[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32347782]
How would this even be possible? How would the standard of living rise if more people are poor? It would also slow down technological advancement since people can't afford the latest of technologies except for a small percent.[/QUOTE]
Don't be silly, the poor aren't people.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32326120]Personally, I'd consider the interview to be apart of the resume, but I didn't make that exactly implicit. Nor did I point out how successful the employer is depends on their ability to value to the employee based on their resume, including the interview. Of course, although on paper a person might look weak, during the interview process the person might look very good. The same is true of business interviews, though a business may look very bad on paper, if you check out what they are doing, they might be the Pixar.[/quote]
My point was that your analogy is very weak there.
[quote]So was this all just about the word "guarantee".[/quote]
Yes. I think it was a gross abuse of the word and made your whole argument sound hyperbolized.
[quote]No, that's a contradiction because the risk is factored in the lower pay. There is no incentive for the employer to pay the same amount when the risk is greater.[/quote]
And that's the exact reason you NEED the minimum wage.
[quote]I can agree with the first statement, and surely if an employee is productive their pay will move towards their productivity, and if their current employer refuses to give them a raise, they can likely find a higher paying job somewhere else.
I'm not sure what the "worth of the job" part means exactly, or the next couple of sentences for that matter. Can you expand?[/QUOTE]
Who's going to get paid more at their REAL job; Freeman or Mario?
[QUOTE=Meader;32348622]My point was that your analogy is very weak there.[/QUOTE]
It's an analogy that conveys a point about risk. Your criticism is that I didn't take the interview into account and that it isn't a 1:1 comparison. I don't understand how that makes it weak, because an analogy in no way is a 1:1 comparison, and this analogy gets the point across about risk, that an investor is more likely not to pick blindly, that they'd be more likely to choose the stock they have data on.
[QUOTE=Meader;32348622]Yes. I think it was a gross abuse of the word and made your whole argument sound hyperbolized.[/quote]
Certainly not, because from the employer's mindset they are guaranteed to make a profit compared to the alternatives. You have to think relatively. Even then, if you consider that workers productivity being so high, and the pay for that employee being so low, the employer will make a profit. It would have been best to say that in the situation the safest option would require a much higher pay for the lack of risk.
[QUOTE=Meader;32348622]And that's the exact reason you NEED the minimum wage.[/quote]
To ensure that those who's productivity are below the minimum wage are out of job? Where does this assumption come from that employers will still hire these people for the extra risk when they have the ability hire lower risk people? I'm really confused because I don't know by what logic you assume the risk is offset by a higher pay. I can make some gambling analogies if you want.
Also, the data shows this quite clearly, the mental handicapped were completely shut out of the jobs market because of the minimum wage, that blacks teenagers have faced huge issues getting jobs, that seniors have had ill effects due to minimum wage. I had a long list of studies posted on the previous page, and the ill effects of the minimum wage aren't just backed rhetorically, but they are backed scientifically. There are far more studies on the matter. You can certainly find some that show it has no effect or a few that show it benefits some, and it wouldn't be science if there weren't a few conflicting studies, but the overall consensus is overwhelmingly that it does harm than good.
[QUOTE=Meader;32348622]Who's going to get paid more at their REAL job; Freeman or Mario?[/QUOTE]
Clearly Freeman, based on the assumption that a scientist will make more than a plumber. Scientific knowledge is more scarce than the knowledge of plumbing, though in both cases you have to take into account accreditation. I think even plumbers may have to get accredited in certain states due to certain regulations.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32347782]Not an argument.
You haven't proved that yet.
How would this even be possible? How would the standard of living rise if more people are poor? It would also slow down technological advancement since people can't afford the latest of technologies except for a small percent.[/QUOTE]
I realize "uh..." isn't an argument, but perhaps it is the best reaction. And instead of saying I haven't proved X, instead make some kind of my previous argument, and don't make it like paragraph three. That is another "uh..." moment. What you're saying isn't clear and the reasoning behind it isn't clear. You may know the inferences being made, but I do not, which makes it hard to follow because b does not follow from a, and c does not follow from b.
[QUOTE=Vince323;32344938]i have read this entire thread and not once have i seen a good answer to the question "how do you expect people to work for less money than what they need to survive, pepin?"
WHY NOT[/QUOTE]
I spent a week working in a factory because I needed money before I went back to college and there were people there who were as you say barely surviving, relying on working overtime so they could feed themselves and their families. Either companies shouldn't be legally allowed to keep employees who have worked for them for a matter of years at minimum wage or it should be increased.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32357390]I realize "uh..." isn't an argument, but perhaps it is the best reaction. And instead of saying I haven't proved X, instead make some kind of my previous argument, and don't make it like paragraph three. That is another "uh..." moment. What you're saying isn't clear and the reasoning behind it isn't clear. You may know the inferences being made, but I do not, which makes it hard to follow because b does not follow from a, and c does not follow from b.[/QUOTE] You're telling me to make an argument when you don't. Your the one trying to sway people and I shouldn't try to attack an argument without proof. Give the argument evidence then I can try to debunk it.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32357815]You're telling me to make an argument when you don't. Your the one trying to sway people and I shouldn't try to attack an argument without proof. Give the argument evidence then I can try to debunk it.[/QUOTE]
I've made plenty of arguments in this thread. What I am saying is that I can't quite respond to what you're saying because you're making statements and not including your reasoning. You may be aware of your reasoning, but I am not.
[quote]How would the standard of living rise if more people are poor?[/quote]
Where does the assumption come in that more people are poor? Why would people become poor? I don't have a clue as to why you think this.
[quote]It would also slow down technological advancement since people can't afford the latest of technologies except for a small percent.[/quote]
This is more confusing because the assumption being made is that technological advancements makes things more expensive. Where is the reasoning for this? The cotton gin certainly made it more affordable for consumers to purchase clothing. More so, what reasoning is there to back up that entrepreneurial activity is slowed by the current technology being too expensive. Isn't it kind of the opposite?
[QUOTE=Pepin;32358231]I've made plenty of arguments in this thread. What I am saying is that I can't quite respond to what you're saying because you're making statements and not including your reasoning. [/QUOTE] I gave my reasoning. Like I said finite number of people they need to employ so your competition for higher wages wont work like it would with a product. Instead you just respond with uh.
[quote]Where does the assumption come in that more people are poor? Why would people become poor? I don't have a clue as to why you think this.[/quote] Well if you read the posts in the last page you would know.
[quote]This is more confusing because the assumption being made is that technological advancements makes things more expensive.[/quote] Most products are made for the average consumer to buy, If the average consumer is poorer it would mean the product couldn't use the latest of technology on them and instead use cheaper substitutes that they can buy. Its the same reason you don't see anyone make amazing new technologies for africa. The people there just can't afford it.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32357390]It's an analogy that conveys a point about risk. Your criticism is that I didn't take the interview into account and that it isn't a 1:1 comparison. I don't understand how that makes it weak, because an analogy in no way is a 1:1 comparison, and this analogy gets the point across about risk, that an investor is more likely not to pick blindly, that they'd be more likely to choose the stock they have data on.[/quote]
My issue is that your analogy is making assumptions about investors that aren't necessarily true, and even though the analogy's content itself doesn't matter when you're simply trying to make a point, I also don't agree with your point. Having past data on a stock means very little to nothing.
[quote]Certainly not, because from the employer's mindset they are guaranteed to make a profit compared to the alternatives. You have to think relatively. Even then, [U]if you consider that workers productivity being so high, and the pay for that employee being so low, the employer will make a profit.[/U] It would have been best to say that in the situation the safest option would require a much higher pay for the lack of risk.[/quote]
THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED ANYTHING! It's not about me thinking relatively. I don't think you quite understand the word profit. I'm not sure what you even mean when you say what's underlined. And you still aren't grasping that what I'm saying is that lack of risk isn't what you get a higher pay for. It's knowledge and ability.
[quote][B]To ensure that those who's productivity are below the minimum wage are out of job?[/B][/quote]
So you're saying that someone who has work experience should be the one out of a job over someone with none?
[quote]Where does this assumption come from that employers will still hire these people for the extra risk when they have the ability hire lower risk people? I'm really confused because I don't know by what logic you assume the risk is offset by a higher pay. I can make some gambling analogies if you want.[/quote]
Because these people WILL be hired. A lot of places won't hire people who have more experience because they are overqualified. There's just as much of a risk of hiring people with experience as there is hiring those without any experience at all. I don't understand how you see someone with a resume as being lower risk.
[quote]Clearly Freeman, based on the assumption that a scientist will make more than a plumber. Scientific knowledge is more scarce than the knowledge of plumbing, though in both cases you have to take into account accreditation. I think even plumbers may have to get accredited in certain states due to certain regulations.[/QUOTE]
Well that was my point. Jobs that require more knowledge and/or specialization are usually higher paying, and that how risky or non-risky a candidate is takes very little, if any, bearing on how much the job is paying. Most salaries are put in place before the job is ever even put on the open market.
Another problem you'll find with this idea Pepin:
Take a time of economic recession, like now. Lots of people out of work and looking for jobs, high competition in the workplace. Historically, companies lower wages and/or lay people off and increase the workload of existing employees, and are rarely willing to lower the prices of their products. This is bad enough on its own.
But what about those working minimum wage? Without a minimum wage, people who are currently in minimum wage jobs would be hit hardest: their pay would be reduced while their workload would increase because they would be considered replacable (due to the state of the job market). They would have to keep working or risk making no money at all. Instant recipe for sweat shops in the United States.
And again, even if the job market picks back up, who's to say the companies wouldn't rather collude than compete? They already do when it comes to benefits (nobody offers them so there is no competition), what's stopping them from doing it with pay?
[QUOTE=Meader;32361495]My issue is that your analogy is making assumptions about investors that aren't necessarily true, and even though the analogy's content itself doesn't matter when you're simply trying to make a point, I also don't agree with your point. Having past data on a stock means very little to nothing.[/QUOTE]
Again, you're sticking to the claim that nothing is absolute. I say again, because it is basically again saying "nothing is safe". And surely if data on a stock meant nothing nobody would look at it. The only data there is happens to be from the past, and that data is what people use to predict the future.
[QUOTE=Meader;32361495]THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED ANYTHING! It's not about me thinking relatively. I don't think you quite understand the word profit. I'm not sure what you even mean when you say what's underlined. And you still aren't grasping that what I'm saying is that lack of risk isn't what you get a higher pay for. It's knowledge and ability.[/quote]
If a worker has a marginal revenue product of $11 an hour and the the employer is only paying them $7 an hour, the employer would be making a profit of $4 an hour. That is what is meant by profit.
You'll get a higher pay for a higher marginal revenue product, which can a lot of times be based on your previous record. Where risk comes in is where a worker does not have much of a record making their marginal revenue product very difficult to predict. There is a good chance it might be below what you are paying them, which means you are making a loss. This is why the trend is for most employers to hire people with previous work experience, because the risk associated is far less. I shouldn't need to expand upon why.
[QUOTE=Meader;32361495]So you're saying that someone who has work experience should be the one out of a job over someone with none?[/quote]
I'm not at all sure where that implication came from. In your scenario, the less experienced worker is out of job. In mine, both have a job, but the less experienced worker is making less than the more experienced.
[QUOTE=Meader;32361495]Because these people WILL be hired.[/quote]
Based on what grounds, that you say they'll be hired? The people who are too risky such as the mentally handicapped have no chance of getting hired, and there are numerous studies that show that their having a real job is beneficial to them, and there are studies that show that make work programs don't have the same effect at all. Black teenage unemployment goes up substantially every time the government plays with the minimum wage, it is clearly not helping them, and no they won't be hired. If you want to go further, I can cite studies that show that teenage jobs have a large impact on the salary you make later in life. So not only is the minimum wage keeping them from a job, but it is keeping them from a larger salary later in life.
I really don't understand where this idea comes from because all data contradicts it. Of course I'm not at all being absolute in my claim, many unskilled laborers will land a job, but a larger percentage are kept from a job because of the minimum wage, especially black teens.
[QUOTE=Meader;32361495]A lot of places won't hire people who have more experience because they are overqualified.[/quote]
Yes, many places won't hire you due to over qualification, but what you're inferring from this is that there will be no competition between skilled and unskilled workers. You'd need far more to back up that claim, and if you need statistics about who makes minimum wage, it will reveal that there is clearly competition.
[QUOTE=Meader;32361495][B]There's just as much of a risk of hiring people with experience as there is hiring those without any experience at all. I don't understand how you see someone with a resume as being lower risk.[/B][/quote]
I don't understand how you could back up that statement besides reverting these absolute claims you keep using.
[QUOTE=Meader;32361495]Well that was my point. Jobs that require more knowledge and/or specialization are usually higher paying, and that how risky or non-risky a candidate is takes very little, if any, bearing on how much the job is paying. Most salaries are put in place before the job is ever even put on the open market.[/QUOTE]
I don't really understand because you're talking about high skilled jobs which are extremely different than low skilled due to their scarcity. But risk can also come about in high skilled jobs, but it is far less of a factor.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;32361913]Take a time of economic recession, like now. Lots of people out of work and looking for jobs, high competition in the workplace. Historically, companies lower wages and/or lay people off and increase the workload of existing employees, and are rarely willing to lower the prices of their products. This is bad enough on its own.[/QUOTE]
Historically rescissions have always caused prices to go down. This does not occur anymore due to the Fed, but that is an external factor. During the Great Depression for example prices went down and for whatever reason the government tried to raise them by forcing rationing, limiting work hours, paying people not to farm, burning people crops, and so on.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;32361913]But what about those working minimum wage? Without a minimum wage, people who are currently in minimum wage jobs would be hit hardest: their pay would be reduced while their workload would increase because they would be considered replacable (due to the state of the job market). They would have to keep working or risk making no money at all. Instant recipe for sweat shops in the United States.[/quote]
Without a minimum wage more people will be able to keep their jobs. Without the government creating inflation, the deflation will actually help the poor. Times during a recession are tough, I'm not going to doubt that, I don't see how your solution works better. Minimum wage jobs are laid off because employers can't lower their pay, people go into poverty and have no chance, all the while the government creates inflation making it harder for the poor to purchase goods.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;32361913]And again, even if the job market picks back up, who's to say the companies wouldn't rather collude than compete? They already do when it comes to benefits (nobody offers them so there is no competition), what's stopping them from doing it with pay?[/quote]
What stops collusion? Selfishness, greed, people. What stops the bidding down of wages? I've been over this a lot, but people. Even when looking at real monopolies (government made) you'll find that the bidding down of wages doesn't occur.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32363069]Again, you're sticking to the claim that nothing is absolute. I say again, because it is basically again saying "nothing is safe". And surely if data on a stock meant nothing nobody would look at it. The only data there is happens to be from the past, and that data is what people use to predict the future.[/quote]
If you're looking at the past to make your decisions, then you're not going to do well in the market. Yes, some people use the past prices to base their decision, but not very heavily. Most of what you base your decision off of is what you think is going to happen in the future, and the numbers of the past can't give you that answer.
[quote]I'm not at all sure where that implication came from. In your scenario, the less experienced worker is out of job. In mine, both have a job, but the less experienced worker is making less than the more experienced. [/quote]
No, because in both scenarios, there is only one job, so only one person can fill said job. Therefore one of them has to be out of a job. Your scenario has the nice little loophole of saying "the more qualified person will just get another job", when the problem is there aren't enough jobs. If the more qualified person is trying to get a job somewhere where they are offered minimum wage, chances are they can't find work anywhere else.
[QUOTE=Meader;32367119]If you're looking at the past to make your decisions, then you're not going to do well in the market. Yes, some people use the past prices to base their decision, but not very heavily. Most of what you base your decision off of is what you think is going to happen in the future, and the numbers of the past can't give you that answer.[/quote]
Surely they can because it is based in inductive reasoning. Certainly there are many circumstantial factors involved as well, but all rational people base their predictions in data. I really can't fathom this claim it seems as though you are saying that people don't reason inductively, rather that they just go with their gut, and could care less about the data. And again, you're reverting to an absolute claim. I understand inductive reasoning is flawed, so do many philosophers, yet it works, the field of science is based on inductive reasoning.
[QUOTE=Meader;32367119]No, because in both scenarios, there is only one job, so only one person can fill said job. Therefore one of them has to be out of a job. Your scenario has the nice little loophole of saying "the more qualified person will just get another job", when the problem is there aren't enough jobs. If the more qualified person is trying to get a job somewhere where they are offered minimum wage, chances are they can't find work anywhere else.[/QUOTE]
You misunderstand, eliminating the minimum wage would create jobs. It would allow for jobs to exist that could not exist at the minimum wage level. I can give many examples, but I'll give a real world example that politicians actually understand. Farm jobs (with the exception of corporate farms) are allowed to pay below the minimum wage. Why? Because at minimum wage, the farmers would not be able to hire enough laborers to work the fields without going broke. Raising their minimum wage would not only kill the jobs the farm workers had, but it would also kill the farm.
Now to make my scenario explicit, without a minimum wage, the more qualified worker would get the job instead of the unskilled laborer. The unskilled laborer would get a job that didn't previously exist without the minimum wage. It should be pretty easy to see how no minimum wage would create more jobs, and of course lower paying, that is the only reason why such a job exists in the first place.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32270577]How so? Can you provide an argument?[/QUOTE]
Just about most of the industrial era?
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
I mean, people were working 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week for like a fucking penny so
[QUOTE=Kylel999;32394420]Just about most of the industrial era?
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
I mean, people were working 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week for like a fucking penny so[/QUOTE]
Can you think of what the alternative was? Working on a farm or some other job for far longer hours making far less. I don't really understand what you're trying to say, especially granted that the industrial revolution created the greatest standard of living increase amongst the low class and also created much more opportunity. As a result of the greater earning working at factories, couples had less kids and would use their savings to send them to school. This would not have been possible without it. Also take not that prior to the revolution, children were an investment of labor, which is why family sizes where so large. Though the industrial revolution is often considered bad because there was child labor, there was child labor prior to that on the farms, and without the industrial revolution, there is no reason at all to believe that child labor would cease to be.
What does this have to do with the minimum wage anyway?
[QUOTE=Pepin;32394280]Surely they can because it is based in inductive reasoning. Certainly there are many circumstantial factors involved as well, but all rational people base their predictions in data. I really can't fathom this claim it seems as though you are saying that people don't reason inductively, rather that they just go with their gut, and could care less about the data. And again, you're reverting to an absolute claim. I understand inductive reasoning is flawed, so do many philosophers, yet it works, the field of science is based on inductive reasoning.[/quote]
I'm not saying not to use it at all, I'm simply saying that doing what your gut says when you are dealing with hiring people is more important. But I guess in the discussion of this thread, it doesn't quite add anything. In my defense though, I did say I wasn't saying anything for or against minimum wage (though that's changed in the argument I'm about to make below), I was simply saying your resume analogy didn't really work for me and I was hoping you could offer a different analogy for me.
[quote]You misunderstand, eliminating the minimum wage would create jobs. It would allow for jobs to exist that could not exist at the minimum wage level. I can give many examples, but I'll give a real world example that politicians actually understand. Farm jobs (with the exception of corporate farms) are allowed to pay below the minimum wage. Why? Because at minimum wage, the farmers would not be able to hire enough laborers to work the fields without going broke. Raising their minimum wage would not only kill the jobs the farm workers had, but it would also kill the farm.[/quote]
Farms are not the same as corporations, they operate seasonally. When farming jobs pop up they are all at once and there's a saturation of the market. They hire tons and tons of people for like, a week or a month, and then they're done. Normal jobs don't quite work like that. We're talking about cutting corporate wages, not special exceptions.
[quote]Now to make my scenario explicit, without a minimum wage, the more qualified worker would get the job instead of the unskilled laborer. The unskilled laborer would get a job that didn't previously exist without the minimum wage. It should be pretty easy to see how no minimum wage would create more jobs, and of course lower paying, that is the only reason why such a job exists in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Well you're saying that it will open up more jobs, but those jobs aren't worth anything. What you're actually doing is destroying jobs, because those salaries would be lowered and people wouldn't be able to get by. I think most who have intelligently responded would completely agree that living ON minimum wage is hard enough, almost impossible, and living BELOW minimum wage is out of the question.
Let's say you take an average, minimum wage job and get rid of the wage floor. Yes, they can cut that one job into two (or maybe more realistically, 20 jobs into 25), but what that would effectively do is take 25 people and put them into work. Sounds good, right? Well those 25 people can't afford to pay their bills, and are all not just struggling to survive anymore as those 20 making minimum wage were before, but are now so poor they can't afford to eat. Is it better to have 20 people making it while 5 are displaced or 25 people suffering? That choice seems fairly obvious.
Every time pepin posts, I think facepunch loses 12 IQ points.
[QUOTE=The one that is;32400823]Every time pepin posts, I think facepunch loses 12 IQ points.[/QUOTE]
6,023 Posts
-72276 IQ? Wow
[QUOTE=Meader;32400458]I was simply saying your resume analogy didn't really work for me and I was hoping you could offer a different analogy for me.[/quote]
The impression I got was that you were saying it didn't work in general, in that the reasoning was flawed. I think somewhere I could provide a gambling analogy. It probably doesn't work as well for you because you're a business major. I'll think up a gambling analogy and post it here when I think of it.
[QUOTE=Meader;32400458]Farms are not the same as corporations, they operate seasonally. When farming jobs pop up they are all at once and there's a saturation of the market. They hire tons and tons of people for like, a week or a month, and then they're done. Normal jobs don't quite work like that. We're talking about cutting corporate wages, not special exceptions.[/quote]
This really isn't a rebuttal as my point about the farm jobs not being there at below minimum wage pay still is valid. I could have provided many other examples, but I decided to go with farms because it is something politicians understand.
[QUOTE=Meader;32400458]Well you're saying that it will open up more jobs, but those jobs aren't worth anything.[/quote]
Aren't worth anything to who. The right word may be whom, I'm not sure, but that is besides the point. To the person who couldn't get a job at all, a low paying job is far better than no job. You must also take into consideration that the people in question are likely to remain unemployed due to a low marginal revenue product.
Also to address this point, a higher skilled will likely be unemployed longer than a unskilled worker because the higher skilled worker is more likely to spend a longer time looking for a job that meets their marginal revenue product, or the pay they think they deserve. I make this point because the low skilled worker doesn't have as much time to spend looking for a job, and therefore they are likely to take a pay that might be below their marginal revue product.
[QUOTE=Meader;32400458]What you're actually doing is destroying jobs, because those salaries would be lowered and people wouldn't be able to get by.[/quote]
What salaries. Who's. It seems like you're pulling the bidding down of wage argument, yet it just doesn't work in practice at all especially when taken into account how many people a year receive a raise and how 95% of jobs pay above minimum wage. If the bidding down of wage argument was semi plausible, the majority of wages would be at minimum wage right now.
[QUOTE=Meader;32400458]I think most who have intelligently responded would completely agree that living ON minimum wage is hard enough, almost impossible, and living BELOW minimum wage is out of the question.[/quote]
I don't doubt the good intentions to have all of America earn a living wage, but the fact of the matter is that there are unintended consequences of this, the biggest unintended consequence is that it the unemploys unskilled and uneducated. It's really hard to argue with the studies done on this, there are pretty conclusive. I made a big post with a big complication of the major ones.
[QUOTE=Meader;32400458]Let's say you take an average, minimum wage job and get rid of the wage floor. Yes, they can cut that one job into two (or maybe more realistically, 20 jobs into 25), but what that would effectively do is take 25 people and put them into work. Sounds good, right? Well those 25 people can't afford to pay their bills, and are all not just struggling to survive anymore as those 20 making minimum wage were before, but are now so poor they can't afford to eat. Is it better to have 20 people making it while 5 are displaced or 25 people suffering? That choice seems fairly obvious.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure what you're saying here. It looks like a slippery slope, and if it is, it was so slippery that I couldn't even grasp what you were trying to convey.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32404017]This really isn't a rebuttal as my point about the farm jobs not being there at below minimum wage pay still is valid. I could have provided many other examples, but I decided to go with farms because it is something politicians understand.[/quote]
In my city waitresses work below the minimum wage because they also operate on tips, that's the logic of the exception anyway. There will never be a shortage of waitresses, ever.
[QUOTE=Meader;32400458]Well you're saying that it will open up more jobs, but those jobs aren't worth anything. What you're actually doing is destroying jobs, because those salaries would be lowered and people wouldn't be able to get by. I think most who have intelligently responded would completely agree that living ON minimum wage is hard enough, almost impossible, and living BELOW minimum wage is out of the question.[/quote]
This doesn't really work in the real world, people who would work below minimum would be people already working below minimum now (think, immigrants who are already used to a lower standing of living and illegally work below the minimum wage) or people who would like a temporary job (students, people just wanting to supplement their income with a lax job) etc. Would there be some people working below minimum who would prefer a job that pays higher? Sure, don't we all. However, if their labor cannot command that much capital they aren't going to find a job anywhere. The homeless, the people with virtually no education to speak of and things of that nature, you have to understand, those people are already unemployed and virtually unemployable, not only that but you're also only thinking of people who work for a wage for a larger existing company.
Poorer individuals could also band together and start companies more easily to compete with skilled labor, historically that is what cheap labor has done. That is also coincidentally why historically skilled labor has always advocated a "living wage". People able to do their jobs cheaper than them is scary, and their secure livelihoods are threatened by it.
[QUOTE=Meader;32400458]Let's say you take an average, minimum wage job and get rid of the wage floor. Yes, they can cut that one job into two (or maybe more realistically, 20 jobs into 25), but what that would effectively do is take 25 people and put them into work. Sounds good, right? Well those 25 people can't afford to pay their bills, and are all not just struggling to survive anymore as those 20 making minimum wage were before, but are now so poor they can't afford to eat. Is it better to have 20 people making it while 5 are displaced or 25 people suffering? That choice seems fairly obvious.[/QUOTE]
Alright, let's take your analogy and take it to it's logical conclusion: Why don't they already split higher paying jobs into minimum wage jobs?
Why instead of 1 great lawyer can't we have 40 working for a minimum wage?
Why instead of 1 great architect can't we have 10 working for a minimum wage?
Labor doesn't work that way, employers don't set the price for labor. Employers can't just say "You know what, my asshole doctor gets paid too much, I think I'll fire him and put up 100 job offers paying 5 dollars an hour", that's not how it works.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32407385]In my city waitresses work below the minimum wage because they also operate on tips, that's the logic of the exception anyway. There will never be a shortage of waitresses, ever.[/quote]
Again, waitresses are a special exception, because they get paid basically on commission. While it's not on a perfect commission, the tips they receive are mostly based on their skills as a waitress/waiter. I don't quite see how this applies in the same way farm work doesn't, because it's not an average job, it's an exception (due to tips).
[QUOTE=s0beit;32407385]This doesn't really work in the real world, people who would work below minimum would be people already working below minimum now (think, immigrants who are already used to a lower standing of living and illegally work below the minimum wage) or people who would like a temporary job (students, people just wanting to supplement their income with a lax job) etc. Would there be some people working below minimum who would prefer a job that pays higher? Sure, don't we all. However, if their labor cannot command that much capital they aren't going to find a job anywhere. The homeless, the people with virtually no education to speak of and things of that nature, you have to understand, those people are already unemployed and virtually unemployable, not only that but you're also only thinking of people who work for a wage for a larger existing company.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Pepin;32404017]To the person who couldn't get a job at all, a low paying job is far better than no job. You must also take into consideration that the people in question are likely to remain unemployed due to a low marginal revenue product.[/quote]
What I'm saying, and I feel both you and Pepin misrepresented, is that minimum wage is hard enough to live on (to some impossible), and many/most of those living below minimum wage will not survive. Effectively, a lower-than-minimum-wage job is NOT better than no job, because it is essentially like not having any job at all.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32407385]Alright, let's take your analogy and take it to it's logical conclusion: Why don't they already split higher paying jobs into minimum wage jobs?
Why instead of 1 great lawyer can't we have 40 working for a minimum wage?
Why instead of 1 great architect can't we have 10 working for a minimum wage?
Labor doesn't work that way, employers don't set the price for labor. Employers can't just say "You know what, my asshole doctor gets paid too much, I think I'll fire him and put up 100 job offers paying 5 dollars an hour", that's not how it works.[/QUOTE]
Here you're talking about higher paying jobs that rely much more on skill and practice, such as a lawyer or a doctor. I'm talking about something simple, like an assembly worker, where one really good person doing a job can be equal to two or three people doing the same job at a lower quality and therefore cost. Doctors and lawyers probably wouldn't see much, if any, of an effect from this lowering of wages because that's a specialty. Anybody can push carts, but it takes practice and knowledge to be a doctor.
And employers DO set a price for labor. Who, then, are you suggesting sets the labor price if not the person offering the job?
[QUOTE=Pepin;32404017]This really isn't a rebuttal as my point about the farm jobs not being there at below minimum wage pay still is valid.[/quote]
No, my point is valid because what I'm saying is that while I agree those jobs wouldn't exist, farm jobs are not like other jobs in a similar way that waitressing is not like any other job.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32404017]What salaries. Who's. It seems like you're pulling the bidding down of wage argument, yet it just doesn't work in practice at all especially when taken into account how many people a year receive a raise and how 95% of jobs pay above minimum wage. If the bidding down of wage argument was semi plausible, the majority of wages would be at minimum wage right now.[/quote]
No, that is not my argument. I am not saying wages will be bidded down (even though I think they will, but I'll get to that later), I'm saying that those that DO get dropped below minimum wage (which I think we're all agreeing will happen) will not be worth much, if anything. I say this because, as I've said multiple times and you don't seem to understand STILL, you can not realistically live below minimum wage. While it may average out the lower class to be a bit higher in value [I]collectively[/I], it would also force some to take jobs below what they can afford, thereby making those who would once have been able to survive uncomfortably on the wage floor unable to survive in a reasonable manner.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32404017]I don't doubt the good intentions to have all of America earn a living wage, but the fact of the matter is that there are unintended consequences of this, the biggest unintended consequence is that it unemploys the unskilled and uneducated. It's really hard to argue with the studies done on this, they are pretty conclusive. I made a big post with a big complication of the major ones.[/quote]
I don't doubt that those who are unskilled and uneducated take a hit due to the minimum wage existing, but while getting rid of the minimum wage might help [I]them[/I], it would also hinder those who are educated and/or skilled by forcing them to take jobs at a lower pay than they can afford.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32404017]I'm not even sure what you're saying here. It looks like a slippery slope, and if it is, it was so slippery that I couldn't even grasp what you were trying to convey.[/QUOTE]
While your wording is cute, I don't think you address anything I say at all.
Here's a quote from you a couple pages ago (9), that I think explains why you don't understand:
[QUOTE=Pepin;32321738]Statistically as I've shown, most nobody survives off minimum wage. 50% of the people that make it are teenagers, the rest are a collection of college students, and the elderly. 95% of Americans make above minimum wage. Many old people do, but it is of course supplemented with social security.
To make my argument really simple, would lowering minimum wage have any effect on the pay that 95% of Americans are making? No, they would continue to make amount they are making. [B]Minimum wage is not a floor that raise or lowers every else's wages[/B], it is irrational to think that without minimum wage you'd be making $8 an hour as opposed to $10.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with your argument here because the minimum wage IS a floor. That's exactly what it's meant to be, the lowest pay you could possibly survive on. It compensates for the government's inflation that you speak of quite often. It is in no way irrational to think that prices would be bidded down, the same way they could be bidded up. They are ALREADY competitive, but losing that minimum would make it that much easier to be over-competitive. I could see removing the floor and having wages rise OR fall, although what goes up inevitably goes down as well. I completely agree that the pay demand would keep wages reasonable in price, but I do think they would be effected one way or the other.
Now I say it's not irrational to think price bidding would happen. I feel justified in saying this because employee wages are the most easily manipulate asset in a company. You can't do much about the light bills or the heating bills, but when it comes to salaries there is a flexibility that doesn't exist in most other sectors. So it makes sense that the easiest way to gain a competitive advantage for a business would be to slightly drop their wages. Why doesn't it happen now, you ask? Because of a few factors. One being that the demand for certain salaries at certain jobs by employees is keeping them at a reasonable level (which I think you have mentioned). Another reason is that there is this floor that people can base all other jobs off of. 10 dollars an hour has meaning to somebody because they know it's above minimum wage and by how much. Without that floor you're taking away the comparison.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]
What I'm saying, and I feel both you and Pepin misrepresented, is that minimum wage is hard enough to live on (to some impossible), and many/most of those living below minimum wage will not survive. Effectively, a lower-than-minimum-wage job is NOT better than no job, because it is essentially like not having any job at all.[/quote]
And who the hell are you, exactly, to say what good a job is to someone? Upon what authority do you cast judgement on people's preferences?
"a lower-than-minimum-wage job is NOT better than no job, because it is essentially like not having any job at all", You do realize this is completely stupid don't you? I mean you had to know when you wrote it. One involves making no money and the other involves making money.
"is that minimum wage is hard enough to live on (to some impossible), and many/most of those living below minimum wage will not survive."
This is actually completely false. People working below minimum wage survive today, right now. You can find them all over the place, if you actually bother to look. Not just outside of our country, but in it.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]Here you're talking about higher paying jobs that rely much more on skill and practice, such as a lawyer or a doctor. I'm talking about something simple, like an assembly worker, where one really good person doing a job can be equal to two or three people doing the same job at a lower quality and therefore cost. Doctors and lawyers probably wouldn't see much, if any, of an effect from this lowering of wages because that's a specialty. Anybody can push carts, but it takes practice and knowledge to be a doctor.
And employers DO set a price for labor. Who, then, are you suggesting sets the labor price if not the person offering the job?[/quote]
Saying an employer sets the price of labor is like saying an employer sets the price of goods. It's completely false. The collective sets the price of labor and goods, it always has, any basic economics textbook will tell you this.
My point about doctors is this: Of course, yes, people who sell products or hire works can change prices of things at their whim, in their own company.
[b]However[/b], what they in fact do not have control over is personal preferences and competition (normally anyway, sometimes the government likes to play games).
Could I put up a bicycle for 2 million dollars on eBay? Sure, I absolutely could. Would anyone buy it? Unless the rotting carcass of Elvis was strapped to it, probably not.
Like the price of goods, the price of labor is set by supply and demand as well as returns. You take the amount of resources any given person will produce, the reality of the competitive market and the desires of the workers into account.
You can't produce steel beams for $5 and sell them for $2000, You can't produce steel beams for $2000 and sell them for $5.
You can't have other companies paying workers in the same field $20 and hire people for $5.
You can't pay workers more than what they output in physical resources operating at a loss.
All of these are very very basic economic laws.
[editline]e[/editline]
The underlying point is this: People aren't paid for more or less than they're worth, all the jobs destroyed by the minimum wage is the market telling you just that. You can't have a job which outputs $5 worth of goods being paid $11, it's a loss, they'd fire those people. Likewise you can't have a job worth $11 being paid $5.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32407385]In my city waitresses work below the minimum wage because they also operate on tips, that's the logic of the exception anyway. There will never be a shortage of waitresses, ever.[/QUOTE]
What isn't so known about that is that the employer has to make up the difference if you don't make enough tips. So if you make no tips at all, the employer will have to pay you minimum wage. If you make $6 an hour and minimum wage is $7, the employer would have to pay you the extra dollar an hour. Ironically many people find serving jobs attractive because they pay far above minimum wage when including tips, but the main conditional is that you have to be a good server.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]What I'm saying, and I feel both you and Pepin misrepresented, is that minimum wage is hard enough to live on (to some impossible), and many/most of those living below minimum wage will not survive. Effectively, a lower-than-minimum-wage job is NOT better than no job, because it is essentially like not having any job at all.[/quote]
It would be best to let an individual decide that. Perhaps in their situation they would prefer to be unemployed than not. And I'm really getting sick of citing these statistics, but 50% of people making minimum wage are dependent teenagers or young adults (who are in college), and 20-30% are the elderly who receive supplements like social security and medicare. This is from the DOL and I've been citing it all throughout this thread. Circumstantially it is very difficult to make the argument this would make it harder for the 70% of people earning minimum wage as they are either dependent or are receiving supplementary income. Eliminating the minimum wage would make it easy for the 30% making minimum wage because the low skilled worker would not be as competitive with them.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]Here you're talking about higher paying jobs that rely much more on skill and practice, such as a lawyer or a doctor. I'm talking about something simple, like an assembly worker, where one really good person doing a job can be equal to two or three people doing the same job at a lower quality and therefore cost. Doctors and lawyers probably wouldn't see much, if any, of an effect from this lowering of wages because that's a specialty. Anybody can push carts, but it takes practice and knowledge to be a doctor.
And employers DO set a price for labor. Who, then, are you suggesting sets the labor price if not the person offering the job?[/quote]
Ah, good, so the bidding down of wages. Again, why are 95% of people making above minimum wage? And why do the majority of employees receive a raise each year? And again, aren't labor contracts determined by two parties, both parties must agree and believe it benefits them. People aren't going to accept a job if it isn't worth their time. The bidding down of wage fallacy only works if you assume people aren't self interested and that there aren't alternatives. There is a price at which people will refuse to push carts because it isn't worth their time, even if one or two people take up the job, the employer doesn't have enough labor to run their business. So in order to attract labor the employer must raise the wage rate to one that people are willing to accept. Just think of illegals, yes they work for well below minimum wage, but are they going to work for a penny? No, they are only going to work for a wage that they believe benefits them.
This certainly happens in the real world. I worked at a place that sanded log homes and started off at $10 an hour. That seems like a pretty high starting wage, but once I was on the job it made sense. If the starting pay wasn't that high, people would quit very quickly as the work is very tough and although the work at $10 an hour may be worth it, at $7 an hour it may not when the alternative might be a more relaxed retail job. It's also no surprise that were quick to give raises, and this is because they were quick to lose laborers due to the work being tough. Kim for example got a dollar raise within three months of working there. I can also give you the example of the Back To Basics program where they hire people to take care of mentally ill kids. They have the starting wage well above minimum wage because they realize not only do they need to attract labor, but they need to keep it. The job isn't easy either. I'm not at all basing my claims off this so it is not anecdotal evidence, but the alternative to deriving a situation from experience would be making one up.
Also, I do realize that one of your argument is that employers have this whole wage plan set up with time based increases and everything. Really all I have to say is that those wage plans are meaningless when they are unable to attract labor.
[quote]No, my point is valid because what I'm saying is that while I agree those jobs wouldn't exist, farm jobs are not like other jobs in a similar way that waitressing is not like any other job.[/quote]
The issue is that your rhetoric doesn't address anything. It's the kind of argumentation that makes special cases out of all examples, and the major fallacy is the assumption that making the distinction that A is not B has no effect on whether gravity still applies.
To make it real simple, the minimum wage is raised to $100 an hour. What is going to happen? [url=http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/the_minimum_wage_and_its_emplo.html]I can give a historical case where the minimum wage was raised in Samoa by a much lower magnitude[/url]. Would it not be logical to assume that by lowering the minimum wage, it would have the opposite effect of raising it.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]No, that is not my argument. I am not saying wages will be bidded down (even though I think they will, but I'll get to that later), I'm saying that those that DO get dropped below minimum wage (which I think we're all agreeing will happen) will not be worth much, if anything. I say this because, as I've said multiple times and you don't seem to understand STILL, you can not realistically live below minimum wage. While it may average out the lower class to be a bit higher in value [I]collectively[/I], it would also force some to take jobs below what they can afford, thereby making those who would once have been able to survive uncomfortably on the wage floor unable to survive in a reasonable manner.[/quote]
Already addressed most of this. And again, the minimum wage ensures a certain portion of the population can't get a a job, making it impossible to survive. I can only see your position working if you force employers to hire.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]I don't doubt that those who are unskilled and uneducated take a hit due to the minimum wage existing, but while getting rid of the minimum wage might help [I]them[/I], it would also hinder those who are educated and/or skilled by forcing them to take jobs at a lower pay than they can afford.[/quote]
I really don't understand because there would be no force involved. They could continue making no salary or looking for a higher paying job if they like, that is their decision. In almost all of these responses it seems implied that in your scenario (not implicitly your's) that the unskilled worker is employed. They aren't in your scenario nor are they in real life as most all studies conclude. Certainly that is hyperbole because many low skilled workers are employed, I'll admit to that.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]I disagree with your argument here because the minimum wage IS a floor. That's exactly what it's meant to be, the lowest pay you could possibly survive on. It compensates for the government's inflation that you speak of quite often.[/quote]
I've addressed this. Minimum wage is more like a fence you have to jump over, and those who aren't productive enough can't get a job.
Surely if you believe that minimum wage determines your wage and that as minimum wage increases so does yours (that's how it is seen), then you would be likely to believe that if minimum wage was abolished, everyone's pay would current drop proportionally to minimum wage. I really hope this isn't your understanding, but if you accept that the minimum wage determines all of the wages above it, it is the logical consequence.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]It is in no way irrational to think that prices would be bidded down, the same way they could be bidded up. They are ALREADY competitive, but losing that minimum would make it that much easier to be over-competitive. I could see removing the floor and having wages rise OR fall, although what goes up inevitably goes down as well. I completely agree that the pay demand would keep wages reasonable in price, but I do think they would be effected one way or the other.[/quote]
Doesn't sound like you using the bid down fallacy, which usually states that wages will be bid down to a penny, you seem to be come more with the equilibrium which is what I've been arguing. Maybe I'm a bit quick to assume, but I've just seen it so often in this thread.
[QUOTE=Meader;32409479]Now I say it's not irrational to think price bidding would happen. I feel justified in saying this because employee wages are the most easily manipulate asset in a company. You can't do much about the light bills or the heating bills, but when it comes to salaries there is a flexibility that doesn't exist in most other sectors. So it makes sense that the easiest way to gain a competitive advantage for a business would be to slightly drop their wages. Why doesn't it happen now, you ask? Because of a few factors. One being that the demand for certain salaries at certain jobs by employees is keeping them at a reasonable level (which I think you have mentioned). Another reason is that there is this floor that people can base all other jobs off of. 10 dollars an hour has meaning to somebody because they know it's above minimum wage and by how much. Without that floor you're taking away the comparison.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be much much more light on this, I like it, because it isn't a slippery slope. Prices might be bid up and down, and there will be a process of equilibrium. Wages should approach productivity.
As far as the issue of comparison goes, it would be what other people make. Using minimum wage as a comparison really isn't valid because the cost of living in different areas, even in close by areas is drastically different. New York City is a great example of this, you aren't likely to make judgement off of the minimum wage, but rather what your neighbor makes. I think people are aware enough of their own situation enough to know if they are deserving of a higher wage.
The whole labor for income game is coming to an end, technological unemployment and cheapening of labor is proof of that. Minimum wage or not, this system we are using isn't sustainable.
And don't say that the 75% of jobs today that could easily be replaced by machines tomorrow will be replaced with more jobs supposedly servicing those machines. good luck getting 3/4s of America suddenly get skills in machine maintenance.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32410703]technological unemployment[/quote]
No such thing
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32410703]cheapening of labor[/quote]
Nope. Have any proof people are being paid less in the United States? Or paid less over time in the third world, even?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32410703]Minimum wage or not, this system we are using isn't sustainable.[/quote]
Are you just here to make a bunch of statements?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32410703]And don't say that the 75% of jobs today that could easily be replaced by machines tomorrow will be replaced with more jobs supposedly servicing those machines. good luck getting 3/4s of America suddenly get skills in machine maintenance.[/QUOTE]
Nope, that's not how technology replacing jobs works. This is why I hate the venus project people, so very much. First year economics students can explode all of your arguments.
When the motor vehicle assembly line was invented, were all the jobs created by it to service cars? Work the assembly line? No, hundreds if not thousands of separate industries stemmed from being able to transport people and goods more easily.
That. Is. Not. How. It. Works.
If somehow, magically 75% of jobs were replaced by machines, the price of goods would drop so dramatically poverty as we know it now wouldn't exist, and thousands upon thousands of sectors of jobs would be created totally unrelated to the jobs that the machines do. Oh, and people would be paid more in real terms to do less work.
I really like this OP because Pepin is trying to convince us to allow people like me with low wages to accept even lower wages.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32411645]I really like this OP because Pepin is trying to convince us to allow people like me with low wages to accept even lower wages.[/QUOTE]
If you even bothered to read the topic, or hell, even the OP, you'd know you're making an idiot out of yourself. The myth that the minimum wage boosts existing wages is about as disproven as the flat earth.
[editline]e[/editline]
And before you go asking me questions you're inclined to ask out of pure reaction, read the entire topic and reply to things I've already explained. I'm not explaining it again.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32411694]If you even bothered to read the topic, or hell, even the OP, you'd know you're making an idiot out of yourself. The myth that the minimum wage boosts existing wages is about as disproven as the flat earth.
[editline]e[/editline]
And before you go asking me questions you're inclined to ask out of pure reaction, read the entire topic and reply to things I've already explained. I'm not explaining it again.[/QUOTE]
So lowering wages, increases wages? That's some well spun logic, sobeit.
I don't see how giving companies the ability to lower ones wages to whatever they so desire helps anyone.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32411741]So lowering wages, increases wages? That's some well spun logic, sobeit.
I don't see how giving companies the ability to lower ones wages to whatever they so desire helps anyone.[/QUOTE]
Read the topic, I'm not replying to you otherwise.
This topic has had this same discussion at least 4 times.
I've read the topic, you've given half-assed explanations and a lot of idealism, but no actual facts.
It's simple: How does giving companies the ability to lower your wages, increase wages?
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32411790]I've read the topic, you've given half-assed explanations and a lot of idealism, but no actual facts.[/quote]
Not only is that false, but what the fuck have you contributed exactly? Mister high and mighty facts machine.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32411790]It's simple: How does giving companies the ability to lower your wages, increase wages?[/QUOTE]
I never said it would lower or increase anyone's wages, this is how I know you haven't read anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
