NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't feel like making much of an enthusiastic opening post so I'll just say that some Libertarians and some right-wingers seem to be against to minimum wage.

Here's a little summary I just googled why:
Skilled, experienced workers make high wages because employers compete to hire them. Poorly educated, inexperienced young people can't get work because minimum wage laws make them too expensive to hire as trainees. Repeal of the minimum wage would allow many young, minority and poor people to work. It must be asked, if the minimum wage is such a good idea, why not raise it to $200 an hour? Even the most die-hard minimum wage advocate can see there's something wrong with that proposal.

The only "fair" or "correct" wage is what an employer and employee voluntarily agree upon. We should repeal minimum wage now.

What do you think? I honestly think we should just leave it as it is.

I think there should be a national minimum wage, and it should be a living wage. Progressive taxation should be used to help subsidize the payroll of small companies so they can still afford to hire employees.

I feel that government should stay out of the economy entirely. If your employer pays you an unacceptable wage, find somebody who values your skills more highly and work for them instead.

I feel that government should stay out of the economy entirely. If your employer pays you an unacceptable wage, find somebody who values your skills more highly and work for them instead.

I smell anarchy. :mp5:

Abolish it now!! If you increase it it will only drive prices higher making the wage ineffective. It is a most illogical idea.

I'm for whatever would help get companies hiring and people working. Even if at a lower wage, they will at least have a job and have a chance to train and even excell in that field or get experience for future oppritunities. It's a win win.

I smell anarchy. :mp5:

What I didn't say was that government should intervene to prevent killing and theft.

I smell anarchy. :mp5:
You called?

Abolish it now!! If you increase it it will only drive prices higher making the wage ineffective. It is a most illogical idea.
Your are assuming that employers will pass the increased costs onto the customer, rather than taking the loss out of profits.

Federal minimum wage should be tied to the federal poverty line. Federal minimum wage * 2000 = no less than poverty line. The poverty line ought to be raised to somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 grand for an individual, because right now it's ridiculous. This would put the federal minimum around six bucks. Power to raise minimum wage should be left in the hands of the states and, in some cases, local governments. In certain areas, cost of living is totally out of step with the rest of the state and the nation (CA Bay Area and NY Metro, for example).

I don't feel like making much of an enthusiastic opening post so I'll just say that some Libertarians and some right-wingers seem to be against to minimum wage.

Here's a little summary I just googled why:


What do you think? I honestly think we should just leave it as it is.

are they a fringe group? the broad right base does not go with that position, as far as i know.

I think there should be a national minimum wage, and it should be a living wage. Progressive taxation should be used to help subsidize the payroll of small companies so they can still afford to hire employees.

You're pretty much perfect on that one!
Though minimum wage IS a living wage. It's just not a good one. That is, you can live on it. But not a Middle Class lifestyle.

I feel that government should stay out of the economy entirely. If your employer pays you an unacceptable wage, find somebody who values your skills more highly and work for them instead.
Yes, that's worked very well in developing nations...for the sweat-shop owners anyway, if not the workers. (sarcasm admitted)

I said "other". I think that minimum wages are O.K. for providing wealth to the working class. However, they make it difficult for owners of small businesses. I would like workers to be able to waive their rights to a certain wage in exchange for a percentage of the profits. Also, if there was a job surplus, then there wouldn't be a need for a minimum wage.

Yes, that's worked very well in developing nations...for the sweat-shop owners anyway, if not the workers. (sarcasm admitted)
If their government isn't involved, then it's our faults for not starting a business there. We could drastically improve their quality of life and still make tremendous profits in our native countries.

I think minimum wage should be increased. Maybe even if it's for people 18 years and older. This is because the costs of living have gone up in the last twenty years (when the minimum wage was last increased), to the point where you can't live off off it. This is America, after all, and because all of our jobs are in India/China/ect we need all the money possible.

I'm thinking a wage increase by at least 3 dollars.

Yes, higher minimum wage! While we're at it, I have to reiterate the well-known fact that while corporations, businessmen and American entrepeneurs are (to a man) greedy, amoral, exploitive, power-hungry slave-owners, Governments (even those that start wars, oppress freedom, commit genocide etc) are so pure and wholesome that they should be given as much power and wealth as possible! I feel safer knowing that the government may not be able to deliver a piece of mail on time, its efficient enough to be trusted with OWNERSHIP OF EVERYTHING. Yep yep.

Your are assuming that employers will pass the increased costs onto the customer, rather than taking the loss out of profits.

Yes I am. How often do you think that corporations are gonna just suck that up? I can tell you. almost never. It will drive up prices I promise that.

There needs to be corporate law changes and deregulation from the government, raising minimum wage will at first help but in the long run it is an economic trainwreck.

eh... I'm too idealistic on this one... realistically, I think a minimum wage is a good idea. You need to provide something for people to live off of, and it needs to be something that they can actually survive on, but obviously it's impossible to fund a comfortable minimum wage, or money would run out.

Yes, higher minimum wage! While we're at it, I have to reiterate the well-known fact that while corporations, businessmen and American entrepeneurs are (to a man) greedy, amoral, exploitive, power-hungry slave-owners, Governments (even those that start wars, oppress freedom, commit genocide etc) are so pure and wholesome that they should be given as much power and wealth as possible! I feel safer knowing that the government may not be able to deliver a piece of mail on time, its efficient enough to be trusted with OWNERSHIP OF EVERYTHING. Yep yep.

** CHEERS** The prolitariat thanks you oh kind dict errrrrrr I mean Mr President

Actually, if the corporations increased their prices, that would completely kill the U.S. economy. With big places like Ikea moving in from Europe, they simply wouldn't be able to compete.

I don't feel like making much of an enthusiastic opening post so I'll just say that some Libertarians and some right-wingers seem to be against to minimum wage.

Here's a little summary I just googled why:

What do you think? I honestly think we should just leave it as it is.

If there were no minimum wage, employers ( being in business to make a profit ) would almost immediately lower their wage structures to the absolute minimum that would enable them to keep skilled and semi-skilled workers. The net effect would be a general lowering of income across the board, with little or no change in the number of unskilled workers hired.

Want a good job, one which pays you a living wage? Keep your nose clean, do NOT use drugs, don't abuse alcohol, and network as if your life depended on it! :)

yay. It should be the minimum wage you can survive with a place to live of some sort. Noone should have to go with out food especially if they have a job.

I feel that government should stay out of the economy entirely. If your employer pays you an unacceptable wage, find somebody who values your skills more highly and work for them instead.
except that doesn't always work, it only works if there is a shortage of workers in something you can do, but what if theres an abundance of workers? wages go down and with no limits people will need more then one job, no holidays, working more hours then doing anything else even sleeping.

except that doesn't always work, it only works if there is a shortage of workers in something you can do, but what if theres an abundance of workers? wages go down and with no limits people will need more then one job, no holidays, working more hours then doing anything else even sleeping. Exactly. People would start working for what would be slave labor.

yay. It should be the minimum wage you can survive with a place to live of some sort. Noone should have to go with out food especially if they have a job.

except that doesn't always work, it only works if there is a shortage of workers in something you can do, but what if theres an abundance of workers? wages go down and with no limits people will need more then one job, no holidays, working more hours then doing anything else even sleeping.

If the minimum wage is increased by more than the percentage rise in the cost of living, employers ( being in business to make a profit ) will simply pass the increased costs along to consumers in higher prices for goods and services. So even though you make more money, your net disposable income would probably not increase and may even decrease slightly.

yay. It should be the minimum wage you can survive with a place to live of some sort. Noone should have to go with out food especially if they have a job.


except that doesn't always work, it only works if there is a shortage of workers in something you can do, but what if theres an abundance of workers? wages go down and with no limits people will need more then one job, no holidays, working more hours then doing anything else even sleeping.

Not exactly, you could take your skills on the open market to challenge the other companies but with government interfernce and regulation it makes it harder to do.

If their government isn't involved, then it's our faults for not starting a business there. We could drastically improve their quality of life and still make tremendous profits in our native countries.
Um....you do realise that many of these sweatshops are owned by transnational corporations whose headquarters reside in the U.S? Yes, U.S owned companies ARE in these countries (along with other countries' transnationals) and they are making a KILLING (pun intended sometimes) by paying these wages. That's not to say the governments in these countries are not involved...quite the contrary...the provide guards for the companies, help scare off 'pesky' union organisers, allow harassment of workers who complain, and ensure foreign investors will continue to find their shores attractive by slashing social programs and labour standards. Sorry to say, you haven't managed to improve the quality of life all that drastically so far.

If the minimum wage is increased by more than the percentage rise in the cost of living, employers ( being in business to make a profit ) will simply pass the increased costs along to consumers in higher prices for goods and services. So even though you make more money, your net disposable income would probably not increase and may even decrease slightly.
no arguement here, I say leave it except to compensate for inflation.


Not exactly, you could take your skills on the open market to challenge the other companies but with government interfernce and regulation it makes it harder to do.
where do you get the money for that?


Not directed at quote
Some people should learn about early industrial britian.
Take a day off sick!? You're fired!
WooHoo no restrictions on bussiness. Its great! (sarcasm)

Actually, if the corporations increased their prices, that would completely kill the U.S. economy. With big places like Ikea moving in from Europe, they simply wouldn't be able to compete.
You're right...but that doesn't mean you should be joining in the 'rush to the bottom' in order to compete. You should be pressuring your government and your businesses to stop pushing the notion that the country that pays the less and has the least amount of labour and environmental laws is the best place to operate. It doesn't benefit the people of that country, or yours, when everyone competes to do the most, for the very least...someone will always underbid you out of desperation.

Also, I just wanted to mention that the majority of jobs available anymore are low-skill and low-paying...there is limited room for skilled workers due to limited positions available....an education doesn't guarantee you won't be flipping burgers or sewing socks for a living...wouldn't it be nice if you could actually LIVE on what you make?

I don't think the minimum wage is a cure all...there are wider societal issues at play here, but throwing it out and praying the market will take care of you out of self-interest....well, let's just say that the invisible hand has yet manifest itself.

If the minimum wage is increased by more than the percentage rise in the cost of living, employers ( being in business to make a profit ) will simply pass the increased costs along to consumers in higher prices for goods and services. So even though you make more money, your net disposable income would probably not increase and may even decrease slightly.
True, but minimum wages are not indexed to the cost of living...they are very rarely increased to match increasing rents and costs of food and so on. Minimum wage should stay minimum: as in allowing one to afford the minimum cost of living, which it rarely does. One should not be so far below the poverty line when one works FULL TIME. That is outrageous.

Um....you do realise that many of these sweatshops are owned by transnational corporations whose headquarters reside in the U.S? Yes, U.S owned companies ARE in these countries (along with other countries' transnationals) and they are making a KILLING (pun intended sometimes) by paying these wages. That's not to say the governments in these countries are not involved...quite the contrary...the provide guards for the companies, help scare off 'pesky' union organisers, allow harassment of workers who complain, and ensure foreign investors will continue to find their shores attractive by slashing social programs and labour standards. Sorry to say, you haven't managed to improve the quality of life all that drastically so far.
That's because there aren't enough companies there. A job surplus will do wonderful things for quality of life. Also, yes, unions should be allowed.

Um....you do realise that many of these sweatshops are owned by transnational corporations whose headquarters reside in the U.S? Yes, U.S owned companies ARE in these countries (along with other countries' transnationals) and they are making a KILLING (pun intended sometimes) by paying these wages. That's not to say the governments in these countries are not involved...quite the contrary...the provide guards for the companies, help scare off 'pesky' union organisers, allow harassment of workers who complain, and ensure foreign investors will continue to find their shores attractive by slashing social programs and labour standards. Sorry to say, you haven't managed to improve the quality of life all that drastically so far.
Oh yeah...and lower production costs don't make your Nike sneakers any less expensive, do they?

Oh yeah...and lower production costs don't make your Nike sneakers any less expensive, do they?
No. Competition does.

That's because there aren't enough companies there. A job surplus will do wonderful things for quality of life. Also, yes, unions should be allowed.
Unions have pesky rules like a basic guaranteed wage and benefits. That interferes with your notion of no minimum wage. As for there needing to be more companies...move a thousand factories to a region, and all you do is drive your production costs up (because of that worker competition you think will solve the problem)...then, to please shareholders, you pack up and move to somewhere where people are desperate to work for whatever you feel like paying them...and so on. Why do you think businesses are leaving in droves from the U.S, then on to India, then to Malaysia....anywhere that's cheap.

No. Competition does.
Really? Wow. That's fantastic. Now tell me why a pair of Nikes, indexed to the current standard of living, still cost the same as they did ten years ago? By your accounts, they should be more reasonably priced since there are so many other sneaker makers out there....

Abolish it.

Unions have pesky rules like a basic guaranteed wage and benefits. That interferes with your notion of no minimum wage. As for there needing to be more companies...move a thousand factories to a region, and all you do is drive your production costs up (because of that worker competition you think will solve the problem)...then, to please shareholders, you pack up and move to somewhere where people are desperate to work for whatever you feel like paying them...and so on. Why do you think businesses are leaving in droves from the U.S, then on to India, then to Malaysia....anywhere that's cheap.
Who's against minimum wage? I'm not. I'm against government-enforced minimum wage.

If you've already moved to the cheapest region in the world, then you can't move. Whatever the cheapest region in the world is needs more companies. Free trade is the great equalizer, isn't it?

No. Competition does.
Competition is in the realm of wages and labour standards....who can offer the lowest wage and the least labour standards....nation competing against nation. Competition is not translating to the goods themselves. Are Levi's any cheaper now that every single last U.S manufactorer of those jeans now operate oversees for much less cost? No, but they're making a hell of a lot more profit.

Really? Wow. That's fantastic. Now tell me why a pair of Nikes, indexed to the current standard of living, still cost the same as they did ten years ago? By your accounts, they should be more reasonably priced since there are so many other sneaker makers out there....
Stupid people like the brand name. It's like people buying $500,000 cars. They can afford to spend extra for the illusion (or not) of luxury. Responsible citizens buy the most affordable product that fits their desires.

Who's against minimum wage? I'm not. I'm against government-enforced minimum wage.

If you've already moved to the cheapest region in the world, then you can't move. Whatever the cheapest region in the world is needs more companies. Free trade is the great equalizer, isn't it?
And when are we going to see that equality kick in? In a couple of centuries? There will ALWAYS be a country willing to offer to do less for more...the cycle is one of flux....today it's India, tomorrow it'll be Pakistan, then perhaps Bangladesh, and when they won't go down further, perhaps Sri Lanka would like some foreign businesses at rock bottom wages....I mean, they need the money after the tsunami, right? Surely they'll underbid everyone else.....

Regardless of the fact that Govt. should stay out of everybodies lives as much as possible, Just increaseing it will cuase current company costs to increase and that will cause prices to rise making any increase proportionately a noneffective. The stuff will cost the same we will just use bigger bills. If you feel you don't get paid enough a) improve yourself so you can be paid more, or B) Get a job with an employer who values you enough to pay you what you are worth.

You're pretty much perfect on that one!
Though minimum wage IS a living wage. It's just not a good one. That is, you can live on it. But not a Middle Class lifestyle.
I don't know about where you live, but in New Jersey a study found that two years ago a living wage would be about $16/hour before taxes. The federal minimum doesn't come close. Granted, NJ is one of the most expensive parts of the USA to live in.

Stupid people like the brand name. It's like people buying $500,000 cars. They can afford to spend extra for the illusion (or not) of luxury. Responsible citizens buy the most affordable product that fits their desires.
Yes, and who cares how that 'affordable' product was produced....kids don't need a childhood anyway.....carpet-weaving is fun, AND it's for profit! Yay!

Competition is in the realm of wages and labour standards....who can offer the lowest wage and the least labour standards....nation competing against nation. Competition is not translating to the goods themselves. Are Levi's any cheaper now that every single last U.S manufactorer of those jeans now operate oversees for much less cost? No, but they're making a hell of a lot more profit.
That's because THERE AREN'T ENOUGH COMPANIES. Let me repeat myself. No wait, I just did.

That's because THERE AREN'T ENOUGH COMPANIES. Let me repeat myself. No wait, I just did.
And let me repeat....the second there are 'enough companies' (what's your magic number, anyway?) they will all bail out to another country to escape rising labour costs. NOT A SOLUTION (since you feel like shouting).

And when are we going to see that equality kick in? In a couple of centuries? There will ALWAYS be a country willing to offer to do less for more...the cycle is one of flux....today it's India, tomorrow it'll be Pakistan, then perhaps Bangladesh, and when they won't go down further, perhaps Sri Lanka would like some foreign businesses at rock bottom wages....I mean, they need the money after the tsunami, right? Surely they'll underbid everyone else.....
It isn't a cycle, as much as you may like to pretend it is. No, people don't immediately go to the average, but if you increase competition, then you increase the average benefit to the consumer and the worker. A cycle's average stays constant. Moreover, when the government isn't involved, competition increases where it is needed most. Please address this specific point using logic, rather than spouting propaganda about starving children, as it appears that I care more about them than you do.

It isn't a cycle, as much as you may like to pretend it is. No, people don't immediately go to the average, but if you increase competition, then you increase the average benefit to the consumer and the worker. A cycle's average stays constant.
Christ, what economics book are you reading today? That's the theory, not the reality. What about the following is difficult to understand:

Company A has high production costs in Country 1. Company A moves to Country 2. Forty other companies get the same idea and move to Country 2. Company A does okay for a while, but soon, production costs go up again, and Country 3 is more than happy to offer lower costs. Company A moves. So does company B - Z, for the same reasons....soon, the companies left in Country 1 bring their wages back down to match Country 2's wages, knowing that the remaining companies will leave if they don't.

Moreover, when the government isn't involved, competition increases where it is needed most.
You are assuming that the goods being produced abroad are being consumed in that nation. They rarely are. Women working in the maquilas on the US/Mexican border can't afford the goods they assemble...those goods are meant for Western markets. This isn't about supply and demand of goods...it's about supply and demand of production costs. The businesses will always try to maximise their profits...that is their purpose. To do so means packing up and leaving to keep costs down.

Please address this specific point using logic, rather than spouting propaganda about starving children, as it appears that I care more about them than you do.

I will forgive you this, but first I will give you a thrashing. *thrash, thrash, thrash* Spare your ad hominem for someone who cares what your opinion of them is.

Abolition. The government doesn't have any business interfering in the contract between the employer and an employee.

Gee what a surprise. There are actually contrary opinions.

Look, a minimum wage just makes entry level jobs harder to find. People with no experience would benefit from a low paying way to gain experience. Putting the minimum wage at a "living" wage certainly pre-supposes that all potential employees are worth that wage. They aren't.

Kids used to deliver newspapers. Not all, but it's an example. They didn't make much, but they learned about accounting, customer service, inventory management, and gained some valuable experience. They were responsible. When they went to find a higher paying job, they could say that they had done something before. Substitute McDonalds, or the car wash, or whatever you like, but there needs to be a menial, low wage type of job for new workers to learn the basics of work. And without making the employer risk a high wage on some incompentant that needs basic experience.

I don't know about where you live, but in New Jersey a study found that two years ago a living wage would be about $16/hour before taxes. The federal minimum doesn't come close. Granted, NJ is one of the most expensive parts of the USA to live in.

I live in Connecticut, which is about par w/ Jersey.

It might not be enough in our area. But how about in Michigan? Oklahoma? Mississippi?

I'm not saying it's great, but it's the *minimum* for a reason.

Company A has high production costs in Country 1. Company A moves to Country 2. Forty other companies get the same idea and move to Country 2. Company A does okay for a while, but soon, production costs go up again, and Country 3 is more than happy to offer lower costs. Company A moves. So does company B - Z, for the same reasons....soon, the companies left in Country 1 bring their wages back down to match Country 2's wages, knowing that the remaining companies will leave if they don't.
There exists a container. It has a divider in it. On one half of the divider is X amount of liquid. On the other half is Y amount. When you remove the divider, the liquid sloshes back and forth a bit but eventually settles so that both halves have the same amount of liquid.

When you add more liquid to the container, it sloshes around a bit and eventually settles at a higher level.

You are assuming that the goods being produced abroad are being consumed in that nation. They rarely are. Women working in the maquilas on the US/Mexican border can't afford the goods they assemble...those goods are meant for Western markets. This isn't about supply and demand of goods...it's about supply and demand of production costs. The businesses will always try to maximise their profits...that is their purpose. To do so means packing up and leaving to keep costs down.
No, I'm not. The workers in the producing country see a benefit. The consumers in whatever country uses the product see a benefit.

I will forgive you this, but first I will give you a thrashing. *thrash, thrash, thrash* Spare your ad hominem for someone who cares what your opinion of them is.
Fair enough. 8) I was a bit out of line. Just try not to stray too far from the point of the argument, O.K.?

Gee what a surprise. There are actually contrary opinions.

Look, a minimum wage just makes entry level jobs harder to find. People with no experience would benefit from a low paying way to gain experience. Putting the minimum wage at a "living" wage certainly pre-supposes that all potential employees are worth that wage. They aren't.

Kids used to deliver newspapers. Not all, but it's an example. They didn't make much, but they learned about accounting, customer service, inventory management, and gained some valuable experience. They were responsible. When they went to find a higher paying job, they could say that they had done something before. Substitute McDonalds, or the car wash, or whatever you like, but there needs to be a menial, low wage type of job for new workers to learn the basics of work. And without making the employer risk a high wage on some incompentant that needs basic experience.
The minimum wage for under 18 is less isn't it? It is here(ireland) anyway.(Its not allowed to disrupt education though)

Wow you learn how to do a well-paying job by making hamburgers in Mc Donalds!? And here was me thinking you needed a good education!


Edit: It's good that you're making arguements instead of just saying abolish :)

Moreover, when the government isn't involved, competition increases where it is needed most.
What makes you think the goverment will ever not be involved? Lets say that we do weaken restrictions the already powerful internationalcorporations get even more powerfull and ys a few small competitors rise up. So in order to crush their competitors the big internationals buy out the goverment be this by out right bribes or by backing a canidate sympathetic to them or that is willing to push their agenda in exchange for financial support. Next thing you know the small buisnesses are gone and the big buissneses are stronger than ever. Seriously for people always going on about how we can't trust the goverment we elect with power, because they might abuse it conservatives and libertarians seem to have an insane amount of faith in human decency when it comes to big buisness. :rolleyes:

Increase it, but only a dollar or two.

There exists a container. It has a divider in it. On one half of the divider is X amount of liquid. On the other half is Y amount. When you remove the divider, the liquid sloshes back and forth a bit but eventually settles so that both halves have the same amount of liquid.

When you add more liquid to the container, it sloshes around a bit and eventually settles at a higher level.
Nice analogy. Now provide some examples of where this has actually happened. Ditto for the following:

No, I'm not. The workers in the producing country see a benefit. The consumers in whatever country uses the product see a benefit.

Are the benefits equal? Do they improve living conditions, or worsen them? Is any business, no matter how corrupt, underpaying, damaging to the environment and abusive of human rights worth it? To the rich, a resounding "yes". To the people who have to live in the aftermath of Bhopal, (caused by lax safety standards, exacerbated by lax environmental regulations which meant no clean up, and added to by a government willing to turn a blind eye so they don't lose investors...) or in towns gone under when companies leave, I don't think the feeling is so warm and fuzzy.

Nice analogy. Now provide some examples of where this has actually happened. Ditto for the following:
The latter is easy. People have jobs where they didn't before. If it wasn't beneficial, then they wouldn't abandon a subsistence living. For the former, I'm neither an economist nor a historian, but I can't think of an example that would illustrate either side. As a mathematician and an engineer, though, this is the only behavior that seems to make sense.

Are the benefits equal? Do they improve living conditions, or worsen them? Is any business, no matter how corrupt, underpaying, damaging to the environment and abusive of human rights worth it? To the rich, a resounding "yes". To the people who have to live in the aftermath of Bhopal, (caused by lax safety standards, exacerbated by lax environmental regulations which meant no clean up, and added to by a government willing to turn a blind eye so they don't lose investors...) or in towns gone under when companies leave, I don't think the feeling is so warm and fuzzy.
The benefits to the producing country are either higher wages or higher employment. If a company is underpaying, then it is extremely vulnerable to extra competition. If a company is corrupt/abusive of human rights, then something should be done about it. A company should not be allowed to damage the environment.

The minimum wage for under 18 is less isn't it? It is here(ireland) anyway.(Its not allowed to disrupt education though)

Wow you learn how to do a well-paying job by making hamburgers in Mc Donalds!? And here was me thinking you needed a good education!


Edit: It's good that you're making arguements instead of just saying abolish :)
Nah, there are other work rules that apply to minors, but minimum wage isn't one of them. That's part of the problem.

You don't learn a well paying skill by flipping burgers. You learn how to work, though. That experience, plus the fact that you can demonstrate your "trainablity" will help with the next, better paying job. And so on.

Higher education can trump the experience card, but not everyone can play that card. There needs to be a way for unskilled workers to enter the labor force, but doesn't require a high wage from the employer.

Understand, now?

COME TO PARADISE CLUB NOW! IT'S THE GREATEST PLACE TO BE WHEN YOU WANNA TALK WITH FRIENDS AND HAVE A DRINK.
I NEED A SCOTCH RIGHT NOW. MY EARS HURT. MY EYES HURT, TOO.

Find an acceptable wage and index it to inflation. It won't solve everything, but its better than piecemeal raises every few years.

I feel that government should stay out of the economy entirely. If your employer pays you an unacceptable wage, find somebody who values your skills more highly and work for them instead.

My only problem with that is that companies will not necessarily *always* provide a living wage. Companies are in business to make a profit, and sometimes that would entail paying its employees next to nothing if it needs to (or even wants to). Plus, it's not sound business to be paying people a "good" salary if they're not skilled enough to do it, where, in some cases, the job simply isn't worth a good pay no matter how good the employee is. That's why minimum wage is necessary- to protect the poorest of citizens from exploitation by Big Business.

My only problem with that is that companies will not necessarily *always* provide a living wage. Companies are in business to make a profit, and sometimes that would entail paying its employees next to nothing if it needs to (or even wants to). Plus, it's not sound business to be paying people a "good" salary if they're not skilled enough to do it, where, in some cases, the job simply isn't worth a good pay no matter how good the employee is. That's why minimum wage is necessary- to protect the poorest of citizens from exploitation by Big Business.

If a guy can't get a living wage from his job, he can get a second job. Right? That's what has been done for years. Probably for centuries. Where did we ever get this idea that a work day was supposed to be eight hours and a week was supposed to be five days?

It isn't a function of federal government, in the US, to manage employee relations.

If a guy can't get a living wage from his job, he can get a second job. Right? That's what has been done for years. Probably for centuries. Where did we ever get this idea that a work day was supposed to be eight hours and a week was supposed to be five days?

It isn't a function of federal government, in the US, to manage employee relations.
oh yes because we ALL want to work 60-80 hours a week probably with both jbos at minimum wage, which STILL isnt living wage

have you ever had a minimum wage job? not even 6 dollars an hour

oh yes because we ALL want to work 60-80 hours a week probably with both jbos at minimum wage, which STILL isnt living wage

have you ever had a minimum wage job? not even 6 dollars an hour

Look pal, whose paycheck have you signed lately? My first job was delivering papers. I probably cleared $50/month. I had a minimum wage job at $2.15/hr. The next summer I was a laborer on a construction site for $3.50/hr. I paid for my college that way. First job out of college was as a Lieutenant in the Marine Corps at the princely salary of $12,500. I do a lot better now.

Like I said much earlier. Workers with no experience don't deserve living wages. They also shouldn't have dependants. The low wage jobs will allow employers to risk a little on a worker with no experience. That benefits the employer and the employee. That's the way compromises work.

If a guy can't get a living wage from his job, he can get a second job. Right? That's what has been done for years. Probably for centuries. Where did we ever get this idea that a work day was supposed to be eight hours and a week was supposed to be five days?

It isn't a function of federal government, in the US, to manage employee relations.

What if a company decides to set wages at $1/hr., because that's all it can afford? Also, what if the job in question is the only one you can find? You'd be stuck on that kind of money.

What if a company decides to set wages at $1/hr., because that's all it can afford? Also, what if the job in question is the only one you can find? You'd be stuck on that kind of money.
Something is going to give. The company may not hire the worker it wants. Other workers will have to take up the slack. The job seeker may have to move to more fertile ground. Happens all the time. Remember the Joad family?

Something is going to give. The company may not hire the worker it wants. Other workers will have to take up the slack. The job seeker may have to move to more fertile ground. Happens all the time. Remember the Joad family?

...and if you can't afford to move?

...and if you can't afford to move?
You're screwed. But why is that the employer's problem? Besides if the employer can't offer a job at the minimum wage of $X, you won't get to work, either. Maybe that $1 doesn't look so bad, now. For either of you.

You must not have caught my reference to the Oakies in the "Grapes of Wrath". They couldn't stay where they were, so they found a way to move. If you were faced with the prospect of _NO_ work or moving, you'd find a way, too. People do.

I don't feel like making much of an enthusiastic opening post so I'll just say that some Libertarians and some right-wingers seem to be against to minimum wage.

Here's a little summary I just googled why:


What do you think? I honestly think we should just leave it as it is.
Federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional. The federal government is given no such authority to regulate wages. It is a state issue.

That said, I do think minimum wage is a bad idea because it causes inflation. Besides, how many jobs actually pay minimum wage anymore? McDonald's has cashier jobs with starting pay at $7.00 an hour.

Federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional. The federal government is given no such authority to regulate wages. It is a state issue.

That said, I do think minimum wage is a bad idea because it causes inflation. Besides, how many jobs actually pay minimum wage anymore? McDonald's has cashier jobs with starting pay at $7.00 an hour.
i wish i made 7$ an hour hen i had a summer job

i wish i made 7$ an hour hen i had a summer job
If wishes were horses...

i never liked you so i will jsut ignore you

The picture that I am seeing painted is that the working class are going to be paid an amount of money that is not enough to live on. I would contend that that would be self-destructive to the corporations who make their profits by selling goods to these people. If the people do not make enough money to purchase these goods then the corp. does not earn any money and then fails. The problem we have now is government regulation. There never has been a true freemarket per se or true capitalism it is always hampered and restricted by government regulations. The monopoly laws are needed and other than that the government has not right to infringe upon the liberty of individuals concerning their employment. I would even be willing to abolish corporations because they are an entity of the government and to make things sole proprietyships and partnerships. This will make them accountable for their actions.

The picture that I am seeing painted is that the working class are going to be paid an amount of money that is not enough to live on. I would contend that that would be self-destructive to the corporations who make their profits by selling goods to these people. If the people do not make enough money to purchase these goods then the corp. does not earn any money and then fails. The problem we have now is government regulation. There never has been a true freemarket per se or true capitalism it is always hampered and restricted by government regulations. The monopoly laws are needed and other than that the government has not right to infringe upon the liberty of individuals concerning their employment. I would even be willing to abolish corporations because they are an entity of the government and to make things sole proprietyships and partnerships. This will make them accountable for their actions.
See, you aren't looking at labor as a commodity. It is. Companies do compete with each other for better labor. As they do that, wages rise. If the price for labor is set too high, companies will do without. Sure, they need some, but they will be much more choosy about who and how many.

i never liked you so i will jsut ignore you
Got a little more than you wanted on that reply to your ad hominem attack, didn't you?

Abolishing minimum wage is the stupidest thing ive ever heard. Whenever it isnt in place employers take advantage of it to use their workers as slaves. And there's nothing they can do about it. If they got a new job they would be treated just as badly. Have you ever heard of sweat shops?

Our rising minimum wage results in less job availability. Say there are 5 workers who all get paid $500 per week. If all of a sudden the government steps in and says "$750 per week is the minimum!" They think that now there will be more people above the poverty line, but No. Now that the business has to pay $750 per week it will have to fire 2 of the workers! Minimum wage just gives the people who already have jobs more money. It makes unemployment go UP because businesses have to give more money to those working, and instead of hiring say 10 people at 350 per week, (thanks to increasing minimum wage) can now only hire 4 people at the new 500 per week minimum. My father has a bachelors degree in economics, and a masters in business management science and business organization. He explained to me how the economy can always work to fix itself in times of trouble. However, when limitations are set such as minimum wage, it halts growth and slows down the rebuilding of the economy. Also, if the government can keep raising minimum wage with no resistance, it is always showing that they will be able to raise other things, such as taxes, with no resistance, and soon will have more power of the economy than is good.

The "best" and most free economy in the world is in Japan. America is down the list at near the 10th most free economy. This is not good enough for being the backbone of the world. After World War II many South, and East Asian countries experimented with communism, and a government controlled economy. However, many of them fell extremely short of their dreams of a controlled economy and found themselves bankrupt and without commercial power. Looking to America as an example, countries like Japan, (South) Korea, (South) Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand etc. completely gave up on the ideas of controlling their economies and set them free. Businesses sprouted up like wildfire, and with no regulations on wages, and very minimal taxing, these countries are now the commercial capitals of the world. It takes about 25 minutes to open a business in Japan. Whereas in more socialist nations such as China, it can take 5 years. This just goes to show that government intervention in the economy is a bad choice in capitalism. For our country to grow strong, I say we let our economy be free from the chains the government puts on it in its efforts towards "social equality." If the government really wanted social equality, it wouldn't be taking jobs from the people and limiting small businesses that try to grow. Take a minute to consider these arguments.

Abolishing minimum wage is the stupidest thing ive ever heard. Whenever it isnt in place employers take advantage of it to use their workers as slaves. And there's nothing they can do about it. If they got a new job they would be treated just as badly. Have you ever heard of sweat shops?
Not hardly. Repeat your post aloud. Stop after one iteration. Then you can refer to the stupidest thing you ever heard. Sorry to be rude, but I just get upset with hyperbole.

Where do your ideas come from? What is minimum wage, now, $6/hr? Who can hire untrained kids for fast food at less than $7/hr? No one in the Atlanta area. And we aren't an expensive area. I'll be SoCal and New York pay much more for entry wages.

Companies would have to perform several feats that are against anti-trust laws, as well as common sense, in order for your scenario to unfold. Read a couple of my prior posts in this thread and tell me where my logic is wrong.

Our rising minimum wage results in less job availability. Say there are 5 workers who all get paid $500 per week. If all of a sudden the government steps in and says "$750 per week is the minimum!" They think that now there will be more people above the poverty line, but No. Now that the business has to pay $750 per week it will have to fire 2 of the workers! Minimum wage just gives the people who already have jobs more money. It makes unemployment go UP because businesses have to give more money to those working, and instead of hiring say 10 people at 350 per week, (thanks to increasing minimum wage) can now only hire 4 people at the new 500 per week minimum. My father has a bachelors degree in economics, and a masters in business management science and business organization. He explained to me how the economy can always work to fix itself in times of trouble. However, when limitations are set such as minimum wage, it halts growth and slows down the rebuilding of the economy. Also, if the government can keep raising minimum wage with no resistance, it is always showing that they will be able to raise other things, such as taxes, with no resistance, and soon will have more power of the economy than is good.

Bingo! You have the right answer! Your dad is brilliant. Tell him so!

The "best" and most free economy in the world is in Japan. America is down the list at near the 30th most free economy. After World War II many South, and East Asian countries experimented with communism, and a government controlled economy. However, many of them fell extremely short of their dreams of a controlled economy and found themselves bankrupt and without commercial power. Looking to America as an example, countries like Japan, (South) Korea, (South) Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand etc. completely gave up on the ideas of controlling their economies and set them free. Businesses sprouted up like wildfire, and with no regulations on wages, and very minimal taxing, these countries are now the commercial capitals of the world. It takes about 25 minutes to open a business in Japan. Whereas in more socialist nations such as China, it can take 5 years. This just goes to show that government intervention in the economy is a bad choice in capitalism. For our country to grow strong, I say we let our economy be free from the chains the government puts on it in its efforts towards "social equality." If the government really wanted social equality, it wouldn't be taking jobs from the people and limiting small businesses that try to grow. Take a minute to consider these arguments.

I though we were ranked about 12th, by the Heritage Foundation. Where did your numbers come from. I want to use them in my futile letters to our RHINO Senators.

Ahh! Excuse my inaccuracy! It is indeed ranked 12th (as of last year). In my response I meant to put 10th, I am going to see if it is not too late to edit.

Where do sweatshops and child labour fit in this picture? Those are mostly South-East Asian phenomena right? Are these symptoms of emerging economies that will be over in a generation? Can these symptoms not be cured through government or union intervention? You're not going to tell me that there shouldn't be any standards for health, safety and general wellbeing of the employee.

I'm sorry, but I did not mention that some intervention is necessary. However not in the form of economic limitations. There needs to be laws and regulations against atrocities and a humane working hour law. The problem I was addressing in my previous response was to the rapid increase in social welfare, and minimum wage increase. Humane laws will be neccessary for all working economies in all government types due to the nature of humans to become corrupt. However, for an economy to work, it needs to be for the most part on its own. Regulations should only be made to keep people safe, they shouldn't be made in attempt to boost the economy by trying to "cheat" the laws of economic science.

It isn't a cycle, as much as you may like to pretend it is. No, people don't immediately go to the average, but if you increase competition, then you increase the average benefit to the consumer and the worker. A cycle's average stays constant. Moreover, when the government isn't involved, competition increases where it is needed most. Please address this specific point using logic, rather than spouting propaganda about starving children, as it appears that I care more about them than you do.

Competition increases? Funny, there sure are a lot of mergers around. There would be more if government regulators allowed the big banks (etc) to buddy up. And it's government's that step in and stop monopolies. Seems to me you can't toss regulation out of the picture if you're a big supporter of competition.

I'm sorry, but I did not mention that some intervention is necessary. However not in the form of economic limitations. There needs to be laws and regulations against atrocities and a humane working hour law. The problem I was addressing in my previous response was to the rapid increase in social welfare, and minimum wage increase. Humane laws will be neccessary for all working economies in all government types due to the nature of humans to become corrupt. However, for an economy to work, it needs to be for the most part on its own. Regulations should only be made to keep people safe, they shouldn't be made in attempt to boost the economy by trying to "cheat" the laws of economic science.
humane working hour law: but with no minium wage then you might not be able to live without working more.