FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Edwards rallies for minimum wage hike





smalls
At least there's one line in this article that's legitimate:
Quote:
“There is absolutely a political reason behind this,” Wade said.

The current push nationwide to raise the minimum wage is a huge mistake. The economic case against minimum wage is cut an dry. Minimum wage is bad for businesses, and therefore bad for the economy. For details on how minimum wage actually hurts the poor just google "economics of minimum wage" or "cost of minimum wage", or just check out this article.
My biggest problem, however, with minimum wage is that it is simply immoral. The government has no right to control the negotiations between and employer and an employee. If an employee is willing to work for a certain price, then he/she has every right to do so. Now you know my view, let's hear your view.
Biodiesel
What about slavery? So does the government not have the right to regulate the employer/employee relationship between the master and the slave? Since they obviously do, where do you draw the line? Sure you can pay someone 4 bucks an hour, have them live in a trailer, and all that, so poor that they don't have a chance to escape.

I for one don't believe we should allow a population so poor that the can hardly feed and house themselves slip further behind the economy that you are so concerned about.

Elevating people to a minimum sustainable level is the right thing to do, because we are not only a society of money, but a society of people too.

The "economic pain" you speak of is the top 2% losing a little to the lowest 35% of the population. That's not so bad. It means they are down to 25,000 acres instead of 30,000, and they have to give up the extra 100 car garage. Cry me a F*&*ing river.
HoboPelican
Quote:
The economic case against minimum wage is cut an dry. Minimum wage is bad for businesses, and therefore bad for the economy. For details on how minimum wage actually hurts the poor just google "economics of minimum wage" or "cost of minimum wage", or just check out this article.


Well, maybe you could quote something from a site that isn't pushing a political agenda. From their site
Quote:
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics

(BTW - The Austrian School is a school of economic thought associated with libertarianism)

If it is so cut and dried, you should offer something a bit more objective.

What is the real impact here? correct me if any of this is wrong. We are proposing a hike from 6.75 to 7.50 the first year. That's $30 a week for each employee, right? Pretty insignificant, in my mind. If your volumes are such that you can't cover that with a very minor price increase, you are going out of business anyway, I bet.

Controlling employers is a great place for the government to stick it's fingers. Remember segregation?


Edited 8:19 to correct messed up quotes. My bad.
smalls
Biodiesel wrote:
What about slavery? So does the government not have the right to regulate the employer/employee relationship between the master and the slave?

That's absurd! The contract between an employee and employer is voluntary. There is no such voluntary agreement between a master and a slave. Ridiculous argument!!!!
HoboPelican
smalls wrote:
Biodiesel wrote:
What about slavery? So does the government not have the right to regulate the employer/employee relationship between the master and the slave?

That's absurd! The contract between an employee and employer is voluntary. There is no such voluntary agreement between a master and a slave. Ridiculous argument!!!!


He wasn't putting slavery on the same level. I think he was trying to point out a scale of issues with slavery being at the end that obvioiusly needed government interference and asking where you draw the line. Seems like a valid question. Do you think there is anytime the government should get involved in how a business is run. What makes this issue so "cut and dried" for you.

Don't be so quick to call something ridiculous.
risuarez
If there were not minimun wage rate then the levels of inequality in the income distribution will get even worse. Remember that an economy is an structure supposed to benefit not only the business owners but the workers too. If there were no regulations then one sector will dominate the other. That is the scence of the marxist economic analysis. It is a class strugle. So the goverment should inteven to prevent either the workers taking advantage of the business owners (by the sindicates) or the business taking advantages of the workers (by satting to few wage rates). We have to bear in mind all that.
JoeFriday
actually, minimum wage laws hurt the people they are allegedly designed to help.. if the government sets a minimum wage, the employers automatically start their unskilled employees at that level.. the employees, who are almost invariably undereducated think "that's what the government says I deserve".. if that level had not been previously established, the employer and employee would be more likely to bargain for what both consider a fair wage
JoeFriday
oh, as far as the levels of inequality.. why should the government dictate what should be equal? if someone goes to college and acquires $80k in debt to become a doctor, should the government say "you're entitled to make $75k a year?" and should someone who dropped out of high school and became a crack addict now become 'entitled' to a job paying $30k a year just so he can be reasonably equal with the neurosurgeon?

besides, studies have shown that the vast majority of people earning minimum wage are young, starting their careers, and don't stay in minumum wage jobs for very long.. if we raised the minimum wage to be more in line with long-term wages, there would be significantly less motivation for certain people to enhance their skills.. which in turn would have a negative impact on our products and economy in the long run
smalls
HoboPelican wrote:
I think he was trying to point out a scale of issues with slavery being at the end that obvioiusly needed government interference and asking where you draw the line. Seems like a valid question. Do you think there is anytime the government should get involved in how a business is run. What makes this issue so "cut and dried" for you.

Yes, there is a time when the government should get involved. It's when one of the parties does not participate voluntarily. As long as each party involved is doing so by their own accord, then the government should play no role in the contract negotiations. As JoeFriday pointed out, minimum wage laws typically hurt those that they are trying to help. It's based on simple economics. If something costs more today than it did yesterday, then people will buy less of it. If employees cost an employer more, then the employer has only two options, increase the cost of his/her product, or hire fewer employees. Either way, it is those with lower incomes that feel the pinch. As Joe also pointed out, very few people supporting a family actually make minimum wage. If you don't believe me, and think I'm only putting up links to libertarian websites, then do a google search for yourself, read the pros and the cons of minimum wage from an economist's standpoint....then decide.
HoboPelican
smalls wrote:

As JoeFriday pointed out, minimum wage laws typically hurt those that they are trying to help
... It's based on simple economics. If something costs more today than it did yesterday, then people will buy less of it....



I don't buy that completely. I hear what you are saying, but I think you are ignoring the increased buying power of the people getting a larger wage. If you have unbiased data from a source that isn't pushing a political agenda that it will hurt the lower class, I'd love to look at it.

$30 bucks a week for each employee is not going to translated into much of a burden for a small shop owner.

All I can say is that if it's so cut and dried, why is there no consensus among economists? It seems somewhat duplicitous of you to make it sound so obvious when the experts are still arguing about.
smalls
HoboPelican wrote:
All I can say is that if it's so cut and dried, why is there no consensus among economists? It seems somewhat duplicitous of you to make it sound so obvious when the experts are still arguing about.

There will never be full consensus among experts of any topic. That said, there have been studies done to determine where economists stand on this issue. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
...the consensus among economics textbooks is that minimum wage laws should be avoided whenever possible as the costs exceed the benefits.

Also from Wikipedia:
Quote:
A 2003 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that 46% of academic economists in the US agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 28% partly agreed, and 27% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% partly agreed and 17.5% disagreed.

There are certainly valid arguments both for and against minimum wage. I happen to fall into the "against" category. I enjoy hearing other opinions.
HoboPelican
smalls wrote:
There will never be full consensus among experts of any topic.

Actually, in most fields, you get a better consensus on a "cut and dried" issue than 46%. That just makes my point that even the experts disagree to a large degree.

Quote:

Quote:
A 2003 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that 46% of academic economists in the US agreed with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 28% partly agreed, and 27% disagreed. The authors of this study also reweighted data from a 1990 sample to show that at that time 62% of academic economists agreed with the statement above, while 19.5% partly agreed and 17.5% disagreed.

There are certainly valid arguments both for and against minimum wage. I happen to fall into the "against" category. I enjoy hearing other opinions.


As I said, the 46% agreement just points up the doubts about the minimum wage increasing unemployment. And why bring up a survey from 1990, years before the Card and Krueger study? According to the Wiki article, that study gave evidence that MW had minimal or no effect on employment.

If I read that article correctly, the institution of MW in the UK has had no effect on emloyment.

It's a given that those getting the increase will benefit, but there is no definitive evidence of harm. I haven't seen any evidence that increasing the MW has affected unemployment in the US. Do you know of any studies besides Card/Krueger?

I just haven't seen anything to convince me that increasing MW will do more harm than good.
Biodiesel
[/quote]
That's absurd! The contract between an employee and employer is voluntary. There is no such voluntary agreement between a master and a slave. Ridiculous argument!!!![/quote]

If you read my post you might have understood the parallel between people so poor that they can't buy the gas to get out of town and slaves. But then again, you probably have very limited experiences in life.
Biodiesel
JoeFriday wrote:
oh, as far as the levels of inequality.. why should the government dictate what should be equal? if someone goes to college and acquires $80k in debt to become a doctor, should the government say "you're entitled to make $75k a year?" and should someone who dropped out of high school and became a crack addict now become 'entitled' to a job paying $30k a year just so he can be reasonably equal with the neurosurgeon?

besides, studies have shown that the vast majority of people earning minimum wage are young, starting their careers, and don't stay in minumum wage jobs for very long.. if we raised the minimum wage to be more in line with long-term wages, there would be significantly less motivation for certain people to enhance their skills.. which in turn would have a negative impact on our products and economy in the long run


This is all bullshit for a number of reasons. First of all it doesn't apply. You are taking math for retards right now joe aren't you. Recalculate your numbers, then post something that has something to do with minimum wage rather that the poor poor doctor who will pay off his college debt in 2.12 years if he lives modestly at 32.5k per year.

And the crack addict that makes WHAT??? You pulled 30k from you ass, didn't you. SHUT UP, YES YOU DID. Moron. You are the crack addict.


7.50 * 40/hours per week = 300
300 * 50/working weeks per year = 15,000
15,000 * 0.75 = 11,250 after taxes
JoeFriday
Biodiesel wrote:
JoeFriday wrote:
oh, as far as the levels of inequality.. why should the government dictate what should be equal? if someone goes to college and acquires $80k in debt to become a doctor, should the government say "you're entitled to make $75k a year?" and should someone who dropped out of high school and became a crack addict now become 'entitled' to a job paying $30k a year just so he can be reasonably equal with the neurosurgeon?

besides, studies have shown that the vast majority of people earning minimum wage are young, starting their careers, and don't stay in minumum wage jobs for very long.. if we raised the minimum wage to be more in line with long-term wages, there would be significantly less motivation for certain people to enhance their skills.. which in turn would have a negative impact on our products and economy in the long run


This is all bullshit for a number of reasons. First of all it doesn't apply. You are taking math for retards right now joe aren't you. Recalculate your numbers, then post something that has something to do with minimum wage rather that the poor poor doctor who will pay off his college debt in 2.12 years if he lives modestly at 32.5k per year.

And the crack addict that makes WHAT??? You pulled 30k from you ***, didn't you. SHUT UP, YES YOU DID. Moron. You are the crack addict.


7.50 * 40/hours per week = 300
300 * 50/working weeks per year = 15,000
15,000 * 0.75 = 11,250 after taxes


gosh, Biodiesel.. you're such a great debater.. it's a good thing you don't know where I live or you'd 'debate' my car with your keys

nobody making $15,000 a year is paying 25% taxes.. those people are actually making money at tax time because of Earned Income Credits and Head of Household credits.. instead of paying anything into the system, those people are actually getting back about $3500 more than they paid in taxes, thanks to people like me who actually ARE paying 27% (as I am, on my $32,500 income).. so dig out the calculator, and you'll see those people making $18,500 per year after taxes.. which is $7000 more than you think.. or $583.33 per month.. granted, they're not likely to be investing in real estate on that income, but your numbers are still wrong.. as is the rest of your argument

my $30k estimate is approximately the average national income.. I thought it might be important to use real numbers.. sorry, I didn't realize how easy it would be to confuse you.. I'll keep it simpler next time Smile
HoboPelican
Guys,
can we try and keep this a little more civil? Insults and threats are no way to make a point. If we can't do this civilly, I'll have to lock the thread.

To try to get this back on track, I'm still curious about your thoughts on the UK experience. What I've read is that no loss of jobs was noted and this was studied pretty intensely.
JoeFriday
I'm not sure you can make a proper correlation between the US and UK job markets.. perhaps I'm confusing the UK and France, but with the current job protection laws in effect, it's next to impossible to lose a job in those countries.. however, it severely affects new positions from being filled.. employers will suck it up and pay people already employed, but they are very hesitant to hire more

there is one case in the US where this is already happening.. the City of Chicago just passed a local law stating that companies employing over 10,000 (?) people in the state of Illinois are required to pay $10 minimum wage, plus $3 per hour in benefits.. this law was designed specifically to affect a few companies (WalMart and Target, mostly).. the basic 'soak the rich' mentality that inflicted the IRS on us in the first place.. the result of their decision to overrule companies' hiring practices was that no new Target stores will be built in Chicago (3 were slated for next year) and possibly no new Walmarts.. a loss of thousands of potential jobs will result
HoboPelican
JoeFriday wrote:
I'm not sure you can make a proper correlation between the US and UK job markets.. perhaps I'm confusing the UK and France, but with the current job protection laws in effect, it's next to impossible to lose a job in those countries.. ..


I can't speak with a lot of knowledge about losing jobs in the UK, maybe another member can address this. But since the source I mentioned made a point of noting that the UK did study to asess the impact on the job market, I would assume that they expected it as a possiblity. Anyone have better info?

The situation in Chicago, while interesting, is still evolving. Whether the stores would have created all those jobs is debatable, as is what they actually will do in the next 4 years.

The way I see it is that it is still not known with any certainity whether it will be a good thing or not. And if I'm not mistaken, past studies have not shown any conclusive negative results.
mabuhay
Quote:
If an employee is willing to work for a certain price, then he/she has every right to do so



In that case, lets see you work for less than minimum wage and struggle just to provide enough food your sorry self. "as long as it's good for business, it's good for the economy"?????? Are you on crack? If people don't have a decent income then they won't buy anything. Im not going to read that bogus article. I know enough not to argue for wage slavery. I don't want the country to go back to the 1900's.
JoeFriday
let's try to get back to reality now, shall we?

one other factor to argue against minimum wage increases is that many labor unions have their wages tied to the minimum anchor.. much like banks set their interest rates at the Prime Rate plus x-percent

if the miminum wage is raised, so are wages for hundreds of thousands of middle class workers.. the companies that employ those workers will not take a profit cut or their stocks will go down and people will lose jobs.. so they raise their prices.. raising prices wipes out the minimum wage increase.. so the net effect is zero
HoboPelican
JoeFriday wrote:
let's try to get back to reality now, shall we?

one other factor to argue against minimum wage increases is that many labor unions have their wages tied to the minimum anchor.. much like banks set their interest rates at the Prime Rate plus x-percent

if the miminum wage is raised, so are wages for hundreds of thousands of middle class workers.. the companies that employ those workers will not take a profit cut or their stocks will go down and people will lose jobs.. so they raise their prices.. raising prices wipes out the minimum wage increase.. so the net effect is zero


Lots of assumptions there with no numbers. If you want to talk reality, shouldn't we not make wild assumptions about what the final result will be? So far the only real-world study I've seen is the UK were there was no noted effect on employment. That is the only fact I've seen here. Everything else is simlye guess work, isn't it?
smalls
mabuhay wrote:
Quote:
If an employee is willing to work for a certain price, then he/she has every right to do so



In that case, lets see you work for less than minimum wage and struggle just to provide enough food your sorry self.

I did work for minimum wage....when I was a teenager (just like most other minimum wage earners). Then, I got a raise (just like most other minimum wage earners) because I worked hard. It's naive to assume that many people support families on minimum wage-level jobs. In fact, even illegal immigrants, on average, earn more than minimum wage.
vexation
smalls wrote:
It's naive to assume that many people support families on minimum wage-level jobs. In fact, even illegal immigrants, on average, earn more than minimum wage.


Really, its naive to assume that people are NOT supporting families on minimum wage. Yeah, people are supporting families by working multiple minimum wage jobs, some are doing it on one. And mentioning illegal immigrants just makes this system look even sadder, that people legally trying to make ends meet earn less than those who con and sneak their way into this country.

Quote:
That's absurd! The contract between an employee and employer is voluntary. There is no such voluntary agreement between a master and a slave. Ridiculous argument!!!!


You have to think about it in a larger sense. The contract between an employee and one employer may be voluntary, but imagine what would happen if the employee refused to accept the $3.00 an hour and went looking for another job he could find with his qualifications. Every other place has a similar wage because apparantly its OK to pay someone as little as they want. And school isn't an option because he has to support his family. Eventually, he will be forced into a state of involuntary servitude, wage slavery. It's an endless cycle, he must toil endless hours to barely support his family, if he decided to go to school the rent wouldn't be paid. If he were to get sick, he has no sick leave, because guess what, that isn't moderated. He has to see a doctor, he falls into debt because he has no money to pay for the bills and no insurance. The debt builds up and he can never pay it off because all his money goes toward rent and food. He has no way out. Almost like the relationship between master and slave, except with less brutality.
smalls
vexation wrote:
You have to think about it in a larger sense. The contract between an employee and one employer may be voluntary, but imagine what would happen if the employee refused to accept the $3.00 an hour and went looking for another job he could find with his qualifications. Every other place has a similar wage because apparantly its OK to pay someone as little as they want. And school isn't an option because he has to support his family. Eventually, he will be forced into a state of involuntary servitude, wage slavery. It's an endless cycle, he must toil endless hours to barely support his family, if he decided to go to school the rent wouldn't be paid. If he were to get sick, he has no sick leave, because guess what, that isn't moderated. He has to see a doctor, he falls into debt because he has no money to pay for the bills and no insurance. The debt builds up and he can never pay it off because all his money goes toward rent and food. He has no way out. Almost like the relationship between master and slave, except with less brutality.

Your little story would have greater impact, except that the same situation also leads to great success stories; ones where people start off on the bottom rung and work hard to end up at the top. If one person can do it, then others can as well. However, none of this has any bearing on my primary point....It's not the government's place to get involved in voluntary contracts between employers and employees. This is just my opinion, not based on cause and effect, just based on freedom. As I said before, I enjoy learning about everyone else's opinion as well. Thanks for all the feedback!
Biodiesel
This whole anti-minimum wage game is just a front put up by greedy people to support their own worthless lives. Increasing the minimum wage does nothing but level the playing field.

I don't really support people who are content to sit in a minimum wage job and waste away, but I certainly can't allow labor barons to rip the market a new one with a bunch of "raising the minimum wage will take money out of my pocket" crap. In truth, most companies charge 20-40/hour for a 7.50/hour laborer. They are dipping into poor peoples pockets to raise themselves from really rich to a tiny bit richer. This isn't the small business man who is hurt, it's the non-union labor force that is hurt. I am a small business owner, and I have no problem paying people well over the minimum wage. Many of my competitors are just the type of lowlifes that I'm talking about though. They pay 7.50/hour. They charge clients up to 50/hour. It’s crap. It's unethical. It should be against the law to treat people like that.
rwojick
In a free market economy suppy and demand are supposed to dictate the price of goods and services.

A minimum wage is a form of price fixing, and Capitalism abhors price fixing. Read Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations.

I suppose if you wanted to fix a price to encourage affluence you would do better to have a maximum wage. This would push everyone's income under a certain level and then when you go to the store to buy a steak you are not competing against Regis Philbin, who makes $45,000 dollars an hour, and I might be light on that, for that steak.

A minimum wage, like most goverment conversations, is a waste of time. And time is the real, limited commodity of our lives...
smalls
Biodiesel,
The fact that you pay far above minimum wage to your employees supports the argument that minimum wage is unnecessary. If you are paying "well over minimum wage" and other companies are paying minimum wage, then the employees of that other company have every right to compete to get a job working for you. This helps ensure that you are getting the better employees. If you really think that minimumm wage "does nothing but level the playing field", then why not raise the minimum wage to a point that would make everyone extremely wealthy? Why not make the minimum wage $100 an hour?
HoboPelican
@Smalls, rwojick - You guys keep finding fault with individual cases, but never put forth any real data on how the minimum wage hurts anyone. We've put up the UK instituting the minimum wage as a well studied instance of it NOT having any effect on employment rates. Do you have any data to support your side? Not Ideaology, not theory, but facts?
smalls
HoboPelican,
My fault is not with individual cases, it is with my basic belief that this is simply not the government's place. As I said in my original post: My biggest problem with minimum wage is that it is immoral. I don't think the government has the right to make business decisions for everyone else. So, while there certainly are arguments against minimum wage that are based on data, my primary fault with it is a moral one.
Would the world be a better place if no one smoked cigarettes? Would the world be a better place if no one was fat, and ate unhealthy foods? Sure, but that doesn't give the government the right to tell us that we can't do it. It's simply not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. We all can and should make our own decisions. That is why this country was created in the first place.
HoboPelican
smalls wrote:
HoboPelican,
My fault is not with individual cases, it is with my basic belief that this is simply not the government's place.


Thanks for the clarification... That puts us much closer together in outlook. Laughing

But I guess that brings us down to individual liberties and liberties of businesses... Now we can forget data I guess Wink

So let me see where you stand. Do you think the government has the right to set safety standards? Even if the employee is willing to sign a statement that he is willing to work in unsafe conditions? I just want to get a feel on how serious you are about government non-involvement.
smalls
HoboPelican wrote:
[Do you think the government has the right to set safety standards? Even if the employee is willing to sign a statement that he is willing to work in unsafe conditions? I just want to get a feel on how serious you are about government non-involvement.

As long as both parties (employee and employer) both fully understand the risks, then the government has no place in the negotiation. Just out of curiosity, where would you stand on that issue?
HoboPelican
smalls wrote:
As long as both parties (employee and employer) both fully understand the risks, then the government has no place in the negotiation. Just out of curiosity, where would you stand on that issue?


Strongly in favor of safety regulations. Just part of my reasoning is that a new employee is likely to have no clue as to what is safe and what isn't. How is he able to make a rational judgement of the risks? Trust the company? These regulations exists because companies had a history of not caring about empoyee safety and did a poor job (if any) at training and creating a safe environment. It was cheaper to get a new employee than to do things "safely".

I assume I haven't changed your mind about the safety regs, so I'd be interested in your response.
smalls
I don't have a whole lot of time right now, so I'll try to be quick. My short response is that now there are lots of watchdogs for those kinds of things.
Related topics
Viva La Bam
GM to Axe 30000 Jobs in US
What job do u have for now?what job do u want for wish?
Is outsourcing a real concern?
More Bad News for Brits? Wealth Redistribution
i was an extra in the two towers
MLK Jr's 'Bash Bush' event omitted some vital information.
9 Years Since Minimum Wage has been Increased
Repeal Minimum Wage?
Go Sarah, Go
If you have a one month vacation, where would you go?
What if I ran for office?
Let's give away money
Philanthropy fuelling inequality
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.