13 year old girl schools "expert" on minimum wage

[Big Fitz]

The ultimate point is if there are ANY exemptions, Minimum wage should be done away with because it acknowledges that there is work that is not worth the value of minimum wage.

How so, if it acknowledges that there is work not worth the minimum wage and does not require minimum wage be paid in those circumstances?

Then why have the minimum wage if there is work worth less than it? It does nothing for anyone except provide an uninvolved third party's idea on what work is worth who may and probably is wrong.

 

[Big Fitz]

As a correlary should we have Maximum Wages set?

 

[goldcatt]

The ultimate point is if there are ANY exemptions, Minimum wage should be done away with because it acknowledges that there is work that is not worth the value of minimum wage.

How so, if it acknowledges that there is work not worth the minimum wage and does not require minimum wage be paid in those circumstances?

Then why have the minimum wage if there is work worth less than it? It does nothing for anyone except provide an uninvolved third party's idea on what work is worth who may and probably is wrong.

So you would be willing to drive wages down for everybody else because of the few in positions worth less than the minimum wage, whose positions are already exempted?

I ask the same question asked in the OP, who does that benefit when it fixes something that ain't broke in the first place?

 

[goldcatt]

As a correlary should we have Maximum Wages set?

No, why should we?

The point of the minimum wage is to discourage employers from bidding potential employees against each other in order to artifically drive wages down, not to keep them from moving up.

 

[Big Fitz]

As a correlary should we have Maximum Wages set?

No, why should we?

The point of the minimum wage is to discourage employers from bidding potential employees against each other in order to artifically drive wages down, not to keep them from moving up.

we have minimum wages... why not maximum? It's perfectly logical.

The problem you have with the FLSA argument is that there are exceptions which prove the point that you can have work that is not worth minimum wage as determined by an uninvolved third party.

So you would be willing to drive wages down for everybody else because of the few in positions worth less than the minimum wage, whose positions are already exempted?

You assume that wages would be driven down for everyone. Let's take the example of say a gas station attendant. It used to be that the person who sat behind the cash register of a gas station was only worth about 5 bucks an hour. It was easy, boring, simple work. Now along comes the minimum wage that boosts it up to 7 an hour. The job isn't worth that much. So the employer has to decide whether or not to fire people and keep on only his best employees and give them overtime to cover the losses, shorten his hours of service to maintain budget or find other revenue streams that make their job worth 7 bucks an hour.

So let's continue with the notion that the owner did manage to get his gas station up to snuff and kept four really good employees when he used to have seven. These four work harder and have been forced to learn new skills to justify his pay. They have experienced growth in their lives, but three others have suffered a real turn of events to the negative. This is another factor in how minimum wage hurts the economy at the lowest end of the spectrum.

But where the fallacy of the need for a minimum wage comes in, let's look at the now unemployed. Assume for instance that there has been a 40% reduction in all gas station staffs in the area. There is now a glut of workers on the market looking for work. This has the potential to depress the market. The problem they have is that they are too unskilled to work at gas stations like they are used to. So they begin tricking through the market finding work wherever they can. Most of it will have to be off the books, or jobs that have been exempted from FLSA because their skills are not worth it. Eventually they will develop the skills worth minimum wage or be driven off or starved out of the market. Mostly this creates a codified underclass of worker that is barred from work that they used to previously have no problem getting.

Next let's look at what's going on with the gas station workers that WERE retained. Thanks to minimum wage, you've forced gas stations to get more creative and work harder for the same amount of profit. They've raised prices on the consumer, cut back hours of operation, given extra duties and maximized their post fill up revenue, but they still aren't making it. So what do you do to increase profits at a single location since you aren't able to expand or do major promotions? You start hunting for better talent that can draw in and keep loyal customers. So instead of paying the new minimum wage, you advertise a higher than minimum wage in the paper for gas station employees with current experience.

Now workers are always looking for their best deal will start looking for better wages. They have current experience and can possibly get the job. So they go for it. Now you start a bidding war between gas stations for qualified employees. Those who can afford to pay the most, due to better revenue streams, location and other factors that have increased their profit will help them aquire the best employees. On the other hand, businesses that cannot keep up will lose the best employees to higher wages. Their business will slowly decline till they go out of business because they have to maintain the same features as the successful gas stations. Suddenly you now have whole gas stations out of business who cannot keep up. So, the damage so far is 40% of all gas station workers are now stuck in below minimum wage work and a few gas station owners bankrupted dumping their staff into the street as well unable to get work because the market for gas station workers is saturated.

Let's then throw a curveball into the mix and congress rescinds the minimum wage law. You have plenty of gas stations for sale, but they don't have all the features to draw in people to make the same revenue as those who had survived the talent price war (who's employees are now making a WHOPPING 7.50 an hour versus 7). But, they could serve if you can survive on a lower profit threshold, which is now possible thanks to the minimum wage being dropped. So a new investor buys an older station and pays his employees the old $5/hr rate. He will quickly get those employees that need work bad, mostly people let go when the minimum wage went into affect, because those who had been working at $7/hr aren't desperate enough for it yet, OR have the skills to be cashiers in other industries if available. Not only that, he can hire more employees for the same money and return a few services that the big stations cannot do and remain profitable like 24 hour or sunday service... or offer a bare bones in and out fill up. This will expand the low end gas station's profitability.

But now a strange thing happens. Do the employees at the big stations wages start going down? No. They are being paid that much because they ARE the best in the area and help generate the bigger profit that the winning stations have gotten used to. Of course, new employees may be brought in at lower wages, but quickly leave because they are being overworked for what they are paid. So service goes down and then sales goes down, decreasing profit. The smart owner looks at where the problem began, and it's when he started hiring cheaper workers and goes back to paying for good employees at the higher wage.

On the other hand, the bad service those little incidents served to bolster sales in the cheap gas stations with cheap employees. The labor market is filling with people who want the higher pay and have some of the skills necessary to make it worth paying them a higher wage. The new customers demand a higher level of service and so the employer, to keep the increased revenue will start paying his employees say $6/hr because their skills are at least that good and they bring in enough extra revenue to manage making it worth paying them that much.

As you can see by this example, creating a minimum wage, or even increasing it after one is in place, harms business ultimately at all levels from the employee to owner to consumer. It destroys choice for all three as well, because it prices options out of reach because of an arbitrary law instead of letting the market find it's own level. You may not think it fair that someone be paid so little, but really, it's none of your business. No. It really isn't. You are doing no one any favors by getting involved. You may not have taken the same deal because your value in your own skills and time are too high. That is your choice. Nobody can force you to work that job... yet. It is also clearly evident in the example that eliminating a minimum wage does not harm those at the top of the game, but does help those who are at the bottom as well as offering new investment opportunities to increase the economic pie for everyone.

I don't know how anyone cannot see how simple this is. A 13 year old girl gets it, and a 38 year old expert who's spent too much time in 'higher education' doesn't.

 

[goldcatt]

I understand what you're saying. But you're assuming the employees hold the power over the employers to refuse to work for wages less than they feel they deserve, or their labor is worth. But is that how it happens in real life for the kind of menial jobs that pay minimum wage? Or is it more likely (as history shows) that the employers will bid the employees against each other to hire and keep those unskilled workers who will work for the least possible wage, rather than pay what the job is honestly worth?

 

[Big Fitz]

I understand what you're saying. But you're assuming the employees hold the power over the employers to refuse to work for wages less than they feel they deserve, or their labor is worth. But is that how it happens in real life for the kind of menial jobs that pay minimum wage? Or is it more likely (as history shows) that the employers will bid the employees against each other to hire and keep those unskilled workers who will work for the least possible wage, rather than pay what the job is honestly worth?

Currently if a job is minimum or even NEAR minimum wage, there is no negotiation. Also, at that level of the job market there are usually more employees than jobs. Even so, the employer/employee is a mutual compact between the two. No one is forcing the employee to do the work, and the employer is paying what he thinks the job is worth or the lowest possible to get the job done if he cannot find anyone to do the work for what he thinks. That is how the market works.

Or is it more likely (as history shows) that the employers will bid the employees against each other to hire and keep those unskilled workers who will work for the least possible wage, rather than pay what the job is honestly worth?

So? What's wrong with getting the best deal possible? No employer is obligated to provide a living wage for anyone. They have no moral or ethical responsibility other than to deal honestly. Caveat Emptor is just as valid in negotiating for a job as it is with purchasing produce. If they can find someone who believes they are being fairly compensated or is desperate enough that ANY wage is better than nothing, to do their work, where is this unfair? This has been done since the dawn of time and is done at all levels of the job market. It's just most noticeable at the low end.

This is not a moral issue, it is an economic one. If someone is willing to be taken advantage of, who's fault is that? Do you complain for the employer if he makes a bad deal with an employee and pays too much? So why cry foul for the other way?

 

[goldcatt]

I understand what you're saying. But you're assuming the employees hold the power over the employers to refuse to work for wages less than they feel they deserve, or their labor is worth. But is that how it happens in real life for the kind of menial jobs that pay minimum wage? Or is it more likely (as history shows) that the employers will bid the employees against each other to hire and keep those unskilled workers who will work for the least possible wage, rather than pay what the job is honestly worth?

Currently if a job is minimum or even NEAR minimum wage, there is no negotiation. Also, at that level of the job market there are usually more employees than jobs. Even so, the employer/employee is a mutual compact between the two. No one is forcing the employee to do the work, and the employer is paying what he thinks the job is worth or the lowest possible to get the job done if he cannot find anyone to do the work for what he thinks. That is how the market works.

Or is it more likely (as history shows) that the employers will bid the employees against each other to hire and keep those unskilled workers who will work for the least possible wage, rather than pay what the job is honestly worth?

So? What's wrong with getting the best deal possible? No employer is obligated to provide a living wage for anyone. They have no moral or ethical responsibility other than to deal honestly. Caveat Emptor is just as valid in negotiating for a job as it is with purchasing produce. If they can find someone who believes they are being fairly compensated or is desperate enough that ANY wage is better than nothing, to do their work, where is this unfair? This has been done since the dawn of time and is done at all levels of the job market. It's just most noticeable at the low end.

This is not a moral issue, it is an economic one. If someone is willing to be taken advantage of, who's fault is that? Do you complain for the employer if he makes a bad deal with an employee and pays too much? So why cry foul for the other way?

How is it a moral issue? We live in a consumer driven economy combined with a welfare state. Deliberately creating an underclass that cannot even hope to support itself without assistance let alone contribute to economic growth with disposable income is hardly beneficial.

 

[Big Fitz]

How is it a moral issue? We live in a consumer driven economy combined with a welfare state. Deliberately creating an underclass that cannot even hope to support itself without assistance let alone contribute to economic growth with disposable income is hardly beneficial.

Who is responsible for our welfare state? The government. Start by addressing the problem there. It is of no concern to any business of the station anyone has in life, nor is it a moral obligation of any business to strive to eliminate any 'class' of people. Their focus must be to produce profit in which to provide the capital in which to improve the lives of themselves, their customers AND employees. When it begins to lose focus on that, it ceases to be a business and becomes a charity and quickly fails.

The idea that business must be morally obligated to provide a living for people is a fallacy created by the left. They have work that needs to be done, not jobs to hand out.

 

[lawbuff]

If many businesses, as they claim, do not have a high margin of profit to pay thier employees a decent wage, where are they getting the 10's of millions of $$ to advertise each year? Are they going in debt borrowing it??

If Congress would have given every adult in this country one million $$ to bank, with stipulations, such as buy a house if not paid off, or pay off the one they have, etc., there would NOT be any foreclosures and Bankruptcies.

What do they do, they give 700 billion to bail out businesses, like AIG, who in turn gave thier execs bonuses totally over 150 million. They got bonuses, we got boners.

What did they say? Thanks American taxpayer sucker, you can't even live decent because of wages, yet, you lined our pockets!!

I live in Ohio and even before the feds raised the MW, Ohio raised thiers. Not by the General Assembly either.

 

[Big Fitz]

If many businesses, as they claim, do not have a high margin of profit to pay thier employees a decent wage, where are they getting the 10's of millions of $$ to advertise each year? Are they going in debt borrowing it??

Budget line item. Calculated in the costs of doing business. Just like legal fees, landscaping, energy bills and data connectivity. Nothing sinister about that.

If Congress would have given every adult in this country one million $$ to bank, with stipulations, such as buy a house if not paid off, or pay off the one they have, etc., there would NOT be any foreclosures and Bankruptcies.

That's part of the problem we're currently in. Freddie Mac and fannie Mae did what you suggested and gave people money for nothing. Created a housing bubble, people pulled what they could out of the housing market and are now creating bubbles in commodities and bonds as too much cash looks for a value. The key is to pull money OUT of the market thereby strengthening the dollar and calming volatility.

What do they do, they give 700 billion to bail out businesses, like AIG, who in turn gave thier execs bonuses totally over 150 million. They got bonuses, we got boners.

That's what we warned you about TARP and Son of TARP. They are going to pay off wall street fat cats, unions and corrupt politicians with re-election in 2012 when most of the money will be dispersed to buy the election if possible. The AIG bonuses were already part of the compensation packages for people to stay through the disaster. Freely negotiated and required legally to be upheld. What was done to those who worked for those bonuses is deplorable demagoguery and stupid. You cannot allow this type of vigilante angry mob 'justice' go on based on jealousy.

What did they say? Thanks American taxpayer sucker, you can't even live decent because of wages, yet, you lined our pockets!!

Solution, don't vote for the incumbent. Vote for the new candidate promising to go after these criminals.

I live in Ohio and even before the feds raised the MW, Ohio raised thiers. Not by the General Assembly either.

Tell me... did prices rise at the same time this happened? Was there greater unemployment and business shut down in the service industry at this time as well? Dollars to donuts sez there probably was.

When government interferes with free functioning capitalism beyond what is suitable like fair trade, anti-fraud, weights and measures and upholding contract law is when you have this kind of crap start to happen. You need a minimum of regulation to prevent out of control capitalism. Not much, but enough that is strictly and evenly enforced. More than that, you decrease it's actual functionality and benefit to society. A razors edge but worth walking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The OP completely ignores the fact that minimum wage does not apply to her situation. At all. Forget FLSA, has anybody even read the posters in their workplace?

The Act applies to enterprises with employees who engage in interstate commerce, produce goods for interstate commerce, or handle, sell, or work on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for interstate commerce. For most firms, a test of not less than $500,000 in annual dollar volume of business applies (i.e., the Act does not cover enterprises with less than this amount of business).

The Act also permits the employment of certain individuals at wage rates below the statutory minimum wage under certificates issued by the Department of Labor:

Student learners (vocational education students);
Full‑time students in retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education; and
Individuals whose earning or productive capacities for the work to be performed are impaired by physical or mental disabilities, including those related to age or injury.

More at link, including links to FLSA provisions and DOL fact sheets:

Employment Law Guide - Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay

If only that were true, but the fact is that even if I hire a person to work as a nanny, which is certainly not interstate commerce, I have to pay minimum wage.

 

[lawbuff]

If many businesses, as they claim, do not have a high margin of profit to pay thier employees a decent wage, where are they getting the 10's of millions of $$ to advertise each year? Are they going in debt borrowing it??

Budget line item. Calculated in the costs of doing business. Just like legal fees, landscaping, energy bills and data connectivity. Nothing sinister about that.

Sinister? No, but the point I was trying to make was, IF they claim they have LOW margin of profit, why are they spending tens of millions on an UNneccesary element and paying thier employees crap?

Why not reduce the advertising budget 50%, then give bonuses like AIG?

About 5 years ago, If I remember right, Chicago passed their Big Box minimum wage law.

IF the business is making money, you mean to say the govt. has no right to raise the salary for the employees where the company won't do it themselves?

Just out of curiousity, what do you make a year?? Do you live comfortably?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If many businesses, as they claim, do not have a high margin of profit to pay thier employees a decent wage, where are they getting the 10's of millions of $$ to advertise each year? Are they going in debt borrowing it??

Budget line item. Calculated in the costs of doing business. Just like legal fees, landscaping, energy bills and data connectivity. Nothing sinister about that.

Sinister? No, but the point I was trying to make was, IF they claim they have LOW margin of profit, why are they spending tens of millions on an UNneccesary element and paying thier employees crap?

Why not reduce the advertising budget 50%, then give bonuses like AIG?

About 5 years ago, If I remember right, Chicago passed their Big Box minimum wage law.

IF the business is making money, you mean to say the govt. has no right to raise the salary for the employees where the company won't do it themselves?

Just out of curiousity, what do you make a year?? Do you live comfortably?

Can you actually point to a business that is paying 10s of millions in advertising that is claiming it cannot afford minimum wage? My bet is that the businesses that cannot pay that wage also cannot pay for advertising.

If you really want to know just how stupid minimum wage laws are, take a look at who supports them.

Wal-Mart backs hike to minimum wage - U.S. business- msnbc.com

Walmart was happy to support the minimum wage laws because that allows them to kill off competition that cannot afford either advertising or paying minimum wage.

 

[Big Fitz]

Sinister? No, but the point I was trying to make was, IF they claim they have LOW margin of profit, why are they spending tens of millions on an UNneccesary element and paying thier employees crap?

Salaries are also a line item, including bonuses. Companies that pay their employees crap, get crap employees for good employees leave for better working conditions, pay and terms. This breeds weakness into the system and finally will cause the ultimate collapse or buy out of the company by a stronger on.

Why not reduce the advertising budget 50%, then give bonuses like AIG?

They could, but would that increase sales and profit? Advertising does it's share too. They are the experts on their business and therefore must decide how to best spend their companies revenues.

About 5 years ago, If I remember right, Chicago passed their Big Box minimum wage law.

And if I recall correctly, new big box stores development dried up in the city limits, and instead relocated to suburbs happy to get lots of new jobs and cheap merchandise for their neighborhoods. You forget those big box stores are like sharks. They always end up feeding dozens of little businesses next to them that deal in products they don't. From Movie Rentals to hair salons, restaurants and specialty shops. They hang around like remorae picking up the crumbs and bits of the shark's meal they can live on. Lots of jobs for those who need part time, liimited work, or are kids and only need supplimental income.

So who suffers? The city of Chicago who now has a protected market of higher priced mom and pop stores who have no reason to hire more people. Nothing like a double **** for the poorer inner city communties who do not get enough suburban wealth coming into them.

IF the business is making money, you mean to say the govt. has no right to raise the salary for the employees where the company won't do it themselves?

Nope. Government has no business setting wages except for jobs they themselves are paying for. If someone's dumb enough to take a bad wage, it's their own damn fault or they want it.

Just out of curiousity, what do you make a year?? Do you live comfortably?

Like I'm going to give financial information about me on the web. I will say this. I am under employed but paid well for my job. But that is something i knew about what I was getting into. It is a temporary job (as in I'm not making it a career) that pays better than what I used to be doing for double the hour worked and much less stress. I enjoy it greatly but it is a job that is better as a second household income, not a primary. It is not where I want to be, but has set me up to be self sufficient and put myself in line to improving myself further for a good paying CAREER.

This is something else all the do-gooders forget. Poverty is most often a temporary period in one's life. They get sick of being poor and improve their lot in life or find another way to survive. Most people spend less than 10 years of their whole life in, below or at the poverty line. Too many busy-bodies assume that they never escape, and that's just not true. A few are stuck in poverty, yes, but it is usually due to other extenuating circumstances often related to addiction or mental illness or enablement by government or charitable giving. People who do not have a check coming for nothing have to learn quickly to work or starve, and that is the best incentive to get out of poverty or at least become self sufficient.

No one has a right to comfort.
No one has a right to food.
No one has a right to shelter.
No one has a right to water.
No one has a right to entertainment.

Everyone has a right to work to provide themselves with as many of these things as possible and improve their life. Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT (not the attainment) of happiness. Some will succeed, others will fail.

And that's life.

 

[lawbuff]

Nope. Government has no business setting wages except for jobs they themselves are paying for.

They themselves?? You mean the taxpayers?

If someone's dumb enough to take a bad wage, it's their own damn fault or they want it.

That is just plain damn stupid. Now you sound like a rich snob and remind me of the Hotel queen Leona Helmsley who called her employees the "little people".

When I managed a store I had applicants who had degrees who were out of work and were in between jobs in thier field. I guess they were not as smart as they thought they were then??

Love for thier families will force a man to take any work he can to support his family. If he did not, then people like you would criticize him and say he is to damn lazy to get out and look for work even if he had to work 2 minimum wage jobs.

Supporting your CHILDREN is NOT dumb, thank you!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh come on, I thought you were all for personal responsibility. If an able bodied man makes it to age 38 with zero skills and barely any work experience it's the government's fault?

That's not what I said. I said it's the government's fault that he can't negotiate a reasonable wage for his employment at Wal-Mart for sweeping the floor. The government has made hiring him not cost effective, so now Wal-Mart won't have anyone to sweep the floor and that man has no job at all. Both parties lose.

But what is the reason he cannot compete for the job available at the prevailing wage? Because he is 38 years old, has "barely" worked, and has not bothered himself to learn any skills. Does that mean he should be rewarded with an artificially limited job at a pittance over somebody who can sweep the floor AND stock shelves AND run a cash register AND has demonstrated he is willing to work, and is therefore worth the wage? Should he be not only rewarded for his laziness but able to drive wages down for his neighbor who has gone out and worked, has bothered to learn skills, has demonstrated he can show up and can contribute more than pushing a broom?

Now if he is not able-bodied or has a mental disability that precludes him from being able to perform work of higher value, it's a different story. But FLSA allows such employees to be exempted from minimum wage requirements in recognition of just what you are describing - they are unable to perform work of higher value but employment at less than minimum wage is better than no employment at all.

Your point seems to be that somebody else deserves the job because they'd more than likely be more skilled than our hypothetical 38 year old man and be able to do more. But nobody "deserves" any job, so to speak. A job is something that an employer wants to pay somebody to do at a mutually agreed upon wage between the two. In our hypothetical Wal-Mart only wants to hire somebody to sweep the floor, and this man despite his lack of skills is perfectly suitable for the job but it's not a job worth the minimum wage.

You said:

"employment at less than minimum wage is better than no employment at all."

That's my point, but minimum wage laws make it illegal for people like our hypothetical man to work because the jobs they can do aren't worth the minimum wage.

 

[Big Fitz]

They themselves?? You mean the taxpayers?

The politicians. The tax payers are only forced to pay for government employees. I as an individual tax payer have no say in who works for the government unless they are elected.

That is just plain damn stupid. Now you sound like a rich snob and remind me of the Hotel queen Leona Helmsley who called her employees the "little people".

That's your own problem. I said nothing of the kind, but find it odd you took it that way. Projecting something perchance?

When I managed a store I had applicants who had degrees who were out of work and were in between jobs in thier field. I guess they were not as smart as they thought they were then??

Did you as the store manager owe them the wages they earned by all their degrees and higher education? Don't you have an obligation by this logic to pay them what their time and skill are really worth?

No, you don't. And you shouldn't. Your job as a manager is to fill the needs of the job for the company. I have been management, I know how it works. Your condescension in this line of thinking towards me and these people is a bit disturbing.

Bad things happen to talented people too. They then need to make do with the circumstances available to them. I think it's shitty they get stuck out without a job or forced to take menial wages in which to survive. But they have a benefit that those stuck at the lower levels of employment ability and that is they can compete for work at much higher levels when it returns. Till then, it's more likely they will do better than those low skilled workers you usually will get for the positions. Too often they are discriminated against because employers want the longest term employee possible at the lowest wage. That's a good deal for them and just a fact of the job market, particularly when jobs are few and lots of people are looking.

Love for thier families will force a man to take any work he can to support his family. If he did not, then people like you would criticize him and say he is to damn lazy to get out and look for work even if he had to work 2 minimum wage jobs.

Quit projecting your intentions into my words. I know many who have worked multiple jobs. I have also known many who won't take a job below their station and would rather tempt economic ruin of their families for their pride.

Supporting your CHILDREN is NOT dumb, thank you!!!

Find the quote where I said that, or step back. You want to bring emotion into this, I have done nothing of the kind. I'm dealing with hard, painful economic facts of the job market. When you're willing to deal with it, we can talk some more as rational adults not over-reactionary children.

 

[Paulie]

FLSA minimum wage exemptions exist specifically for jobs or workers that are not worth the minimum wage, for businesses that are too small to afford it, tipped employees and other situations that are normally used to argue against it. Do you even know what they are? Did you read the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the DoL fact sheets, the link posted?

Fact is, the neighbor is screwing this girl out of the two bucks an hour she should probably get for doing the job. Whose fault is that? The government's for including a minimum wage exemption for exactly this situation, the neighbor's for his ignorance (or willingness to use her), or the girl's for agreeing to work for free? Who benefits?

So if I'm a 38 year old man with no skills and barely any work experience am I exempt from a minimum wage if my local Wal-Mart wants to hire me only to sweep the floor? After all, sweeping the floor isn't really worth whatever minimum wage is these days. The answer is no. That person isn't allowed, by law, to negotiate a reasonable wage with his potential employer, so he simply won't get that job and rather than making say $4/hour he makes nothing at all.

If you're an able bodied man age 38 with no skills and barely any work experience, I'm sorry but you have far bigger problems than trying to negotiate a job paying $4 an hour.

That's not the point. The debate about minimum wage has nothing to do with any individual's bigger problems.