Topic: national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad? - page 7. (Read 21197 times)

No.

You don't say?

I can provide multiple datapoints that refute that. Would you like to revise that statement?

Did you read the paper?

I would argue that there are, because the minimum wage is too high.

Put another way, it kind of removes the ability for the job seeker to be an idiot and accept a job for which he cannot sustain himself.  But, it would be much better for the free market to determine what this sustainability wage floor should be, instead of the government.  The problem is, the idiots may reduce that wage floor for everyone else, making it more difficult for those who are not idiots to find a job in which he can sustain himself.

In your world, perhaps. But we don't live in your world for a good may reasons. In the real world, there aren't actually job seekers out there wanting to work for less than minimum wage. Thus, they are saved from being offered really shitty deals. Get it?

No, it removes the ability to bargain. There's a difference.

The minimum wage floor gives the job seeker some bargaining power, in a sense.

I don't actually care for Walmart, but the truth is, I've never found that in Walmart. Every time I've been in one, they had a shitload of registers open. Probably close to 20 at least, given their double stacked arrangement of registers.

Home Depot is another thing altogether. Self checkout and maybe two registers open if you're lucky. But they pay over minimum wage.

If a worker accepts employment in which he does not receive a high enough wage to sustain himself, then he's an idiot.  A worker should only accept employment in which he receives a high enough wage to sustain himself.  If all workers do this, it creates a natural minimum wage floor.

That said, I can see how getting paid $2/hr in the US could still be sustainable if a person worked an insane number of hours.  Is this acceptable?  Sure.  Anyone who doesn't want to work an insane number of hours is free to better themselves through education, work experience, moving up through the company, finding a new job, etc.

A lack of minimum wage would ensure increased abuse of the welfare and unemployment system.  Who would work for $2/hr when they can be paid more from the government just for sitting on their couch all day?  Therefore, if the minimum wage was abolished, the welfare system would have to be abolished (or restricted to serve only to those who cannot work) as well.

On the crime prevention side, I believe the government should offer unlimited jobs at below-market-value, and this would be the form of monetary compensation that would replace the welfare system.  Just got laid off from a construction company?  Work for the government at 75% of the market wage on a new courthouse.  The factory you worked for just shut down?  Ok, come work on the roadkill cleanup team for 75% of the market wage until you can find something new.

I don't like the idea of government handing out taxpayer dollars to individuals, but it is a necessary evil to prevent desperation and crime.  However, if they're going to hand out money, better make sure that the individuals receiving it actually work for it!

...and then stand at one of the four (out of 40) checkout lines that are open, waiting in line for longer than it took you to pick out your items...

Did you read the paper I posted? The one about not finding any correlation between wage floors and unemployment rates?

Have you considered that a job which pays $3 an hour isn't actually much different than unemployment?

Have you ever walked into a Walmart and think "My gosh, too bad the minimum wage laws are preventing Walmart from hiring more employees", as you navigate your way through the door greeter, the the girl pushing Walmart credit cards, etc?

Unemployment problems are typically with higher wage jobs. Minimum wage floors give a little bit more bargaining power to those seeking entry level jobs. It forces the employer to actually try and create jobs which create some value for the workers.

That's the idea.  The reality is that these people end up jobless and then turn to crime.  Black youth are especially affected by this.  Hence minimum wage is a racist and populist measure.

you guys are bickering about something you really agree upon.  define your terms so the conversation can proceed.

ok well then this is a much easier question to deal with.

If it is true that employers tend not to be willing to employ people at a wage that is higher than what the employer perceives to be the marginal revenue product of that employee (because if he did this he would expect to take a loss); and if it is also true that minimum wage legislation will tend to forces employer to chose between increasing an employees wage to a level that is higher than their marginal revenue product or firing that employee; and that a person who has negative net profitability will tend to be such a person whos marginal revenue product is low for an employer; than we should expect minimum wage to cause unemployment for people who have net negative profitability and to rarely result in an increase in wages. If our intention is to help people who have net negative profitability than perhaps putting them out of work isnt the best way to go about this.

Thus granting them, entitled or not, a portion of the products of those who are capable of working at a net positive - reducing that net positive, and thus the incentive to work for that net positive. The cure for one perceived problem causes another problem, like giving someone a drug, and then another drug to help the side-effects of the first. But that drug has side-effects, too, and so on.

Each attempt at "correcting" a "problem" with the market causes side-effects, which then have to be "corrected," causing more side-effects, which then have to be "corrected"....

Well, that's why wherever there are minimal wage laws, there is often also a "welfare" state that deals with unemployment by paying people for doing nothing.

The philosophical arguments have already been advanced, so I'll present the practical one: If indeed someone has less economic value for their labor than the minimum wage, what sane person is going to hire them at the minimum wage? They'd be losing money. Thus, the result of the minimum wage is to produce, instead of a poor man, an absolutely broke man. The man whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage has, now, only two options in order to survive: accept charity (whether private or state-funded) or enter a life of crime. The very result which you sought to avoid is, in fact, caused by the policy you enacted to attempt to avoid it. Economists call that "unintended consequences."

This is a dangerous question.  I won't answer it.    I'll just say that this question has the same nature (though it's a bit of a caricature), than the question of whether or not the State should take care of disabled people.


No, I believe a free market can totally price wages to their accurate (and thus "fair") economic value.  I just think this value might be lower than the maintenance cost of a human being.  In other words, from a purely economic point of view, I think many human beings are non-efficient machines, i.e. they have a negative net profitability:  they cost more than what they can produce.

definitely, i play devils advocate myself sometimes.

I usually have to start with a few questions to learn what my opponents position actually is. otherwise ill argue against the wrong thing such as such as making and economic argument when the disagreement is philosophical in nature or vise versa.

I would ask you whether or not someone who is unable to produce enough value to sustain even their own lives is entitled to the products of those who are able to sustain their own lives? Do you believe a market wage till tend to be unfairly decoupled from a workers marginal revenue product in a free market society?

If the answer to question 1 is yes than we have a philosophical disagreement, if the answer to question 2 is yes than we (probably) have an economic disagreement (some crazy ass communists believe capitalists are not entitled to anything for sacrificing consumption in order to invest in capital).