Employers have too much power upon the poorest paid workers when workers get to "negotiate" the contract. Minimum wage sets a minimum standard of living, so if you get the job you get that minimum standard of living, there's no negotiation/bargain between employers and workers around that minimum standard. Some workers might not get the job because of that, yeah, that's why you have to get to a compromise between the minimum standard of living and the unemployment it creates.
Absent minimum wage laws, the employee has the option to say "yes" or "no". Minimum wage laws simply force him to say "no". This only has any effect at all if he'd rather say "yes". To claim that taking a choice away from him helps him somehow strikes me as absurd.
Topic: What we need is FAIR markets, not free markets. - page 5. (Read 10438 times)
Quote from: Findeton
Quote from: amincd on July 05, 2011, 01:48:51 pm
If people are so desperate to meet their basic needs that they will take a low paying job, then prohibiting those low paying jobs is the opposite of what you want to do. And it doesn't matter how much power the employer has, the only thing he is able to do in a free market is offer people a wage in exchange for a service. If they are not happy with the worker, they can end that employer-employee relationship, which leaves the worker no worse off than he was before.
If the job needs to be done, it will get done even if it requires low skills. In that case, you won't be killing jobs, jsut redistributing wealth.
If people are so desperate to meet their basic needs that they will take a low paying job, then prohibiting those low paying jobs is the opposite of what you want to do. And it doesn't matter how much power the employer has, the only thing he is able to do in a free market is offer people a wage in exchange for a service. If they are not happy with the worker, they can end that employer-employee relationship, which leaves the worker no worse off than he was before.
If the job needs to be done, it will get done even if it requires low skills. In that case, you won't be killing jobs, jsut redistributing wealth.
You're really ignoring my point in your response. The job will be done at a price, and will not be done at a price higher than that. That means that minimum wage mandates can eliminate jobs that would otherwise exist, leading to higher unemployment.
You can give the unemployed welfare, but that's worse for the economy, since they don't get the training they would get working a job, and they don't produce any thing.
Life should be fair.
I agree. I think that it's unfair some people are smarter than others. Let's give them brain damage! Also, what about people that are better looking? Acid to the face! Lots of hair? Scalp removal! Taller than me? Chop off their feet! Skinny? Force-fed donuts!
The sooner we all sink to the same level, the sooner I can stop feeling sorry for my own personal shortcomings.
There was a short story with this concept. Beautiful people had to wear masks and such. What was it called?
There is also at least one song:
Rush - The Trees:
Quote
There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Minimum wage laws may not apply to every situation depending on the jurisdiction. If you're working for piecework you can easily make less than minimum wage if you don't perform well. You can either stick it out until you're making more or you can quit.
Sovereign chance your name to socialist please
Social-democrat is a better definition. I am social-democrat and enjoy one of the best socialized/universal healthcares of the world (inexpensive and high quality). Yes, I'm from Spain.
Hold on for the ride. You shall live to see your high quality socialized healthcare system utterly collapse. You will not understand why, and your countrymen will blame government corruption or whatever else, but will also not understand it. I understand it, and it was predictable a decade ago, probably more. I'm not making a prediction, for a prediction would imply a possibility of error. This is inevitable, and Spain is already long past the point of reform, even if that were politically possible. You will watch as Greece & Ireland proceed your nation, but your turn shall come.
I'm not trying to minimize unemployment rate with minimum wage, that would be absurd.
So, what economic harm are you trying to minimize?That is much better handled by collective bargaining.
I'm not trying to minimize unemployment rate with minimum wage, that would be absurd.
So, what economic harm are you trying to minimize?
Employers have too much power upon the poorest paid workers when workers get to "negotiate" the contract. Minimum wage sets a minimum standard of living, so if you get the job you get that minimum standard of living, there's no negotiation/bargain between employers and workers around that minimum standard. Some workers might not get the job because of that, yeah, that's why you have to get to a compromise between the minimum standard of living and the unemployment it creates.
Overall, minimum wages have a net effect of wealth redistribution and a raise of the standard of living, without creating much unemployment rises if well used.
I'm not trying to minimize unemployment rate with minimum wage, that would be absurd.
So, what economic harm are you trying to minimize?
Linear? No. But predictable, within range? Yes. minimum wage = unemployment. You want less unemployment, lower the minimum wage. You want 0 unemployment, lower it to 0.
Sure, unemployment is linked with minimum wage, I have already stated that like, I don't know, infinite times in this thread already. BTW, no, that's not true, you won't get 0% unemployment just eliminating minimum wage (some people just don't work, others won't work for less than X etc, I guess it depends on how you measure unemployment).
I'm not trying to minimize unemployment rate with minimum wage, that would be absurd.
Life should be fair.
I agree. I think that it's unfair some people are smarter than others. Let's give them brain damage! Also, what about people that are better looking? Acid to the face! Lots of hair? Scalp removal! Taller than me? Chop off their feet! Skinny? Force-fed donuts!
The sooner we all sink to the same level, the sooner I can stop feeling sorry for my own personal shortcomings.
There was a short story with this concept. Beautiful people had to wear masks and such. What was it called?
Oh, I see... So, just a few rungs off the bottom, then. OK. In that case, You don't need all your toes, just the big ones. Mind if I chop off the other 8? It won't affect you much.
Minimum wage is always arbitrary. The actual value is chosen after studying many factors, as a compromise between those factors (like expected unemployment raise after raising minimum wage). In the end you'll choose a value that isn't either too high (for example higher than the average sallary, or, as I prefer, the median sallary) or too low (zero).
You can joke all you want about it, but economics are not linear.
Linear? No. But predictable, within range? Yes. minimum wage = unemployment. You want less unemployment, lower the minimum wage. You want 0 unemployment, lower it to 0.
Oh, I see... So, just a few rungs off the bottom, then. OK. In that case, You don't need all your toes, just the big ones. Mind if I chop off the other 8? It won't affect you much.
Minimum wage is always arbitrary. The actual value is chosen after studying many factors, as a compromise between those factors (like expected unemployment raise after raising minimum wage). In the end you'll choose a value that isn't either too high (for example higher than the average sallary, or, as I prefer, the median sallary) or too low (zero).
You can joke all you want about it, but economics are not linear.
Life should be fair.
I agree. I think that it's unfair some people are smarter than others. Let's give them brain damage! Also, what about people that are better looking? Acid to the face! Lots of hair? Scalp removal! Taller than me? Chop off their feet! Skinny? Force-fed donuts!
The sooner we all sink to the same level, the sooner I can stop feeling sorry for my own personal shortcomings.
If minimum wage is so great, Let's set it $100/hr, so everyone can be rich!
I already said that minimum wage only works to a certain point. For example, setting minimum wage at half or a third of the median income is a good enough minimum wage.
Oh, I see... So, just a few rungs off the bottom, then. OK. In that case, You don't need all your toes, just the big ones. Mind if I chop off the other 8? It won't affect you much.
If minimum wage is so great, Let's set it $100/hr, so everyone can be rich!
I already said that minimum wage only works to a certain point. For example, setting minimum wage at half or a third of the median income is a good enough minimum wage.
Economics are not linear, minimum wage are a good instrument but you have to know how to use it.
If minimum wage is so great, Let's set it $100/hr, so everyone can be rich!
Yes, because that's the point: Bill doesn't WANT to hire him because he's not worth minimum wage! He comes to work drunk, causes trouble and does a sloppy job. Bill might be willing to hire him for $5 an hour, but not for the minimum wage of $10 an hour. And Bill won't pay him that if there's any way around it, because it's a bad deal for Bill.
Your minimum wage cost Dan a potential job. At this point, probably NO ONE will hire him, because his labor is only worth $5/hr.
Yeah, that makes him better off.
Your minimum wage cost Dan a potential job. At this point, probably NO ONE will hire him, because his labor is only worth $5/hr.
Yeah, that makes him better off.
If he's drunk at work, he shouldn't work at all.
In none of those examples do we see Dan the Drunk, who isn't worth minimum wage, suddenly start making it. Please note that THAT is the point I'm trying to make.
That's because you just ignored the fact that the employer could simply hire Dan the Drunk for the minimum wage.
Yes, because that's the point: Bill doesn't WANT to hire him because he's not worth minimum wage! He comes to work drunk, causes trouble and does a sloppy job. Bill might be willing to hire him for $5 an hour, but not for the minimum wage of $10 an hour. And Bill won't pay him that if there's any way around it, because it's a bad deal for Bill.
Your minimum wage cost Dan a potential job. At this point, probably NO ONE will hire him, because his labor is only worth $5/hr.
Yeah, that makes him better off.
Actually, history shows minimum wage is, at best, a joke, and at worst, an impediment to workers, and to the economy at large.
History shows minimum wage works very well when it's not an excesive number.
Tell that to all the Dans out there. You have a strange definition of "works."
If people are so desperate to meet their basic needs that they will take a low paying job, then prohibiting those low paying jobs is the opposite of what you want to do. And it doesn't matter how much power the employer has, the only thing he is able to do in a free market is offer people a wage in exchange for a service. If they are not happy with the worker, they can end that employer-employee relationship, which leaves the worker no worse off than he was before.
If the job needs to be done, it will get done even if it requires low skills. In that case, you won't be killing jobs, jsut redistributing wealth.
How can you even make that statement?
In example #1, no one got paid more. Instead, one worker is made to work harder with no increase in pay.
In example #1, no one got paid more. Instead, one worker is made to work harder with no increase in pay.
If a worker is working more hours than what the contract and the law says, it's illegal and I don't count it because it shouldn't happen and the worker should sue the employer for cheating the legal system. If he stops doing "important stuff" in order to do the cheap stuff, others will do the "important stuff".
In example #2, A MACHINE does the job.
So we just increased productivity, and increased efficiency. BTW, who created and designed that machine? Maybe someone got the minimum wage, we created the machine and therefore wealth and at the same time increased productivity.
In example #3, we have no idea if someone somehow gets a pay raise. For all we know, the pre-cut peppers could be produced by child labor in a third-world country.
If the pre-cut peppers are produced by child labor in a third-world, I say we should ban them from selling their child labor products here. Until we ban that kind of thing, there's a loop in the system we have to fix. This system is far from perfect, we have to get better laws.
In none of those examples do we see Dan the Drunk, who isn't worth minimum wage, suddenly start making it. Please note that THAT is the point I'm trying to make.
That's because you just ignored the fact that the employer could simply hire Dan the Drunk for the minimum wage.
There are simply too many ways around a minimum wage, in most cases, for it to do anything. (And even if it did--congratulations! You just caused every employer to raise prices to compensate! Now those "wealthier" employees can spend their newfound wealth on more expensive goods and services. Winners all around!)
If the employer raises prices because he has to pay minimum wage, there's a wealth redistribution between higher paid jobs and lower paid jobs.
Actually, history shows minimum wage is, at best, a joke, and at worst, an impediment to workers, and to the economy at large.
History shows minimum wage works very well when it's not an excesive number.
It hasn't worked well at all. It has reduced employment, and led to people without marketable skills not having a way to acquire them with an entry level job. That the Western world is relatively wealthy doesn't change the fact that the net effect of minimum wage laws have been negative. Luckily the minimum wage has been quite low relative to the average wage, so its negative effect has been small, but it's still there.
If people are so desperate to meet their basic needs that they will take a low paying job, then prohibiting those low paying jobs is the opposite of what you want to do. And it doesn't matter how much power the employer has, the only thing he is able to do in a free market is offer people a wage in exchange for a service. If they are not happy with the worker, they can end that employer-employee relationship, which leaves the worker no worse off than he was before.
Quote
Yes, there's benefit in prohibiting some mutually agreed upon transaction. Because there are needs like food, water and a house to live in that everyone need to cover and employers use that fact against workers. Minimum wage and other government interventions balances out that power.
If people are so desperate to meet their basic needs that they will take a low paying job, then prohibiting those low paying jobs is the opposite of what you want to do. And it doesn't matter how much power the employer has, the only thing he is able to do in a free market is offer people a wage in exchange for a service. If they are not happy with the worker, they can end that employer-employee relationship, which leaves the worker no worse off than he was before.
Jump to: