Minimum Wage Laws

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='03 November 2009 - 04:00 AM' timestamp='1257235201' post='1995630']
a just wage is one which is capable of providing the subsistence of the worker and his family. there's no hard fast rule, no set number; if a worker can prove he's not getting enough to live on he ought to be able to demand enough. I've suggested court systems or even some particular department similar to unemployment departments through which case by case issues would be dealt with. an employee could make a claim that they're not getting enough, with documentation, and the employer would be given a chance to dispute the claim, and a judgment would be made. no one's going to be making off rich based on such a claim, such a system would only ensure that people could get enough from their employer to fulfill their needs without having to resort to welfare or what not--because so long as they willingly work their income should supply their subsistence.

such fair wages might make certain products unable to be priced as low as they are at present. if there's just demand for them, the price will be raised to afford the wages and then there's a just equilibrium of a just price and a just wage. if a high enough price to afford wages cannot be sustained, the product shouldn't be sold because the seller would lose money on it. he can't cut his costs by lowering worker's wages below a living wage. this is why I'm saying there's a just equilibrium here when wages are just.
[/quote]Great on ideas, short on reality. You cannot provide realistic and sustainable solutions to artificial wage rates without a central athority. Effectively you give up market control to government which is fundamentally a bad idea because of the history of governments screwing it up. What you propose is closely modeled on the Fuedal System that provides sustanance jobs as a forced co-op. It will stagnate economic inovation and depress the over-all standard of living. Minimum wage obscures the principle that we MUST work for a living with the idea we are owed a living despite lack of effort.

And wal-mart doesn't just sell worthless plastic bits. W-M provides market access for labor in other markets, providing inexpensive goods in one market, and jobs that pay in another.

[dairygirl4u2c]

minimum wage doesnt obscure that we must work, as much as it high lights that if we work, it should be reasonable. a minimum that is too high, might obscure that we must work, but that's all.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='03 November 2009 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1257267956' post='1995702']
minimum wage doesnt obscure that we must work, as much as it high lights that if we work, it should be reasonable. a minimum that is too high, might obscure that we must work, but that's all.
[/quote]Again. No it doesn't. Minimum Wage sets the pay for the least skilled, least dedicated, lousiest and laziest worker, they will earn enough to live. That isn't justice, because they get paid more then they earn at the expense of those who work harder or smarter. It also ignores the pay for those who only want a temp job, part time job, or are learning the job and developing their skills.

[Nihil Obstat]

What jobs in the United States *typically* pay minimum wage?

Even when I first started at my very first part time job, I never made minimum wage. I certainly don't make that much, but it's well above minimum, and this job takes zero qualifications.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[dairygirl4u2c]

i always liked the idea of unemployment departments. or at least private departments that can effectively work with the government on the issues.one state has the folks work for employers do work for hire while the workers are going for free, to build skills, while getting unemployment. such a system could be abused, and would need tweeted to notch out the bulk of those abuses. but otherwise is a very good idea.

Edited November 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='03 November 2009 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1257280961' post='1995796']
i always liked the idea of unemployment departments. or at least private departments that can effectively work with the government on the issues.one state has the folks work for employers do work for hire while the workers are going for free, to build skills, while getting unemployment. such a system could be abused, and would need tweeted to notch out the bulk of those abuses. but otherwise is a very good idea.
[/quote] I've made it a point to utilize those type of programs. Unemployment to work, subsidized OJT, work-release from prison, etc. It's a fact of life in doing government contracts. However, about 70% of the people are gaming the system, sucking up the resources from the people who really need the opportunity and deserve the chance. As soon as the government steps in with rules and regulations, you have people figuring out how to take unfair advantage. Bureaucracy cannot use common sense or make judgement calls, they can only follow the black and white rules until the rules change. I've personally seen it for decades. People have to suffer the consequences of their choices as well as benefit from their efforts. Only people who are unable have the right to help. Sorry, but it's a tough life and it's scary having to provide for yourself and a family.

[Aloysius]

everyone who actually works earns their subsistence. the lousiest unskilled worker earns his subsistence and deserves to be paid it. those who are better workers should earn more than that, but a living wage should be the minimum. the worst worker should get paid a living wage, better workers getting paid more so that they can afford things which are luxuries rather than necessities.

I know Wal-Mart doesn't just sell the tiny bits of plastic (I haven't even defined a specific tiny bit of plastic). It's an example of something I think that, if people had to pay their actual cost in terms of the labor which produces them, people would be unwilling to pay for them.

The government rule should be simple: come to this department and prove to us that you're not getting enough to live on, and action will be taken to ensure you end up with a more just wage. there will always be people seeking loopholes... just like rich people seek tax loopholes; the point is to catch the people trying to exploit a loophole.

again, I don't believe in an arbitrary minimum wage. a snot nosed teenager doesn't necessarily deserve $7.25 an hour... and if he's taking a job away from someone who needs one, he doesn't deserve a job at all. but at the same time, a father of four might deserve more than $7.25 an hour; because the value of that father's labor is at least his family's subsistence. if you want to buy human labor, you have to pay in human subsistence.

Nihil, I don't know what jobs make minimum wage. There are some, but it depends in what area you live because some areas have to offer more competitive wages than that even for the lowest skilled jobs. I propose something like doing away with the minimum wage completely and having laws which give people access to some department or the court system where they can individually on case by case bases bring their grievances about having an unjust wage. such a person with a claim about an unjust wage should prove to that department that they need more for their family to live on, their employer being given the chance to dispute it. some people would try to exploit the system... just like some people abuse lawsuits and such; that doesn't mean we don't allow lawsuits. the person evaluating their case would look into their finances like an IRS audit... looking at what costs they have for the things that make up their subsistence and whether those costs are covered by their wage.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='04 November 2009 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1257311017' post='1995989']

I know Wal-Mart doesn't just sell the tiny bits of plastic (I haven't even defined a specific tiny bit of plastic). It's an example of something I think that, if people had to pay their actual cost in terms of the labor which produces them, people would be unwilling to pay for them.[/quote]

Am I reading you wrong, or do you adhere to Marx's labor theory of value?

~Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

I'm not at all using Marx's labor theory of value, and it's only a simplistic reading either of Karl Marx or of what I'm saying that would lead one to that conclusion. the labor theory of value holds that all profits are the result of the labor and thus all the profits are due to the worker. not even remotely what I'm saying... however, the labor of the worker is valuable--at least to the point of the worker's human subsistence. he deserves subsistence from his labor, so the product he makes must be sold at enough to provide him his subsistence at least(as well as provide the owner of the business at least his own subsistence as well, the owner being entitled to the profit due to his invested capital and risk and all that, which would starkly differ from Marx).

the value of a product is indeed partially determined by the labor expended upon it, it cannot be justly valued at less than enough to pay those who worked upon it a living wage. I'd say that unapologetically, and add it to the list of things I think, were everyone to really step back from all their preconceived biases, ought to be not simply a truth but a truism. if a worker works because he needs subsistence (thus he's working for his subsistence), then if you want to buy from him, you've got to pay him enough for his subsistence. the employer's got to pay him that much, so he's got to price it in order to afford to pay it to him.

again, I argue in favor of a just equilibrium; everything that deserves to be worked upon has a high enough demand that its value will pay at least living wages to those who work upon it.

[ardillacid]

What is subsistence?

[Aloysius]

food, shelter, clothing.

I think the lowest valued man's work is still worth the subsistence of his family--basic food, shelter, and clothing. no one should ever be forced to have a two-income family, or one person to have two jobs to make ends meet, because every employer has a responsibility for the subsistence of their employees through a just wage. that's the minimum cost of human labor--the subsistence of the worker and the worker's family. if you can't afford to pay someone that, you can't afford human labor.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='04 November 2009 - 05:41 AM' timestamp='1257327709' post='1996036']
food, shelter, clothing.

I think the lowest valued man's work is still worth the subsistence of his family--basic food, shelter, and clothing. no one should ever be forced to have a two-income family, or one person to have two jobs to make ends meet, because every employer has a responsibility for the subsistence of their employees through a just wage. that's the minimum cost of human labor--the subsistence of the worker and the worker's family. if you can't afford to pay someone that, you can't afford human labor.
[/quote]

Man's labor, in material terms, is worth whatever the market will pay for it. There is no objective value of physical production, as you propose. You are looking at the spiritual value of work, and trying to tack a material price tag onto it.

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='04 November 2009 - 03:55 AM' timestamp='1257321307' post='1996026']
I'm not at all using Marx's labor theory of value, and it's only a simplistic reading either of Karl Marx or of what I'm saying that would lead one to that conclusion. the labor theory of value holds that all profits are the result of the labor and thus all the profits are due to the worker. not even remotely what I'm saying... however, the labor of the worker is valuable--at least to the point of the worker's human subsistence. he deserves subsistence from his labor, so the product he makes must be sold at enough to provide him his subsistence at least(as well as provide the owner of the business at least his own subsistence as well, the owner being entitled to the profit due to his invested capital and risk and all that, which would starkly differ from Marx).

the value of a product is indeed partially determined by the labor expended upon it, it cannot be justly valued at less than enough to pay those who worked upon it a living wage.
[/quote]

The value of a product is not determined by the labor expended on it. If I make a painting which is identical to a Monet, but it only took me 10 minutes, and I churn out a thousand of them, will my painting be worth less than Monet's in part because it took me less time, or would it be worth less because people don't want my painting, they subjectively value art made by Monet? Scarcity and subjective valuation determine price, not, "This man slapped paint on a canvas, so he deserves to make money by doing so." Simply because I expend physical energy does not mean that I have a right to profit from it. I have a right to the profit I make [i]by [/i]expending my physical energy, in accordance with the agreement that I made with my employer, who pays me what he and I agree upon.

Must every individual, in justice, pay more than whatever price the market has determined through its subjective valuation, because it is [i]objectively[/i] "just?" A just price for a good is whatever the market decides upon, is it not? Does not that flow through into how much an employee can be paid? I believe that if people cannot make a subsistence living on what they do, their job will not exist, because the employer will not be able to stay in business. You seem to believe that the majority of business owners are cartels/guilds, and based on greed, they collude to pay the employee as little as they possibly can, keeping the laborer impoverished. You don't stay in business by treating your employees like garbage. The strongest and best business is not necessarily the one whose CEO gets paid exorbitant amounts, as we have seen in recent years. The strongest and most crash-proof businesses are the ones that treat their employees very well.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 4, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Paddington]

I'm not going to read 8 pages. Sorry. But, I appreciate what I did read.

Just throwing out there that Michigan upped the minimum wage 3 summers in a row. It's gone up over 2 dollars in that time. I make more than it, but I also make less than I used to. Nobody gets raises where I work. We all took pay cuts. *shrug*



Aloysius, I guess you would be okay with food, shelter, clothing [i]and medicine[/i]?
Also, do you think single men should make enough to be "marriageable?"

[dominicansoul]

The students that work for me get paid minimum wage. They struggle with this, because most of their week is spent in class, not working for a living. Many of them have two jobs and work full weekends to make ends meet while they are going to school. They are straight A students, and hard workers. Sadly, most of them will be deep in debt when they graduate, having lived on loans all this time...

I wish the millions given to this university wouldn't be spent on building bigger stadiums, or making the campus more aesthetically pleasing...I wish the students could get a cut of it somehow...there should be some way we can give the students a reasonable hourly wage. Some have to drop out, because they just can't make ends meet...and those I have seen leave were brilliant students... I think minimum wage is a big joke...how can we expect anyone to live on $7.25 an hour? With the higher cost of living, people are struggling to survive...