Change of mind on minimum wage

[Nickman]

The following video is a quick interview with Ted Cruz. Although I am not a fan, this helped me realize something. Especially from the comments section. My YouTube name is Nickoliatan. See my comments there as well.

Raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour won't change anything. The economy will adjust to make $10 unlivable. The correct way, IMO, would be to deregulate the economy and allow social pressure, supply, and demand to determine the wage of workers. Minimum wage was put in place in 1938, and only for specific minority groups. Prior to this, wages grew with the market. Once a regulation was placed on the economy, wages became stagnant and rose only slightly with more regulation. If we get rid of economic regulation, no person will work for low wages for a job that is difficult, when the public demands higher wages. The corporations will have to meet the demand by supplying higher wages, or otherwise lose productivity and thus, revenue.

In North Dakota, wages are high. Why? Because the demand for workers to work hard, tough jobs. These companies couldn't get workers to move to ND and endure long hours, and in difficult conditions, unless they pay well.

If we let the economy move freely, society will be enough regulation, on its own, to make corporations pay descent wages.

I want to hear from Darius and Winepusher here, but also anyone and everyone. I would like to hear from some of my good friends such as Danmark, Goat, and DI. Everyone's input will be valued.

To debate: minimum wage only. Not other regulations, such as environmental. I would like to debate those as well but in their own thread.

[Youtube][/YouTube]

[Goat]

So the suggestion is to cut tax breaks for the rich and remove the minimum wage in an attempt to manage the disparity. I would like to see this economic model put into perspective with experiments! It'd be great to see this in action, though I dunno if it'll happen in the current government administration.

It would not go over too well, that's for sure. Corporations should pay the same percentage of taxes as everyone else, especially since they bask in personhood. They want personhood so they can spend money on politics, and consumers need them to be persons to be able to sue them. If corporations are not considered persons, we couldn't sue them. So if they share that same person hood, they need to pay full taxes. Minimum wage ensures that they can grow and grow while paying the same wages to the people who actually made them grow.

No, the rich don't like paying any taxes what so ever. Did you know, according to forbes magazine, the top 1300 or so billionaires net worth went from 1 trillion to over 6 trillion in years time?

All the while minimum wage is in effect. Plus corporations are given special rights. If we remove these, they have to fend for themselves. Currently, they get more handouts than those who live off of government aide, i.e. food stamps.

Did you know that last year, the bonuses that Wall Street gave to itself was 26 billion dollars, which is more money than the total amount of money minimum wage workers made in the entire year combined?

This is because they are allowed special legislative privilege. The amount of subsidies they receive is ridiculous.

Wall Street Subsidies

The first-ever analysis of the taxpayer-subsidy to the Wall Street mega-banks finds that this subsidy is $83 billion this year. This amount is only $2 billion less than this year’s sequester cuts are estimated to be.

That $83 billion subsidy this year is, according to Bloomberg’s, also approximately the amount of profits that those banks are “earning� this year.

This is all due to regulation. Once we understand that regulation can be used for bad, then we will realize why regulation needs to be done away with in our economy.

As long as you brought corporations.. so, you think we should stop subsidizing them, right?

One of the way we are subsidizing corporations is through the use of FOOD STAMPS. Did you know that 85% of the Walmart workers are eligible for food stamps.. and part of their 'on boarding' process' is instructions on how to apply for food stamps?

Did you know that if the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it would be 15 dollars an hour (just like that minimum wage is in Australia)

Do you LIKE subsidizing Walmart salaries, or do you want people to starve to death?>??

What is the HUMAN cost in all this? Where does that compute in the equation.. including homeless children, and all that sort of stuff?? I don't see that in consideration.

I also see that other countries have a much higher minimum wage, and the calamities that are claimed to 'this will happen' did not happen. Gosh, fear mongering by the rich corporations doesn't bear out when actually implemented in those countries. I wonder why?

[Nickman]

So the suggestion is to cut tax breaks for the rich and remove the minimum wage in an attempt to manage the disparity. I would like to see this economic model put into perspective with experiments! It'd be great to see this in action, though I dunno if it'll happen in the current government administration.

It would not go over too well, that's for sure. Corporations should pay the same percentage of taxes as everyone else, especially since they bask in personhood. They want personhood so they can spend money on politics, and consumers need them to be persons to be able to sue them. If corporations are not considered persons, we couldn't sue them. So if they share that same person hood, they need to pay full taxes. Minimum wage ensures that they can grow and grow while paying the same wages to the people who actually made them grow.

No, the rich don't like paying any taxes what so ever. Did you know, according to forbes magazine, the top 1300 or so billionaires net worth went from 1 trillion to over 6 trillion in years time?

All the while minimum wage is in effect. Plus corporations are given special rights. If we remove these, they have to fend for themselves. Currently, they get more handouts than those who live off of government aide, i.e. food stamps.

Did you know that last year, the bonuses that Wall Street gave to itself was 26 billion dollars, which is more money than the total amount of money minimum wage workers made in the entire year combined?

This is because they are allowed special legislative privilege. The amount of subsidies they receive is ridiculous.

Wall Street Subsidies

The first-ever analysis of the taxpayer-subsidy to the Wall Street mega-banks finds that this subsidy is $83 billion this year. This amount is only $2 billion less than this year’s sequester cuts are estimated to be.

That $83 billion subsidy this year is, according to Bloomberg’s, also approximately the amount of profits that those banks are “earning� this year.

This is all due to regulation. Once we understand that regulation can be used for bad, then we will realize why regulation needs to be done away with in our economy.

As long as you brought corporations.. so, you think we should stop subsidizing them, right?

One of the way we are subsidizing corporations is through the use of FOOD STAMPS. Did you know that 85% of the Walmart workers are eligible for food stamps.. and part of their 'on boarding' process' is instructions on how to apply for food stamps?

Did you know that if the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it would be 15 dollars an hour (just like that minimum wage is in Australia)

Do you LIKE subsidizing Walmart salaries, or do you want people to starve to death?>??

What is the HUMAN cost in all this? Where does that compute in the equation.. including homeless children, and all that sort of stuff?? I don't see that in consideration.

I also see that other countries have a much higher minimum wage, and the calamities that are claimed to 'this will happen' did not happen. Gosh, fear mongering by the rich corporations doesn't bear out when actually implemented in those countries. I wonder why?

If we got rid of minimum wage, wages would have to keep up with market value, and thus eliminate the people who need food stamps. Plus food stamps are not so much subsidies for corporations as they are tax dollars being used to pay for what corporations are unwilling to pay. It just so happens that corporations get the money, and tax payers pay for it. So, as they do end up in corporate pockets, it is not really considered a subsidy. I am against food stamps, but since corporations are using minimum wage to keep wages low, people suffer and I don't want people to suffer.

[Goat]

If we got rid of minimum wage, wages would have to keep up with market value, and thus eliminate the people who need food stamps. Plus food stamps are not so much subsidies for corporations as they are tax dollars being used to pay for what corporations are unwilling to pay. It just so happens that corporations get the money, and tax payers pay for it. So, as they do end up in corporate pockets, it is not really considered a subsidy. I am against food stamps, but since corporations are using minimum wage to keep wages low, people suffer and I don't want people to suffer.

That's the claim. Experience has shown us the claim 'wages would have to keep up with market value' is not true. What you end up with is the whole 'I owe my soul to the company store' routine.. or the conditions we see in the Chinese factories, or Bangladesh right now.

Sorry, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, examples show it doesn't work.

[Nickman]

If we got rid of minimum wage, wages would have to keep up with market value, and thus eliminate the people who need food stamps. Plus food stamps are not so much subsidies for corporations as they are tax dollars being used to pay for what corporations are unwilling to pay. It just so happens that corporations get the money, and tax payers pay for it. So, as they do end up in corporate pockets, it is not really considered a subsidy. I am against food stamps, but since corporations are using minimum wage to keep wages low, people suffer and I don't want people to suffer.

That's the claim. Experience has shown us the claim 'wages would have to keep up with market value' is not true. What you end up with is the whole 'I owe my soul to the company store' routine.. or the conditions we see in the Chinese factories, or Bangladesh right now.

Sorry, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, examples show it doesn't work.

Minimum wage is a slave wage. You have to do whatever the company says for a minimum amount. If you don't, you get replaced. Minimum wage is a legislated, mandate wage. The only way to change it is with more legislation. Once a company knows how to make the most they can off of minimum wage, they will put money into legislation, and buy politics to maintain that wage. Why do you think it is so hard to change minimum wage right now? If it was up to voters, it would be changed tomorrow. It is not up to voters, it is up to corporations. They have already bought the politicians.

[Goat]

If we got rid of minimum wage, wages would have to keep up with market value, and thus eliminate the people who need food stamps. Plus food stamps are not so much subsidies for corporations as they are tax dollars being used to pay for what corporations are unwilling to pay. It just so happens that corporations get the money, and tax payers pay for it. So, as they do end up in corporate pockets, it is not really considered a subsidy. I am against food stamps, but since corporations are using minimum wage to keep wages low, people suffer and I don't want people to suffer.

That's the claim. Experience has shown us the claim 'wages would have to keep up with market value' is not true. What you end up with is the whole 'I owe my soul to the company store' routine.. or the conditions we see in the Chinese factories, or Bangladesh right now.

Sorry, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, examples show it doesn't work.

Minimum wage is a slave wage. You have to do whatever the company says for a minimum amount. If you don't, you get replaced. Minimum wage is a legislated, mandate wage. The only way to change it is with more legislation. Once a company knows how to make the most they can off of minimum wage, they will put money into legislation, and buy politics to maintain that wage. Why do you think it is so hard to change minimum wage right now? If it was up to voters, it would be changed tomorrow. It is not up to voters, it is up to corporations. They have already bought the politicians.

Oh yes. .. sound bites ' Minimum wage is slave wage'. It isn't in Australia... it's 15 bucks an hour, and the people can buy food, get shelter, and even get a car on that rate. Compare that to places that DON'T have a minimum wage. Now, that's slave labor. Look at the working conditions in the Apple factories in China. Look at the working conditions at the factories in Bangladesh, and then come back and give me that argument. We have real world examples of where it isn't so.

What we do it put the minimum wage back to where it was in 1960's dollars, when it was first introduced, and tie it into either inflation or the GDP.


The claim about 'wages would have to keep up with market value' does not have any evidence for it, and much evidence , in the real world experience, against it.

[Nickman]

Oh yes. .. sound bites ' Minimum wage is slave wage'.

From wiki
Wage slavery refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery,[1] where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.

The legislation that makes wages for ALL workers who are at the bottom of a company is a slave wage. It keeps them from fluctuating with the market. It puts a wage limit on the most critical profit making area of each corporation. You see minimum wage as a way to give more to the lowest paid workers, I see it as a hindrance to these workers, because they are limited by legislation on how much they can make. The most valuable workers in every company are the ones who actually do the work. Minimum wage sets a limit on their value.

The majority of our American history (162 years) we had no such thing as minimum wage and business was booming. Workers had the choice and freedom to change jobs anytime they want for higher wages and better health and safety standards. Now, with minimum wage, they can only choose which job they want based on health standards and personal preference, yet receive the same wage. Minimum wage changes the burden of responsibility from personal to governmental. It increases entitlement mentality, and dependency on the government. The government should be as small as possible. Minimum wage is a huge reach into economy and personal live by our government. An economy without MW will allow competition between companies. The company who can do better than the next in terms of wages, health and safety standards, and profit will be the place where people will want to work. If the next company pays less, and has horrible health and safety standards will lose to their competition. Minimum wage encourages an "across the board" impermeable barrier. Moving from one job to another means same wages.

It isn't in Australia... it's 15 bucks an hour, and the people can buy food, get shelter, and even get a car on that rate. Compare that to places that DON'T have a minimum wage. Now, that's slave labor. Look at the working conditions in the Apple factories in China. Look at the working conditions at the factories in Bangladesh, and then come back and give me that argument. We have real world examples of where it isn't so.

What we do it put the minimum wage back to where it was in 1960's dollars, when it was first introduced, and tie it into eitherDP.

Well, minimum wage was first put in place in 1938.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), banned oppressive child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum workweek at 44 hours.

Furthermore, Australia has a different government than we do. It is a monarchy, and applying what they do to the US would require more than just minimum wage legislation.

The claim about 'wages would have to keep up with market value' does not have any evidence for it, and much evidence , in the real world experience, against it.

It does above

[Jashwell]

In advance: I'm British and left wing economically (pro government intervention).

Oh yes. .. sound bites ' Minimum wage is slave wage'.

From wiki
Wage slavery refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery,[1] where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.

The legislation that makes wages for ALL workers who are at the bottom of a company is a slave wage. It keeps them from fluctuating with the market. It puts a wage limit on the most critical profit making area of each corporation. You see minimum wage as a way to give more to the lowest paid workers, I see it as a hindrance to these workers, because they are limited by legislation on how much they can make. The most valuable workers in every company are the ones who actually do the work. Minimum wage sets a limit on their value.

If there weren't a minimum wage, they could be paid less. If you're unhappy with your salary, but you think you can get a better salary, then you either ask for a raise or get a different job. That's how wage has always worked.

Even if it is encouraging people to pay others minimum wage, minimum wage is enough to live on, which is the point. Without it, they could be paid significantly less and it would effectively become slave labour.

The thing that in the UK needs to be cracked down on is zero hour contracting, especially for students.

The majority of our American history (162 years) we had no such thing as minimum wage and business was booming. Workers had the choice and freedom to change jobs anytime they want for higher wages and better health and safety standards.

There are far too many independent variables to compare the economy of the US then to the economy now and that simply associate it with minimum wage.

Now, with minimum wage, they can only choose which job they want based on health standards and personal preference, yet receive the same wage.

This is not true.

Minimum wage changes the burden of responsibility from personal to governmental. It increases entitlement mentality, and dependency on the government.

People should depend on the government. All people do depend on the government.

The government should be as small as possible. Minimum wage is a huge reach into economy and personal live by our government.

"Personal life"?
I don't know if I would count your salary as that personal. But even if it were, what does matter is that it is critical to your well being. Of course the government should intervene if your well being is in jeopardy.

An economy without MW will allow competition between companies.

Increased competition, I grant.

The company who can do better than the next in terms of wages, health and safety standards, and profit will be the place where people will want to work. If the next company pays less, and has horrible health and safety standards will lose to their competition. Minimum wage encourages an "across the board" impermeable barrier. Moving from one job to another means same wages.

And then perfect company A fills up their jobs. Everyone has to go to human rights violators B.

A company paying its employees more, and having higher health and safety expenditure will profit less and be more likely to fail.
Companies will still have to balance out wage/health&safety with actual profit. Minimum wage puts a limit on this, that they must pay employees at least as much to live on (if they work for an average number of hours).

It isn't in Australia... it's 15 bucks an hour, and the people can buy food, get shelter, and even get a car on that rate. Compare that to places that DON'T have a minimum wage. Now, that's slave labor. Look at the working conditions in the Apple factories in China. Look at the working conditions at the factories in Bangladesh, and then come back and give me that argument. We have real world examples of where it isn't so.

What we do it put the minimum wage back to where it was in 1960's dollars, when it was first introduced, and tie it into eitherDP.

Well, minimum wage was first put in place in 1938.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), banned oppressive child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum workweek at 44 hours.

Furthermore, Australia has a different government than we do. It is a monarchy, and applying what they do to the US would require more than just minimum wage legislation.

Replace monarchy with circumstance and legal system and I'll agree.

Australia isn't any more a monarchy than Britain is. The Queen doesn't really have any political power at all, certainly has no power over parliament. (Only technical power)
Replace Australia with America years ago. Then replace monarchy with circumstance and legal system.

See the problem?

The claim about 'wages would have to keep up with market value' does not have any evidence for it, and much evidence , in the real world experience, against it.

It does above

Unless you have some serious graphs giving an unreasonably high correlation, I'm not inclined to believe it's an appropriate comparison.

[Goat]

Oh yes. .. sound bites ' Minimum wage is slave wage'.

From wiki
Wage slavery refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery,[1] where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate.

The legislation that makes wages for ALL workers who are at the bottom of a company is a slave wage. It keeps them from fluctuating with the market. It puts a wage limit on the most critical profit making area of each corporation. You see minimum wage as a way to give more to the lowest paid workers, I see it as a hindrance to these workers, because they are limited by legislation on how much they can make. The most valuable workers in every company are the ones who actually do the work. Minimum wage sets a limit on their value.

The majority of our American history (162 years) we had no such thing as minimum wage and business was booming. Workers had the choice and freedom to change jobs anytime they want for higher wages and better health and safety standards. Now, with minimum wage, they can only choose which job they want based on health standards and personal preference, yet receive the same wage. Minimum wage changes the burden of responsibility from personal to governmental. It increases entitlement mentality, and dependency on the government. The government should be as small as possible. Minimum wage is a huge reach into economy and personal live by our government. An economy without MW will allow competition between companies. The company who can do better than the next in terms of wages, health and safety standards, and profit will be the place where people will want to work. If the next company pays less, and has horrible health and safety standards will lose to their competition. Minimum wage encourages an "across the board" impermeable barrier. Moving from one job to another means same wages.

It isn't in Australia... it's 15 bucks an hour, and the people can buy food, get shelter, and even get a car on that rate. Compare that to places that DON'T have a minimum wage. Now, that's slave labor. Look at the working conditions in the Apple factories in China. Look at the working conditions at the factories in Bangladesh, and then come back and give me that argument. We have real world examples of where it isn't so.

What we do it put the minimum wage back to where it was in 1960's dollars, when it was first introduced, and tie it into eitherDP.

Well, minimum wage was first put in place in 1938.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), banned oppressive child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum workweek at 44 hours.

Furthermore, Australia has a different government than we do. It is a monarchy, and applying what they do to the US would require more than just minimum wage legislation.

The claim about 'wages would have to keep up with market value' does not have any evidence for it, and much evidence , in the real world experience, against it.

It does above

Oh yes/... BUSINESS was booming. But.. what about the PEOPLE?? Sorry, but business is not the people. That's the point. That is the whole thing you are missing.

Business is not PEOPLE. It is the PEOPLE who matter.

As far as the govenment of Australia being a monarchy, who cares?? It doesn't matter one bit.. not when it comes to minumumn wage and economics. Not one wit. That is what is known as a red herring.

Business is booming now. Did you know that the top 1100 billionaires combined net worth went from 1 trillion dollars to over still trillion dollars last year alone?

That doesn't help you, it doesn't help me. It just make income inequality that much of an issue.

[JoeyKnothead]

I reckon it is kinda goofy to have a minimum wage law, when 'market forces' colude to depress wages at all levels.

I notice that minimum wage laws are somewhat the product of a long, deadly struggle by labor to make a fair, living wage.

Of course there's more to it, but...

By artificially increasing the supply of labor (illegal immigration), and by colluding to reduce wages, it should be readily apparent that the labor force must work together if they are to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

We hear all the time from the more conservative branch that "market forces" are what should drive the economy, while some of these very same folks do everything in their power to artificially deflate the value of those who labor.

Who here thinks any of the referenced companies, or their CEOs, will suffer anything but an hour or two of earnings for their plotting to suppress wages?

[Nickman]

In advance: I'm British and left wing economically (pro government intervention).

I am at awe why you would like government in your bedroom, on your phone, Facebook, DCR, email and in your pocket? Do tell how big government is good!

If there weren't a minimum wage, they could be paid less. If you're unhappy with your salary, but you think you can get a better salary, then you either ask for a raise or get a different job. That's how wage has always worked.

That is how wage is supposed to work but not with minimum wage. Can you show me a person that got a raise while on minimum wage without them going to a higher position? Minimum wage locks certain positions into a specific payout. Namely, the lowest positions.

Even if it is encouraging people to pay others minimum wage, minimum wage is enough to live on, which is the point. Without it, they could be paid significantly less and it would effectively become slave labour.

This is coming from a post labor law mindset. For the majority of our original, capitalistic history, workers wages went up and down with the economy. It wasn't until minimum wage laws that wages became stagnant, and needed revision every 10 years or so.

The thing that in the UK needs to be cracked down on is zero hour contracting, especially for students.

There are far too many independent variables to compare the economy of the US then to the economy now and that simply associate it with minimum wage.

Please provide those variables.

Now, with minimum wage, they can only choose which job they want based on health standards and personal preference, yet receive the same wage.

Jashwell wrote:

This is not true.

Please show your work as to why this is not true. When wage doesn't change from job to job at the lowest level, what else does?

People should depend on the government. All people do depend on the government.

I work a government job, so I do depend on the government, but why should we depend on the government? We depend on the government because it has already dipped its hand so deeply into our economy. The economy is supposed to be free. But it is not, and it is suffering. Millions are stuck in minimum wage jobs because the government has deemed them minimum wage jobs. Thus, they have put a price tag on how valuable these jobs are. The economy can do this without any assistance. Please, prove me wrong.

"Personal life"?
I don't know if I would count your salary as that personal. But even if it were, what does matter is that it is critical to your well being. Of course the government should intervene if your well being is in jeopardy.

Sure wages are personal. One's own finances are personal. Why should have the government step in? The only reason one's well being is in jeopardy, is because minimum wage is keeping wages where they are legislated to be.

Increased competition, I grant.

How do you increase competition when everyone pays the same?

And then perfect company A fills up their jobs. Everyone has to go to human rights violators B.

If there were only two competitors, but there is not. Company B would realize that all other companies are making more money and squashing them.

A company paying its employees more, and having higher health and safety expenditure will profit less and be more likely to fail.

How? Companies having higher health and safety standards do better because their employees last longer. The employees are able to make it higher on the corporate ladder.

Companies will still have to balance out wage/health&safety with actual profit. Minimum wage puts a limit on this, that they must pay employees at least as much to live on (if they work for an average number of hours).

Higher standards equals higher profit. If the company has to keep training people because everyone keeps dying, or becomes sick, that is draining on profit. Minimum wage assumes that workers are nobodies, and that they are unlearned.

Replace monarchy with circumstance and legal system and I'll agree.

Australia isn't any more a monarchy than Britain is. The Queen doesn't really have any political power at all, certainly has no power over parliament. (Only technical power)
Replace Australia with America years ago. Then replace monarchy with circumstance and legal system.

See the problem?

The problem is that you have to change definitions. That's all.

Unless you have some serious graphs giving an unreasonably high correlation, I'm not inclined to believe it's an appropriate comparison.

Minimum wage is a legislated wage. It cannot change unless more legislation happens. It only goes up when more legislation is put into law, but with major opposition. The market runs free without legislation. When demand and supply are high, wages are high. When demand is high and supply is low, wages are high. When supply is high and demand is low, wages are low. That is the game, but when supply is high and demand is low, prices are low as well. A low wage at this low demand is an affordable wage. You just have no understanding of supply and demand, that's all.