Do you support a minimum hourly wage?

ainwood

Consultant.
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 5, 2001
Messages
30,080
There are arguments 'for' and 'against' having a legislated minimum wage. On the 'for' side, the main argument is that it prevents exploitation of workers. On the 'against' side, it is believed to contribute to unemployment and inflation.

What do you think?
 
It should come as no surprise to anyone that I am against the minimum wage. Seeing as so far on the political compass map I am the most fiscally conservative user on these forums.
 
I do not support a minimum wage. Private businesses should be free to pay whatever they wish. Workers have the right to not work there. In the end, if businesses do not pay their workers enough, they won't be able to afford the products of industry. It will balance itself out.
 
Support for minimum wage is not an issue in American politics.

What is an issue is whether that wage should be kept constant in real terms, or be allowed to decay from inflation over time. I am in favor of a constant real wage, which would mean a pretty hefty increase since there has not been an inflation correction in decades.

In the end, if businesses do not pay their workers enough, they won't be able to afford the products of industry.

Such a situation does not "balance itself out," it goes into a death spiral.
 
John HSOG said:
I do not support a minimum wage. Private businesses should be free to pay whatever they wish. Workers have the right to not work there. In the end, if businesses do not pay their workers enough, they won't be able to afford the products of industry. It will balance itself out.

It didn't work in the 19th century 80 hr long work week, it won't work now.

I support a minimum wage, given that certain industries can pay workers whatever they want and get away with it (farms employ migrant workers for instance).
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Support for minimum wage is not an issue in American politics.

What is an issue is whether that wage should be kept constant in real terms, or be allowed to decay from inflation over time. I am in favor of a constant real wage, which would mean a pretty hefty increase since there has not been an inflation correction in decades.

What he said.
 
Absolutely. In fact, as Pontiuth Pilate said, they need to be increased substantially in order to compensate for inflation.
 
ainwood said:
What if the introduction of a minimum wage results in the farmer simply deciding to mechanise rather than pay the migrant workers?

I gave that specific instance because the farmers that do use migrant workers can't afford to mechanize. But if they do that's up to them to weigh the pros and cons. My main concern is people not making enough to sustain themselves due to situations beyond their ability to control it.
 
blackheart said:
I gave that specific instance because the farmers that do use migrant workers can't afford to mechanize. But if they do that's up to them to weigh the pros and cons. My main concern is people not making enough to sustain themselves due to situations beyond their ability to control it.
Fair enough. But if a farmer can't afford to mechanise, then can (s)he afford to pay higher wages?

If not, then employment will decrease, so will the productivity for the farmer.
 
Tank_Guy#3 said:
With out question I'm for it, because I'm just above it right now. And without it I'm sure I'd be making less than the price per gallon right now :lol:

If we raise it, your employer will have to fire you to pay for everyone else's raise. Is that what you want? Or do you only want it raised when it benefits you and someone else gets fired.
 
Godwynn said:
If we raise it, your employer will have to fire you to pay for everyone else's raise. Is that what you want? Or do you only want it raised when it benefits you and someone else gets fired.

How about the employer stops pocketing the profits and just gives everybody a little bit more? Perhaps you have never had to choose between medicine and a roof over your head, or never known what it is like to go hungry, but it is an experience that no one should have to endure. Your idealistic vision that if an employer pays too little then a worker can simply leave displays your utter lack of reality. Most poor workers have nowhere else to work, as their previous jobs were destroyed when bigger corporations squashed the competition. They lack education because they cannot afford to go to school (either pay for dues or simply take time out to go to classes) and, as a result, are stuck in a never-ending cycle of poverty. If you don't want a minimum wage, open a sweatshop in Guatemala, I hear you can get a 2-for-1 deal on retired death squads.
Moderator Action: Please don't ruin this thread with your trolling / flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
ainwood said:
Fair enough. But if a farmer can't afford to mechanise, then can (s)he afford to pay higher wages?

If not, then employment will decrease, so will the productivity for the farmer.
Actually, low wages isn't the reason many farmers rely on migrant, low-wage labor. Do you see migrant workers working on wheat farms, picking corn, or harvesting soybeans? No. Because those jobs have been automated for years.

On the other hand, have you ever seen a mechanical tomato picker or a lettuce harvester? I guarantee that if those devices were invented, the demand for low wage farm labor would decrease greatly overnight.

Actually, there is a partially-automated tomato picker in wide use for the "hard" tomatoes used for catsup, salsa, tomato sauce, etc. (but not usable on the "soft" tomatoes we buy in the store). Its introduction resulted in the loss of about 60% of the jobs previously devoted to harvesting those tomatoes.
 
ainwood said:
There are arguments 'for' and 'against' having a legislated minimum wage. On the 'for' side, the main argument is that it prevents exploitation of workers. On the 'against' side, it is believed to contribute to unemployment and inflation.

What do you think?

I think the most straighforward argument is to compare what life was like before minimum wage. At one time, workers were essentially wage-slaves, and were paid well below subsistence level wages. Their only alternative was to form unions and strike, but that was only so effective, because for every employee that refused to work, there were hundreds if not thousands willing to work for pennies when the alternative was no money at all. Minimum wage laws eventually addressed this problem, allowing for people to earn enough money to at least survive.

In the US, the minimum wage is pretty damn low, so it's hard to argue it is exploitive of employers.
 
It definitely contributes to unemployment and that's bad, but I think it helps a lot of people who would be paid even less
 
Milan's Warrior said:
It definitely contributes to unemployment and that's bad, but I think it helps a lot of people who would be paid even less

Proof? Show me a country without a minimum wage that has less unemployment.
 
Im for it! Back home, i really couldnt just "work somewhere else". So many factories closed back in Ohio, that i had to compete with out of work adults with degrees for all those menial, low paying jobs. Lets say that there is no min. wage. The employer offers me 2 bucks an hour. I say, no way. Guess what? Im SOL, and have no cards to play, because there simply isnt a place for me to work yet. If my employer has to hold off on buying the new pizza over for a few more months so we can all have *barely* workable wages, then so be it.
 
jwijn said:
How about the employer stops pocketing the profits and just gives everybody a little bit more? Perhaps you have never had to choose between medicine and a roof over your head, or never known what it is like to go hungry, but it is an experience that no one should have to endure. Your idealistic vision that if an employer pays too little then a worker can simply leave displays your utter lack of reality. Most poor workers have nowhere else to work, as their previous jobs were destroyed when bigger corporations squashed the competition. They lack education because they cannot afford to go to school (either pay for dues or simply take time out to go to classes) and, as a result, are stuck in a never-ending cycle of poverty. If you don't want a minimum wage, open a sweatshop in Guatemala, I hear you can get a 2-for-1 deal on retired death squads.

The employer has every right to pocket the profits. He is the one that took the risk of starting his own business. Why should he hand out what he has rightfully earned to someone else?

Openning a sweatshop in Guatemala does sound good. It'll give them jobs they didn't have before.
 
Back
Top Bottom