Minimum Wage Laws

[dairygirl4u2c]

i always said the amount should be what a single person can live off. and sure there's probably something to be said about variations across the country etc. maybe make it a lowest common denominator? i dont know. there's lots of ways of making the wage exist. the point of this thread, though, isn't the amount, it's that it should at least exist at some level.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

More statistics:

[url="http://freemarketmojo.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/teenage-unemployment-on-the-rise-minimum-wage-to-blame/"]"Teenage Unemployment Reaches Highest Level in History"[/url]

[url="http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleType=Bulletin&ArticleID=2608"]"Why causing unemployment is politically popular"[/url]

[url="http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba292"]"Minimum Wage Teen-age Job Killer"[/url]

[url="http://www.allbusiness.com/population-demographics/demographic-groups-adolescents/12596524-1.html"]"Economy, Minimum Wage Take a Toll on Teen Jobs"[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

charity does have its role. if a man is simply down on his luck but the mechanisms of society is alright, that deserves charity. if a man is simply unable to pull himself up, that probably demands charity. it's when the fundamentals of society are messed up that expecting charity to act, is misguided. charity as a role, government intervention, or something akin to that, does as well.

king is doing better arguing that the wage hurts people, i concede the point that he hasnt done a good job. i dont trust statistics either. id wonder whether those that are posted just reflect that younger people dont work as much, cause they wouldnt anyway. by and large, at least hte places ive lived even today, you can find a job at a fast food joint or something like that.

i think even if not an empiricist, ust a rationalist, would say that it's best to have the wages. no one is saying that having the wage doesn't kill some jobs. it's that on balance, it's better with the wage requirement. that's because the vast number of pepole who work minimum and somewhat over that at those types of jobs, benefit from it. even if you're not an empiricist, the numbers show employers only pay what they have to. that afffects more than just hte minimum, it's all the minimum territory. to oversimplify, would you rathre have 9 people making ends meet and one person who cant find a job, or four people making ends meet and the rest living in poverty? the numbers obviously can be manipulated to suit one's agenda-- but we see empirically, that people who make the minimum are the better for it, the norm in society, the mcdonalidizatio of america- by far tons and tons of people benefit. i know you dont want to be empircal about it, i dont really want to either... but at a certain point you have to, given the theory and numbers couuld be argued either way. just look around you, you see how the benefits are better than wihtout it.

maybe you'll just call my experiences and observations anectodal. so what anectodal evidence do you have? do you know of people who can't find minimum jobs that want them, at least in time? they have always found them, albeit with a struggle at times. most that i know dont want to work at mcdonalds etc. they can find a job if they want to.
i doubt that you have even anectodal evidence. empirically more generally... the unemployment numbers are interesting, but not compelling given the empiracal observation of the mcdonaldization of america and how people are the better for it.

also even if ya had anectodal evidence from right now, during a depression recession type time... that's notthe norm. the norm is what's tbeen the case for the last 70 years or whatever since we started having the minimum wage. plus, even if you had anectodal evidence, that probably means that the wages might be too high, at best.

or, are you saying that ultiamtely you think "more jobs even if more poverty" is better than "no poverty albeit a few lesser jobs than we'd like?

Edited October 29, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 October 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1256840486' post='1993398']
Dear God, Scrooge was a socialist!
I've got to remember that.
Thanks.
[/quote]

And Mr. Bumble was the 1830s version of a government social worker.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='29 October 2009 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1256844381' post='1993451']
And Mr. Bumble was the 1830s version of a government social worker.
[/quote]
I'm ashamed to admit that I've never actually read it. I've only seen movie adaptations.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1256843522' post='1993439']
I have pointed out numerous example of voluntary agreements that the state should step in and enforce.[/quote]

Yet, you haven't defined the standards on which you decide what voluntary actions President So-and-So should impose himself on and which ones he shouldn't. It seems arbitrary. I say that President So-and-So should use government force to prevent gluttony. He should send his boys with the guns to raid the home anyone who is suspected of eating an excessive amount of candy (we'll have Patty Ann Bureaucrat at the FDA define "an excessive amount"), break down his door with a battering ram, set their Tasers to "deep fat fry," and put on a rip-roaring spectacle for COPS, just like the good ol' days of the Coliseum. And if Fatso doesn't stop stuffing those Mounds bars down his gullet, President So-and-So's boys will either shoot him in the head or haul him off to the cages. Now [i]that's[/i] how you promote the virtue of temperance. Don't you agree?

[quote]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.[/quote]

"Rights" as in "workers rights" = no violence. Violence violates rights. Forcing a worker to charge a certain price for his own labor, which he does not wish to charge (because otherwise he'd charge it, wouldn't he?), is violent and violates his rights. I've already been through this stuff on the "anarchy" thread. Insofar as a state violates rights, it is acting illegitimately, according to the Catechism. Aggression violates rights by definition.

[quote]I have a Business degree and have taken many economics classes.[/quote]

Now I know where you got all these weird ideas.

[quote]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.[/quote]

You seem to be saying that both rationalistic arguments ("theories") and empirical arguments ("graphs") are irrelevant. Only your assertions about McDonald's are? McDonald's will turn people away if it's not in their best interest to hire them. Wages are a price, and prices are measurements of subjective market value between two individuals engaged in an act of voluntary exchange. Manipulating them forces people behave in ways contrary to their own preferences.

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

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='29 October 2009 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1256844357' post='1993450']
it's that on balance, it's better with the wage requirement. that's because the vast number of pepole who work minimum and somewhat over that at those types of jobs, benefit from it. even if you're not an empiricist, the numbers show employers only pay what they have to. that afffects more than just hte minimum, it's all the minimum territory. to oversimplify, would you rathre have 9 people making ends meet and one person who cant find a job, or four people making ends meet and the rest living in poverty?[/quote]

Even if this were true, hurting some people in order to help some other people is unjustifiable. It is objectively immoral. And as Henry Hazlitt states in his great book [i]Economics in One Lesson[/i], "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

[Anomaly]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1256843522' post='1993439']
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.
[/quote]Holy Cost vs benefit analysis, Batman! The above is shocking.

I am college educated in business and economics, and have sucessfully managed business enterprises for a few decades. I hope I have some inkling of the abstract concept described as reality.

McDonalds does not hire every acceptable applicant. They hire what is economically reasonable. If you can't see how labor costs add to the cost of the product, determine the selling price, and net profit affects the investors or shareholders, then how could I explain real business to you?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1256843522' post='1993439']
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.
[/quote]
...but it is true, it does cause higher unemployment. In fact I was given a percentage increase per dollar the minimum wage goes up. I was silly and didn't copy down the number or source, but this was published in a supplementary powerpoint presentation which was arranged by the authors of my economics textbook.

Oh, I found my quote. For a ten percent increase in minimum wage, teen employment (which is the employment which tends to be more affected by minimum wage laws) is depressed between 1 and 3 percent. I'll source that if you want to be really picky, but I can assure you it's there.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 October 2009 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1256847437' post='1993483']
...but it is true, it does cause higher unemployment. In fact I was given a percentage increase per dollar the minimum wage goes up. I was silly and didn't copy down the number or source, but this was published in a supplementary powerpoint presentation which was arranged by the authors of my economics textbook.

Oh, I found my quote. For a ten percent increase in minimum wage, teen employment (which is the employment which tends to be more affected by minimum wage laws) is depressed between 1 and 3 percent. I'll source that if you want to be really picky, but I can assure you it's there.
[/quote]

Nihil you really want to argue minimum wage laws on the basis of 1-3% of [i]teen unemployment[/i]? That seems like a really small percentage of the economy and workforce as a whole.

I'll accept this as true. If this is the cost we have to bear in order that others may have a fair wage - that 1-3% more of teens, ages 16-19, will be unemployed, I'll take it. Maybe this is incentive for staying in school until they're 18.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1256849420' post='1993496']
Nihil you really want to argue minimum wage laws on the basis of 1-3% of [i]teen unemployment[/i]? That seems like a really small percentage of the economy and workforce as a whole.

I'll accept this as true. If this is the cost we have to bear in order that others may have a fair wage - that 1-3% more of teens, ages 16-19, will be unemployed, I'll take it. Maybe this is incentive for staying in school until they're 18.
[/quote]
That's a significant number, especially considering you asserted that in reality, raising the minimum wage does not negatively affect employment.

Teen workers are the most affected by minimum wage laws, considering most of them make near minimum wage. Adult workers on average make significantly more than minimum wage. Therefore teen workers are the most representative demographic for questions about the effect of raising minimum wage.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[rkwright]

To anomoly and kingsrook...

Based on your previous posts your beliefs that I am simply too uneducated, have weird ideas, or don't have any experience in reality I will gladly and humbly step away from this thread.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 October 2009 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1256849577' post='1993500']
That's a significant number, especially considering you asserted that in reality, raising the minimum wage does not negatively affect employment.

Teen workers are the most affected by minimum wage laws, considering most of them make near minimum wage. Adult workers on average make significantly more than minimum wage. Therefore teen workers are the most representative demographic for questions about the effect of raising minimum wage.
[/quote]

Nihil I'll leave with two parts of John XXIII's encyclical Mater et Magistra. I hope this will help educate on the Church's position on the matter.

[quote]20. As for the State, its whole raison d'etre is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. It cannot, therefore, hold aloof from economic matters. On the contrary, it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods, "the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue." (7) It has also the duty to protect the rights of all its people, and particularly of its weaker members, the workers, women and children. It can never be right for the State to shirk its obligation of working actively for the betterment of the condition of the workingman.

21. It is furthermore the duty of the State to ensure that terms of employment are regulated in accordance with justice and equity, and to safeguard the human dignity of workers by making sure that they are not required to work in an environment which may prove harmful to their material and spiritual interests. It was for this reason that the Leonine encyclical enunciated those general principles of rightness and equity which have been assimilated into the social legislation of many a modern State, and which, as Pope Pius XI declared in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, (8) have made no small contribution to the rise and development of that new branch of jurisprudence called labor law.[/quote]

[quote]69. Nevertheless, in some of these lands the enormous wealth, the unbridled luxury, of the privileged few stands in violent, offensive contrast to the utter poverty of the vast majority. In some parts of the world men are being subjected to inhuman privations so that the output of the national economy can be increased at a rate of acceleration beyond what would be possible if regard were had to social justice and equity. And in other countries a notable percentage of income is absorbed in building up an ill-conceived national prestige, and vast sums are spent on armaments.

70. In economically developed countries, relatively unimportant services, and services of doubtful value, frequently carry a disproportionately high rate of remuneration, while the diligent and profitable work of whole classes of honest, hard-working men gets scant reward. Their rate of pay is quite inadequate to meet the basic needs of life. It in no way corresponds to the contribution they make to the good of the community, to the profits of the company for which they work, and to the general national economy.

Factors Determining Just Wage

[b]71. We therefore consider it Our duty to reaffirm that the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerfu[/b][b][/b]l. It must be determined in accordance with justice and equity; which means that workers must be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner. Other factors too enter into the assessment of a just wage: namely, the effective contribution which each individual makes to the economic effort, the financial state of the company for which he works, the requirements of the general good of the particular country—having regard especially to the repercussions on the overall employment of the working force in the country as a whole—and finally the requirements of the common good of the universal family of nations of every kind, both large and small.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]it's that on balance, it's better with the wage requirement. that's because the vast number of pepole who work minimum and somewhat over that at those types of jobs, benefit from it. even if you're not an empiricist, the numbers show employers only pay what they have to. that afffects more than just hte minimum, it's all the minimum territory. to oversimplify, would you rathre have 9 people making ends meet and one person who cant find a job, or four people making ends meet and the rest living in poverty?[/quote]

plus im not even convinced people cant find jobs due to the minimum wage, at all. it may hinder the ability to find jobs, and that might cause unemployment to go up. but the job will be found soon enough. that's only based on my anectodal evidence.. i cant be expected to base it on much other. most other unemployment is due to not wanting to work or bad workers etc.
for the reason why it's the justifiable thing to do... it all goes back to the basic stuff were were talking about in the "is chrisitanity socialism" thread. all the metaphors etc. eg, the man in the orchard getting paid an apple to pick all the apples, the giant who owns all the earth except a small patch where a family wants to branch off etc. those thyes of analogies. it goes back to the basic idea that a person is entiteld to something as a birthright, if they are willing to work. apparently anam agrees with this, but is against the minimum wage. im not sure how that works... if he thinks the government should be doing the 'bootstrap' giving, if the lack of wage laws wouldnt prevent 'bootstraps' reasonably etc.

plus that one person in my hypo, even if he did exist, and is unemployed, will be benefited by the government helping him out. otherwise, we'd have to help out all six people living in poverty.

Edited October 29, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='rkwright' date='29 October 2009 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1256849915' post='1993501']
Based on your previous posts your beliefs that I am simply too uneducated, have weird ideas, or don't have any experience in reality I will gladly and humbly step away from this thread.
[/quote]

I apologize if you felt insulted, but, truly, the idea that price controls are either just or economically beneficial is fallacious. Prices are not arbitrary. They are measurements and when the state finagles with them through diktats and decrees, it does hurt people. Like so many state interferences, it hurts the very people it is ostensibly supposed to help. I also consider it unjust, since I consider each person a sovereign individual with the inherent right to enter into whatever agreement he chooses provided it infringes on no one else's rights. Thus, if Joe chooses to trade his labor to Jim in exchange for $1.00 an hour, we may disagree with Joe's decision, but it is his right as a human being to make it, and no one, including the state, has the authority to use force to prevent him from doing so.

Unfortunately, I can only state my conscience that this:

[quote]the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace[/quote]

logically contradicts with other lines in those passages, such as:

[quote]"its whole raison d'etre is the realization of the common good"

"it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods"

"It has also the duty to protect the rights of all its people"

"It can never be right for the State to shirk its obligation of working actively for the betterment of the condition of the workingman."

"It must be determined in accordance with justice and equity"[/quote]

But the "laws of the marketplace" are no more than the effects of voluntary interaction between free individuals, and I have argued that a state-enforced wage floor harms the common good, restricts the production of material goods, violates the rights of the betters, degrades the condition of the workingman, and is unjust and inequitable. It also contradicts with this:

[quote]nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful.[/quote]

If wages aren't left up to the marketplace than who can they be left to other than the state. And is leaving it up to the state not leaving it up to "the will of the more powerful."

However, the argument that the minimum wage will lead to more prosperity for workers is not a statement of faith or morals, but a statement of economic theory, so this can not be taken as a conflicting with the pope's teaching authority. The goals the encyclical lays out are moral goals, and they are all right and good. But the best [i]means[/i] to achieve all of those goals [i]is[/i] for the state to "leave it up to the marketplace," which is an economic point, rather than a point of faith or morals. It's like if he said, "It's morally imperative for people to care for their bodies, and therefore everyone should eat at least three hamburgers a day." Well, the first point is a moral one, but the second point is a point of nutritional science, which is outside papal authority. I maintain economic science shows that voluntary interaction is the best means to achieve the moral goals stated by the pope.

EDIT: Now that I look at it a second time, even "the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace" might not contradict my contentions, provided you interpret "laws of the marketplace" to simply mean whatever an employer wants to pay. Arguably, if a worker has a family to support, an employer has a [i]moral[/i] obligation to see that the employee's family is taken care of, which this might not [i]strictly[/i] follow "the laws of the marketplace" (though I would define "marketplace" as encompasses all voluntary interaction). But a moral obligation does not mean the state has the authority to throw a person in prison for not fulfilling it.

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