Minimum Wage Discussion

[R. U. Sirius]

Whenever the minimum wage gets brought up, conservatives always seem to trot out the same arguments.

"Those jobs aren't intended to be able to support someone!"
"Raising the minimum wage will kill small businesses!"
"Raising the minimum wage will send prices through the roof!"
Etc.

These same arguments are also brought up for almost anything that would improve life for the average worker, from expanding Medicaid to paid parental leave, and unfortunately, many people buy these arguments with little or no question. However, the advent of the Internet has given people unprecedented access to the economic models and policies that other countries are built on, and so it becomes easier and easier to see that helping to improve people's quality of life HELPS the economy, or at the very least doesn't have the apocalyptic effects conservatives say, even in economies very similar to our own. For example, in Denmark the average fast-food worker gets paid the equivalent of $20/hr, with benefits and paid vacation time, and yet fast food remains a profitable business.

In addition, it's clear to anyone who does any digging that slavery never really left the U.S. economy. Agriculture relies on migrant workers that get paid far below minimum wage, some of whom are children. Big companies employ sweatshop workers in third-world countries to drive costs down. Chocolate and coffee, two of the largest luxury goods consumed in the U.S., both have major U.S.-based companies that rely on slave labor to harvest their crops in second-and-third-world countries.

Apologists say that getting rid of these practices would be prohibitively expensive and force companies to raise their prices by unimaginable levels. But it seems to me that the only reason these companies would HAVE to raise their prices so drastically is to maintain the same profit margin, which in many cases tend to be excessive. If making these changes to economic law would drive companies to bankruptcy, doesn't that mean that the economic model and philosophy the U.S. bases its policies on needs to change?

What do you all think? Can anything be done about these abusive practices, and if so, what?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

It's not hard to work out is it?

Many business owners would rather keep the loot for themselves than spend extra money on livable wages, health and safety and the like.

Because some people like having all the cash, all the time.

[Ironchew]

The conservatives against the minimum wage are spewing bullshit. They want a minimum wage of zero so that they can have slaves again.

Myself, I could see a society without a minimum wage. Everyone gets the necessities: a guaranteed basic income that keeps them out of poverty, single-payer healthcare, etc. In such a system employees would be on a more equal footing with their employers mostly because the vast majority would finally be secure enough to handle being unemployed while they do what they enjoy doing.

Naturally, this would be a conservative's nightmare.

EDIT: I feel this is the only long-term solution to inevitable labor automation. Society as a whole should reap the benefits of this process instead of the very few.

[Sigmaleph]

Apologists say that getting rid of these practices would be prohibitively expensive and force companies to raise their prices by unimaginable levels. But it seems to me that the only reason these companies would HAVE to raise their prices so drastically is to maintain the same profit margin, which in many cases tend to be excessive.

That's not really an argument. If they have excessive profit margins now, they will want to have excessive profit margins in the future. And so, yes, they will probably raise prices.

Not that that's an argument against minimum wage. Just an observation that the excessiveness of profit margins now doesn't mean they will become more reasonable in the future.

Myself, I could see a society without a minimum wage. Everyone gets the necessities: a guaranteed basic income that keeps them out of poverty, single-payer healthcare, etc. In such a system employees would be on a more equal footing with their employers mostly because the vast majority would finally be secure enough to handle being unemployed while they do what they enjoy doing.

EDIT: I feel this is the only long-term solution to inevitable labor automation. Society as a whole should reap the benefits of this process instead of the very few.

Agreed 100%. Surprisingly enough.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I think we should raise the minimum wage.  Workers should at least have their basic needs met.

[Lt. Fred]

Apologists say that getting rid of these practices would be prohibitively expensive and force companies to raise their prices by unimaginable levels. But it seems to me that the only reason these companies would HAVE to raise their prices so drastically is to maintain the same profit margin, which in many cases tend to be excessive. If making these changes to economic law would drive companies to bankruptcy, doesn't that mean that the economic model and philosophy the U.S. bases its policies on needs to change?

Obviously, the most important first step is a strong trade union movement. This means enforced protections for strike action and union elections, ect. The US does not have such a movement, and so wages are very low (and profits high).

The primary effect of a higher minimum wage is to shift the surplus from profits to wages, reducing inequality. Companies will try to raise prices in order to maintain the same profits, but this is typically impossible, because in a free market a company will always charge roughly the highest price they can relative to demand (this is called the "price equilibrium"). Obviously free markets aren't perfect so there will be some increased prices, but mostly this will simply be re-redistribution.

It's also worth noting that we've already tried the neoliberal approach to prosperity and it failed. "Flexible" work times, at-will employment, low wages, union busting and constant cuts to the minimum wage - these things have been tried, and failed. It's time to evict the neoliberal clerisy from the halls of government and replace them with people less cruel and ideological. Public choice theory is broken. Neoliberalism is wrong. End of story.

"Those jobs aren't intended to be able to support someone!"

This is easily one of the stupidest and most evil lies ever sold to the American people. A free market has no moral judgement as to the value of a job. Either the job produces value or it does not. If it produces value - and, yes, fast food companies make huge profits - then their workers should share in that value. They shouldn't starve to death despite earning their boss billions.

[Askold]

"Those jobs aren't intended to be able to support someone!"

This is easily one of the stupidest and most evil lies ever sold to the American people. A free market has no moral judgement as to the value of a job. Either the job produces value or it does not. If it produces value - and, yes, fast food companies make huge profits - then their workers should share in that value. They shouldn't starve to death despite earning their boss billions.

I hate the idea that a person who works a full time job should not be able to support him/herself with that job. Part time jobs, might have less than a living wage but then it should be for people who are working while studying or having two jobs or something and it should be their own personal choice rather than being forced into such a situation.

There is a court case going on over part time cashier workers who have had part time jobs for twenty four (24) years. All that time they have asked for more working hours, all that time the company has been hiring new people but has refused to make the cashiers full time employees... Instead they practically force the cashiers to fight over scraps and struggle for extra hours here or there...

Their union took this to the court and is demanding this to make a precedent so that other such incidents could be avoided (or at least punishing the employer would be easier then.)

[Sylvana]

The primary effect of a higher minimum wage is to shift the surplus from profits to wages, reducing inequality. Companies will try to raise prices in order to maintain the same profits, but this is typically impossible, because in a free market a company will always charge roughly the highest price they can relative to demand (this is called the "price equilibrium"). Obviously free markets aren't perfect so there will be some increased prices, but mostly this will simply be re-redistribution.

The absolute worst thing about the minimum wage problem, is that if the people were paid a decent wage, and companies raised prices to adjust for it, the actual increase is barely noticeable. So companies can still reap their massive profits while paying a living wage they dont because they would rather hoover up all the money instead of making everything better.

The current wage problems are part of the economic downturn problem. People are paid barely anything so they dont buy anything, causing the economy to stagnate. If they were paid more, and could actually start doing things like affording luxuries, the entire economy would become far more stimulated meaning more profit for the rich bastards causing all this shit.

Obviously, the most important first step is a strong trade union movement. This means enforced protections for strike action and union elections, ect. The US does not have such a movement, and so wages are very low (and profits high).

Unions are not necessarily the answer. South Africa has probably got the strongest unions in the world, but even so workers are shamelessly taken advantage of. Don't get me wrong, the US could certainty do with more unions because they are a good thing especially when it comes to workplace safety and fairness. However, they seem to be somewhat inept at actually solving the wage issue. Part of the problem seems to stem from the union leaders being more interested in maintaining relevance while collecting union contributions than actually helping their members. Every year they organize crippling strikes for better pay, and every year they barely get anything for the workers, all the while the union leaders live like kings.

[Ghoti]

I think that a decent "rule patch" would be to make a law tying the maximum amount of money someone can legally earn to the lowest wage paid within a company. So if you're the owner/CEO and your lowest paid employee makes $15,080 per year (which ayk is the current federal minimum wage), you can only make N x $15,080, with N being a two-digit number that people can agree on without crashing the government. Under this system, the more you pay your employees, the more you're eligible to make. I don't actually think it's something that could be implemented in my lifetime, I just think it's interesting.

[dpareja]

I think that a decent "rule patch" would be to make a law tying the maximum amount of money someone can legally earn to the lowest wage paid within a company. So if you're the owner/CEO and your lowest paid employee makes $15,080 per year (which ayk is the current federal minimum wage), you can only make N x $15,080, with N being a two-digit number that people can agree on without crashing the government. Under this system, the more you pay your employees, the more you're eligible to make. I don't actually think it's something that could be implemented in my lifetime, I just think it's interesting.

They'd find ways around that (or blatantly write in ways around that, albeit hidden in a few hundred pages of legalese) in a heartbeat.

[Art Vandelay]

I think that a decent "rule patch" would be to make a law tying the maximum amount of money someone can legally earn to the lowest wage paid within a company. So if you're the owner/CEO and your lowest paid employee makes $15,080 per year (which ayk is the current federal minimum wage), you can only make N x $15,080, with N being a two-digit number that people can agree on without crashing the government. Under this system, the more you pay your employees, the more you're eligible to make. I don't actually think it's something that could be implemented in my lifetime, I just think it's interesting.

That wouldn't solve anything. The shareholders would just elect a CEO who's willing to work for (relatively speaking) the minimum.

[RavynousHunter]

The conservatives against the minimum wage are spewing bullshit. They want a minimum wage of zero so that they can have slaves again.

Myself, I could see a society without a minimum wage. Everyone gets the necessities: a guaranteed basic income that keeps them out of poverty, single-payer healthcare, etc. In such a system employees would be on a more equal footing with their employers mostly because the vast majority would finally be secure enough to handle being unemployed while they do what they enjoy doing.

Naturally, this would be a conservative's nightmare.

EDIT: I feel this is the only long-term solution to inevitable labor automation. Society as a whole should reap the benefits of this process instead of the very few.

Well, damn...we're in total agreement.  Ain't that some shit?

[mellenORL]

The global body politic has a very bad parasite infection. And it reached the brain years ago.

[Lt. Fred]

I think that a decent "rule patch" would be to make a law tying the maximum amount of money someone can legally earn to the lowest wage paid within a company. So if you're the owner/CEO and your lowest paid employee makes $15,080 per year (which ayk is the current federal minimum wage), you can only make N x $15,080, with N being a two-digit number that people can agree on without crashing the government. Under this system, the more you pay your employees, the more you're eligible to make. I don't actually think it's something that could be implemented in my lifetime, I just think it's interesting.

That wouldn't solve anything. The shareholders would just elect a CEO who's willing to work for (relatively speaking) the minimum.

That would be fantastic!

[Askold]

I think that a decent "rule patch" would be to make a law tying the maximum amount of money someone can legally earn to the lowest wage paid within a company. So if you're the owner/CEO and your lowest paid employee makes $15,080 per year (which ayk is the current federal minimum wage), you can only make N x $15,080, with N being a two-digit number that people can agree on without crashing the government. Under this system, the more you pay your employees, the more you're eligible to make. I don't actually think it's something that could be implemented in my lifetime, I just think it's interesting.

That wouldn't solve anything. The shareholders would just elect a CEO who's willing to work for (relatively speaking) the minimum.

You won't get a good CEO with that. A good CEO can pick whatever company he wants, he/she gets a golden handshake and an amazing contract because companies are competing over which of them the CEO will pick.

And the thing is that a CEO can get fired at any time. If they do poorly, if they fuck up in any way or annoy the shareholders they can lose their job without a warning. Which is why the golden handshake exists. The CEO can get filthy rich but they also take risks. There are a few good CEOs who would be willing to work for pennies (like that one japanese guy) but mostly their high wages are not just because they are so damn greedy it is because there are a dozen companies that all want a great/famous CEO because it would raise their share value and they need a reason for the CEO to pick their company.