Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[cardgame]

Well, that's pretty invalid, though. Employers have been pulling that card since they had to get rid of children and 16 hour shifts or what have you.

 

[classical_hero]

I see it as a ginormous failure of our system. In the 1780s, a semi-literate, semi-numerate person could get a reasonably good job with a rather good wage. Nowadays, for some reason, this person could very easily get less (in real terms) than his counterpart.

I'd not call this progress. The pay for a level of human capital should only rise over time, along with economic growth. Else we've failed.

But with the level of education you can get, there is no excuse for even being semi-literate because we should be fully literate as a bottom. The fact that we aren't is a product that there is some acceptable failure.

 

[Antilogic]

That is the crux of the question, sustainability. The minimum wage for entry into the labor pool is less than for sustaining a person. Completely separate is the discussion of "living wage". There was a thread on that subject last year. Living wage, as commonly used in political discussion, is middle class.

Minimum wage discussions involve all three, which is confusing.

J

Gotta love that sustainable profits takes precedence over sustainable living standards, though.

Well, that's pretty invalid, though. Employers have been pulling that card since they had to get rid of children and 16 hour shifts or what have you.

Yeah, and women working. Seriously, 50% unemployment overnight.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But with the level of education you can get, there is no excuse for even being semi-literate because we should be fully literate as a bottom. The fact that we aren't is a product that there is some acceptable failure.

The pretense that if everyone would just "be responsible and get themselves educated" there would suddenly be no more mindless labors to be done is a large part of the ginormous failure El Mach was referring to. Everyone being educated just leads to educated people finding the mindless labors that still have to be done even more tedious than they already were.

 

[Borachio]

Do you think so?

If that's true, isn't education doing a lot of people a disservice then?

I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

But for me, education has been a means of relieving the tedium of my day job: it gave me something more interesting to think about while I worked.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do you think so?

If that's true, isn't education doing a lot of people a disservice then?

I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

But for me, education has been a means of relieving the tedium of my day job: it gave me something more interesting to think about while I worked.

It isn't a disservice if the education is for education's sake. That allows for people to learn about what they are interested in. If the education is wrapped up in the "get educated because if everyone does all the crappy jobs will magically disappear" plan, then yeah it is a disservice. For two reasons. One, it creates a disappointment when all the educated people realize they still need people working at McDonald's so some of them will have to do it despite their education. And two, it leads to people choosing what to study based on some hypothetical job market rather than what they are interested in.

If you are interested in history and studied it you have that 'something to think about' to relieve tedium while flipping burgers. If you are interested in history but studied chemistry just because it "offered better prospects" then you will be flipping burgers and thinking about how much it sucks that you spent all that time studying chemistry.

 

[El_Machinae]

But with the level of education you can get, there is no excuse for even being semi-literate because we should be fully literate as a bottom. The fact that we aren't is a product that there is some acceptable failure.

There is an excuse, given that IQ is on a bell-curve. Additionally, employers will take the enhanced productivity education creates. But that's a side issue. The problem I'm talking about is how a resource (semi-literacy) will drop in real value over time (instead of merely in relative value, which makes sense). The productivity of that resource rises over time, but not its real earnings.

 

[onejayhawk]

Gotta love that sustainable profits takes precedence over sustainable living standards, though.

That's a non sequitur to the conversation.

It's an interesting point, though. The first is necessary for the second.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

It's true, but we should be careful regarding which profits are necessary. It's the consumer surplus that we need in order to have ongoing growth (or reserves to ride out bad times). Corporate profits are desirable insofar as they encourage new entrants into the market in order to drive down prices, so that we get the Creative-Destructive growth contribution.

 

[onejayhawk]

The goal of any economy is to make as many people as possible productive. The USSR proved that activity is not productivity. Even though unemployment was almost unknown, living conditions never improved.

J

 

[Flying Pig]

The goal of any economy is to make as many people as possible productive. The USSR proved that activity is not productivity. Even though unemployment was almost unknown, living conditions never improved.

J

Not necessarily. If the government simply bought enough robots to produce everything that we wanted and gave the results out on a generous rationing system, nobody would have to work unless they wanted to (and that would be totally different to what we understand by 'work') - much fewer people would be producing anything, but it would be a great place to live.

 

[Commodore]

Not necessarily. If the government simply bought enough robots to produce everything that we wanted and gave the results out on a generous rationing system, nobody would have to work unless they wanted to (and that would be totally different to what we understand by 'work') - much fewer people would be producing anything, but it would be a great place to live.

I would take that a step further by investing heavily in AI development as well so machines can take over the responsibilities of government as well. That way all we would have to occupy ourselves with is finding pursuits that make us happy.

 

[Antilogic]

That's a non sequitur to the conversation.

It's an interesting point, though. The first is necessary for the second.

J

No the first, it's especially relevant to millions of people trying to make a living.

And no to the second as well. You might as well say the only way all people are going to have acceptable living conditions is if a few of them are slave masters.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not necessarily. If the government simply bought enough robots to produce everything that we wanted and gave the results out on a generous rationing system, nobody would have to work unless they wanted to (and that would be totally different to what we understand by 'work') - much fewer people would be producing anything, but it would be a great place to live.

If all play were work, then play would indeed be work.

That would not be a great place in my opinion.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

No the first, it's especially relevant to millions of people trying to make a living.

And no to the second as well. You might as well say the only way all people are going to have acceptable living conditions is if a few of them are slave masters.

It may be relevant to any number of people, but it did not follow from the previous parts of the thread.

Definitely the second. Someone has to hire, which means that corporate profits have to be sufficient for hiring. Your statement is bizarre. I see no correlation at all.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, keep in mind that corporations don't hire depending on whether profits are high or low. They hire based on whether the marginal productivity of an employee is worth it. They need some profits, firstly to have safety factors (for downtimes) and also to reward the initial investment, if initial investment was done using venture capital and not debt.

The goal of any economy is to make as many people as possible productive. The USSR proved that activity is not productivity. Even though unemployment was almost unknown, living conditions never improved.

The first sentence is interesting, I don't really dispute it. You didn't even say "make people as productive as possible", which doesn't need to be a goal. But I think having high levels of employment is a worthy goal, with increases on the supply side causing a decrease in prices (so that low-wage workers get wealthier over time, too).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, keep in mind that corporations don't hire depending on whether profits are high or low. They hire based on whether the marginal productivity of an employee is worth it. They need some profits, firstly to have safety factors (for downtimes) and also to reward the initial investment, if initial investment was done using venture capital and not debt.

You give corporations far too much credit. Corporations hire based on whether a low level manager has created sufficient perceived need for them to have someone else to manage. The perceived need is usually created by either reducing the productivity of available workers or by creating 'work' that is of no value. Corporations generally have no clue about the marginal productivity of their employees.

 

[Yeekim]

Corporations generally have no clue about the marginal productivity of their employees.

Not regarding every single employee, no.
They do, however, make decisions about starting new projects based on anticipated ROI.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not regarding every single employee, no.
They do, however, make decisions about starting new projects based on anticipated ROI.

So what employees do you think they do have a clue about?

The highest paid employees in the top management positions? Those are the guys telling the corporation whatever it is the corporation might know. Needless to say they report something that justifies their salaries when it comes to their own productivity.

Every other level of management operates in a system where their worth is predominantly determined by the number of people down chain from them. Their path to appreciation is rooted in reporting "My guys are at maximum productivity and I need more guys."

Workers far down the corporate chain are seldom held accountable for their own assignments, they are held accountable as a group. In a group, the person most influenced by their own sense of responsibility will get work dumped on them until they literally can't do any more, plus some buffer that allows the group supervisor to point out that the group is overloaded and needs additional personnel. The rest of the group members will range from somewhat productive all the way down to accomplishing nothing at all.

 

[onejayhawk]

The first sentence is interesting, I don't really dispute it. You didn't even say "make people as productive as possible", which doesn't need to be a goal. But I think having high levels of employment is a worthy goal, with increases on the supply side causing a decrease in prices (so that low-wage workers get wealthier over time, too).

I perhaps phrased it badly, but you are getting some of the gist. The other side is that not all productivity is through employment. Generally, an economy that encourages entrepreneurial activity is going to be more successful that one which does not. This runs counter to the grain of leveling income result, because regulations have a chilling effect on new business formation and small business growth.

J