StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm not talking about dollar amounts. Everyone knows that different places have different costs of living.

What I'm talking about is how much of a living minimum wage should amount to. How many people should one minimum wage job be capable of supporting? What standard of living should it support; should a person on minimum wage be able to afford paying insurance and fuel costs for a car? Should such a person be able to support dependents on a minimum wage?

Linked to inflation based on a percentage of money used for an average rent within different zones of occupancy.

Of course the legislation for that would be too progressive and laws are step functions (50 bucks at 100 kilometers, 200 bucks at 101 kilometers) but hey this is what I'd do.

Brian

At the federal level? $0. Minimum wage laws are price-fixing and cause unemployment. Plus they raise the cost of labor. Income subsidies and/or payroll tax cuts for the lowest income brackets have the benefits of minimum wages without the costs.

And there's no way that teenagers who are dependent on their parents but work jobs on the side for spending money should be entitled to the very generous wages demanded by living wage advocates.

It's easy to deal with teenagers, link wage to age. That's already done at least in some places, I got $6.75 CDN when I was under 16. If you think that's too much money for a teenager you're fucking crazy.

Minimum wage laws are based on decency for human beings. Corporations only care about the bottom line and would lower minimum wage all the way they can. If there was none, who knows five bucks an hour, three bucks an hour, it could happen, and don't say it can't, see outsourcing to third world shitholes.

<edit>If you think that lower fixed costs always translates into more jobs, that's not always a true proposition and requires proof. I would tend to think big faceless corporations would absorb the cost savings and give a higher profit margin to their shareholders rather than hire more people.</edit>

<edit 2>If you don't believe Corporations would be so callous, see outsourcing, see hiring illegal immigrants. The bottom line is profit and if the minimum wage is too high that's different that whether the minimum wage should exist at all. The solution to the illegal immigrant problem is giving illegal immigrants the same wage as citizens. Of course people will scream, unfair like shit, but illegal immigrants without the language or background should not be able to do any better than you, and they are human beings too so if they can compete with you your skils seriously need upgrading. It's not unfair when you consider they are human beings and if they can genuinely do a better job than you then they deserve the job regardless of nationality. And tax them too, since if they're paid wages they can be taxed since there's a money trail. But of course nationalism patriotism people will go unfair me vs them when illegals are human beings too, excuse me while I BARF.</edit 2>

Brian

brianeyci wrote:Linked to inflation based on a percentage of money used for an average rent within different zones of occupancy.

Of course the legislation for that would be too progressive and laws are step functions (50 bucks at 100 kilometers, 200 bucks at 101 kilometers) but hey this is what I'd do.

Brian

So wages are determined based on a person's address? That could be tricky. What's to prevent people from being hired or passed over based on where they live? Or, even better, to prevent people from passing themselves off as living at different locations in order to get higher wages?

Uraniun235 wrote:So wages are determined based on a person's address? That could be tricky. What's to prevent people from being hired or passed over based on where they live? Or, even better, to prevent people from passing themselves off as living at different locations in order to get higher wages?

Yeah I thought about this, and it wouldn't work. But I can't come up with a better idea. Maybe an average for large enough zones of occupancy so it's difficult to lie. Still it shouldn't cost more than 50% of a person's income for rent no matter what.

Linked to inflation for sure though.

Brian

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm not talking about dollar amounts. Everyone knows that different places have different costs of living.

What I'm talking about is how much of a living minimum wage should amount to.

You cannot stipulate a non-trivial real value as a minimum wage, or there will be significant problems with unemployment that are worse than anything we have, today.

How many people should one minimum wage job be capable of supporting? What standard of living should it support; should a person on minimum wage be able to afford paying insurance and fuel costs for a car? Should such a person be able to support dependents on a minimum wage?

I don't see any reason to have any minimum wage in the first place; ergo it should be zero.

In economics, my professor used to say that min wage was relatively counterproductive, since the businesses raise the cost of goods, and the workers themselves are consumers, so they end up paying most of the money they get back in higher priced-consumer goods.

I don't know if that is true, but if so, it would be troubling. If you raise the cost of labour, they raise the price of the products. I don't know if it ends up costing as much as they get. Anyone have an idea if this is true? If so, it would seem pointless.

People who advocate zero minimum wage should give proof why they think large corporations like Wal-Mart would give a shit about their employees at all and not lower their wages to near slave labour levels. They also need to show that the money corporations will save will be put to hiring more people.

Economists look at the minimum wage differently. They are right because it will increase GDP, but wrong in that a disproportionate number of people will suffer. Minimum wage isn't about GDP, it's about alleviating suffering of the people at the lowest rung of society so the people with the least skills aren't taken advantage of and treated as chattel.

MOO wrote:I don't see any reason to have any minimum wage in the first place; ergo it should be zero.

Because if there's no minimum wage the first fixed cost a corporation like Wal-Mart can axe is the paycheque of its lower employees and the poor get poorer and poorer over time and the rich get richer and richer. I assume you have no problem with that though. I do.

Brian

I don't know why anyone thinks that already exploitative services and industries would suddenly decide to become nicer if they didn't have to pay their employees as much. You know, as opposed to having a really big party where they pee on the suffering bodies of the dying or something, which seems a lot more likely.

I think minimum wage should be enough to pay for the necessary food a person needs, necessary utilities (garbage, reasonable water, heat and electricity, etc.), a sub-par but workable health care plan, and a low-rent room in some form of high-density human population center (such as an apartment complex) as well as some amount additional for basic human necessities... In my happy hippie utopia where everyone shits flowers.

People who advocate zero minimum wage should give proof why they think large corporations like Wal-Mart would give a shit about their employees at all and not lower their wages to near slave labour levels.

Wal-Mart jobs, on average, pay well above the current minimum wage.

Economists look at the minimum wage differently. They are right because it will increase GDP, but wrong in that a disproportionate number of people will suffer. Minimum wage isn't about GDP, it's about alleviating suffering of the people at the lowest rung of society so the people with the least skills aren't taken advantage of and treated as chattel.

And there are ways to do this without fixing prices and hurting the economy - income subsistence and payroll tax cuts, like I mentioned earlier. The former forces consumers to pick up the costs of taking care of lower income workers - the latter allocates the cost to society at large, as it should be.

Joe wrote:

People who advocate zero minimum wage should give proof why they think large corporations like Wal-Mart would give a shit about their employees at all and not lower their wages to near slave labour levels.

Wal-Mart jobs, on average, pay well above the current minimum wage.

You do not address my point. That does not change the fact that without a minimum wage, it gives the corporation an opportunity in the future to fuck people over. If Wal-Mart suddenly hits hard times, the poor people suffer. And if they hit really hard times--well, the poor people really suffer. You need a rule, business will not be self-regulating, they care only about the bottom line. Your trust in corporations who care only about the bottom line is astounding.

Corporations already do this in third world countries, you don't think they would do it here if they could get away with it? Please .

And there are ways to do this without fixing prices and hurting the economy - income subsistence and payroll tax cuts, like I mentioned earlier. The former forces consumers to pick up the costs of taking care of lower income workers - the latter allocates the cost to society at large, as it should be.

Consumers should pick up the tab of lower income workers because "we're all in this together." You would prefer the government take care of them in the form of some kind of income supplement or tax cut, which is ridiculous. The government's in deficit and consumers can afford it, the government would just end up passing on costs to consumers anyway with higher taxes. You would trust the government to run more social services when the obvious solution is to raise the minimum wage and let the economy deal with it?

The people who drive SUV's to Wal-Mart and have four kids can afford a few extra dollars.

Brian

The wage should be what the job is worth.

Pick wrote:I don't know why anyone thinks that already exploitative services and industries would suddenly decide to become nicer if they didn't have to pay their employees as much. You know, as opposed to having a really big party where they pee on the suffering bodies of the dying or something, which seems a lot more likely.

Exactly, these GDP arguments just piss me off. And getting rid of minimum wage, ludicrious. I suspect that the people who don't like minimum wage are well-off, driving their gas guzzling SUV's and don't like paying $1.15 for a can of pop instead of $1.00 and think that getting rid of minimum wage would save them moola.

I think minimum wage should be enough to pay for the necessary food a person needs, necessary utilities (garbage, reasonable water, heat and electricity, etc.), a sub-par but workable health care plan, and a low-rent room in some form of high-density human population center (such as an apartment complex) as well as some amount additional for basic human necessities... In my happy hippie utopia where everyone shits flowers.

Believe it or not, it almost came true in Canada. Jean Chretien one of our infamous Prime Ministers wanted a legacy, and one of the things thrown around was a guaranteed income crib-to-death wage.

And of course we already have healthcare. So move to Canada .

Brian

Consumers should pick up the tab of lower income workers because "we're all in this together."

That's insane. Lower income consumers - the people who you're accusing me of not caring about - are going to be hit harder by the inflation caused by artificially high wages more than anyone. You say "we're all in this together," but minimum wage laws force the firms who employ people on the minimum wage and the people who buy goods and services from them to pick up the cost while the rest of society gets off scott free.

You would prefer the government take care of them in the form of some kind of income supplement or tax cut, which is ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. What the hell do you think existing welfare is, if not an income supplement, jackass?

The government's in deficit and consumers can afford it, the government would just end up passing on costs to consumers anyway with higher taxes.

That is better than forcing a small minority of firms and consumers to pick up the costs. If "we're all in this together," like you say, then it is all of society's responsibility to take care of poor people.

You would trust the government to run more social services when the obvious solution is to raise the minimum wage and let the economy deal with it?

TANSTAAFL. The economy does not "deal with it" - it passes the costs on to other people, and it does not always allocate them fairly. Government-sponsored income subsistence does.

The people who drive SUV's to Wal-Mart and have four kids can afford a few extra dollars.

Actually, by virtue of the fact that they have to pay for four children and also for higher fuel prices, they are going to be less likely to afford "a few extra dollars" (here's a hint; in aggregate, they most certainly will not end up being "a few") than someone, say, with two children who drives a sedan. But you seem to be able to speak for all of them.

Joe wrote:

People who advocate zero minimum wage should give proof why they think large corporations like Wal-Mart would give a shit about their employees at all and not lower their wages to near slave labour levels.

Wal-Mart jobs, on average, pay well above the current minimum wage.

Would that be with their corporate HQ factored in, or without? Remember, the Waltons are the richest fucking people on the planet.

Joe wrote:

Consumers should pick up the tab of lower income workers because "we're all in this together."

That's insane. Lower income consumers - the people who you're accusing me of not caring about - are going to be hit harder by the inflation caused by artificially high wages more than anyone. You say "we're all in this together," but minimum wage laws force the firms who employ people on the minimum wage and the people who buy goods and services from them to pick up the cost while the rest of society gets off scott free.

Bullshit. None of the prices are going to drop substantially enough to make up for the likely decrease in (notably unskilled) worker's wages. When there are more workers than necessary to fulfill a company's labor requirements (basic supply and demand) companies can play a cruel game of "who is willing to work for the least money to try and feed their children." Wal-Mart alone is already famous for firing based on near-whims because they know they have enough desperate people to fill the roles of however many blue-vested smiley-wearing workers they employ.

It is the skilled workforce --made of those who companies must chase to be able to employ (as opposed to a rival company getting them instead)-- who are able to set their wages at whatever they think they can get from the company, not what the company can get away with offering like a turnip on the end of a stick. They aren't going to feel the damaging effects of no-minimum-wage legislation like the poor are, thus feeding a greater gap between the fiscal station of the haves and the have nots.

Joe wrote:

Consumers should pick up the tab of lower income workers because "we're all in this together."

That's insane. Lower income consumers - the people who you're accusing me of not caring about - are going to be hit harder by the inflation caused by artificially high wages more than anyone. You say "we're all in this together," but minimum wage laws force the firms who employ people on the minimum wage and the people who buy goods and services from them to pick up the cost while the rest of society gets off scott free.

You would prefer the government take care of them in the form of some kind of income supplement or tax cut, which is ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. What the hell do you think existing welfare is, if not an income supplement, jackass?

It's not, it's for people who don't have jobs. Why the fuck do you think you pick up the check in an unemployment line?

You would trust the government to run more social services when the obvious solution is to raise the minimum wage and let the economy deal with it?

TANSTAAFL. The economy does not "deal with it" - it passes the costs on to other people, and it does not always allocate them fairly. Government-sponsored income subsistence does.

Which is what would be preffered, except it's not going to happen. Thus, we have the minium wage.

The people who drive SUV's to Wal-Mart and have four kids can afford a few extra dollars.

Actually, by virtue of the fact that they have to pay for four children and also for higher fuel prices, they are going to be less likely to afford "a few extra dollars" (here's a hint; in aggregate, they most certainly will not end up being "a few") than someone, say, with two children who drives a sedan. But you seem to be able to speak for all of them.

ZOMG, they'll have to buy a Volkswagen instead of a Lexus. THE UTTER FUCKING HORROR.

Would that be with their corporate HQ factored in, or without? Remember, the Waltons are the richest fucking people on the planet.

Without. Their incomes would drag up the average considerably.

The primary cost of low-income earners is not food or game boys or anything purchasable by disposable income, but rent. Lower income consumers will not be hit hardest by a raised minimum wage--the shareholders of Walmart will, while low-income earners will have more wiggle room to buy more goods and stimulate the economy rather than 90% of their income going to rent.

Welfare is such a great system, instead of letting the economy handle it. Minority of firms? Give me a break, every firm every company will be forced to pay at least the minimum wage and pick up the cost, that's what minimum wage is about.

I can start posting stories about how much corporations pay in third world countries. What stops them from fucking Americans just like they fuck Vietnamnese or Chinese or anybody else? Nothing once you remove the minimum wage, especially if you consider the big picture and look over a period of 50 to 100 years, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Corporate conscience? Ha.

Brian

Enough that you can support yourself in a small bachelor pad.

As for putting minimum wage down to $0, that is going to be interesting to say the least. Skilled jobs will be largely unaffected, people with the education and skills ain't gonna work for peanuts, and in quite a few sectors there's already shortages so wages ain't going down.

The guys flipping burgers, mopping floors, or doing other such menial low pay jobs have a good chance of getting fucked. Mickey D's probably has a million such employees, if they can whack a couple grand off their salaries every year that's an instant billion or 2. The grunts can either suck it up or go unemployed, and burger prices will stay the same or go up a few cents.

Overall good to the economy...hmm...well the companies get to turn a bigger profit and if the IRS does its job the government gets a cut from taxes to blow on pork. Realistically the money gets moved to a tax haven and the government doesn't see a single cent, in fact I suspect their taxable incomes will actually drop.

It's not, it's for people who don't have jobs. Why the fuck do you think you pick up the check in an unemployment line?

No, unemployment insurance is designed specifically for people who are unemployed and need cash. You can get it regardless of your prior income. There are welfare programs available for people who are employed but still poor - food stamps, AFDA, various state programs.

Which is what would be preffered, except it's not going to happen. Thus, we have the minium wage.

Correct, and we should have the income subsistence.

ZOMG, they'll have to buy a Volkswagen instead of a Lexus. THE UTTER FUCKING HORROR.

Not everyone who drives an SUV is drowning in cash. There are lower-end models available, and you have the option of purchasing a used car.

Joe wrote:

ZOMG, they'll have to buy a Volkswagen instead of a Lexus. THE UTTER FUCKING HORROR.

Not everyone who drives an SUV is drowning in cash. There are lower-end models available, and you have the option of purchasing a used car.

This is a pathetic aside to the actual point of his reply, which was that the sacrifices of the upper class would be a pittance compared to those who are already suffering in their attempts to survive off of their pitiful incomes... which you'd be more than happy to slash.

The primary cost of low-income earners is not food or game boys or anything purchasable by disposable income, but rent.

Oh, OK, so another expense is larger than the cost of food. Obviously that means the latter is completely negligible!

Lower income consumers will not be hit hardest by a raised minimum wage--the shareholders of Walmart will, while low-income earners will have more wiggle room to buy more goods and stimulate the economy rather than 90% of their income going to rent.

That is not the way it works. Corporations are concerned with their shareholders first; shareholders may take a hit, but whenever possible the corporation WILL pass costs onto other groups first.

As for low-income earners being able to pay their bills, I have stated that I do not believe they should be left in the cold as you so desperately want to imply, I believe they should be given income subsidies. I am not going to repeat myself again.

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm not talking about dollar amounts. Everyone knows that different places have different costs of living.

What I'm talking about is how much of a living minimum wage should amount to. How many people should one minimum wage job be capable of supporting? What standard of living should it support; should a person on minimum wage be able to afford paying insurance and fuel costs for a car? Should such a person be able to support dependents on a minimum wage?

Depends. I see no reason to pay a ~16 year old a 'living wage' for his/her side job after school. However, I'm not opposed to some sort of law or system that insures enough cash at a full time position that at the very least gives low end rent and groceries and basic healthcare.