure that all other options are equally vile. Why is it, exactly, that you would allow businesses to collude in this manner but would not protect workers who decide to bargain collectively for increases in wages, worker protections, and the like?

In general labour and no skill jobs, however, there is usually an excess of labour so all the power is in the hands of the employer. In situations like this the "praised" competition that everyone mentions will solve all the worlds problems will only drive workers wages lower, because workers can be competitive also. This is why minimum wage is important.
You have yet to explain how this justifies violating the property, contract, and association rights of the employer (hint: it doesn't, ever, period)

There are many instances where the rights of the individual is restricted for the percieved benefit to society. There are gun laws, prostitution laws, labour relation laws, controlled substances (alcohol age limits, prescription medications, tobacco advertising laws, advertising restrictions, etc.), speed limits These are all examples of resticting one's personal property and bargaining rights with societial interest as the justification. Perhaps if that is your only objection you should be against these too?
Who said I'm not against them? Unlike you, I know right from wrong.

The justification is the second part of the quote...

You know the part that says "These are all examples of resticting one's personal property and bargaining rights with societial interest as the justification."

But that is not a VALID justification. Anything can be cited as a justification for anything else. Whether or not it's valid is a different story.

[Gurthark apoplogizes for the duplicate post.]

[Gurthark apologizes for the duplicate post.]

This law, if anything, doesn't go nearly far enough.

*10%* of the average income? For a fairly wealthy country (where the per capita income is somewhere around $30k U.S./year), this would work out to $1.40/hour (with a 40-hour work-week)! For a *poor* country (where the per capita income is somewhere around $2k/year), this would work out to $0.10/hour for a 40-hour work-week, or $0.06/hour for a (more common in poor countries) 72-hour work-week! That's far less than one dollar for a 12-hour day.

We in Gurthark are not aware of *any* countries where the common adoption of this minimum wage would not represent a step *backwards* for social equality.

On the other hand, the proposal that everyone be paid enough to support a higher education would go much too far (although it might be a fine proposal for countries with "strong" or better economies). It would cripple the economies of developing countries and stifle their hopes for a wealthier future.

An international variable minimum wage must walk a fine line: It must be high enough to allow basic dignity to the world's poorest workers, but it cannot entirely remove the incentive for the wealthy to invest in poor nations (and such incentive is due largely to the fact that labor in poor nations is relatively cheap). We are working on a substantially more realistic minimum wage proposal and will post it soon.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

[post deleted by BizBoz]

In response to Ithuania:

We admit that it is hard to justify almost any government intervention in commerce to one who truly believes that property rights are inviolable. We could attempt to point out that treating them as such leads to great human misery, given the fundamental imbalances of power created by luck and accidents of birth. We could cite historical examples where industry was allowed to proceed entirely without regulation, and offer the lives of those affected as an advertisement against property-rights absolutism.

But if property rights really do trump all other concerns for you, there is probably little we can say to change your mind. Yes, minimum wage laws, as well as workplace safety, overtime, and environmental regulations, are based on the notion that some things *do* override the property and contract rights of employers. Many of us feel that this is the case, and intend to support either this resolution or one much like it.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Marineris, quality of life was lower during teh industrial revolution than today for the same reason it was lower in the middle ages than in the industrial revolution.... TECHNOLOGY.

Also about your minimum wage it is perfectly feasbile for a country to have a minimum wage that doesn't negatively affect it... this happens when teh country sets its minimum wage below the equilibrium wage. So if the US lowered its minimum wage to say $1/hour, all of the problems associated with it would be gone.

Germany, with the highest minimum wage in Europe, has been hit hardest by the global recession. It now has the highest unemployment on the Continent and many Germans are mailing Chancellor Schroder T-Shirts with the old German saying "take my last shirt" to protest recent tax hikes.

*tries to find the post you're replying to here*

They aren't exactly free to leave if there are no other options, or if the businesses in the area have colluded to ensure that all other options are equally vile. Why is it, exactly, that you would allow businesses to collude in this manner but would not protect workers who decide to bargain collectively for increases in wages, worker protections, and the like?
If they want to try, more power to them. Of course, the employer should be free to fire them for doing so (although it may not be a particularly bright business decision). My objection is to them using the force of law to compel employers to bend to their wishes.

They aren't exactly free to leave if there are no other options, or if the businesses in the area have colluded to ensure that all other options are equally vile. Why is it, exactly, that you would allow businesses to collude in this manner but would not protect workers who decide to bargain collectively for increases in wages, worker protections, and the like?
If they want to try, more power to them. Of course, the employer should be free to fire them for doing so (although it may not be a particularly bright business decision). My objection is to them using the force of law to compel employers to bend to their wishes.

Would you have us relax all governmental controls on the rights of workers to organise and strike? Perhaps remove the essential service legislations that keep our health care and police forces from striking? This could result in some interensting scenarios when the police declare their strike intentions.

I'm all for some sort of minimum wage system, but each attempt to pass any sort of resolution has failed -- I don't because there's not support, but the proposals seem so oddly worded. Any thoughts?

Increasing or creating a minimum wage puts greater strain on businesses and decreases the supply of all products manufactured by wage earners. This leads to a rise in prices which counteracts the increase in wages while decreasing the total output of the economy. An equilibrium must be found to balance wages and costs.

Increasing or creating a minimum wage puts greater strain on businesses and decreases the supply of all products manufactured by wage earners. This leads to a rise in prices which counteracts the increase in wages while decreasing the total output of the economy. An equilibrium must be found to balance wages and costs.

:arrow: Well, I'm not too fond of this idea, but it has happened in US history and in other places: wage and cost controls. But that would have to be an individual-nation decision, otherwise it'd be mass socialism and the assembly would erupt.

Increasing or creating a minimum wage puts greater strain on businesses and decreases the supply of all products manufactured by wage earners. This leads to a rise in prices which counteracts the increase in wages while decreasing the total output of the economy. An equilibrium must be found to balance wages and costs.

:arrow: Well, I'm not too fond of this idea, but it has happened in US history and in other places: wage and cost controls. But that would have to be an individual-nation decision, otherwise it'd be mass socialism and the assembly would erupt.

The hope is that the market would regulate itself. Unfortunately it's a little bit difficult to monitor and prevent tyranny and destruction of the system by groups controlling important factors of production (i.e. labor unions, oil tycoons, that sort of thing). I'd say that government regulation is necessary, although only minimally, but that the government should keep a close watch over events in the economy to prevent company owners from sending employees into poverty and to prevent labor unions from crushing companies beyond their margins of diminishing returns. The entire concept of a universal minimum wage is a little flawed. Different sorts of companies and different sorts of employees bring in different amounts of money for a company. A raise in minimum wage might not hurt a certain company which had formerly been taking a large profit margin while it could destroy another company which had been barely paying it's employees less than they brought in.

i think that this is a great idea! :D

Then you are obviously incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

Then you are obviously incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe instead of the whole world being wrong and you being right, that your just constantly wrong?

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

They aren't exactly free to leave if there are no other options, or if the businesses in the area have colluded to ensure that all other options are equally vile. Why is it, exactly, that you would allow businesses to collude in this manner but would not protect workers who decide to bargain collectively for increases in wages, worker protections, and the like?
If they want to try, more power to them. Of course, the employer should be free to fire them for doing so (although it may not be a particularly bright business decision). My objection is to them using the force of law to compel employers to bend to their wishes.

Oh I get it. Businesses are above the law and are allowed to do whatever the shit they want to their employees with no fear of repercussions. Brilliant! [/sarcasm]

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

There is no such thing as an absolute moral, as long as the earth changes morals mut change. And by definition, it cannot be pure logic if you are also basing it on absolute morals.

So, you are now (whether this is the first time or not) unright, sorry to say. :P

They aren't exactly free to leave if there are no other options, or if the businesses in the area have colluded to ensure that all other options are equally vile. Why is it, exactly, that you would allow businesses to collude in this manner but would not protect workers who decide to bargain collectively for increases in wages, worker protections, and the like?
If they want to try, more power to them. Of course, the employer should be free to fire them for doing so (although it may not be a particularly bright business decision). My objection is to them using the force of law to compel employers to bend to their wishes.

Oh I get it. Businesses are above the law and are allowed to do whatever the shit they want to their employees with no fear of repercussions. Brilliant! [/sarcasm]

That does not follow from what I said. Businesses are NOT free to cause physical harm to other individuals or their property--just like any other individual. However, they are free to enter into whatever agreements they wish and also associate or not with whom they wish for whatever reason. Basically, if I'm paying you then since it's my money, you have to do it on my terms or not at all. If you don't like the terms, you're free to refuse to deal with me.

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

There is no such thing as an absolute moral, as long as the earth changes morals mut change.
No one has ever been more wrong. I have explained several times just why morality is absolute.
And by definition, it cannot be pure logic if you are also basing it on absolute morals.
Wrong again. All decisions about what is moral or not must be done based on whether or not they logically agree with a core set of absolute morals.

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

Dear Sir, I note this about your country:

The Republic of Ithuania is a huge, economically powerful nation, remarkable for its complete absence of social welfare. Its hard-nosed, hard-working population of 771 million enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

Don't you care that you have poor people who are starving to death? Don't you care that working-class people are being crippled by easily preventable diseases? Where is the "pure logic" in not preventing easily preventable diseases? Where is the absolute morals in letting people starve?

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

There is no such thing as an absolute moral, as long as the earth changes morals must change.
No one has ever been more wrong. I have explained several times just why morality is absolute.
You would agree it is within morals to not tell a person you are feeding them with an iron skillet, because iron is perfectly safe for humans to consume. But if a human were to have mutated to where their blood no longer held iron, then iron would be poisonous to them, or if that person was allergic to iron, it would be poisonous. So therefore it is no longer moral to not tell them you are feeding them with an iron skillet.

That is an example of why morality is not absolute, so your first statement is incorrected, you have been more wrong.
And by definition, it cannot be pure logic if you are also basing it on absolute morals.
Wrong again. All decisions about what is moral or not must be done based on whether or not they logically agree with a core set of absolute morals.

So now you are saying pure logic means nothing at all, meaning you were only trying to fool us by saying your statements were based on pure logic. Shame on you for using such childish tactics.

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

There is no such thing as an absolute moral, as long as the earth changes morals must change.
No one has ever been more wrong. I have explained several times just why morality is absolute.
You would agree it is within morals to not tell a person you are feeding them with an iron skillet, because iron is perfectly safe for humans to consume. But if a human were to have mutated to where their blood no longer held iron, then iron would be poisonous to them, or if that person was allergic to iron, it would be poisonous. So therefore it is no longer moral to not tell them you are feeding them with an iron skillet.

That is an example of why morality is not absolute, so your first statement is incorrected, you have been more wrong.
1) You have no idea what absolute morals mean. Absolute morality means the same set of morals applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time. It does not mean that what is right in one situation is necessarily right in another situation (although often that's the case)--just that the same set of rules for each situation applies to everyone, regardless of whether they accept it or not.
2) This is not an issue of morality. Morality deals with what you must refrain from doing--basically, you must refrain from doing any act which actively causes harm to another individual or his property without his consent. What you're referring to is called "being nice to people". It has nothing at all to do with morality.
And by definition, it cannot be pure logic if you are also basing it on absolute morals.
Wrong again. All decisions about what is moral or not must be done based on whether or not they logically agree with a core set of absolute morals.

So now you are saying pure logic means nothing at all, meaning you were only trying to fool us by saying your statements were based on pure logic. Shame on you for using such childish tactics.

No, I'm not...my, are you really that dense? Try reading what I actually did write rather than what your strawman-loving mind wants me to have written.

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

There is no such thing as an absolute moral, as long as the earth changes morals must change.
No one has ever been more wrong. I have explained several times just why morality is absolute.
You would agree it is within morals to not tell a person you are feeding them with an iron skillet, because iron is perfectly safe for humans to consume. But if a human were to have mutated to where their blood no longer held iron, then iron would be poisonous to them, or if that person was allergic to iron, it would be poisonous. So therefore it is no longer moral to not tell them you are feeding them with an iron skillet.

That is an example of why morality is not absolute, so your first statement is incorrected, you have been more wrong.
1) You have no idea what absolute morals mean. Absolute morality means the same set of morals applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time. It does not mean that what is right in one situation is necessarily right in another situation (although often that's the case)--just that the same set of rules for each situation applies to everyone, regardless of whether they accept it or not.

moral

\Mor"al\, a. [F., fr. It. moralis, fr. mos, moris, manner, custom, habit, way of life, conduct.] 1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules.

Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-'
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English absolut, from Latin absolutus, from past participle of absolvere to set free, absolve
Date: 14th century
1 a : free from imperfection : PERFECT b : free or relatively free from mixture : PURE <absolute alcohol> c : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED <an absolute lie>
2 : being, governed by, or characteristic of a ruler or authority completely free from constitutional or other restraint
3 a : standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements <the absolute construction this being the case in the sentence "this being the case, let us go"> b of an adjective or possessive pronoun : standing alone without a modified substantive <blind in "help the blind" and ours in "your work and ours" are absolute> c of a verb : having no object in the particular construction under consideration though normally transitive <kill in "if looks could kill" is an absolute verb>

Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Pronunciation: 'ab-s&-"lüt, "ab-s&-'
Function: adjective

4 : having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom>

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

So now Webster's dictionary is wrong too?
2) This is not an issue of morality. Morality deals with what you must refrain from doing--basically, you must refrain from doing any act which actively causes harm to another individual or his property without his consent. What you're referring to is called "being nice to people". It has nothing at all to do with morality.

Morality deals with what you must refrain from doing.
You must refrain from doing any act which actively causes harm to another individual.
Something that is poisonous is harmfull to another person.
Iron would be poisonous to a person who's body was not fit to consume Iron, possibly form a mutation.
Feeding a person who's body was not fit to consume Iron would cause harm to them.
It is immoral to feed another person who's body is not fit to consume Iron Iron.
It's called the law of Syllogism, you should learn it.

And yet again you are wrong...
And by definition, it cannot be pure logic if you are also basing it on absolute morals.
Wrong again. All decisions about what is moral or not must be done based on whether or not they logically agree with a core set of absolute morals.



So now you are saying pure logic means nothing at all, meaning you were only trying to fool us by saying your statements were based on pure logic. Shame on you for using such childish tactics.

No, I'm not...my, are you really that dense? Try reading what I actually did write rather than what your strawman-loving mind wants me to have written.

You wrote that all it takes to be a moral is if it logically agrees with a core set of absolute beliefs, the christian religion believes that you should not eat meat on lent, not eating meat on lent logically agrees with that belief so not eating mean on lent would be, by your definition, pure logic. You said it, not me, don't blame me for your mistakes.

It's occurred to me as a possibility, but it's not the case. You see, unlike most other people my ideas are logically consistent and based on pure logic and absolute morals--therefore, I am right.

Hey, maybe you're wrong.

1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
called:

1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world
to confound the things which are mighty;

1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised,
hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things that are:

1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
[KJV]


Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee,
O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto
babes.
[KJV]

Love,
FC

As for the proposal itself, I disagree. Having a minimum wage law that relies on the average wage as it's base is bound to fail, because it assumes that the average wage is a livable one, and it doesn't take into account wealth gaps that would bring the minimu wage up to insane levels.

A better idea would be to specify a minimum wage that would allow the worker to be able to afford the essentials (food, water, electricity, a place to live), as well as higher education (this can vary if education for the poor is partially or fully subsidized by the state).

Your proposal is a socialist band-aid for a capitalist device (in this case, money), and simply won't work.

I couldn't agree more. High minimum wages result in a lack of competion in the work place and a feeling of complacency.
An adendum to your idea of of goods related minimum wage :- Why not give workers vouchers as part payment . These could given at cost prices from government surplus stores, making sure that the more vunerable sectors of society are well fed, allowing them to reach their potential. This might prove to be extremely beneficial to children who are undeniably malnourished. This would also stop alcoholics etc. from spending their family's money on booze.
This may even save some smaller nation states from large producers flooding their markets with mass produced goods.

The idea is still at an early stage but perhaps linking work more closely to survival might improve people's outlook on life

You wrote that all it takes to be a moral is if it logically agrees with a core set of absolute beliefs, the christian religion believes that you should not eat meat on lent, not eating meat on lent logically agrees with that belief so not eating mean on lent would be, by your definition, pure logic. You said it, not me, don't blame me for your mistakes.
Except the Christian morality is NOT that one core set. It is A set, but it is not the proper set.