Should The Government Raise The Minimum Wage?

[SwimExpert]

No one takes a job when they can get a better one.

Define "better."

It's up to the person picking the job, not you, not me. But better paying is part of that to most people. Pretty much anyone would pick the higher paying job between two jobs they otherwise rate as equivalent

That's my point. Pay alone does not make a job opportunity better than another. I accepted my current position for identical pay from my previous position. My current job is "better" because it advances my career goals, and because my old boss was a raging douche bag who is too young and immature to be the boss of anything, and was holding me back from being able to develop myself professionally. People should consider the big picture when accepting a job. Don't just take the quick buck now. Navigate a long term road that gets you where you want to be 5 and 10 years from now.

 

[kaz]

What are you on about now? There are good and bad leaders, but we saw what happened when the MW didn't exist, some leaders of these businesses didn't pay out to there employees what they need to live a basic life.

The minimum wage has existed for nearly 100 years. You're comparing two entirely different times. The economics were different, the cultural values were different. Back then, there were no child labor laws either. Do you really think that repealing child labor laws today would bring back the days of Oliver Twist? Of course not. Today's society would never tolerate it, regardless.

One thing that hasn't changed is it doesn't work, and never did. It's a feel good liberal policy to make liberals feel good about yourselves at the expense of others, like the rest of your policies

I wouldn't say it never worked. But it certainly is not the the road to salvation that liberals want it to be. I think the problem is the continual attempts to raise it year after year, and to rely on it exclusively as the means by which healthy income disparity is maintained. Using raises to the minimum wage to attempt better income equality is certainly a long obsolete strategy.

Why would any employer ever pay an employee more than they are worth?

 

[kaz]

No one takes a job when they can get a better one.

Define "better."

It's up to the person picking the job, not you, not me. But better paying is part of that to most people. Pretty much anyone would pick the higher paying job between two jobs they otherwise rate as equivalent

That's my point. Pay alone does not make a job opportunity better than another. I accepted my current position for identical pay from my previous position. My current job is "better" because it advances my career goals, and because my old boss was a raging douche bag who is too young and immature to be the boss of anything, and was holding me back from being able to develop myself professionally. People should consider the big picture when accepting a job. Don't just take the quick buck now. Navigate a long term road that gets you where you want to be 5 and 10 years from now.

I agree, but I"m not sure what your point is related to the discussion

 

[SwimExpert]

Why would any employer ever pay an employee more than they are worth?

"Worth" is subjective. If I need employees, I have to pay what it takes to get them. I've been battling that quite a bit lately. My boss, and his boss, have it in their minds that the employees I need are only "worth" a certain amount. Lo and behold, I can't get people hired. I've had three hires accept jobs, just to quit within their first few weeks when someone else was willing to pay significantly more. I had another person rescind his acceptance the very following day. This past week, my boss finally grew some balls to make the executive decision to slightly increase our minimum starting pay.

At the end of the day, if the labor needs to be done, someone needs to do it. Better to pay $11/hr and get the work done, than get nothing done because I'm too stubborn to pay what it takes to get someone on board.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would any employer ever pay an employee more than they are worth?

"Worth" is subjective. If I need employees, I have to pay what it takes to get them. I've been battling that quite a bit lately. My boss, and his boss, have it in their minds that the employees I need are only "worth" a certain amount. Lo and behold, I can't get people hired. I've had three hires accept jobs, just to quit within their first few weeks when someone else was willing to pay significantly more. I had another person rescind his acceptance the very following day. This past week, my boss finally grew some balls to make the executive decision to slightly increase our minimum starting pay.

At the end of the day, if the labor needs to be done, someone needs to do it. Better to pay $11/hr and get the work done, than get nothing done because I'm too stubborn to pay what it takes to get someone on board.

You've just proven Kaz's point. Employers will pay what they need to to get the employees they need. No one has to mandate a certain wage. The market will do the mandating.
Thanks!

 

[kaz]

Why would any employer ever pay an employee more than they are worth?

"Worth" is subjective

No, not in this context. Worth is exactly the value where your employer is willing to hire you as the best option and you are willing to accept the job over your other options. Worth in free markets is precisely defined, its where deals get done.

As for your employer, the whole point is markets keep them in check. Amazing how if you under pay and don't treat your employees right, you can't keep the employees. Exactly my argument, Holmes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would any employer ever pay an employee more than they are worth?

"Worth" is subjective

No, not in this context. Worth is exactly the value where your employer is willing to hire you as the best option and you are willing to accept the job over your other options. Worth in free markets is precisely defined, its where deals get done.

As for your employer, the whole point is markets keep them in check. Amazing how if you under pay and don't treat your employees right, you can't keep the employees. Exactly my argument, Holmes.

"You pay peanuts, you hire monkeys."

 

[SwimExpert]

You've just proven Kaz's point. Employers will pay what they need to to get the employees they need. No one has to mandate a certain wage. The market will do the mandating.
Thanks!

I never disagreed with any of that. I am merely pointing out that what a candidate is "worth" and what constitutes a "better" job are fluid concepts. It's not necessary to mandate a minimum wage in order to get employers to pay people. But it's also not true that minimum wage regulation results in companies just not hiring anyone at all. If the minimum wage was raised to $50/hr, then those people performing menial functions would suddenly become "worth" $50/hr. The labor still needs to be done, and the companies will pay what it takes to get the work done. That they'll also increase prices to whatever it takes to remain profitable is lost on the liberals.

 

[kaz]

Why would any employer ever pay an employee more than they are worth?

"Worth" is subjective

No, not in this context. Worth is exactly the value where your employer is willing to hire you as the best option and you are willing to accept the job over your other options. Worth in free markets is precisely defined, its where deals get done.

As for your employer, the whole point is markets keep them in check. Amazing how if you under pay and don't treat your employees right, you can't keep the employees. Exactly my argument, Holmes.

"You pay peanuts, you hire monkeys."

In there absurd extreme liberals think markets magically make every action perfect. Actually, the market keeps everything in balance by rewarding winners and punishing losers. They think because they work for a loser that means the market didn't work. Actually, it is their job to make their loser employer a loser by getting a better job and firing them. But that would be work, and work is of course to liberals a four letter word

 

[kaz]

You've just proven Kaz's point. Employers will pay what they need to to get the employees they need. No one has to mandate a certain wage. The market will do the mandating.
Thanks!

I never disagreed with any of that. I am merely pointing out that what a candidate is "worth" and what constitutes a "better" job are fluid concepts. It's not necessary to mandate a minimum wage in order to get employers to pay people. But it's also not true that minimum wage regulation results in companies just not hiring anyone at all. If the minimum wage was raised to $50/hr, then those people performing menial functions would suddenly become "worth" $50/hr. The labor still needs to be done, and the companies will pay what it takes to get the work done. That they'll also increase prices to whatever it takes to remain profitable is lost on the liberals.

We aren't discussing the general meaning of the word "worth." We are discussing it in a specific context, the market. Do you really not get that?

Worth is the value a deal gets done. It is precise in that context

 

[SwimExpert]

No, not in this context. Worth is exactly the value where your employer is willing to hire you as the best option and you are willing to accept the job over your other options. Worth in free markets is precisely defined, its where deals get done.

Just because something is precisely defined does not mean it's not subjective. The precise definition you give is subjective, as it relies on individuals to make their own interpretive conclusions.

As for your employer, the whole point is markets keep them in check. Amazing how if you under pay and don't treat your employees right, you can't keep the employees. Exactly my argument, Holmes.

Yes, I am aware of this. My whole point is to highlight the fact that set-in-stone thinking is the ultimate folly in all of this. It is exactly the flaw in liberals' thinking on this stuff. They see wages as something set in stone by something, handed out, and entirely out of anyone's control, save government regulation. You are presenting a similarly structured set-in-stone mode of thinking.

In order for anyone (most importantly in this case, liberals) to recognize that government interference in the wage market is fruitless, one must recognize that each and every individual is directly involved in the setting of wages. Wages are not set by decree. In fact, there is only one thing in this universe that sets a wage. It's not a government regulation, it's not a company policy, it's not a calculation an office junkie comes up with. Wages are set at the negotiation table. That is the point that I want made clear; that is the point that liberals need to comprehend. The degree of fluidity that goes into it is enormous.

About a week ago, I happened to be made aware of a job opportunity that I would be eminently capable and qualified to do, which would pay nearly 20% more than I am currently making. Does that make me "worth" more than what I make in my current job? Not really. I could apply, and I could probably get the job. But it's an entirely different field than my chosen line of work. I could grab it for the money now. But I am more interested in the long term opportunities in my chosen industry. Can I expect my employer to pay me 20% more in order to retain me? Not really. They could replace me for about the same amount of money they are paying me. They could probably get away with paying someone else less, and even though they wouldn't be as good as me at my job, they'd be good enough to fill the hole.

But it ultimately hinges on personal interpretations and decisions (i.e. it's subjective). Maybe I change my mind tomorrow, and as a result my employer has to find someone to replace me. Maybe they can't find someone easily after all. Maybe they have to become willing to pay 30% more than I'm currently making. It's all in a state of constant flux. And that is the fact that people need to learn to embrace. That constant flux is what allows people the opportunity to gain the best possible wages for themselves.

If/when liberals learn to embrace the flux, it will become apparent to them that they have far more control to increase their wages than the government could ever have.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, why not. It seems many of you can't figure out to LIVE your life without them. Just remember: once you rely on "the Masters in guberment" to start FORCING thing on others that. they can give it and they can also: TAKE it away. what a life in what used to be a free country and people

hell they just jailed a woman for not handing out papers.

The problem is the govt is there whether people have minimum wage or not. Minimum wage would help take people OFF welfare.

No it won't... the majority of people affected by MW are ages 16 - 24. It's a bullshit argument for suckers.

Some people in that age group are on low wages, but also many who are on higher wages. I do notice however that you didn't back up your point.

Generally wages are dependent on your education

Many of the jobs which are minimum wage or below are there. Sure, you have students who can earn less, and those who are tipped etc who might not declare all of their money.

"
People at or below the federal minimum are:

• Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
• Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.
• Largely part-time workers (64% of the total)."

So HALF of all people are 16-24 who earn minimum wage, which means HALF are older than this and would still be effected

Most are white, hardly surprising seeing as most people are white, around that figure too.

Most are part time workers, but again, you 36% who are full time workers and not earning enough money.

So, there are still a LOT of people who are below this wage, and working for companies like Walmart and taking benefits and are older than 16-24.

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, why not. It seems many of you can't figure out to LIVE your life without them. Just remember: once you rely on "the Masters in guberment" to start FORCING thing on others that. they can give it and they can also: TAKE it away. what a life in what used to be a free country and people

You're right. I can't figure out how I would live my life without my paycheck. Bills aren't optional and not all of us are rich.

hell they just jailed a woman for not handing out papers.

She was jailed for refusing to do her job and misusing her position. I can agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but government employees don't get to say whatever they want or refuse to do their job while on duty.

I wonder if a person knew that when they worked for Government they became their slaves and gave up all their RIGHTS?

Just ask Kim Davis and future-alternate universe Donald Trump.

 

[kaz]

No, not in this context. Worth is exactly the value where your employer is willing to hire you as the best option and you are willing to accept the job over your other options. Worth in free markets is precisely defined, its where deals get done.

Just because something is precisely defined does not mean it's not subjective. The precise definition you give is subjective, as it relies on individuals to make their own interpretive conclusions.

As for your employer, the whole point is markets keep them in check. Amazing how if you under pay and don't treat your employees right, you can't keep the employees. Exactly my argument, Holmes.

Yes, I am aware of this. My whole point is to highlight the fact that set-in-stone thinking is the ultimate folly in all of this. It is exactly the flaw in liberals' thinking on this stuff. They see wages as something set in stone by something, handed out, and entirely out of anyone's control, save government regulation. You are presenting a similarly structured set-in-stone mode of thinking.

In order for anyone (most importantly in this case, liberals) to recognize that government interference in the wage market is fruitless, one must recognize that each and every individual is directly involved in the setting of wages. Wages are not set by decree. In fact, there is only one thing in this universe that sets a wage. It's not a government regulation, it's not a company policy, it's not a calculation an office junkie comes up with. Wages are set at the negotiation table. That is the point that I want made clear; that is the point that liberals need to comprehend. The degree of fluidity that goes into it is enormous.

About a week ago, I happened to be made aware of a job opportunity that I would be eminently capable and qualified to do, which would pay nearly 20% more than I am currently making. Does that make me "worth" more than what I make in my current job? Not really. I could apply, and I could probably get the job. But it's an entirely different field than my chosen line of work. I could grab it for the money now. But I am more interested in the long term opportunities in my chosen industry. Can I expect my employer to pay me 20% more in order to retain me? Not really. They could replace me for about the same amount of money they are paying me. They could probably get away with paying someone else less, and even though they wouldn't be as good as me at my job, they'd be good enough to fill the hole.

But it ultimately hinges on personal interpretations and decisions (i.e. it's subjective). Maybe I change my mind tomorrow, and as a result my employer has to find someone to replace me. Maybe they can't find someone easily after all. Maybe they have to become willing to pay 30% more than I'm currently making. It's all in a state of constant flux. And that is the fact that people need to learn to embrace. That constant flux is what allows people the opportunity to gain the best possible wages for themselves.

If/when liberals learn to embrace the flux, it will become apparent to them that they have far more control to increase their wages than the government could ever have.

I already addressed this. Your market value is precise. You keep arguing the general meaning of the word "worth," which is not in contention

 

[SwimExpert]

I already addressed this. Your market value is precise.

False. It is subjective and fluid.

You keep arguing the general meaning of the word "worth," which is not in contention

No. You're not paying attention apparently.

 

[kaz]

I already addressed this. Your market value is precise.

False. It is subjective and fluid.

You keep arguing the general meaning of the word "worth," which is not in contention

No. You're not paying attention apparently.

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

 

[SwimExpert]

I already addressed this. Your market value is precise.

False. It is subjective and fluid.

You keep arguing the general meaning of the word "worth," which is not in contention

No. You're not paying attention apparently.

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

Is that your want of saying that you'll never get it, no matter how well I explain it?

Well yes, you're absolutely right. Your thinking on this is obtuse, clumsy, and cumbersome, reminiscent of a large marble slab. Your insistence that market value must be "precise" indicates an inability to cope intellectually with fluidity and indeterminate possibilities. It is likely that you will never comprehend these things, and will only be able to achieve a limited "trained monkey" level of competency.

 

[kaz]

I already addressed this. Your market value is precise.

False. It is subjective and fluid.

You keep arguing the general meaning of the word "worth," which is not in contention

No. You're not paying attention apparently.

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

Is that your want of saying that you'll never get it, no matter how well I explain it?

Well yes, you're absolutely right. Your thinking on this is obtuse, clumsy, and cumbersome, reminiscent of a large marble slab. Your insistence that market value must be "precise" indicates an inability to cope intellectually with fluidity and indeterminate possibilities. It is likely that you will never comprehend these things, and will only be able to achieve a limited "trained monkey" level of competency.

It's "obtuse and clumsy" to think that your market value is the salary that you agree to in a free market, meaning you are the company's best option and they are yours. Got it. Never took an econ class, did you?

 

[SwimExpert]

It's "obtuse and clumsy" to think that your market value is the salary that you agree to in a free market, meaning you are the company's best option and they are yours. Got it. Never took an econ class, did you?

You claim that market value is "precise" and then go on to use imprecise and vague language to render the "precise" definition. Ridiculous.

That you can't see your own definition as imprecise is why you are obtuse intellectually clumsy.

That you insist on seeking a means by which it allegedly becomes precise, despite the inescapable subjectivity and fluid essence of what you are defining, is why your thinking is mentally cumbersome.

The very essence of a "market value" is that it's not precise! I can sell you a barrel of oil at $75, but I might sell another to Jim at $65 five minutes later. Market value is not fixed, and is never fixed. It is in constant flux, and is entirely subjective.

You view the world much like the liberals do. You see things in terms of Walmart shopping. You think that all things have a price tag built into them. Slap on the price tag, and presto it's a market value, handed to you all wrapped in a bow. It's a simplistic way of thinking. You think that people are owed a predetermined thing for a predetermined price. Someone else is always doing the thinking for you, you can just consume as much as your paycheck allows and your gluttonous little heart desires. You don't fathom the fact that in the back office those price tags are constantly changing, and that even further away in the corporate offices the price tags are being adjusted differently all over the country.

You think you are entitled to a simple answer. But you're not, and there is none.

 

[Boss]

The very essence of a "market value" is that it's not precise! I can sell you a barrel of oil at $75, but I might sell another to Jim at $65 five minutes later. Market value is not fixed, and is never fixed. It is in constant flux, and is entirely subjective.

Do you have any kind of a point to make other than this?

No... market value is not fixed but "fixed" does not mean the same thing as "precise." Fixed means it is set and doesn't fluctuate. Precise means it is accurate and exact. Many things can certainly be accurate and exact but not fixed... the time on your watch, for instance.

So you seem to be having trouble with comprehending basic language which is making communication with you very difficult.