What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?

Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking

If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit

Stuffing greasy french fries into paper bags
For perspective we are talking about somebody standing in a kitchen serving people food for 8 hours a day. Walking with about $50 a day, $250 a week, $1000 a month, $12,000 a year. That’s what this full time employee will have to support themselves. Meanwhile the restaurant is making millions. Sound good to you?

Since when is any job wage based on what it costs for a person to support himself?

And FYI no single franchised fast food store makes millions a year.

In fact most franchise owners make less than 100K a year

And a person sells his labor to an employer and that labor is only worth what the market will pay for it. If a person wants to get more for the labor he is selling then he has to make his labor worth more by increasing its value to an employer.

This is what entry level jobs are for.
Your first question is at the crux of the debate. The concept of a living wage is that if a person is working full time then that time should be compensated enough for them to support themselves without the need of welfare.

Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?

As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.

What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.
Who determines what the value of labor is? You don’t think that the cost of living is a factor in the value of labor?

No cost of living is not a factor.

And many factors contribute to what a person's labor is worth to an employer.

All products have a cost to bring to the market. The consumer's willingness to pay a price for that product is also relevant.

When the cost of bringing a product to the market exceeds the price a consumer is willing to pay then the business providing that product has 2 choices: Reduce the cost of production or close shop.

The cost of living has no bearing on the what it takes for a business to bring a product to the market but it might have an effect on how many people will pay for that product.
You might want to think that one through a bit longer. The cost of living is directly related to what you just described... the price consumers are willing to pay for products
I already said that

" The consumer's willingness to pay a price for that product is also relevant." What the consumer is willing to pay is of course dependent on that consumer's expenses.

But that consumer's expenses have nothing to do with what costs a business incurs when bringing a product to market.
Understood. I wasn’t saying that those two things were related
 
Simple question. If a corporation wants to take a massive dump on your lawn, why shouldn't they be able to do that?
Because they don't own your lawn.
If a butterfly flaps its wings in Japan, why shouldn't it be paid $7?
If someone offers it $7 and it accepts, it should be paid that.

Now your turn:
If a potential employee agrees to work for $7 an hour, why shouldn't they be able to do that?
Not if right wingers are going to complain about taxes for social services; and, not if seeking employment is a requirement in an at-will employment State. Why would someone want to work for seven dollars an hour if they could get unemployment compensation at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. Which option would make it easier for low skilled labor to go to school and learn more marketable skills in a market friendly manner in our economy?
 
If the government decides they need money, for anything, they will fund it.
We don't have a general malfare clause, it is a general welfare clause. They can only fund anything that promotes and provide for the general welfare, and provide for the common defense.

That has nothing to do with what I said and i stand by what I said, if the government really wants money, they will fund it, one way or the other.
Yes, it does. It is why Your guy lost most of his legal battles to fund the general malfare.

My guy? Who is my guy? Biden? Why do you keep trying to change the subject? If the government really wants money they find it, prove me wrong. The coronavirus bailout found money we didn't have, TARP found money we didn't have. If the government wants it, it will find it, they just vote yes and the money is there.
Because you are simply special pleading. We have a general welfare clause not a general malfare clause. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency.
 
Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.
Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.
 
Do you think a corporation that makes many millions in profits every year should be paying workers $7 an hour?

Depends. How much value do they add?
That’s what I’m asking

If you add less than $7/hr in value, paying $7 is too much.
What would an example be of a job that is valued at less than $7 an hour. Note we are talking about a corporation making millions in profit

The guy shuffling across the office emptying little garbage cans into a bigger can.
The guy sweeping the floor or mopping the bathroom.
Inflation still happens, brooms and mops cost more, etc. Only the right wing believes productivity is constant and not affected by economic forces in any given economy.
 
Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?

As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.

What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.
Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.

How to Establish Salary Ranges
  1. Step 1: Determine the Organization's Compensation Philosophy. ...
  2. Step 2: Conduct a Job Analysis. ...
  3. Step 3: Group into Job Families. ...
  4. Step 4: Rank Positions Using a Job Evaluation Method. ...
  5. Step 5: Conduct Market Research. ...
  6. Step 6: Create Job Grades. ...
  7. Step 7: Create a Salary Range Based on Research.
where in there does it say the employee's rent is part of the salary equation?
Market research that is influenced by market based arbitrage. Not everyone in a low skilled job is as ignorant as the right wing would prefer.
 
For the same reason they shouldn’t be working for $1 an hour
If they freely accept a dollar for compensation, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? I've done work for free before.
If Capitalism worked as advertised, why would they want to? Greed is Good under Capitalism not socialism.
 
Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.
Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.
Right wingers only complain about the Poor not the Rich or corporate welfare would not be so institutional.
 
I would still be spending money in my local economy and contributing to the multiplier effect.

Incentivizing your sloth is a negative multiplier.
Prove it. UC has already been measured with a multiplier of 2. For comparison and contrast regular government spending including defense spending only generates a multiplier of around .8.

UC has already been measured with a multiplier of 2.

For a short term program that employers pay for with a limited timeframe? Show me.

And then show me the multiplier when lazy bums like you get paid endlessly for never working.
That particular study was done with extended unemployment benefits. Besides, limited spending results in limited economic effect (of the multiplier). Why do you bother to complain about welfare for individuals if you have a problem with actually solving for simple poverty that is more efficient and therefore less of a Tax burden for You?
 
Why should a salary be based on anything but the value of the labor to the employer or to the market in general?

As a person asking another for employment your labor is your product and you are asking an employer to buy that product at either and hourly wage or a salary.

What the person who is selling his labor pays for rent is not part of the equation nor should it be.
Because employers don't operate in a vacuum of special pleading, but in our first world market economy.

How to Establish Salary Ranges
  1. Step 1: Determine the Organization's Compensation Philosophy. ...
  2. Step 2: Conduct a Job Analysis. ...
  3. Step 3: Group into Job Families. ...
  4. Step 4: Rank Positions Using a Job Evaluation Method. ...
  5. Step 5: Conduct Market Research. ...
  6. Step 6: Create Job Grades. ...
  7. Step 7: Create a Salary Range Based on Research.
where in there does it say the employee's rent is part of the salary equation?
Market research that is influenced by market based arbitrage. Not everyone in a low skilled job is as ignorant as the right wing would prefer.
Show me where in that salary calculator where the employee's cost of living is a factor in the salary equation
 
If Capitalism worked as advertised, why would they want to? Greed is Good under Capitalism not socialism.
Capitalism hasn't been advertised. You've been spoonfed propaganda about it and ignorantly believe that to be an "advertisement".
Again, how old are you?
 
So if someone complains about welfare, someone else can't freely accept a job for $7/hr?
No, because that person would still need welfare benefits and that program costs more and is less efficient than simply paying people not to work at the rock bottom cost of the equivalent of a sub-minimum wage to actually work.
 
Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.
Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.
Right wingers only complain about the Poor not the Rich or corporate welfare would not be so institutional.
I don’t mind corporate welfare if it prevents jobs from being lost but there needs to be criteria. And if the executives are pocketing millions then tax bail outs don’t make much sense
 
Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?
Not personally. I only know about businesses who have entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and still have needed bailouts in the past.
So you don't know one person who is good with money but is poor? Not one?!?!?
 

Forum List

Back
Top