Why You Should Be In Favor Of No Minimum Wage - General

[QUOTE=ewitwins;32272062]That hardly ever works in a discussion, stop that. Provide examples, facts, data, do something other than rhetoric.[/QUOTE] open a goddamn history book there was this thing called the great depression it was pretty shite.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32271353]you aren't really using China as an example of good worker representation, are you? The same China that crushed several thousand people beneath tank-treads when they had the audacity to protest the status-quo?[/QUOTE] And you're not actually providing an argument are you? Somehow tanks crushing people is involved in this? [QUOTE=Funcoot;32271386]The terrible wages and long hours people are forced to work there is why many unskilled laborers there commit suicide. The economy is booming, but the condition of the common man is not getting any better. All that's happening are the CEOs and owners are opening more sweatshops and hiring more people for the same shitty wages and working conditions.[/QUOTE] What alternative are you suggesting? That the minimum wage is risen so that such long hours aren't needed to be worked? Yet this would have to be offset with people losing their jobs and more committing suicide. What you don't consider are the people who are committing suicide that aren't able to get jobs because of the minimum wage. [QUOTE=Penultimate;32271406]If we can't trust companies to not use child labor overseas, or even illegal labor back here in "the states," then how can we trust them with our lives? People depend on money from their jobs to live. I don't think allowing corporations to make more of a profit would fix anything..[/QUOTE] We should allow child labor overseas and illegal labor in the states. In third world countries, most children are going to be working regardless of the labor laws, and it is far more profitable for them to work in a sweatshop than on the farm. Furthermore, they can gain certainly skills early in life. It certainly isn't desirable, but the alternative is not either. There was a Nike shop that used child labor, and after some protests they shut it down, and it ends up that all the children either died of starvation or started selling their body. It is also good to realize that in most third world countries, families are large because the parents depends on the children as a source of income and labor. Child labor in modernized countries and areas because it is not needed to survive. [QUOTE=Zeke129;32271515]It doesn't benefit the worker, especially when the worker is a nine year old child forced to be there[/QUOTE] Forced by who? Family? Out of survival? If that is your case, then the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker, because without it, what other means would the family or child have to survive? Again, the alternative is far worse and has a pay off that is far worse. This is less true in China as I've stated before.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;32272062]That hardly ever works in a discussion, stop that. Provide examples, facts, data, do something other than rhetoric.[/QUOTE] What more fact do I need than actual history thats documented to have happened? We have a livable wage for a REASON, so we don't have [B]WAGE SLAVERY[/B] and [B]ENTIRE STARVING FAMILIES BEING FORCED TO WORK IN HARSH CONDITIONS FOR BARELY ANY PAY[/B]. Unless you didn't pass elementary school, you'd know that this [B]doesn't[/B] [B]work[/B]. [B]Stop[/B] justifying it, its barbarically [B]stupid[/B], and [B]people like you are the prime reason this country is so fucked[/B].

Removing the minimum wage is really one of the worst ideas I've read on FP, and I've read some [I]really[/I] bad ideas. It's an employers market. It would not be the companies competing for the workers, but the workers competing for the jobs. Which of course would drive down the average wage as workers became desperate.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32272125] Forced by who? Family? Out of survival? If that is your case, then the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker, because without it, what other means would the family or child have to survive? Again, the alternative is far worse and has a pay off that is far worse. This is less true in China as I've stated before.[/QUOTE] What you call "saving", people with the slightest inkling of how the world works (ie not living in some kind of ayn rand utopia) would call "exploiting".

A raise in minimum wage will only result in lost jobs if the company is stagnant, in which case, they are bound to go under sooner or later and will already be laying people off anyways. If a companies demand is up, sales are soaring, and more production is needed, they are not going to fire anybody, even if minimum wage is increased. "Wow look at all this success! Wait.. what? Minimum wage was raised 50 cents? SHUT IT DOWN, FIRE EVERYBODY!" As much as you like to think this will happen, it wont.

The biggest problem I see with your argument is that it would only be true in a completely free, liquid and fair market.

NO $$$ 4 IMIGRENTS

[QUOTE=Killuah;32272230]The biggest problem I see with your argument is that it would only be true in a completely free, liquid and fair market.[/QUOTE] In a complete free, liquid, and fair market, workers are expendable. It exists almost no where for this reason.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32272125]And you're not actually providing an argument are you?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;32271860]Company A is only going to compete if competition is beneficial to Company A. If the cost of competition is greater than the cost of coexistence or cooperation, Company A won't do shit. You need to understand that competition is not a given in a free market economy. Competition is not inevitable. You are talking about this as though it were Natural Selection, in defiance of the fact that Natural Selection includes the possibilities of symbiotic and parasitic behaviors.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Pepin;32270488][B]Why That Wouldn't Lead To Capitalist Pigs Bidding Down Our Wages To The Lowest Possible Price[/B] Well, surely the title is misleading because employers will always try to negotiate for the lowest possible wage just as you'll be negotiating for the highest possible wage. That is how all trade works. But the idea behind the title is more this idea that all workers wages will be bid down to extremely low levels and that there will be no way to beat the system. I've heard this type of argument a few times and it's a bit hard to follow, though in some sense it is a bit poetic because the phrasing seems to describe the very fallacy it is. But even assuming that such a slippery slope is conceivable, the outcome make no sense unless you also assume everyone is the same in every way. Furthermore, this idea that employers would be able to drive down wages in such a way in all areas is ridiculous. What this statement effectively does is say that employers will not complete for labor, which is untrue. What would realistically happen in such a scenario is that people would refuse to work for a wage they did not agree on. Like in the introduction, Company A could not lower their worker's wage because they knew they workers would not agree on it. The same is true of Company B, and there is no reason to assume people are incapable of negotiating their own wage.[URL="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/07/24/reporting-the-minimum-wage/"][/URL][/QUOTE]You just repeated the same statements again and again here, without effectively arguing any point at all. This one part is the problem with any discussion to lower or remove minimum wage: what guarantee could we possibly have that companies won't try to dick people? That said though, if it weren't for inflation, a minimum wage probably wouldn't be necessary... but you try telling rich people to stop speculating on commodities and driving prices up for everyone. It won't go well for you, trust me. [QUOTE=Lankist;32271860]Company A is only going to compete if competition is beneficial to Company A. If the cost of competition is greater than the cost of coexistence or cooperation, Company A won't do shit. You need to understand that competition is not a given in a free market economy. Competition is not inevitable. You are talking about this as though it were Natural Selection, in defiance of the fact that Natural Selection includes the possibilities of symbiotic and parasitic behaviors.[/QUOTE]FUCKING THIS. Canadian Anecdote time: here in Canada, just a few short years ago, we had only 3 mobile providers: Rogers, Bell, and Telus. There were a few smaller companies either owned by the Big Three (Koodo, Fido, Solo) or running on their networks (Virgin, PC, PetroCanada). But due to a lack of regulation and no incentive to compete, the 3 companies had prices that were very similar, 3 year contracts, and very overpriced phones. Several independant studies listed Canada's wireless prices and terms as being among the worst in the world. For these companies, collaborating as an oligopoly was proving to be far more profitable (and safe) than competing ever would have been. Then Wind Mobile hit the market. Fresh company, sets up its own network and starts offering plans with more coverage for half the price, with dirt cheap phones and no contracts. The Big Three were left to scramble and have used every means available to them to get rid of Wind Mobile, including accusing them of violating our foreign investment laws and having the CRTC (Canada's wireless regulatory committee) investigate whether they can legally operate in Canada (Despite having successfully bid on some of our wireless frequencies). The Big Three dropped lawsuits on them, lowered prices only for people living in regions Wind operated in (by bringing in a new network and making it only available in the same areas Wind operated in)... it took the fucking Prime Minister of Canada to finally end the stupidity and say Wind could operate in Canada regardless of what the CRTC thought, basically issuing the giant "FUCK YOU" we were all waiting for. Over the past 3 years wireless plan prices have dropped 30% or more, because the oligopoly is over and Wind Mobile is taking a big shit all over the telecoms. [B]So in conclusion, it is 100% possible that companies may find the cost of competition too high, and instead choose to collaborate and fuck everyone for the almighty dollar. This is why we have things like minimum wages and anti-competition law.[/B]

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;32272340]You just repeated the same statements again and again here, without effectively arguing any point at all. This one part is the problem with any discussion to lower or remove minimum wage: what guarantee could we possibly have that companies won't try to dick people? That said though, if it weren't for inflation, a minimum wage probably wouldn't be necessary... but you try telling rich people to stop speculating on commodities and driving prices up for everyone. It won't go well for you, trust me.[/QUOTE] The dude's argument consists entirely of yelling "COMPETITION!" over and over.

Get guys, lets rape the common man and remove minimum wage after all we know people who can afford ten cars and all the food they need are more privileged and important!

[QUOTE=J!NX;32272392]Get guys, lets fuck the common man and remove minimum wage after all we know people who can afford ten cars and all the food they need are more privileged and important![/QUOTE] To be honest the only people who I've met who wanted to get rid of the minimum wage are rich middle class kids who've never had to live on the minimum wage.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32272428]To be honest the only people who I've met who wanted to get rid of the minimum wage are rich middle class kids who've never had to live on the minimum wage.[/QUOTE] Thats because they don't know what the hell they're even talking about.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32271860]Company A is only going to compete if competition is beneficial to Company A....[/QUOTE] Again, I'd love to discuss monopoly and competition, but in this situation, Company A has more incentive to get rid of Company B than to merge. [QUOTE=J!NX;32272136][B]WAGE SLAVERY[/B][/QUOTE] Certainly voluntary contracts cannot constitute as slavery. [QUOTE=Jallen;32272138]Removing the minimum wage is really one of the worst ideas I've read on FP, and I've read some [I]really[/I] bad ideas. It's an employers market. It would not be the companies competing for the workers, but the workers competing for the jobs. Which of course would drive down the average wage as workers became desperate.[/QUOTE] How can that be said when employers try to contract labor with attractive terms. The very fact that a laborer might have better opportunities somewhere else ensures that the labor's current employer provides ample pay and benefits. In what kind of a trade does only one side do the barging? [QUOTE=Zeke129;32272169]What you call "saving", people with the slightest inkling of how the world works would call "exploiting".[/QUOTE] Certainly the sweatshop gains, but so does the worker. What is the issue? [QUOTE=Funcoot;32272227]A raise in minimum wage will only result in lost jobs if the company is stagnant, in which case, they are bound to go under sooner or later and will already be laying people off anyways. If a companies demand is up, sales are soaring, and more production is needed, they are not going to fire anybody, even if minimum wage is increased. "Wow look at all this success! Wait.. what? Minimum wage was raised 50 cents? SHUT IT DOWN, FIRE EVERYBODY!" As much as you like to think this will happen, it wont.[/QUOTE] There have been two studies on that I believe and minor raises doesn't seem affect employment. I believe one of the links in my further reading criticizes this because it led to a decrease in unskilled labor (teenagers), but it is safe to say that raising the minimum wage gradually won't create unemployment as way of firings.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32272468]Certainly voluntary contracts cannot constitute as slavery.[/QUOTE] Except when no one can find a well paying job and they have to have their entire family work just to have a livable amount of money. In the short tern this may work, in the long term its a catastrophe.

The OP is so fucking wrong but I wish I was able to write like that.

No minimum wage wont work short or long term, it wont work period.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32272468] Certainly voluntary contracts cannot constitute as slavery. [/QUOTE] No, it's exploitation of those in need.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32272468]Again, I'd love to discuss monopoly and competition, but in this situation, Company A has more incentive to get rid of Company B than to merge.[/QUOTE] So you're saying a company would have more incentive to pay statistically ridiculously high wages than to maintain artificially low wages and compete through the literally hundreds of other means that do not benefit workers, such as supply control and product pricing. You should have paid as much attention during econ101 as you did pls101.

I don't think Pepin understands that some people will do anything to make money, so they will indeed work for the lowest price the employer sets, especially if it is the only job available to them at that point in time. I worked in a retail chain store for some time. Half the staff, and all the management sans one person was over 50. Why? They were lifers. They knew if they quit their job, they'd lose their home, their children, and what little livelihood that they could have living off minimum wage. So, they worked there from the time they passed (or dropped out of) high school to the time they "retire", which never actually happens. With those people, unless they saved up over the years (which is near impossible on minimum wage, according to some of my college friends), or had investments, they would quite literally work until they could not work a day more. The only people there that were in a high up management position and hadn't worked there for years had recently graduated with a business degree, and contracted on with the company for a year or two while they find a better job. The point is, if you need money to support yourself and your family, and the only job available to you is paying "minimum wage", you can make it, just barely, but you can survive. If they removed a minimum, you would still get people working for $4.15 an hour if that's all they could get. The employer plays of the needs of the employee, which you don't seem to understand. I think, as many others in this thread do, that the minimum should be raised if anything. Unskilled workers should be able to get by and support themselves on minimum wage. Otherwise, there is no point at setting the minimum because it will be below the range where you can support yourself.

This is a retarded thing to read and I ask myself extremely how can the same brain that competently accessed the internet and articulated these thoughts be the same one that consideres this crap 12 year olds debate club idea at the first place

That's why the US Government should raise the nation's minimum wage to $8.25 or something so more people will be paying taxes. Although it hurts the business owners, it will help in the long run.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;32272636]That's why the US Government should raise the nation's minimum wage to $8.25 or something so more people will be paying taxes. Although it hurts the business owners, it will help in the long run.[/QUOTE] Forgive me if I am being thick here but if you raise the minimum wage then surely business owners won't want to hire more people thus no increase in people paying taxes? Or am I missing something?

[QUOTE=iPope;32272672]Forgive me if I am being thick here but if you raise the minimum wage then surely business owners won't want to hire more people thus no increase in people paying taxes? Or am I missing something?[/QUOTE] If a company is experiencing growth, they will hire no matter the minimum wage. If demand is up and production is having trouble meeting demand, they WILL hire.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;32272636]That's why the US Government should raise the nation's minimum wage to $8.25 or something so more people will be paying taxes. Although it hurts the business owners, it will help in the long run.[/QUOTE] Hurts the business owners my black ass, they'll still be exploiting immigrants day and night for incredibly low wages.

[QUOTE=J!NX;32272520]Except when no one can find a well paying job and they have to have their entire family work just to have a livable amount of money. In the short tern this may work, in the long term its a catastrophe.[/QUOTE] Slavery is not working at a low wage when there is not opportunity to work at a higher wage. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;32272553]No, it's exploitation of those in need.[/QUOTE] What is the issue if it is voluntary and it benefits you? I could make the "what isn't exploitation" but I won't. But I will to say that people should sell a kidney. The vast majority of people with failed kidneys die and do not have a donor. Opening up a market would allow for so many lives to be saved. Is this exploitation? Yes, but like trade, it benefits both parties. I don't see the difference in this situation either, the group of people aren't likely to survive without exploitation. [QUOTE=Lankist;32272581]So you're saying a company would have more incentive to pay statistically ridiculously high wages than to maintain artificially low wages and compete through the literally hundreds of other means that do not benefit workers, such as supply control and product pricing. You should have paid as much attention during econ101 as you did pls101.[/QUOTE] I was making an example that tried to make the issue simple and clear what happened in some parts of Africa. With situational examples, you're typically more interested in making a point than providing all the details that would make the situation plausible. Anyway, Walter E. Williams has a whole book on South Africa's War Against Capitalism, and I'll quote him. [quote]White racist unions in South Africa that would never have a black as a member were the major supporters of minimum wage laws. Their stated purpose was to protect white workers from having to compete with low-skill, low-wage black workers. In the United States we found some of the same reasoning for support of a super minimum-wage law," the Davis-Bacon Act, which forces taxpayers to pay union-like wages for government-funded construction projects.[/quote]

If competition existed for wages, it would have existed for benefits. Look what happened to those in America. Practically extinct.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32272827]What is the issue if it is voluntary[/QUOTE] yeah you can't invoke freedom of choice when the choice you give is between starving to death or starving slightly slower.