Poll: Minimum Wage

What to do with minimum wage?

  • Raise it to keep purchasing power of earlier minimum wages.

    Votes: 37 38.9%
  • Abolish the federally mandated minimum wage and allow localities to determine the value.

    Votes: 13 13.7%
  • Raise it considerably so people can live confortably off of it.

    Votes: 15 15.8%
  • Raise it so everybody gets the same wage across the board.

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Abolish it all together.

    Votes: 18 18.9%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 11 11.6%

  • Total voters
    95
JerichoHill said:
But then again, I am an economist and just happen to understand that creating an artificial price floor raises costs above the board.
Nah, quit bragging about all your high-falutin' book-learnin'; poor people need a minimum wage to survive, and questioning this idea with scientific curiousity is living in a fantasy world.

(Thank you, Hotpoint, for using actual facts, not emotional appeals, to debate economic theory. Although Veritass raises a good point.)
 
Ok then WillJ. Let my neighbor who works as a cashier at the grocery store be paid whatever the boss decides. Who cares he she has to work 90 hours a week to make rent and live decently? What happens to the people who have no education and no particular skills? How do they get by in a system who doesn't care for them if they have no buying power? I'm not emotionnal, I'm pratical. It's not my fault if most posters decide to discuss theories without actually thinking of people working those jobs.
 
De Lorimier said:
Ok then WillJ. Let my neighbor who works as a cashier at the grocery store be paid whatever the boss decides. Who cares he she has to work 90 hours a week to make rent and live decently? What happens to the people who have no education and no particular skills? How do they get by in a system who doesn't care for them if they have no buying power? I'm not emotionnal, I'm pratical. It's not my fault if most posters decide to discuss theories without actually thinking of people working those jobs.

Nobody is forcing her to work at that store. If she is a good worker she should be able to negioate a better wage at a rival store, or get more money out of the current store due to the value of her work.
 
Perfection said:
Why do I believe in that? Because I feel that workers should not be exploited and not be payed pennies and further hampers the worker to be stuck in the poor. I feel that minumum wages are there to prevent greedy companies and workplaces from exploiting their workers.

And why do I believe that the minumum wages should be raised each year? Its due because of inflation and the buying power of a dollar. A single dollar had a bit more buying power in the past than now so it makes sense that the minumum wages keep up with inflation to ensure that the worker is not left in the dust with a rising inflation.
 
CIVPhilzilla said:
Nobody is forcing her to work at that store. If she is a good worker she should be able to negioate a better wage at a rival store, or get more money out of the current store due to the value of her work.

Most companies have fixed pay scales and such and even if your boss loved you and wanted to pay you more they'd probably be prevented from doing so. So, quit and go elsewhere? ROFL, same problem.

I see a whole lot of Pollyanna in this thread and not a lot of practical application.
 
WillJ said:
Nah, quit bragging about all your high-falutin' book-learnin'; poor people need a minimum wage to survive, and questioning this idea with scientific curiousity is living in a fantasy world.
I admit that it is hardly necessary to repeat one's profession ad nauseam, even the slower among us, like myself has got it now: he is an economist! :eek:
Just keep in mind that economy is not value-free, and we do not make a profound impression of ourselves if our "scientific curiosity" tries to cover that (for some) unpleasant fact. That would really be to live in a fantasy world.
There are many economists around, and some of them, like the good people at EPI, support the minimum wage.
I am more inclined to trust them.
Bottom line: it is really a political question.
@De Lorimier: :goodjob:
 
CIVPhilzilla said:
Something else I am against.
Yes, I completely agree. The problem with welfare is that it is way too easy to take advantage of the system. What people do, is that they go on welfare for the 18 months they can have it, then they get a job for a month, otherwise welfare is taken away. After the month is up, they quit the job, and go back on welfare. So, they never really become a contributing member of our economy, but are still a drain on it.
If the system were revamped, I think it might be a bit more effective. Too bad we don't have the money for it...:sad:
 
.Shane. said:
Most companies have fixed pay scales and such and even if your boss loved you and wanted to pay you more they'd probably be prevented from doing so. So, quit and go elsewhere? ROFL, same problem.

I see a whole lot of Pollyanna in this thread and not a lot of practical application.

Not all buisnesses have pay scales. Exceptions can always be made. Majority of buisnesses in America are small buisness not corporations or chains, so the pay can be determined by the boss without much interference.
 
I think a slight increase would be ok, but 7dollars is too much. I think getting rid of it would be bad as well as drastically increasing it.

CIVPhilzilla said:
Not all buisnesses have pay scales. Exceptions can always be made. Majority of buisnesses in America are small buisness not corporations or chains, so the pay can be determined by the boss without much interference.

corporations employ the majority of the people. Most small businesses are one man/woman operations or have very few employees.
 
De Lorimier said:
Ok then WillJ. Let my neighbor who works as a cashier at the grocery store be paid whatever the boss decides. Who cares he she has to work 90 hours a week to make rent and live decently? What happens to the people who have no education and no particular skills? How do they get by in a system who doesn't care for them if they have no buying power? I'm not emotionnal, I'm pratical. It's not my fault if most posters decide to discuss theories without actually thinking of people working those jobs.
You might be right that some of us CFCers don't care about poor, uneducated, unskilled people. I can't speak for anyone else, but I at least like to think I'm not one of those uncaring people.

But the debate isn't about whether there are poor people out there who could use some help, or at least I hope it's not, since the answer to that question is obvious to my eyes. The debate is about whether or not the minimum wage actually does help these people. It's easy to think minimum wage legislation guarantees that wage to all workers, hooray, end of story. I don't think it's that simple, though. (But on the flip-side, I also don't think it's as simple as the minimum wage screws employers, and the economy, boo-hoo, end of story.)
luceafarul said:
I admit that it is hardly necessary to repeat one's profession ad nauseam, even the slower among us, like myself has got it now: he is an economist! :eek:
Just keep in mind that economy is not value-free, and we do not make a profound impression of ourselves if our "scientific curiosity" tries to cover that (for some) unpleasant fact. That would really be to live in a fantasy world.
There are many economists around, and some of them, like the good people at EPI, support the minimum wage.
I am more inclined to trust them.
Bottom line: it is really a political question.
@De Lorimier: :goodjob:
I fully agree (except about it being "political"), and thanks for the link.
 
WillJ said:
Nah, quit bragging about all your high-falutin' book-learnin'; poor people need a minimum wage to survive, and questioning this idea with scientific curiousity is living in a fantasy world.

(Thank you, Hotpoint, for using actual facts, not emotional appeals, to debate economic theory. Although Veritass raises a good point.)

No, they don't. You fail to see the point that I am trying to make, that economics makes. An employer will not pay someone more than the value of their labor. Quit trying to enforce your values on the wages of others. Such meddling only serves to harm the economies in the end.

Its not the best that developing countries ahve to go through sweatshops, but its a necessary step in the development of skills and attributes to becoming a modern economy.

Just as its foolish for us to place our Western values on these countries and thus IMPEDE their development, it is foolish to tell an employer just how much they must pay their workers.

Once down that road, it becomes a slippery slope. We got the minimum wage, now we hear of a living wage. Yet, it appears not many think of the economic consequences of raising wages without raising the productivity/skills/knowledge of the worker/work the worker offers. Wages rise when a worker has greater KSA's than before (or supply dictates that the KSA's become rarer, or more needed...blah blah).

The problem of povery will NOT be solved by mandating a minimum, or living wage. It will be solved through Education.

To this end, it is better to teach a man to fish, than to give him a fish, even though by giving him a fish his hunger is abated instantly. Through patience in teaching a skill, his hunger is eventually eliminated.

But we're far too impatient and short-sighted for such rationality.

(at least in the USA)

I suppose though, since I am not in favor of the give them more money (and thereby increase the price of basic goods, which increases inflation) I am a very bad person
 
Reading luceafarul's EPI link, I find it interesting that employers are able to absorb the costs of min. wage increases.

It makes me wonder just how far the min. wage can be raised, then.
JerichoHill said:
No, they don't. You fail to see the point that I am trying to make, that economics makes. An employer will not pay someone more than the value of their labor. Quit trying to enforce your values on the wages of others. Such meddling only serves to harm the economies in the end.

Its not the best that developing countries ahve to go through sweatshops, but its a necessary step in the development of skills and attributes to becoming a modern economy.

Just as its foolish for us to place our Western values on these countries and thus IMPEDE their development, it is foolish to tell an employer just how much they must pay their workers.

Once down that road, it becomes a slippery slope. We got the minimum wage, now we hear of a living wage. Yet, it appears not many think of the economic consequences of raising wages without raising the productivity/skills/knowledge of the worker/work the worker offers. Wages rise when a worker has greater KSA's than before (or supply dictates that the KSA's become rarer, or more needed...blah blah).

The problem of povery will NOT be solved by mandating a minimum, or living wage. It will be solved through Education.

To this end, it is better to teach a man to fish, than to give him a fish, even though by giving him a fish his hunger is abated instantly. Through patience in teaching a skill, his hunger is eventually eliminated.

But we're far too impatient and short-sighted for such rationality.

(at least in the USA)
I guess my facetiousness was too subtle. :p :)
 
ComradeDavo said:
What you're basically arguing is survival of the fittest and creating a two-tier class.
There is not some arbitrary dividing line between "skilled" and "unskilled." There is a large continuum of abilities, and a continuum of wages to match. We are discussing the low end of the continuum, and whether there are people whose skill level is so low that their wage should not correspond to it, and should be rounded up.

This continuum is really more of an n-dimensional matrix, because there is not just one skill. Don't like what you're doing now? Work on getting a different skill. Any skill. Whatever skill you want to get. It doesn't matter whether your skill is computers, people, cars, or cement; there are always levels of skill and levels of reward. Don't want to work at this grocery store? Find another. Don't want to work at grocery stores at all? Work on yourself and get another skill.

No, it wasn't all handed to me, either. I started out working an an ice cream scooper in a drug store, and took out a loan so I could go to school four nights a week for nine months to learn how to fix computers. When that seemed to be topping out, I went back to school to get a degree in business management. It was hard, and it was worth it.
 
@@Will

The increased cost the employer is able to absorb from a minimum wage increase will depend on the local economy (or national, but I suppose it affects the local economy), the nature of the job, and how flexible the labor market is.

Btw, one way they can absorb the cost is by letting go of employees, and the remainder just works more
 
.Shane. said:
Most companies have fixed pay scales and such and even if your boss loved you and wanted to pay you more they'd probably be prevented from doing so. So, quit and go elsewhere? ROFL, same problem.
Not at all - the biggest payrise you'll ever get is by changing jobs. Labour is a resource - and is affected by supply & demand, just like anything else. Lets say that two shop owners were competing for the same person to work for them - on offers a dollar an hour more than the other - the first guy is going to have to pay more, or no-one will work for him.

I see a whole lot of Pollyanna in this thread and not a lot of practical application.
And I see a whole lot of socialist ideals & union-speak.

Minimum wages actually keeps wages LOW, and there is never any performance-based pay element in them, so there is no incentive for staff to do a good job.
 
@@Ainwood

You're correct on point 1, of which evidence of such is the increasing number of times employees switch jobs/companies over the course of their work life (at least in the US). We can show this statistically as well

On your second point (minimum wage keeps wages low), im not so sure. It certainly doesnt help keep employees, since theyre no worse off going to another minimum wage job, so theyre less likely to actually put effort into their gig
 
JerichoHill said:
On your second point (minimum wage keeps wages low), im not so sure. It certainly doesnt help keep employees, since theyre no worse off going to another minimum wage job, so theyre less likely to actually put effort into their gig
Yep - and when they go to another minimum-wage job, the employer just gets someone else, again at minimum wage. It is a price control that prevents competition - and hence distorts the market.

A good example is here in NZ, where one left-leaning party wants to abolish 'youth rates'. NZ has a minimum wage for teenagers (15 - 18 year old IIRC) that is 80% of the adult minimum wage. There is a push to remove this, and force employers to pay the full minimum wage to everyone.

The problem is that the only reason most of these people have jobs is because their labour is cheap. Who wants to pay a 15 year old with zero work experience the same rate as (say) a 35 year old who has been working for 10-15 years? Or a mother grabbing a part-time job in the evenings?
 
ainwood said:
Not at all - the biggest payrise you'll ever get is by changing jobs. Labour is a resource - and is affected by supply & demand, just like anything else. Lets say that two shop owners were competing for the same person to work for them - on offers a dollar an hour more than the other - the first guy is going to have to pay more, or no-one will work for him.

And I see a whole lot of socialist ideals & union-speak.

Minimum wages actually keeps wages LOW, and there is never any performance-based pay element in them, so there is no incentive for staff to do a good job.
To be clear, minimum wage goes to people doing what exactly? It goes to the girl working the cash at the dollar store, the guy spinning pizzas over his head, the waitress taking food orders, the guy picking up blueberries for me and other low-paid jobs like these. Nobody's competing for these persons. No great performances to achieve there.
 
Top Bottom