MW advocates - what are the downsides of minimum wage?

[danielpalos]

That only makes sense in a vacuum of special pleading. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour.

No it makes sense in the real world where you obviously don't reside

It makes no sense in the real world. It merely demonstrates the right wing simply doesn't understand economics.

Sense is a common metaphor for deamenor .

the right wing is losing all of their arguments. how, inferior.

By what standard? Certainly not in the real world.

in the real world, you guys have nothing but fallacy and repeal. not Any better arguments or solutions at lower cost.

 

[danielpalos]

An employee makes a profit off of every worker

So what?

If you don't want people making money from the labor you sell then work for yourself and keep all the profit

So stop whining about minimum wage

They have profited off of low cost labor for ten years. Time to pay up

You're kidding yourself. MW doesn't make anyone 'pay up'. It just bans low-wage jobs.

You guys say that every time someone wants to raise minimum wage

Never actually happens

I'm not predicting anything, or saying anything in particular will happen. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact about the way MW laws work. They establish penalties for anyone who employs someone for less than the minimum. They make jobs that aren't worth the minimum illegal. But they don't force employers to pay the higher wages.

yet, we have a Natural rate of unemployment for Labor.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you know anyone that waits tables..you know that they work their asses off and often get stiffed...since tipping is voluntary and a lot of people are assholes.

Know what? They have to pay taxes on those tips even if they don't get them.

Know what minimum wage is for wait staff? $2.35

And I know plenty of waitresses and bartenders that make 20 an hour

 

[Lesh]

And I know plenty of waitresses and bartenders that make 20 an hour

Yea...so?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And I know plenty of waitresses and bartenders that make 20 an hour

Yea...so?

so it's just as anecdotal as what you wrote

 

[danielpalos]

Here's a question: if an employee wants to work for less than the minimum wage to get his/her foot in the door so to speak with the possibility of future advancement, why is it okay to take that right away from them? Should a 3rd party (gov't) have the power to intercede in the negotiations between employer and employee and say "we are going to determine what's in your best interests because you are too stupid to make the right decisions for yourself"? Should any gov't have that power?

It never occurs to minimum wage zealots that there are people whose lives might improve if they were allowed to sell their labor at a price below the legal minimum. Not only is this the difference between having a job and not having one for millions of people, it might also allow people working for wages above the minimum at one job to take a second job at a lower wage, where they might learn new skills and eventually transition to a different line of work they like better or pays more or both. That’s called the pursuit of happiness, something people truly are entitled to.

It seems to me that the decision to accept a job that does not pay a "living wage" should be up to the employee and no one else. The employee always has the option to find ways to improve his/her value to the employer and ask for a pay raise accordingly. Or go find another job that pays better from another employer. The responsibility to earn enough money to raise a family does not and should not rest with either the employer or the gov't. That responsibility should rest solely with the employee, who IMHO ought to be made to be responsible for their decisions.

they should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. with that income, they could go to school, learn a trade or entrepreneur something until they can command a livable wage.
there is absolutely no reason to subsidize Cheap labor in a First World economy.

 

[hadit]

No it makes sense in the real world where you obviously don't reside

It makes no sense in the real world. It merely demonstrates the right wing simply doesn't understand economics.

Sense is a common metaphor for deamenor .

the right wing is losing all of their arguments. how, inferior.

By what standard? Certainly not in the real world.

in the real world, you guys have nothing but fallacy and repeal. not Any better arguments or solutions at lower cost.

So you just made it up.

 

[hadit]

So what?

If you don't want people making money from the labor you sell then work for yourself and keep all the profit

So stop whining about minimum wage

They have profited off of low cost labor for ten years. Time to pay up

You're kidding yourself. MW doesn't make anyone 'pay up'. It just bans low-wage jobs.

You guys say that every time someone wants to raise minimum wage

Never actually happens

I'm not predicting anything, or saying anything in particular will happen. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact about the way MW laws work. They establish penalties for anyone who employs someone for less than the minimum. They make jobs that aren't worth the minimum illegal. But they don't force employers to pay the higher wages.

yet, we have a Natural rate of unemployment for Labor.

Quit pretending you're a part of that. You want to get paid even if you can work and there's a job waiting for you.

 

[danielpalos]

Here's a question: if an employee wants to work for less than the minimum wage to get his/her foot in the door so to speak with the possibility of future advancement, why is it okay to take that right away from them? Should a 3rd party (gov't) have the power to intercede in the negotiations between employer and employee and say "we are going to determine what's in your best interests because you are too stupid to make the right decisions for yourself"? Should any gov't have that power?

It never occurs to minimum wage zealots that there are people whose lives might improve if they were allowed to sell their labor at a price below the legal minimum. Not only is this the difference between having a job and not having one for millions of people, it might also allow people working for wages above the minimum at one job to take a second job at a lower wage, where they might learn new skills and eventually transition to a different line of work they like better or pays more or both. That’s called the pursuit of happiness, something people truly are entitled to.

It seems to me that the decision to accept a job that does not pay a "living wage" should be up to the employee and no one else. The employee always has the option to find ways to improve his/her value to the employer and ask for a pay raise accordingly. Or go find another job that pays better from another employer. The responsibility to earn enough money to raise a family does not and should not rest with either the employer or the gov't. That responsibility should rest solely with the employee, who IMHO ought to be made to be responsible for their decisions.

I support the minimum wage but I really do not have a counter argument to that. The only thing I would say to the parent argument (no pun intended) is this; would you be okay with an 8 year old working or workers working without any of the natural physical safeguards? The argument seems to be against government intervention. Isn't some government intervention necessary?

The question is whether government intervention is necessary in this case. Minimum wage laws are about stifling price competition in the labor market. They're imposed in the name of helping the poor, but in fact, that's who they target. You occasionally will find an MW advocate that will admit this - they will say outright that the reason they want MW laws is so they won't have to compete with someone willing to work for less.

There are many reasons why someone might want to work for less than a "living wage". Many people have other sources of income and don't need much to get by. Young people still living at home, retired people or disabled people who want to keep busy, people looking to break into a new career who don't yet have the skills to warrant a full paycheck - the fact is there will always be jobs that aren't whatever minimum we set, and there will be people willing to do them. Is it really necessary to make criminals out of them just so liberals can pretend they care?

in this case, it is a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our First World economy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here's a question: if an employee wants to work for less than the minimum wage to get his/her foot in the door so to speak with the possibility of future advancement, why is it okay to take that right away from them? Should a 3rd party (gov't) have the power to intercede in the negotiations between employer and employee and say "we are going to determine what's in your best interests because you are too stupid to make the right decisions for yourself"? Should any gov't have that power?

It never occurs to minimum wage zealots that there are people whose lives might improve if they were allowed to sell their labor at a price below the legal minimum. Not only is this the difference between having a job and not having one for millions of people, it might also allow people working for wages above the minimum at one job to take a second job at a lower wage, where they might learn new skills and eventually transition to a different line of work they like better or pays more or both. That’s called the pursuit of happiness, something people truly are entitled to.

It seems to me that the decision to accept a job that does not pay a "living wage" should be up to the employee and no one else. The employee always has the option to find ways to improve his/her value to the employer and ask for a pay raise accordingly. Or go find another job that pays better from another employer. The responsibility to earn enough money to raise a family does not and should not rest with either the employer or the gov't. That responsibility should rest solely with the employee, who IMHO ought to be made to be responsible for their decisions.

they should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. with that income, they could go to school, learn a trade or entrepreneur something until they can command a livable wage.
there is absolutely no reason to subsidize Cheap labor in a First World economy.

Who pays for it since they had no job?


.

 

[danielpalos]

It makes no sense in the real world. It merely demonstrates the right wing simply doesn't understand economics.

Sense is a common metaphor for deamenor .

the right wing is losing all of their arguments. how, inferior.

By what standard? Certainly not in the real world.

in the real world, you guys have nothing but fallacy and repeal. not Any better arguments or solutions at lower cost.

So you just made it up.

lol. i don't have to. you all keep Proving my point.

 

[danielpalos]

So stop whining about minimum wage

They have profited off of low cost labor for ten years. Time to pay up

You're kidding yourself. MW doesn't make anyone 'pay up'. It just bans low-wage jobs.

You guys say that every time someone wants to raise minimum wage

Never actually happens

I'm not predicting anything, or saying anything in particular will happen. I'm just pointing out an obvious fact about the way MW laws work. They establish penalties for anyone who employs someone for less than the minimum. They make jobs that aren't worth the minimum illegal. But they don't force employers to pay the higher wages.

yet, we have a Natural rate of unemployment for Labor.

Quit pretending you're a part of that. You want to get paid even if you can work and there's a job waiting for you.

where is it?

 

[danielpalos]

Here's a question: if an employee wants to work for less than the minimum wage to get his/her foot in the door so to speak with the possibility of future advancement, why is it okay to take that right away from them? Should a 3rd party (gov't) have the power to intercede in the negotiations between employer and employee and say "we are going to determine what's in your best interests because you are too stupid to make the right decisions for yourself"? Should any gov't have that power?

It never occurs to minimum wage zealots that there are people whose lives might improve if they were allowed to sell their labor at a price below the legal minimum. Not only is this the difference between having a job and not having one for millions of people, it might also allow people working for wages above the minimum at one job to take a second job at a lower wage, where they might learn new skills and eventually transition to a different line of work they like better or pays more or both. That’s called the pursuit of happiness, something people truly are entitled to.

It seems to me that the decision to accept a job that does not pay a "living wage" should be up to the employee and no one else. The employee always has the option to find ways to improve his/her value to the employer and ask for a pay raise accordingly. Or go find another job that pays better from another employer. The responsibility to earn enough money to raise a family does not and should not rest with either the employer or the gov't. That responsibility should rest solely with the employee, who IMHO ought to be made to be responsible for their decisions.

they should be able to apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. with that income, they could go to school, learn a trade or entrepreneur something until they can command a livable wage.
there is absolutely no reason to subsidize Cheap labor in a First World economy.

Who pays for it since they had no job?


.

A general tax on employers instead of our current regime.

 

[hadit]

I don't. But if they want to anyway, it's their business.

What you all can't seem to accept is that some jobs aren't worth minimum wage. And what you're saying with MW laws is that those jobs shouldn't be allowed.

An employee makes a profit off of every worker

A company HAS to make a profit off its workers or they're costing the company money. That cannot be sustained for long, hence layoffs.

That’s the idea

Companies need a workforce to stay in business

Companies also need to make money to stay in business. If the work that an employee or group of employees does results in less revenue than it costs to pay them, the company must let them go or go out of business, thus costing everyone their jobs. You can't just wave a wand and pretend that you can arbitrarily increase labor costs with no repercussions. Do it slow and keep the increase low and you might be able to get away without too much disruption, but double it overnight and you won't.

Of course we are experiencing a time of unrivaled corporate profits. SHame they didn't banlk some of that profit to cover expenses..

Save us the crocodile tears

None of your wishing alters economic reality. Raising the MW too high too fast is suicidal and hits the poor the hardest.

 

[candycorn]

In the short of it people work for what they want to work for

If the only job you can get is stuffing squashed burgers and greasy fries into a bag and you are still doing the exact same thing 20 years later it's because that's what you want to do.

If the only job you can get hired for is picking up dog shit for a penny a pile and you are still doing that job 20 years later it's because you want to.

Life is a ladder not a bed if you don't want to climb then that's your choice

Well put

 

[danielpalos]

An employee makes a profit off of every worker

A company HAS to make a profit off its workers or they're costing the company money. That cannot be sustained for long, hence layoffs.

That’s the idea

Companies need a workforce to stay in business

Companies also need to make money to stay in business. If the work that an employee or group of employees does results in less revenue than it costs to pay them, the company must let them go or go out of business, thus costing everyone their jobs. You can't just wave a wand and pretend that you can arbitrarily increase labor costs with no repercussions. Do it slow and keep the increase low and you might be able to get away without too much disruption, but double it overnight and you won't.

Of course we are experiencing a time of unrivaled corporate profits. SHame they didn't banlk some of that profit to cover expenses..

Save us the crocodile tears

None of your wishing alters economic reality. Raising the MW too high too fast is suicidal and hits the poor the hardest.

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves for that. any more excuses, right wingers?

 

[candycorn]

I see a lot of dancing around the question with no real answers. What do you do in the case of someone willing to take a low wage for a short period of time to break into a new career or just get a work history? The company gets a low cost laborer for a while and the individual gains valuable experience. It's a win for everyone, so what's the problem?

I imagine the political reasoning was that if you have wage earners instead of subsistence earners, the overall economy would expand as a result. Wealth in more hands is more beneficial to the health of the nation than the same amount of wealth in fewer hands.

Those politicians were right

 

[dblack]

We keep hearing the argument that employers should be trusted to provide adequate wages because ...ya know....the market should be trusted.

Who's making that claim? Seriously? I mean it's a nice strawman, but let's keep it real, mkay?

 

[Skull Pilot]

“Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up, it knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve.

This my friends should be your work ethic

 

[hadit]

A company HAS to make a profit off its workers or they're costing the company money. That cannot be sustained for long, hence layoffs.

That’s the idea

Companies need a workforce to stay in business

Companies also need to make money to stay in business. If the work that an employee or group of employees does results in less revenue than it costs to pay them, the company must let them go or go out of business, thus costing everyone their jobs. You can't just wave a wand and pretend that you can arbitrarily increase labor costs with no repercussions. Do it slow and keep the increase low and you might be able to get away without too much disruption, but double it overnight and you won't.

Of course we are experiencing a time of unrivaled corporate profits. SHame they didn't banlk some of that profit to cover expenses..

Save us the crocodile tears

None of your wishing alters economic reality. Raising the MW too high too fast is suicidal and hits the poor the hardest.

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves for that. any more excuses, right wingers?

Just stop. Your pathetic bleating of the same broken phrases over and over does not obscure what you really mean. You want to be paid to not work. Admit it, you'll feel better for it.