Equality of opportunity..?

[James Keith]

Workers who are with a company for a certain period of time tend to get raises, which can explain why only a small portion (almost 5% http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325.htm) of the workforce earns MW. MW makes the starting point for workers $7.25 an hour instead of $4 an hour (or however low employers could get people to work for).

BTW if MW had kept pace with inflation over the last 40 years a lot of workers right now would be earning below minimum wage.

They are paying less either way. They are paying zero. Nice job. Your preferred way ensures they will never get raises too, not to mention marketable skills or experience.

Supply and demand.

Great. So now back to the topic:

Sure it's a fair comparison. Business owners fought tooth and nail against an 8-hour day and paying anything more than subsistence wages. Why wouldn't they do it now?

Supply and demand.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

They are paying less either way.

Who is paying less either way? What are the two possible "ways"?

They are paying zero. Nice job. Your preferred way ensures they will never get raises too, not to mention marketable skills or experience.

People who are unemployed generally don't spend their entire life unemployed. They eventually get jobs.

 

[James Keith]

What are you replying to here? Who is paying less either way?

The employer. I was responding to this part:

MW makes the starting point for workers $7.25 an hour instead of $4 an hour (or however low employers could get people to work for).

The "two ways" are either allow them to pay what the market dictates or prevent them from hiring the less productive workers (minimum wage).

 

[Deleted member 159002]

The employer. I was responding to this part:


The "two ways" are either allow them to pay what the market dictates or prevent them from hiring the less productive workers (minimum wage).

So whether there's MW or no MW, workers will earn less than MW. ... That doesn't make sense.
Sure unemployment might increase a little as a consequence of MW, but it won't cause every unskilled worker to become unemployed (as evidenced by our millions of MW workers...).

Given that unemployment is only temporary, I think a slightly higher unemployment rate is an acceptable tradeoff for a not-even-decent minimum wage.

 

[OldGoat]

The employer. I was responding to this part:


The "two ways" are either allow them to pay what the market dictates or prevent them from hiring the less productive workers (minimum wage).

Don't engage Sabretruth in his define this define that game. It's almost like he's employing some perverse Socratic method.

 

[OldGoat]

So whether there's MW or no MW, workers will earn less than MW. ... That doesn't make sense.
Sure unemployment might increase a little as a consequence of MW, but it won't cause every unskilled worker to become unemployed (as evidenced by our millions of MW workers...).

Given that unemployment is only temporary, I think a slightly higher unemployment rate is an acceptable tradeoff for a not-even-decent minimum wage.

Rise of Asian manufacturing is a direct result of MW. All those illegal immigrants getting paid under the table? MW is to blame. Don't let the facts confuse you.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Rise of Asian manufacturing is a direct result of MW. All those illegal immigrants getting paid under the table? MW is to blame. Don't let the facts confuse you.

You're affirming my point... Relying on employer benevolence to ensure that the non-rich have a decent standard of living is foolish.

 

[James Keith]

So whether there's MW or no MW, workers will earn less than MW. ... That doesn't make sense.
Sure unemployment might increase a little as a consequence of MW, but it won't cause every unskilled worker to become unemployed (as evidenced by our millions of MW workers...).

Given that unemployment is only temporary, I think a slightly higher unemployment rate is an acceptable tradeoff for a not-even-decent minimum wage.

Or they could spend that "temporary" time working in the first place, before finding a better job. What magic motivational effect does sitting on one's ass supposed to have that working at a job wouldn't accomplish.

 

[OldGoat]

You're affirming my point... Relying on employer benevolence to ensure that the non-rich have a decent standard of living is foolish.

Then increase taxing and spending instead of MW.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Or they could spend that "temporary" time working in the first place, before finding a better job. What magic motivational effect does sitting on one's ass supposed to have that working at a job wouldn't accomplish.

If someone is unemployed because of minimum wage, then his being unemployed has nothing to do with motivation.

You think the starting point for unskilled workers should be barely enough money to just put gas in their car. I think the starting point should be better than that.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Then increase taxing and spending instead of MW.

Keep in mind this discussion started because JK said:

Minimum wage in this country is something like $9/hour. Let's call that $20/year to be generous.

 

[AgentOrange24]

I'm for whatever economic system lets me lounge on the beach all day drinking beer and eating hotdogs.

 

[Crocswithsocks]

Inheritance is an advantage. Sure but it's an advantage of outcomes not one of opportunity. That's all I'm saying.

My parents were poor immigrants who became wealthy through hard work and the glorious advantages America has over Central America and the West Indies. The advantages that they pass along are far more useful while they're alive than the value of any inheritance (although that will pretty much mirror your grandfather - places to live rent-free, paid education for generations coming down the line, etc.). My wife comes from a similar background (except her parents aren't immigrants, they still live overseas although they have properties here too).

But most of those advantages arise from how the wealthy choose to spend their money. It doesn't have to be inheritance, it can be a trust or some other wealth transfer vehicle. And that's why reducing it is more about reducing inequalities in outcomes, not opportunities. People who became wealthy can spend their money to give advantages to whomever/whatever they want (sport teams, college they attended, etc.). Reducing the amount of money they can spend after death is about limiting the reach of their life's outcomes.

So life is not fair. But you think it's the governments role to ensure it is.

 

[panamaican]

So life is not fair. But you think it's the governments role to ensure it is.

Never said that. Pretty sure my opinion is on the first page.

 

[ultramanhyata]

You're affirming my point... Relying on employer benevolence to ensure that the non-rich have a decent standard of living is foolish.

Hey. It's just that the hearts of wealthy American businessmen started going out to poor Asians at an increased rate starting back in the 1980's. And their empathy for poor Asians is now at an all-time high. Why is that a bad thing? Why do you hate voluntary charity? Why do you want to devour the entrails of the rich - like some sort of zombie FDR??

What's funny about JK's oppositionist position on the minimum wage (the position of fis-cons/libertarians) is that it is argued from both sides of the ideological mouth, depending on the audience.

On the one hand you will hear a guy like JK say that the current MW creates unemployment - because there are workers who are not, and will never be, worth what the MW dictates they must be paid.

But on the other you will hear the argument that MW laws are actually hindering the explosive growth potential of free private enterprise. And that if we did away with a MW we would quickly see that the lowest market wages being paid to workers in this country would exceed the current, artificial levels set by the government!

Of course, if you're willing to take a trip with Alice through the MisesLand looking glass, this all makes perfect, harmonious sense.

 

[James Keith]

If someone is unemployed because of minimum wage, then his being unemployed has nothing to do with motivation.

You think the starting point for unskilled workers should be barely enough money to just put gas in their car. I think the starting point should be better than that.

If they didn't want the wage they could choose not to take the stupid job then. Then be unemployed "temporarily" and thereby take whatever springboard to better things you think unemployment amounts to.

This argument is silly.

 

[James Keith]

On the one hand you will hear a guy like JK say that the current MW creates unemployment - because there are workers who are not, and will never be, worth what the MW dictates they must be paid.

I know you're just trolling here as per usual, but this statement is assinine. People build skills and make themselves more valuable by gaining work experience.

Perhaps that is what you are floundering on about in the latter part of your otherwise incomprehensible point.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I know you're just trolling here as per usual, but this statement is assinine. People build skills and make themselves more valuable by gaining work experience.

I'm talking about a worker relative to a position. Which is exactly what you were talking about. In your world the baristas, fry cooks, motel maids, etc., are not worth $7.25/hr. And never will be, according to your free-market calculations.

Perhaps that is what you are floundering on about in the latter part of your otherwise incomprehensible point.

I can understand how the cognitive dissonance would prove overwhelming to someone with your well-washed brain.

 

[James Keith]

I'm talking about a worker relative to a position. Which is exactly what you were talking about. In your world the baristas, fry cooks, motel maids, etc., are not worth $7.25/hr. And never will be, according to your free-market calculations.

Depends how productive they are.

What the hell does "a worker relative to a position" mean?

 

[ultramanhyata]

What the hell does "a worker relative to a position" mean?

Name the jobs that you deem either too unskilled or too unproductive to warrant the current minimum hourly wage.

The workers that hold these positions are "workers relative to a position".

You really couldn't put that together??