Minimum Wage Laws

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 October 2009 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1256791347' post='1993196']
Dairy brought to mind I question I'd like to put to you:

In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, there were very little laws regulating anything in the industrial sector. Common thought is that the system was rampant with abuse in the form of dangerous conditions, unlivable wages, squalid housing complexes, and abuse towards workers, including children workers. How would you respond to those who assert that some government intervention was necessary to ensure a minimum of dignity in this society?
[/quote]

Is this intended for me? If so my answer is, firstly, that aggression/coercion/violence by one human being against another human being is antithetical to human dignity or any other good you can think of. How is there dignity if there is no justice? How does is it dignified for some human beings to attempt to control other human beings through the threat of violence?

As for the Industrial Revolution, my answer is threefold. First, I'm not convinced that conditions were as nightmarish as you describe. Now, I have no real evidence to support that. But I'm a little suspicious because find these descriptions usually come from people with an agenda and a vested interest to portray the Industrial Revolution as horrifically as possible. For example, [i]The Jungle[/i], which is often brought up as evidence for this, is a work of fiction written by a socialist muckraker. Is this a trustworthy source. This is not to say it was a garden of roses, of course.

Secondly, while there was far less regulation in the 19th century than there is today, there were still economic interferences that would have misdirected resources and made people poorer than they would have been otherwise, even in the United State. For example, protectionist tariffs--that was a big one. The monetary system was distorted through quasi-central banking, fractional reserve banking, forced tender laws, and bimetallism, creating numerous panics. There was the Patent Office. There were large subsidies to the railroad industry. And this is only the Federal level, never mind state and local.

Finally, and most importantly, standard of living has a natural tendency to improve over time due to innovation, the division of labor, and an ever increasing store of capital. It's unfair to criticize a past era for not being as prosperous as the current era. How could it be otherwise? The important thing is that the Industrial Revolution was a time of increasing standard of living compared to what had come before. Previous to the Industrial Revolution, all over the world and throughout all history since the development of agriculture 10,000 years before, the vast bulk of the population had been rural peasants. Many of the peasants determined that life in the cities was preferable to life in the country, so they moved their to make a better life for themselves. Compared to what they had had on the farm, the factory and the tenement house were an improvement. This movement goes on today in third-world countries. We worry about workers in sweatshops, but for such workers, that sweatshop is path to a better life than what they had had before.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='29 October 2009 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1256799481' post='1993238']
Is this intended for me? If so my answer is, firstly, that aggression/coercion/violence by one human being against another human being is antithetical to human dignity or any other good you can think of. How is there dignity if there is no justice? How does is it dignified for some human beings to attempt to control other human beings through the threat of violence?

As for the Industrial Revolution, my answer is threefold. First, I'm not convinced that conditions were as nightmarish as you describe. Now, I have no real evidence to support that. But I'm a little suspicious because find these descriptions usually come from people with an agenda and a vested interest to portray the Industrial Revolution as horrifically as possible. For example, [i]The Jungle[/i], which is often brought up as evidence for this, is a work of fiction written by a socialist muckraker. Is this a trustworthy source. This is not to say it was a garden of roses, of course.
[color="#0000FF"]I agree, it's good to stay suspicious.[/color]


Secondly, while there was far less regulation in the 19th century than there is today, there were still economic interferences that would have misdirected resources and made people poorer than they would have been otherwise, even in the United State. For example, protectionist tariffs--that was a big one. The monetary system was distorted through quasi-central banking, fractional reserve banking, forced tender laws, and bimetallism, creating numerous panics. There was the Patent Office. There were large subsidies to the railroad industry. And this is only the Federal level, never mind state and local.
[color="#0000FF"]Is this also true at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, around the time that the textile industry had its technological advances?[/color]


Finally, and most importantly, standard of living has a natural tendency to improve over time due to innovation, the division of labor, and an ever increasing store of capital. It's unfair to criticize a past era for not being as prosperous as the current era. How could it be otherwise? The important thing is that the Industrial Revolution was a time of increasing standard of living compared to what had come before. Previous to the Industrial Revolution, all over the world and throughout all history since the development of agriculture 10,000 years before, the vast bulk of the population had been rural peasants. Many of the peasants determined that life in the cities was preferable to life in the country, so they moved their to make a better life for themselves. Compared to what they had had on the farm, the factory and the tenement house were an improvement. This movement goes on today in third-world countries. We worry about workers in sweatshops, but for such workers, that sweatshop is path to a better life than what they had had before.
[color="#0000FF"]So then it again comes down to voluntary transactions, right? A man would go to work in the city, even if it might be less comfortable, if he thinks it's worthwhile in the long run for the pay, etc?[/color]
[/quote]

[rkwright]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='28 October 2009 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1256778243' post='1993009']
Immorality [i]does not equal[/i] illegality. We can judge these things as immoral, we can try to persuade people not to engage in them, we can argue that we know better. But we CAN'T put a gun to someone's head and threaten to shoot them or lock them in a cage. That is not a "special protection"; it is the [i]minimal[/i] requirement for justice. We do not have that authority. No human being does. No group of human beings does.

Shall we force everyone to convert, be baptized, attend Mass, and go to confession at the point of a gun? If we don't do so, does that make us "relativists"?
[/quote]

Thankfully the law does not share your view point on this. The law is based on morality, not some secular ideals such as the value of contracts. Human law should reflect divine law and in this sense it should do its part to uphold morality. It doesn't attempt to uphold every sense of morality but it does in some areas.


[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='29 October 2009 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1256797315' post='1993231']
Let's forget that term "exploitation." Every time I've heard it used, its intent is obscure whether an activity is aggressive or voluntary. As I've already stated, employment is an act of voluntary trade (labor for money) between two human beings. Therefore, it's not aggressive. So instead you say it's "exploitative." A meaningless term. Let's stop infantilizing other human beings by trying to impose ourselves on their voluntary choices.

As for poverty, price and wage controls create poverty. As I already stated, minimum wage floor cripple the competitive of primarily young, unskilled laborers, preventing them from gaining work experience for later in life. The fruits of aggression are always bad: poverty, war, social disintegration. Let's stop thinking we about good through aggression. We can't bring about anything but pain and misery, trying to herd our fellow human beings around at gunpoint.

And even if you [i]could[/i] bring about something positive through aggression (though you can't), it wouldn't matter because the ends don't justify the means. Nothing justifies injustice.
[/quote]

These word games and abstract theories are nice on paper, but do not reflect the truth of the matter. In truth workers were exploited. Its not a meaningless term - it means exactly what it says, and that is how the workers were treated. We are not infantilizing those humans at the time. They had to work to provide for their families, and this was the only work available. Your thought that minimum wage floors cripple the young, unskilled workers is just empirically false. There are plenty of young workers working for minimum wage everywhere. I doubt anyone would say we've brought pain and misery because some company was forced to be paid minimum wage. Companies are not people - though treated as persons in the legal sense - they don't have feelings, rights, or dignity. They're legal fictions.

Your ends justify the means seems to say that all punishment or all laws would be invalid because they're aggressive. Thankfully the Church does not teach this....

[rkwright]

I'm surprised to say that in all this no one is quoting Church teaching on it...

Heres some...

From John Paul II's Encyclical On Human Work
Part 7.
[quote]But in light of the analysis of the fundamental reality of the whole economic process--first and foremost of the production structure that work is--it should be recognized that the error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever man is in a way treated on the same level as the whole complex of the material means of production, as an instrument and not in accordance with the true dignity of his work--that is to say, where he is not treated as subject and maker, and for this very reason as the true purpose of the whole process of production.[/quote]
Part 19
[quote]This consideration does not however have a purely descriptive purpose; it is not a brief treatise on economics or politics. It is a matter of highlighting the deontological and moral aspect. The key problem of social ethics in this case is that of just remuneration for work done. In the context of the present there is no more important way for securing a just relationship between the worker and the employer than that constituted by remuneration for work. Whether the work is done in a system of private ownership of the means of production or in a system where ownership has undergone a certain "socialization," the relationship between the employer (first and foremost the direct employer) and the worker is resolved on the basis of the wage, that is, through just remuneration of the work done.

It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic system and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in the final analysis to be evaluated by the way in which man's work is properly remunerated in the system. Here we return once more to the first principle of the whole ethical and social order, namely the principle of the common use of goods. In every system, regardless of the fundamental relationships within it between capital and labor, wages, that is to say remuneration for work, are still a practical means whereby the vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of nature and manufactured goods. Both kinds of goods become accessible to the worker through the wage which he receives as remuneration for his work. Hence in every case a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and in a sense the key means.

This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage--that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home--or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives.[/quote]

From Pope Puix XI - The fortieth year
[quote]66. The just amount of pay, however, must be calculated not on a single basis but on several, as Leo XIII already wisely declared in these words: "To establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into account."[45]

[/quote]
[quote]70. Conclusions of the greatest importance follow from this twofold character which nature has impressed on human work, and it is in accordance with these that wages ought to be regulated and established.

71. In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family.[46] That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs.[/quote]

[quote]74...For everyone knows that an excessive lowering of wages, or their increase beyond due measure, causes unemployment. This evil, indeed, especially as we see it prolonged and injuring so many during the years of Our Pontificate, has plunged workers into misery and temptations, ruined the prosperity of nations, and put in jeopardy the public order, peace, and tranquillity of the whole world. Hence it is contrary to social justice when, for the sake of personal gain and without regard for the common good, wages and salaries are excessively lowered or raised; and this same social justice demands that wages and salaries be so managed, through agreement of plans and wills, in so far as can be done, as to offer to the greatest possible number the opportunity of getting work and obtaining suitable means of livelihood.[/quote]

In 2007 when the Bill was before the senate to raise the minimum wage, the USCCB stood in support of the bill. The USCCB issued this statement if anyone wants to read
[url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/20070119minwageaa.pdf"]http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/20070119minwageaa.pdf[/url]

Edited October 29, 2009 by rkwright

[Anomaly]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1256825451' post='1993296']
I'm surprised to say that in all this no one is quoting Church teaching...
[url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/20070119minwageaa.pdf"]http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/20070119minwageaa.pdf[/url]
[/quote]
Sure they all are refering to Church Teaching. That's the laugh of it. Everyone here can find justification of their position in Church Teaching. Refering to you latest footnote, see how it acknowledges that excessive lowering
AND raising of wage is not good for the economy. Also, notice it references that people need to work to their capacity.

Many posters here are young, and haven't been 'seriously' employed at all, or for very long. It's difficult for most people to realize what the difference is for people who just work enough to keep their job, and working to their capacity. People have the right to earn a living IF they work to their capacity. An economy should enable people to work to their capacity. The key to that is freedom of people to come and go, work or not, so the supply of labor is free to go where the demand is. By the same token, a business owner/employer, should be able to run their business to determine what he can really afford to pay a new hire.

People who are better versed in history then I, can assure you that England's Industrial Revolution was highly regulated, and that was part of the problem. It took some time to adjust government regulations to accomodate the new economic realities of machines shifting the demands for un-skilled labor from agricultural to factories.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='29 October 2009 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1256835386' post='1993361']
Sure they all are refering to Church Teaching. That's the laugh of it. Everyone here can find justification of their position in Church Teaching. Refering to you latest footnote, see how it acknowledges that excessive lowering
AND raising of wage is not good for the economy. Also, notice it references that people need to work to their capacity.

Many posters here are young, and haven't been 'seriously' employed at all, or for very long. It's difficult for most people to realize what the difference is for people who just work enough to keep their job, and working to their capacity. People have the right to earn a living IF they work to their capacity. An economy should enable people to work to their capacity. The key to that is freedom of people to come and go, work or not, so the supply of labor is free to go where the demand is. By the same token, a business owner/employer, should be able to run their business to determine what he can really afford to pay a new hire.

People who are better versed in history then I, can assure you that England's Industrial Revolution was highly regulated, and that was part of the problem. It took some time to adjust government regulations to accomodate the new economic realities of machines shifting the demands for un-skilled labor from agricultural to factories.
[/quote]

The Church documents do say excessive raising of wages is not just either. But the documents also say the wages should be such that one can provide for their family. Since a minimum wage job barely provides for this (its barely above the poverty level) it can be hardly be argued from Church documents that the minimum wage laws are too excessive.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Your thought that minimum wage floors cripple the young, unskilled workers is just empirically false."

i would agree with this from rk. it seems like King just insists that even the poor would be better wihtout the minimum wage. i suppose he could say that his insistence is just as good as ours. but, it seems at least we are providing proof, evidence. as i said in my initial post, the minimum wage law in the past 30 years in america, how it is in germany, rk posted the industrial revolution stuff. i made my point about inflation. and how, via the mcdonalidization of america, more often than not, they can afford to pay it, and do pay it, and it's all golden- anything else would mean by far much more poverty for more people even if a few more are hired without the minimum. i dont know how he'd say it's 'unfathomable' that we'd think the wage laws actually do good.- it's at least plausible, id think, as it's miniutely plausible (i see the reasoning, even if i think it's superficial and flawed) tosay that wage laws do more harm than good. at least we're attempting to engage in reasoning this stuff, more explicitly, less assertively. i think King is mostly hung up on the justice or lackthereof of intervening in contracts.

King, would you be for the government picking up the slack, if there were no minimum wage? i think the responsibility begins with the employer, by far most of the time. but i could see arguing it's not their primary responsibility, at least much of the time, and plausibly never. it's someone's responsibility, though, i would contend.

Edited October 29, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote]Is this also true at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, around the time that the textile industry had its technological advances?[/quote]

Yes. There has never been an absolutely pure free market anywhere or anytime in history, just like their's never been absolutely pure communism. In 18th century Britain, where the Industrial Revolution began, you had the protectionist Corn Laws, you had government-granted trade monopolies (e.g. the East India Company), you had the first central bank, the Bank of England, and so on. You had the Poor Laws, which were intended to be what we call today a "social safety net." Remember that supposedly laissez-faire world of Dickens?

[quote]“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

“You wish to be anonymous?”

“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."[/quote]

Why doesn't Scrooge give give alms? Is it because he's this laissez-faire free market guy who believes people should "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and all the jazz? No! He [i]supports[/i] the workhouses and the Poor Law! He [i]supports[/i] the Dickensian Welfare State! He pays his taxes. Why should he give to private charity too?

But, says the gentleman, many would rather [i]die[/i] than go to the government.

Well, says Scrooge, that's alright: it will solve the overpopulation crises!

[quote]So then it again comes down to voluntary transactions, right? A man would go to work in the city, even if it might be less comfortable, if he thinks it's worthwhile in the long run for the pay, etc?[/quote]

Yes, I think that is so. Often, the do-gooders who wish to help a poor man through the force of the state end up eliminating the best of his limited options. He chooses to work in a factory rather than work on a subsistence farm or beg on the street, so what do they do? Try to destroy his factory job! It's perverse.

Edited October 29, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='29 October 2009 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1256839546' post='1993397']
Yes. There has never been an absolutely pure free market anywhere or anytime in history, just like their's never been absolutely pure communism. In 18th century Britain, where the Industrial Revolution began, you had the protectionist Corn Laws, you had government-granted trade monopolies (e.g. the East India Company), you had the first central bank, the Bank of England, and so on. You had the Poor Laws, which were intended to be what we call today a "social safety net." Remember that supposedly laissez-faire world of Dickens?



Why doesn't Scrooge give give alms? Is it because he's this laissez-faire free market guy who believes people should "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and all the jazz? No! He [i]supports[/i] the workhouses and the Poor Law! He [i]supports[/i] the Dickensian Welfare State! He pays his taxes. Why should he give to private charity too?

But, says the gentleman, many would rather [i]die[/i] than go to the government.

Well, says Scrooge, that's alright: it will solve the overpopulation crises!



Yes, I think that is so. Often, the do-gooders who wish to help a poor man through the force of the state end up eliminating the best of his limited options. He chooses to work in a factory rather than work on a subsistence farm or beg on the street, so what do they do? Try to destroy his factory job! It's perverse.
[/quote]
Dear God, Scrooge was a socialist!
I've got to remember that.
Thanks.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1256835813' post='1993362']
The Church documents do say excessive raising of wages is not just either. But the documents also say the wages should be such that one can provide for their family. Since a minimum wage job barely provides for this (its barely above the poverty level) it can be hardly be argued from Church documents that the minimum wage laws are too excessive.[/quote]You're lost in who get's the minimum wage. Read the church documents. It also points out that children should have a child hood and women should be able to make caring for the household their duty. Minimum Wage laws, as currently practice, screws this up. An employer is being forced to pay Main Breadwinner wages to kids and others who don't want or shouldn't have to make the job their priority to take care of a family.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='29 October 2009 - 01:27 PM' timestamp='1256840864' post='1993402']
You're lost in who get's the minimum wage. Read the church documents. It also points out that children should have a child hood and women should be able to make caring for the household their duty. Minimum Wage laws, as currently practice, screws this up. An employer is being forced to pay Main Breadwinner wages to kids and others who don't want or shouldn't have to make the job their priority to take care of a family.
[/quote]

I haven't discussed the wages paid to women and children. I'm not lost in whose getting the minimum wage, I'm not even talking about that.

The USCCB spoke out that the minimum wage is barely enough to be considered a "main breadwinner wage" in our society.

The documents speak for themselves.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1256824076' post='1993289']
Thankfully the law does not share your view point on this. The law is based on morality, not some secular ideals such as the value of contracts. Human law should reflect divine law and in this sense it should do its part to uphold morality. It doesn't attempt to uphold every sense of morality but it does in some areas.[/quote]

First of all, the right of contract isn't "some secular ideal." People have a natural right to interact with each other freely and it is evil for a person to prevent through violence the non-violent interactions of two other people.

You have to remember what we're talking about. We're not talking simply about actions that you and I believe are wrong or bad. We're talking about actions that should be forbidden through [i]force[/i]: through guns and prisons. What justifies my pointing a gun at someone and marching him off to prison? Clearly, it's not simply that he [i]sinned[/i], for you say yourself that government does not "attempt to uphold every sense of morality." So which "senses of morality" [i]should[/i] it uphold? Which sins [i]should[/i] be stopped at the point of a gun? The only actions that can be legitimately forbidden through force are actions that violate someone's natural rights or what I call "aggression."

[quote]These word games and abstract theories are nice on paper, but do not reflect the truth of the matter. In truth workers were exploited. Its not a meaningless term - it means exactly what it says, and that is how the workers were treated.[/quote]

You criticize me for upholding the "secular ideal" of contract rights, then you defend Marxist exploitation theory?

[quote]Your thought that minimum wage floors cripple the young, unskilled workers is just empirically false. There are plenty of young workers working for minimum wage everywhere.[/quote]

You do not understand the laws of economics. It is pure logic that price controls are be destructive. It is 2 + 2 = 4. If you force all pencil sellers to sell their pencils for a higher price, what will happen? They will sell fewer pencils. Well, a wage just a price for labor. If you raise what happens? Fewer workers are able to sell their labor. I'm sure there are plenty of people working for the minimum wage and higher. Some peoples' jobs are protected by it; they have less competition. Why do you think unions support it? They want less competition from non-unionized, unskilled laborers. They want you to hire that professional carpenter rather than a three random guys who can do the same job in half the time for half the price altogether. They want to pull the ladder of success up behind them. That's what the minimum wage does. It creates a hire hurdle for people at the bottom to leap over.

[quote]I doubt anyone would say we've brought pain and misery because some company was forced to be paid minimum wage Companies are not people - though treated as persons in the legal sense - they don't have feelings, rights, or dignity. They're legal fictions.[/quote]

This is a straw man. In the first place, companies are [i]groups of people[/i], owners and employees. I've already explained the employees: the younger, less experienced, less skilled employees are kept out or kicked out while the more experienced ones unfairly benefit from artificially restricted competition. And the owners are unfairly hurt. Owners are not all rich guys in mansions (though simply because someone's rich doesn't justify hurting him economically). Many are small business owners living quite humble lives, and those are the ones most likely to be hurt by this, since they can less easily afford it. [i]Most[/i] owners nowadays are shareholders: that's Mom and Dad with their retirement savings in their 401(k). They're hurt by it. And the consumers are hurt by it, which is everyone.

[quote]Your ends justify the means seems to say that all punishment or all laws would be invalid because they're aggressive. Thankfully the Church does not teach this....
[/quote]

"Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Can you love your neighbor as yourself if you refuse to respect his rights while wanting him to respect your rights?

Edited October 29, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Anomaly]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1256841730' post='1993414']
I haven't discussed the wages paid to women and children. I'm not lost in whose getting the minimum wage, I'm not even talking about that.

The USCCB spoke out that the minimum wage is barely enough to be considered a "main breadwinner wage" in our society.

The documents speak for themselves.
[/quote]
Oh. So women and kids can automatically be paid less because they shouldn't be the main breadwinner? The USCCB are just chasing their politics and are not intellectually honest. The fact is, there are jobs that poorly-trained monkeys could do that can be done by a fluid workforce (part time kids that need a job for the summer, someone who needs to earn a little extra cash for the family because of an unforseen expense, a young person entering the workworld and developing their maturity and work ethic). Minimum wage laws eliminate those positions because the employer is put into the business choice of having to Full Time, Experienced, and Committed Pay Scale to Part Time, Unskilled, Temporary Employees. If the Employer must pay $15 of wage, he should get $15 of ability and commitment. Or, in other words, if Pay Sufficient to Support a Family is being given, the work output should be Sufficeint to Support a Family.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='29 October 2009 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1256837908' post='1993381']
i would agree with this from rk. it seems like King just insists that even the poor would be better wihtout the minimum wage. i suppose he could say that his insistence is just as good as ours. but, it seems at least we are providing proof, evidence. as i said in my initial post, the minimum wage law in the past 30 years in america, how it is in germany, rk posted the industrial revolution stuff. i made my point about inflation. and how, via the mcdonalidization of america, more often than not, they can afford to pay it, and do pay it, and it's all golden- anything else would mean by far much more poverty for more people even if a few more are hired without the minimum. i dont know how he'd say it's 'unfathomable' that we'd think the wage laws actually do good.- it's at least plausible, id think, as it's miniutely plausible (i see the reasoning, even if i think it's superficial and flawed) tosay that wage laws do more harm than good. at least we're attempting to engage in reasoning this stuff, more explicitly, less assertively.[/quote]

It is [i]implausible[/i] that the minimum wage would do more good than harm. It defies logic. Why not simply raise the minimum wage to $100k per day? Of course, you'll say that that's unreasonable, but there's some "sweet spot" within which the minimum wage works. Why would that be? Why should the economic principles change?

I'm a rationalist, not an empiricist, and I prefer to argue from reason. I don't trust statistics and "data." They can be twisted in any way you want. But if you must have a statistic:

[url="http://mises.org/story/2130"]Mythology of the Minimum Wage[/url]

[quote]Real statistics indicate that the critics of minimum wage laws were right all along. While it is true that minimum wages do not drive the national unemployment rate up to astronomical levels, it does adversely affect teenagers and ethnic minorities. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate for everyone over the age of 16 was 5.6% in 2005. Yet unemployment was 17.3% for those aged 16-19 years. For those aged 16-17 unemployment was 19.7%. In the 18-19 age group unemployment was 15.8%. Minimum wage laws do affect ethnic minorities more so than others.[3] The unemployment rate for white teens in the 16-17 age group was 17.3% in 2005. The same figures for Hispanic and black teens were 25% and 40.9% respectively. Of course, these figures decrease for older minorities. Blacks aged 18-19 and 20-24 had 25.7% and 19.9% unemployment in 2005. For Hispanics unemployment was slightly lower — 17.8% at age 18-19 and 9.6% at age 20-24.[/quote]

[quote]
i think King is mostly hung up on the justice or lackthereof of intervening in contracts.[/quote]

Yes, I am hung up on the morality of it, as opposed to utilitarian arguments. Should that surprise you?

[quote]King, would you be for the government picking up the slack, if there were no minimum wage? i think the responsibility begins with the employer, by far most of the time. but i could see arguing it's not their primary responsibility, at least much of the time, and plausibly never. it's someone's responsibility, though, i would contend.
[/quote]

It is the [i]moral[/i] responsibility of individuals in society to care for those who can't care for themselves. However, it must not at the point of a gun. Forced charity isn't charity at all.

Edited October 29, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn

[rkwright]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='29 October 2009 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1256842236' post='1993421']
You do not understand the laws of economics. It is pure logic that price controls are be destructive. It is 2 + 2 = 4. If you force all pencil sellers to sell their pencils for a higher price, what will happen? They will sell fewer pencils. Well, a wage just a price for labor. If you raise what happens? Fewer workers are able to sell their labor. I'm sure there are plenty of people working for the minimum wage and higher. Some peoples' jobs are protected by it; they have less competition. Why do you think unions support it? They want less competition from non-unionized, unskilled laborers. They want you to hire that professional carpenter rather than a three random guys who can do the same job in half the time for half the price altogether. They want to pull the ladder of success up behind them. That's what the minimum wage does. It creates a hire hurdle for people at the bottom to leap over.



This is a straw man. In the first place, companies are [i]groups of people[/i], owners and employees. I've already explained the employees: the younger, less experienced, less skilled employees are kept out or kicked out while the more experienced ones unfairly benefit from artificially restricted competition. And the owners are unfairly hurt. Owners are not all rich guys in mansions (though simply because someone's rich doesn't justify hurting him economically). Many are small business owners living quite humble lives, and those are the ones most likely to be hurt by this, since they can less easily afford it. [i]Most[/i] owners nowadays are shareholders: that's Mom and Dad with their retirement savings in their 401(k). They're hurt by it. And the consumers are hurt by it, which is everyone.



"Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Can you love your neighbor as yourself if you refuse to respect his rights while wanting him to respect your rights?
[/quote]

For some reason I'm not able to quote your entire post, specifically your first section. I understand that not all parts of morality should legislated, Aquinas confirms this. But this is not a deal that just because people have a right to interact that the State should reject any laws that constrict any voluntary agreements. I have pointed out numerous example of voluntary agreements that the state should step in and enforce. The Catholic church through its Bishops and the Popes has spoken that workers rights and wages specifically are an area in which the state has a role.

I don't defend any Marxist exploitation theory. But to say that the workers were not exploited is just revisionist. Its also ignorant of the facts of today.

I'm surprised you assume I do not understand the law of economics. I have a Business degree and have taken many economics classes. I understand the argument. But there is something called reality. You can say Minimum wage laws puts people out of work. In application, this is just not true. Give all the theories you want, but its simply not true. Graphs are fine and great, but they don't reflect the reality. McDonalds doesn't turn someone away because they can't afford it, they turn them away because they're not an acceptable employee.

I don't see how the minimum wage laws hurt consumers or shareholders. The cost is deminimus for most companies.