Minimum Wage Laws

[jonyelmony]

To be honest I have not read every post here. In economics you can roughly suggest there are two goals. Equality and efficiency and very often (but not always in say the case of education) they are at odds with each other. In other words there is very often going to be a trade off between overall wealth levels and the wealth of the poorest.

When you put in place a minimum wage it does two things, it redistributes money from employers of low skilled workers to low skilled workers, but it also decreases the amount of low skilled workers who are employed. Which factor dominates depends on the elasticity of demand for low skilled workers (Thus even though the Australian minimum wage is much more generous than the American minimum wage the Australian unemploment rate is not greatly different, especially when you consider the amount of people in prison). If you accept that the amount of money the poorest should live on is greater than what will be given to them before intervention there is really only one other way of redictibuting to the poor. That is to tax then provide welfare/subsidy for goods that poor people purchase. With every tax there still exists a cost to effciency and many taxes will reult in a decrease in the demand for unskilled labour so which policy/mixture of policies to use really requires an analysis of which has the greater cost as well as some other considerations ie Higher minimum wage gives incentive to look for work, while higher welfare, often reults in welfare dependency and a host of other negative consequences.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='02 November 2009 - 08:39 AM' timestamp='1257165577' post='1995171']
This points to the errors of Distributism, and your misunderstanding of a free market.

The level of need determines the value to the economy. If I decide to take the easiest and least skill demanding job out there, I put myself in the market with lot's of competion where the need is less than than the available supply, the value of my labor to the economy is very small. It's up to me, as owner of my abilities, to develop them and increase their value or look to a different labor need that pays more. Wal-Mart pays realistic prices for the skill level required and value to the economy. In return, they provide inexpensive goods to others. If you don't like your W-M pay, develop your skill or find another field. Life isn't easy. I know of LOT's of jobs that pay better than minimum to start. If a W-M job is the best you're capable of, then turn to social services and charity to help you provide basic survival.

Working people do not owe the sweat of their brow to slackers. Businesses do not owe a living to slackers. Society is responsible to care for the unable, but not the unwilling. Free markets provide the theatre for people to utilize their skills, inovation, new ideas, etc. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we humans can respond extremely well to need if we want to. Sadly, it's too easy for people to beleive someone else owes them instead of them being responsible for themselves.

By the way, what about addressing the questions in my last post? I think you believe that's a anomaly in the free market/capitalist system.
[/quote]
I addressed it by saying that instead of "most employers" I should've specified "most employers of unskilled labor". I don't think it's an anomaly, obviously pay rates are made competitively.

Willingness to work should be enough to allow for someone to work to provide their own basic subsistence. Ability and skill then bring the level up from basic subsistence for people who provide more valuable services to society.

If there is a need for something in society, then the demand for it will be such that workers can be paid just wages. The world could easily do without half the garbage being sold through wal-mart, and it tells wal-mart that through the prices it's willing to pay for that garbage. wal-mart's response is to sell it anyway.

it is fundamentally against man's dignity to create useless work just for the sake of work. a man ought to be able to earn his own subsistence through his labor if he's willing to work, regardless of how skilled he is--because there IS a demand for unskilled labor, and [b]the fundamental price of human labor is human subsistence.[/b] that's the lowest possible price anyone can pay for any type of labor while respecting the dignity of the person he's hiring. if you can't afford to pay that, well, then, you can't afford to hire anyone! human labor has a higher price than what you can afford, I'm afraid.

the whole protestant work ethic thing you're touting is utterly foreign to me... this whole blah blah blah about slackers and such... sure, there are people unwilling to work, those are the people that can't get jobs. the people who are willing to work, no matter how skilled they are, their WORK is worth their SUBSISTENCE and that of their family. that's the lowest amount it can be worth. it can be worth more than that, if their labor is in higher demand because of their specific skills, but any and all human work anyone's willing to offer is worth a living wage.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='02 November 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1257192758' post='1995344']
I addressed it by saying that instead of "most employers" I should've specified "most employers of unskilled labor". I don't think it's an anomaly, obviously pay rates are made competitively.

Willingness to work should be enough to allow for someone to work to provide their own basic subsistence. Ability and skill then bring the level up from basic subsistence for people who provide more valuable services to society.

If there is a need for something in society, then the demand for it will be such that workers can be paid just wages. The world could easily do without half the garbage being sold through wal-mart, and it tells wal-mart that through the prices it's willing to pay for that garbage. wal-mart's response is to sell it anyway.

it is fundamentally against man's dignity to create useless work just for the sake of work. a man ought to be able to earn his own subsistence through his labor if he's willing to work, regardless of how skilled he is--because there IS a demand for unskilled labor, and [b]the fundamental price of human labor is human subsistence.[/b] that's the lowest possible price anyone can pay for any type of labor while respecting the dignity of the person he's hiring. if you can't afford to pay that, well, then, you can't afford to hire anyone! human labor has a higher price than what you can afford, I'm afraid.

the whole protestant work ethic thing you're touting is utterly foreign to me... this whole blah blah blah about slackers and such... sure, there are people unwilling to work, those are the people that can't get jobs. the people who are willing to work, no matter how skilled they are, their WORK is worth their SUBSISTENCE and that of their family. that's the lowest amount it can be worth. it can be worth more than that, if their labor is in higher demand because of their specific skills, but any and all human work anyone's willing to offer is worth a living wage.
[/quote]Good. You are begining to understand free markets. "If there is a need for something in society, then the demand for it will be such that workers can be paid just wages." Goes along with the excerpt from the encylical that was posted earlier about considering the value to the overall economy when determining a just wage.

I laughed at what you call a protestant work ethic. I was not raised by anything close to Protestant. It was called basic working class Catholic. I was raised by a hardworking father of 6 who dedicated his free time all his life to St. Vincent DePaul. Catholic or Protty, how can you argue with this in Thessalonians? "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat

For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living."

I don't call my self Christian or Catholic, but I'm not stupid and say every principle they espouse is wrong.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

"beginning to"? this is what I've been saying through the whole thread. sheesh.

if there is a need, then the demand will be high enough. if the demand isn't high enough that workers can be paid justly, then the thing shouldn't be made at all--because there is no need for it.

actually, I shouldn't have addressed an accusation of the protestant work ethic to your comment specifically; but it is prevalent in society, even in your working class Catholic forebearers, because Capitalism arose out of Protestantism. see Max Weber for more discussion of the difference between a Catholic work ethic and a Protestant work ethic. work is not the end of man, it is the curse of man. leisure is to be valued above all.

basic overview of Weber's 'protestant work ethic': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

again, as I said and that verse reiterates: those unwilling to work shouldn't eat. but ALL OF THOSE who are WILLING to work, regardless of their skill, ought to be able to work enough to eat.

[Anomaly]

Then we are at a mutually understood impasse. My life experience and world view establishes my foundation that a Minimum Wage Law, enforced by Governments whether in Capitalism, Communism, or Distributism, is demeaning to people and serves mostly to feed those unwilling to work.
True free markets, where workers are free to mover their labors to where it's more valuable, for companies that provide the best value, grows the economy and provides the highest living standard for the greatest amount of people, while providing engough surplus to care for those truly in need. TANSTAAFL

You choose to err on the side of the lazy, which is an over-all detriment to society.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

no one who is willing to work is lazy.

we do not disagree that different levels of skill and value in labor can be assigned different levels of wages depending upon their value to the business; where we disagree is that I say that the lowest possible value of labor is subsistence and it's unjust to pay anyone lower than that, and if one doesn't value the labor enough to pay that then the labor isn't valuable enough to exist. as we are at that impasse, I'll develop my thoughts further in terms of the actual 'minimum wage laws' topic and see if a new direction can be taken...

I do not believe in an arbitrarily set minimum wage; as I said, it treats snot nosed teenagers the same as fathers of four. The law I would like to see in place would be one in which the courts, or even some type of specific department, were available if one was not receiving enough to sustain himself and his family. Systems much like the unemployment system now (which is basically paid into by businesses like an insurance policy, if I understand it correctly; the more people you send to unemployment, the higher your premiums) could be in place to ensure that any such person who could prove his case in court about not receiving a living wage would then be able to get a living wage from their employer. Such a system could decrease the amount of welfare which has to be dished out by the state and connect every worker's understanding better that they never get paid for doing nothing from the faceless tax payers, as welfare receivers do, they just get paid at least the minimum subsistence amount for actually working, from their employer.

[Nihil Obstat]

Under your proposed system, wouldn't most of the lowest paid labour simply disappear?
You stated that products which are not valued enough to provide high enough wages for its producers should not exist in the first place. Fine, so those jobs have to disappear. This won't create other jobs elsewhere, they'll just be gone. Won't that leave some of the lowest paid people in that area out of work entirely, instead of trying to get by on a small wage?

[Aloysius]

is there not enough labor on things that are needed by society to go around? if there's enough food in the country, there's enough labor to earn that food. if the absence of frivolous and unnecessary jobs means no jobs, then the whole economy is completely messed up due to the concentration of ownership in the hands of a few who cannot provide the right kind of jobs for people.

do you really mean to tell me that if people aren't buying useless bits of plastic, there's no useful job that can be offered to the average Joe? the fact is that without the useless bit of plastic, there's no job that's useful to the far away distant "owner", but there's certainly work available to the average Joe that's beneficial to him.

anyway, do you not think that there is enough labor to be done on things that are valued enough to support subsistence wages?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='02 November 2009 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1257198132' post='1995393']
is there not enough labor on things that are needed by society to go around? if there's enough food in the country, there's enough labor to earn that food. if the absence of frivolous and unnecessary jobs means no jobs, then the whole economy is completely messed up due to the concentration of ownership in the hands of a few who cannot provide the right kind of jobs for people.

do you really mean to tell me that if people aren't buying useless bits of plastic, there's no useful job that can be offered to the average Joe? the fact is that without the useless bit of plastic, there's no job that's useful to the far away distant "owner", but there's certainly work available to the average Joe that's beneficial to him.

anyway, do you not think that there is enough labor to be done on things that are valued enough to support subsistence wages?
[/quote]
If that were true, wouldn't we expect a labour shortage in some of the markets for necessities? The shortage would drive wages up naturally and the frivolous items would face labour shortages in turn.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Aloysius]

there is not such a shortage in the artificial economy we currently live in (with its fictitious definitions of 'property' and such) because consumers spend their money on things that they don't value enough to buy at a fair price for the amount of labor that went into it. if prices truly had to reflect the amount of labor put into something, then the things which would be sold would be things that people truly wanted. the same amount of wealth would be in the pockets of the consumers, they would still be spending that wealth... so there would still be things to sell to them. just not cheap trinkets.

and really, if there's truly not enough labor available to earn shares of the food, then somebody out there's working too hard and there's a question why we really should have to work at all. I suppose it's the 'energy slaves'--the machines--that would provide this gap in labor. What I would say to that is that the whole of mankind ought to benefit from the machines then, as an alleviation of the curse of Adam (the same way womankind benefits from modern medicine in the alleviation of the curse of Eve in childbirth). and that would all come back to the proper definition of 'property' and 'ownership'; there are only a few who own these energy slaves that make so much of human labor unnecessary... but ownership of them ought to be widely distributed based on a proper understanding of ownership in relation to use and physical power.

the point is that there's a just equilibrium of just prices and just wages which would indeed provide jobs to nearly everyone... and if you really step back and look at the economy for what its purpose is, and look at the resources of the earth (which all mankind has a right to), and disallow hoarding based upon Lockean property philosophies, it should be a quite simple truth. almost a truism: "if there's enough food in a country, there ought to be enough work available to earn a share in that food"... if there's not enough work available for all work to be subsistence-generating, then so much the worse for work because if that's the case we might as well live in a Star Trek economy, wherein people don't have to work for their own subsistence but only work to further mankind's progress, their subsistence already being assured because there's no actual need for them to work for it. I suggest that there is enough work, it just has to have an economy which actually creates it.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='02 November 2009 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1257198132' post='1995393']
is there not enough labor on things that are needed by society to go around? if there's enough food in the country, there's enough labor to earn that food. if the absence of frivolous and unnecessary jobs means no jobs, then the whole economy is completely messed up due to the concentration of ownership in the hands of a few who cannot provide the right kind of jobs for people.

do you really mean to tell me that if people aren't buying useless bits of plastic, there's no useful job that can be offered to the average Joe?[/quote]

There are certainly jobs that can be offered to the average Joe, and I think they should be. But as long as people demand useless bits of plastic, jobs will be created to supply that demand. And as long as the State is in charge of it, not enough of the fruit of the worker's labor would make it into his pocket. If people demand more of what they need, and less of what they simply want, the economy would reflect their decisions. It is a desirable goal. The means have got to be simultaneously moral and conducive to that end.

[quote]anyway, do you not think that there is enough labor to be done on things that are valued enough to support subsistence wages?
[/quote]

I do think there is enough labor to be done on things that are valued enough. But I don't think enough people value what they ought nearly enough to make it universally possible. Only when the individuals in a society value the right things will you see "social justice." You can't bring it about by statute.

I would warmly welcome more people valuing what they ought, provided it comes from a peaceful transformation in the heart of the individual.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 3, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='02 November 2009 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1257199604' post='1995410']
the point is that there's a just equilibrium of just prices and just wages which would indeed provide jobs to nearly everyone... and if you really step back and look at the economy for what its purpose is . . .. I suggest that there is enough work, it just has to have an economy which actually creates it.
[/quote]

I would merely stipulate that there is [i]potentially[/i] enough of the right kind of work, but otherwise, exactly.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 3, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

the point is that people don't actually value the plastic bits, that the demand isn't high enough for the plastic bits. they ought to have to pay what it costs to make them; and what it costs is human labor, and the base lowest price that should be available for human labor is a living wage. if there is not high enough demand for that then the plastic bits ought not to be made because there's no moral way to make them.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='03 November 2009 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1257226528' post='1995602']
the point is that people don't actually value the plastic bits, that the demand isn't high enough for the plastic bits. they ought to have to pay what it costs to make them; and what it costs is human labor, and the base lowest price that should be available for human labor is a living wage. if there is not high enough demand for that then the plastic bits ought not to be made because there's no moral way to make them.
[/quote]

To quote a friend, Aloysius, "Who decides?" Who decides what a just wage is? Who decides what people buy and don't buy? Who decides what they are allowed to produce?

~Sternhauser

Edited November 3, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Aloysius]

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.