Do you support a minimum hourly wage?

[Aphex_Twin]

What if the workers unite and refuse to work untill a minimun wage is implemented?

As long as they don't stop those who do want to work. If they do, they are comitting agression.

 

[Turner]

As long as they don't stop those who do want to work. If they do, they are comitting agression.

Not in America. The ones ones trying to go to work are scabs.

 

[Jorge]

As long as they don't stop those who do want to work. If they do, they are comitting agression.

Difficult to control that when you are playing with the food of a family.

So basically, this is what happens:

No minimun wage. Wages go very low. Some families can not have a decent life. Workers unite and go to strike. Owner of the factory hires other people. Conflicts arise. etc ..

Now repeat this thousands of times. Conclusion: we need minimun wages, and that´s why they were implemented. In the long term they benefit everyone because it reduces the labour conflicts.

 

[Rambuchan]

Besides, fewer people working overall means less productivity and some inflation (less goods covered by the same money).

In my mind, society is about more than just productivity. It's a human society, not a robot society.

And I agree that Narz is quite mad, loveably so of course.

 

[Narz]

at this point, i should remind everyone that narz is, in fact, quite mad.

And I agree that Narz is quite mad, loveably so of course.

When the current economic and social system collaspes and I set up my independent and self-sustaining Narzian empire you two guys will have a special place waiting for you if you survive the ensuing anarchy and chaos. I'm not sure quite where I'm going to set up shop yet. I'm leaning towards the Pacific NothWest but I'm not sure if I feel like dealing with the cold winters. Still, there is a lot of lumbur there for fires and with the cool weather there will be a lot of time for snuggling with my female devotees and creating heirs.

I'll keep you posted. I will have this all fairly well worked out before this communication medium (the internet) becomes disrupted. I imagine I still have about 2-5 years, hopefully.

I laugh at young people stockpiling money for their retirement. As if your currency will be worth anything in 30 or 40 years.

 

[ainwood]

Minimum wages is essential, but in order for it to function you need other things as well. Unemployment-compensation for instance.

Personally I'd like to have maximum wages as well, and that is the minimum wages times a number. Let's say 3 or 4 times minimum wages.

I don't think that's a particularly good idea - where's the incentive to improve yourself? Get a promotion? Take a risk and make an investment?

 

[King Alexander]

Of course I support it: what kind of question is this? All people should have a decent life and not living like in 3rd world countries.

Even though, the minimum wage is barely enough to buy food and pay your monthly bills for the house, if it wasn't one, most of people talking comfortable now and post in OT, would be poor and some would be rich: no middle class would exist.
The minimum wage was introduced for better life conditions to the people(I don't consider representative of the people a bunch of ultra-rich people that take all the profit by exploiting poor ones).

Yes, I'm also in favour of adjasting the minimum wage according to the inflation: what the people are supposed to do? Die? Then, we're talking about the "Western" suppremacy and such nonsense.

The right to a minimum wage was earned with much blood, since, in RL, ANYONE who was rich enough back then, was faced like a human, and the dirt-poor ones were faced like animals(easy killed in demonstrations). More wealth means that the goverment counts what the people say.

What I propose to do is, demand that our politicians are payed with the minimum wage that every worker earns and not with the huge-salaries the first earn, and not owning limos that the PEOPLE paid for: do they want a car? Tough luck! They should PAY for it, like I did. Can't they afford it? Use the buses or trains.
A Law should also be in power that prohibited politicians to send their spoiled-kids in private schools: they should go in PUBLIC schools, if we want to see more improvement(at least, here, most public schools haven't anything to be jealous of than private ones, but there's always room for improvement).

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

If there were no minimum wage you can bet that wages would drop quickly, at least in some industries. Why? Because some companies would create cabals/cartels and agree among themselves what workers industrywide would get paid.

McDonalds Manager: "Hi, Bob. We're cutting everyone's wages today. Instead of making $7.00 an hour you now make $4.00 an hour. Now go get another box of Big Mac patties out of the freezer."

Bob: "WHAT? I quit. I'll go work at Burger King."

McDonalds Manager: (grinning) "They'll pay you the same. It's OUR way now, Bob, not yours."

Bob: "I quit anyway."

McDonalds Manager: "No, you have just been fired for insubordination. Now you are blacklisted, too. We know how to deal with troublemakers."

That's how it used to work.

I like the idea of price caps on politician's salaries. Can't pay them too little though, or they will have even more incentive to steal. Maybe a better way would be to have everything allotted to them when they get to Washington - Spartan living quarters for all government officials, a low end car they must use, etc. Minimal financial compensation for food, clothes, stuff like that. I like the idea of their kids going to public schools too, heh heh. That'll TEACH them...

 

[King Alexander]

If minimum wages stopped existing, you can be sure, ALL the other wages as well would drop significantly.

Why the hell should an employer pay someone an X sum, because he has a PhD and other such "crap"? The employer wouldn't give A DAMN! There're also other PhD's out there who'll probably will work with starvation salaries, simply because they're unemployed, and they want to put a little bread in their mouth, and at least, they'll work with those starvation salaries until they REALISE that they want to also BUY a TV, car, a PC, etc...(capitalist economy!!! = see the irony? who will buy the products in the Age of Consuming?).

Why the hell the state should pay state-employees(officers, judges, etc...) more than the minimum wages? What??? They've got a Master or a PhD? WHO THE HELL CARES, ANYWAY? There're THOUSANDS of Masters and PhD's in India: Just import those people and let your own people starve to death, until a revolution rises.

All the people have a right to a decent life and living conditions, at least here: if other countries want to keep their citizens in 3rd world conditions, be my guest. If you also don't consider a "right" for one to have a decent life and living conditions, you can also be my guest: I don't mind at all if you want your country to be that way.

 

[farting bob]

A minimum wage is necessary to stop exploiting workers. Sure, it may hurt business, but if business needs to pay someone peanuts just so it doesnt lose money, theres something wrong with the business.
Minimum wage doesnt effect many here, but those it does effect it is very clear that without it, they would be in serious trouble.
I cant think of a good reason to have 3rd world style payment in a modern country, just so the multi-national companies can make even more money than before.

 

[downtown]

would the loss of bussiness profit be ofset by the greater buying power of the workers at large?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Ram
If you want material goods, you have to be productive (or at least someone who was charitable had to). You may not want a car, house, computer, music, but that's quite acceptable.

@Jorge
What you are saying basically is, that because some people assert their POV through violence they are right!?

would the loss of bussiness profit be ofset by the greater buying power of the workers at large?

No, money isn't magical. What matters is not the ammount of money, but rather the ammount of goods covered by it. Less goods to go around -> less buing power -> higher prices. Well, you can argue some "workers at large" might gain a little bit more, but what about "would-be-workers"?

Yes, I'm also in favour of adjasting the minimum wage according to the inflation: what the people are supposed to do? Die? Then, we're talking about the "Western" suppremacy and such nonsense.

If conditions are so dire that human life is unsustainable - then rising wages might sustain some, but the rest are still not better off - even worse.

As for the second part of your argument.

 

[ComradeDavo]

A minimum hourly wage is a good thing, those who oppose it effictively support legal slavery, for without it employers can pay desperate people pitance for long hard hours of work, people who have no choice but to take these jobs.

Econimcally it makes sense as well, as it means people have money to buy things!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Uh, the argument for minimum wage is really quite simple. The free market isn't an end, it's a means. You don't chop off your feet because your bed's too short. Similarly, you don't studiously condemn human beings to sub-par living conditions out of a misplaced affection for pure laissez-faire ideology.

In America, just about any interference in the free market that has majority support is allowed. The minimum wage has overwhelming support. There's the end of the matter.

 

[jwijn]

@jwijn
Your argument is thus: "They implemented the minimum wage and shortly after living standards improved." For a theory to be scientific one must make a causal connection between the argument and the premise. Just because one thing happends after another it does not mean it is caused by it. What is your logic?

My argument is far more complex than that. Go back and give it a solid read-through. My logic is the following:

Minimum wage enforced = Families have more money
Families have more money = Children don't have to work
Children don't have to work = Children go to high school and college
Youth are better educated = Get higher paying jobs as skilled workers
Higher paying jobs = higher standard of living

Thus, a minimum wage ultimately contributes to a higher standard of living. Had you properly read my argument, which I tried to make as specific as possible, then you would have seen my logic clearly. Instead, you chose to plug your ears and put words into my mouth so that you can debate on your own terms.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

My argument is far more complex than that. Go back and give it a solid read-through. My logic is the following:

I'm afraid it falls apart from the beginning:

Minimum wage enforced = Families have more money

Some families have more money, others have nothing, fewer goods are produced = fewer goods to go around. Fewer goods and the same money = less value for every unit of currency. Double jeopardy. If the money comes from future investments then there is less growth. It most deffinately does not mean more wealth.

 

[jwijn]

Some families have more money, others have nothing, fewer goods are produced = fewer goods to go around. Fewer goods and the same money = less value for every unit of currency. Double jeopardy. If the money comes from future investments then there is less growth. It most deffinately does not mean more wealth.

Jesus, must I repeat everything? Go back and see how I showed that a minimum wage can actually produce jobs.

Furthermore, we can look at it through this example:

Widget Inc. pays its 25 employees $4/day, for a total of $100 for all of its workstaff. A minimum wage is passed, requiring Widget Inc. to pay $5/day to each employee. Because the owner of Widget Inc. doesn't want to tighten his own belt, he fires 5 workers so that he can pay 20 employees on $5/day. Those 20 employees, however, are now able to support their families without sending their kids off to work. Their kids are able to go to school, get an education, and become skilled labourers. True, the 5 unemployed workers get the shaft, but at least the other 20 are given greater opportunity. It's a simple case of utilitarianism - the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@jwijin
Money aren't "valuables", they are "exchange commodities". In the end, what we all want are goods. To get them we use (trade) the most easily-tradeable commodity - that happends to be money (by definition). If there were more money around what would change? There would still be the same ammount of say: bread, televisors, computers, cars.

Your argument is inherently flawed not just a re-distribution occurs (no real wealth overall), but that also less goods are produced (I hate to repeat myself). Yes, the working men can get more. But those who are prohibited from or are laid off DO count. They get nothing. How's that justice? How's that general wealth?

 

[jwijn]

Aphex_Twin,

You are only looking at the short-term effects. True, less goods at first may be produced, but as I have stated time and time again, the result of a larger middle class is more skilled labour - more inventors, more entrepreneurs - which in turn produces more goods and capital. Those laid off DO get something, it's called unemployment benefits. Don't talk to me about justice while you defend the owner's ability to take the profits and pay his workers peanuts. The reality is that with a minimum wage, at least SOME people are seeing a better life, instead of having a tiny elite at the top.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

You are only looking at the short-term effects. True, less goods at first may be produced, but as I have stated time and time again, the result of a larger middle class is more skilled labour - more inventors, more entrepreneurs - which in turn produces more goods and capital.

More money for the same work is not greater skill.
If those who get more can have an incentive to earn even more then those who have less have less of an incentive to even look for work. I don't see where you create plus-value with this system.

Those laid off DO get something, it's called unemployment benefits.

How much unemployment aid? Enough for a full-time salary? Where do those money come from? Isn't it self-defeating to, at the same time pay the workers more and then take that away to pay those who had to be laid off - to pay the initial higher wages. Ponzi would be proud

Don't talk to me about justice while you defend the owner's ability to take the profits and pay his workers peanuts.

You promote paying some "less than peanuts" (i.e. no peanuts) so that others would get a little more peanuts. I don't call that justice.

The reality is that with a minimum wage, at least SOME people are seeing a better life, instead of having a tiny elite at the top.

At who's expense?