S/O What wage would you set for min wage?

[Mama Geek]

What I find disturbing is companies who get a huge tax credit to build their business in a community, and then pay the workers very little. $8/hr, full time, is just not enough for a family to survive on. So the workers, because they don't earn a living wage, are eligible for food stamps, housing subsidies, and other government assistance, not to mention various tax credits. All this "cutting costs" on the business end just means that businesses are foisting responsibility for people's financial survival on the government, and getting paid for it. It also penalizes those who try to work for a living, because they might end up with fewer benefits (such as health care!) than they would if they remained on welfare.

 

I started a new thread instead of hijacking the other thread. If $8/hour isn't enough to work at Bass Pro (they were giving tax incentives to come into an area near me), then what is enough? Is $30 an hour enough? If employees made $30 and hour could everyone else afford to shop there? Would a T-shirt at Bass Pro then cost $100 just to cover the expenses?

 

When minimum wage goes up the cost to live goes up. There is more demand for things because those making more money start spending more. I just don't see how this helps anything. Am I the only one that sees it this way?

[Haiku]

Eight bucks an hour times 2000 hours (the general amount of time worked in a full-time year) yields $16,000, which is 150% of poverty level. My recommendation is that minimum wage should yield 200% of poverty level, just because it's a nice round number that actually gives people the ability to live and not have to depend on welfare programs. When you pay people crap wages, they are more likely to avail themselves of public assistance.

 

Tara

[justasque]

Eight bucks an hour times 2000 hours (the general amount of time worked in a full-time year) yields $16,000, which is 150% of poverty level.

 

Doesn't poverty level depend on how many people the wages are supporting?

[Crimson Wife]

I would set a separate minimum wage for those who are under 21 and working no more than 20 hours/week, so that young people don't get priced out of the labor market. Teenagers working for pocket money don't need a "living wage", KWIM?

[Miss Marple]

I wouldn't mandate a minimum wage at all if I were "in charge" ;)

 

People can choose to work for a miser or not. Those who pay well and treat their employees well would reap the benefits of having LOTs of qualified applicants and satisfied employees. Misers would go out of business.

 

I do believe in workplace laws for safety, etc., but not the the degree that we now see in our country.

[creekland]

I started a new thread instead of hijacking the other thread. If $8/hour isn't enough to work at Bass Pro (they were giving tax incentives to come into an area near me), then what is enough? Is $30 an hour enough? If employees made $30 and hour could everyone else afford to shop there? Would a T-shirt at Bass Pro then cost $100 just to cover the expenses?

 

When minimum wage goes up the cost to live goes up. There is more demand for things because those making more money start spending more. I just don't see how this helps anything. Am I the only one that sees it this way?

 

I don't think governments should set any minimum wage. Part of the reason so much manufacturing has been shipped overseas has been due to minimum wage and benefit issues. I'd like to see business run itself when it comes to (most) pricing and wages. (monopolies excepted)

 

When people can't afford to buy, prices will come down to where wages and prices will work. A constant escalation of both (inflation) is of no real benefit IMO.

 

I'd also adjust child labor laws to let more kids work. There'd be far less juvenile crime if kids could do something useful and weren't so bored.

[athena1277]

I would set a separate minimum wage for those who are under 21 and working no more than 20 hours/week, so that young people don't get priced out of the labor market. Teenagers working for pocket money don't need a "living wage", KWIM?

 

I have never thought of that. Very good idea. :thumbup:

[Mama Geek]

What about the rest of my statement when min wage goes up so does the cost of living...food, clothing, shelter, gas, etc. because there becomes more demand for it.

 

If Bass Pro Workers can go out and buy 2 packs of hot dogs instead of 1 the price of hot dogs then goes up. (That is a pretty simple example, but that is basic economics.)

 

A better example might be a real life example that happened a few years ago. Power in my area was lost for 2 weeks due to a tropical storm. The government decided to give ice away. Lines had hundred of people anytime a truck showed up and people walked away with armloads of ice (at least the first 100 or so.) Everyone else had to do with out. I had a deep freeze full of food that I probably could have saved had I been able to buy a couple of bags of ice over the course of the 2 weeks and I would have been happy to pay $10 a bag. We did without ice, drank hot sodas and never had a cold glass of ice water while cleaning up after the hurricane.

[Haiku]

 

Those who pay well and treat their employees well would reap the benefits of having LOTs of qualified applicants and satisfied employees. Misers would go out of business.

 

 

 

Um, yeah ... that's precisely how it has worked throughout history.

 

Oh ... wait ... no it hasn't. ;)

 

Doesn't poverty level depend on how many people the wages are supporting?

 

Yep. I was basing it on one person. I don't really think that someone should expect to raise a family on minimum wage. It's called "minimum" for a reason.

 

I would set a separate minimum wage for those who are under 21 and working no more than 20 hours/week, so that young people don't get priced out of the labor market. Teenagers working for pocket money don't need a "living wage", KWIM?

 

Good idea, as long as teenagers aren't doing the same jobs as adults and just getting paid less. Equal pay for equal work, right?

 

Tara

[FO4UR]

I would set a separate minimum wage for those who are under 21 and working no more than 20 hours/week, so that young people don't get priced out of the labor market. Teenagers working for pocket money don't need a "living wage", KWIM?

 

discrimination

 

I don't think this is a good idea for many reasons, but mainly I don't think it's right to determine what a person can make based on age. Not to mention, there are 18-21yo out there living adult lives by all accounts, and maybe some of them are mothers working pt to support the family budget...should a 21yo mother be paid less than a 22 yo mother? Regardless of if the person is a mother, married, single, supporting their weekend party or supporting themselves through college, it's bad to set a $ cap on age. .02

[Mama Geek]

I am glad to see that I am not the only one that thinks the min. wage should be done away with. Sometimes I really have to wonder.

[Plucky]

I would set a separate minimum wage for those who are under 21 and working no more than 20 hours/week, so that young people don't get priced out of the labor market. Teenagers working for pocket money don't need a "living wage", KWIM?

 

I don't agree. My 16-year old is a more responsible hard worker than some of the adults where he works.

[Miss Marple]

Um, yeah ... that's precisely how it has worked throughout history.

 

Oh ... wait ... no it hasn't.

 

 

Tara

 

I don't believe one makes laws for today based on history. There has been a lot of education both social and academic that has moved our current society from the society of the sweat shops, etc. So...I still believe freemarket works with some guidelines for safety, etc.

 

And if we're talking about history, I will say that I understand the reason unions came into existence, but IMO they are now a huge part of our current economic problem. Human avarice and bad behavior occurs on both ends of the spectrum (owner - worker). Regulating one simply gives the other room to become tyrannical.

[Crimson Wife]

My 16-year old is a more responsible hard worker than some of the adults where he works.

 

Perhaps, but as a group, adults tend to be more reliable workers than teenagers. Some teenagers are unusually mature for their age and some adults immature. But as an overall trend, with age tends to come maturity.

 

If I'm going to have to pay $15/hr (or whatever the "living wage" is) for some low-skilled worker, I'm almost certainly going to hire an adult over a teen. Having a minimum wage set based on what it costs to support an adult would price teens out of the job market.

 

If a teen proves to be a great worker, he/she should be able to find someone willing to pay more than the teen minimum wage for his/her labor.

[Plucky]

Perhaps, but as a group, adults tend to be more reliable workers than teenagers. Some teenagers are unusually mature for their age and some adults immature. But as an overall trend, with age tends to come maturity.

 

If I'm going to have to pay $15/hr (or whatever the "living wage" is) for some low-skilled worker, I'm almost certainly going to hire an adult over a teen. Having a minimum wage set based on what it costs to support an adult would price teens out of the job market.

 

If a teen proves to be a great worker, he/she should be able to find someone willing to pay more than the teen minimum wage for his/her labor.

 

I am not for raising the min. wage I guess. We do have the highest min. wage in the country, but we also have an extremely high cost of living. I don't think teens should get less than their adult counterparts for doing the same job. I think that if teens were paid less then it might make for less adult jobs, too since many would only hire teens.

[FaithManor]

I think we need to learn from history, therefore we do need to make decisions based on history - ie. the lessons we should be learning not just on what worked in the good, ole past and then look for more than bandaid here and now solutions so every solution should be looking ten years into the future. Unfortunately, not a big popular thing to do in this nation at this time and certainly not amongst our elected bobble heads.

 

That said, I'm a constitutional person. I believe in a constitutionally run government. So, I would have to research the constitution to see if setting a minimum is constitutional. A have a feeling that this should be the province of state's sovereignty and should remain that way. Some areas of the US cost far more to live than others. Some have more kinds of businesses in which a minimum needs to be established but others could get a way without such intervention. Sometimes the feds need to get their grubby little paws out of every single issue and let state governors and legislatures decide what is best for their people.

 

I also don't think a one size fits all policy for setting wages works well.

 

Faith

[pqr]

Zero.

 

It should not be up to the government to decide what compensation I am willing to accept or what my employer should pay.

 

Sometimes the job is simply not worth minimum wage.

 

Free people should be able to say, I will work for X without interference from the government.

[Miss Marple]

I think we need to learn from history, therefore we do need to make decisions based on history - ie. the lessons we should be learning not just on what worked in the good, ole past and then look for more than bandaid here and now solutions so every solution should be looking ten years into the future. Unfortunately, not a big popular thing to do in this nation at this time and certainly not amongst our elected bobble heads.

 

:iagree: We learn from history, but our decisions and laws should be based on what we learned did or did not work and then look at where society is today and use all of that information to make our laws. Saying that bad employers did not go out of business in the past (which was a vastly different time socially, academically, and economically) the same will occur today is overly simplistic. The technology advances and a more educated society and working class today show far different needs than the sweat shops and working class of the past. The workers of today, for the most part are more educated and would not tolerate the conditions of the past. Also, government assistance for the working poor did not exist then as it does now. There is less desperation on the part of the worker. I think one looks not at specific problems of the past, but tries to find the underlying issues that caused the problem in the first place, and take those issues into account when making laws for today.

[Tabrett]

I would set a separate minimum wage for those who are under 21 and working no more than 20 hours/week, so that young people don't get priced out of the labor market. Teenagers working for pocket money don't need a "living wage", KWIM?

 

Ummmm.... I was married at 20! Anyone over 18 is an ADULT! You can't pay younger adults less than other adults.

[Lolly]

I think minimum wage should be done away with. Whenever the minimum wage is raised, it always results in the price of everything going up. It costs more to pay the workers so the price of every service or good is increased to cover the wage raise. It is totally self defeating. I do not believe this is an area the govt. should be involved.

[Crimson Wife]

Ummmm.... I was married at 20! Anyone over 18 is an ADULT! You can't pay younger adults less than other adults.

 

The age of majority in many states is 21. You can't legally drink a beer, gamble, purchase a firearm, etc. if you're under 21. Our society has decided to make age 21 the dividing line between being an adult under the law and being a minor.

 

If someone is 18-20 and NOT in school, presumably he or she would be working much more than 20 hours/week.

[Mrs Mungo]

X-posting this to the other thread:

I have a relative who is a mid-level bigwig in a garment company. Quite a while back they were fined by Target for using child labor. His argument? The kids were glad to have those jobs, they were helping support their families. He could not make the connection that if you paid the adults a living wage, then kids would not need to work, they could go to school.

 

And yes, it means that socks or t-shirts from Target cost more than those from Wal-Mart, but they aren't $100.

 

That's what you get when you let big business police itself. You don't have to look at history, that's what is happening *now* and it's what would happen in this country if you repealed minimum wage jobs. If all of the companies are paying $2/hour, where do you "choose" to work?

 

*Right now* you see companies that have thousands of "part-time" employees, receiving minimum wage and no benefits while working 40 hours (or more, often off the books) per week. At the same time these companies are paying their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Our economy thrives when the workers thrive. When unions were prevalent people bought cars, moved out to the suburbs, put their kids through college. Yes, it meant that the upper crust could no longer behave as robber barons and they had to accept somewhat lower profits and wages for themselves.

 

The meatpacking industry is great example. The union put in place safety measures and made sure people were paid a living age. They could support their families. It was a decent job. With all of the right-to-work laws and union busting? Most of the people working in meatpacking plants are illegal immigrants working for below minimum wage under dangerous conditions.

 

When pay gets too low our entire economy suffers. That's what is happening *now*.

 

To pretend that companies are now all good and benevolent and that horrors of the past wouldn't happen again? It's naive, at best, because it is happening *now*.

 

The reason jobs are being shipped overseas is because of NAFTA and the repeal of tariffs on imported goods. If companies had to pay high import fees to import their goods to the US, then companies who kept their labor within the US would be competitive.

 

Right now, the federal government is enabling companies not to pay a living wage through the Earned Income Credit. The federal government is (in essence) subsidizing low income workers. It is a sort of compromise between robber barons and those who want to see a living wage policy.

 

And, yes, the federal government does have a right to police wages under the commerce clause.

 

The age of majority in many states is 21. You can't legally drink a beer, gamble, purchase a firearm, etc. if you're under 21. Our society has decided to make age 21 the dividing line between being an adult under the law and being a minor.

 

If someone is 18-20 and NOT in school, presumably he or she would be working much more than 20 hours/week.

 

I agree with this. I worked more than 20 hours when I was in college. I worked 40 hours (sometimes more, under the table), and I should not have been considered a part-time employee. That's part of the problem is letting companies define "part-time employee."

 

eta: What would I do? There are a lot of different living wage propositions and calculators out there. Almost any of them would be better than what we have now. And a set *formula* for a living wage would account for regional differences. Here is how one company is handling it (there *are* good companies, they are just few and far between): http://www.alternatives.org/livable.html.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Renee in NC]

The age of majority in many states is 21. You can't legally drink a beer, gamble, purchase a firearm, etc. if you're under 21. Our society has decided to make age 21 the dividing line between being an adult under the law and being a minor.

 

If someone is 18-20 and NOT in school, presumably he or she would be working much more than 20 hours/week.

 

The ageof majority is 18 in all states except Alabama, Nebraska, and Mississippi. Gambling age is determined by state and type - many states allow gambling at 18 (and almost all allow lottery purchases at 18.:tongue_smilie:) Gun purchases depend on the type of gun - it isn't illegal for an 18 year old to *have* a handgun as long as it is being used for "legitimate purposes" (hunting, target shooting, etc.) Rifles and shotguns can generally be purchased by an 18 year old.

 

21 is most definitely not the dividing line between adult and minor - parents are no longer required to support or provide for children over the age of 18. Other than alcohol and handguns, most things are allowable at 18. Child p0rn is "under 18." In many states, 16 year olds are prosecuted as adults and in some places even younger (like the 12yo in FL years ago.)

[Hannah C.]

The age of majority in many states is 21. You can't legally drink a beer, gamble, purchase a firearm, etc. if you're under 21. Our society has decided to make age 21 the dividing line between being an adult under the law and being a minor.

 

If someone is 18-20 and NOT in school, presumably he or she would be working much more than 20 hours/week.

 

I recently learned that in some states, you can gamble at 18, depending on whether alcohol is served at the gambling place or not. I don't know about purchasing firearms, but I'm fairly certain that would vary too. An 18 year old can sign a lease, get married, and many more other adult things. The difference between 17 and 18 is much bigger than the difference between 20 and 21.

 

If someone is 18-20 and NOT in school, but there is a law in place that says that those under 21 who work less than 20 hours a week can then be paid less than those who are 21 and up, I think employers would restrict the hours of those under 21 in order to be able to pay them less. I've also heard of plenty of people who've supported themselves through college by working. This sort of a law would make it impossible for them to do so -- not only would their working hours be restricted, but they would also be getting paid less per hour.

 

Now, giving *teens* less pay or restricting their hours makes sense. In fact, I'm fairly certain that in some states the law *does* restrict teenagers from working more than a certain amount of time or after a certain time at night, for their own protection, because the assumption is that school is their primary job and you shouldn't be asking teens to do an adult's job. But paying one adult less than another simply because that adult isn't yet 21? Not okay.

[Mama Geek]

Now, giving *teens* less pay or restricting their hours makes sense. In fact, I'm fairly certain that in some states the law *does* restrict teenagers from working more than a certain amount of time or after a certain time at night, for their own protection, because the assumption is that school is their primary job and you shouldn't be asking teens to do an adult's job. But paying one adult less than another simply because that adult isn't yet 21? Not okay.

 

I know that there are laws like this in places, but why isn't a parent the one that decides how much a child can work rather than the government? I worked tons of hours babysitting, pet sitting, house sitting, and working as a waitress when in high school. All of which typically paid less than min. wage. I often worked until midnight and sometimes worked all night.

[prairiebird]

 

Now, giving *teens* less pay or restricting their hours makes sense. In fact, I'm fairly certain that in some states the law *does* restrict teenagers from working more than a certain amount of time or after a certain time at night, for their own protection, because the assumption is that school is their primary job and you shouldn't be asking teens to do an adult's job. But paying one adult less than another simply because that adult isn't yet 21? Not okay.

 

I think if you're old enough at 18 to be sent into war, you're old enough to be compensated at your job the same as someone over 21.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think if you're old enough at 18 to be sent into war, you're old enough to be compensated at your job the same as someone over 21.

 

Again, it's already been stated that if you are over 18, not in school and working full-time, then this would not apply to you.

[Renee in NC]

Now, giving *teens* less pay or restricting their hours makes sense. In fact, I'm fairly certain that in some states the law *does* restrict teenagers from working more than a certain amount of time or after a certain time at night, for their own protection, because the assumption is that school is their primary job and you shouldn't be asking teens to do an adult's job. But paying one adult less than another simply because that adult isn't yet 21? Not okay.

 

Those under 16 are restricted to number of hours and times of day when school is in session. 16-17 is only restricted to jobs that have not been deemed "unsafe". I know this because we were fined for allowing my then 15 yo to do something considered "unsafe" by the Labor Board. It didn't matter that it was my son at my business.:glare: I didn't volunteer to the "child labor investigator" that my then 9yo did the same thing at times!:tongue_smilie:

 

ETA: The laws only apply to one workplace and not to things like babysitting. A teen could have multiple jobs and the law not violated unless they exceed the hours at *one* job. Teens are also not restricted from owning their own businesses.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Renee in FL

[Haiku]

I don't believe one makes laws for today based on history.

 

But we're not "making laws for today" when discussing minimum wage. Minimum wage was enacted because, when there was little or no regulation, companies were NOT doing the things that people who believe in little or no regulation say they would do if there were little or no regulation.

 

There has been a lot of education both social and academic that has moved our current society from the society of the sweat shops, etc.

 

I believe this has happened because of the laws that were enacted. Since it is now illegal to exploit child workers or force people to work unpaid overtime, people have come to believe it is wrong. Repeal these laws and I doubt it would take long for people to start thinking this was ok again ... not for them, of course, but for those who are "willing" to be exploited.

 

Tara

[Miss Marple]

If all of the companies are paying $2/hour, where do you "choose" to work?

 

You obviously choose the $2/hour company if you want to work. So everyone in your scenario will be making $2 per hour and those products which are priced beyond the $2/hour earner will decrease in price because NO ONE (since all are working for $2/hour) will be able to pay the previous price. So as wages fall, consumer prices fall as well. If the minimum wage increases, cost of goods increase. So where is the benefit?

 

There is a lot more to this whole issue than just minimum wage. It cannot be discussed in isolation because the impact isn't just on the wage earner. The costs of employing a workforce impacts the system as well. When the government places heavy burdens (taxes, documentation, etc.) on the employer where he can no longer make a reasonable profit, he goes out of business and jobs are lost. Yes, there are a few LARGE corporations which have appalling practices, but the majority of jobs are sustained by the small business owner - a vanishing breed in today's economy. Why have the headache of owning a business if there is little profit? The cost/benefit ratio is the most important aspect for a small business owner to consider. High costs with small benefit drives them out of business leading to similar problems experienced in the early 1900s when there was no middle-class (worker or business owner) but only rich and powerful business owners and poor workers.

[Celia]

Hmmm.

 

I think there should be a minimum wage, and I think all imported good should also be only legally traded if the country they are bought from not only has a minimum wage, but also follows good labour and environmental regulations.

 

I think the price of goods should go up, our upper class standard of living should go down, and we should stop being a first world country at the expense of developing (or perhaps, undeveloping) countries.

 

Our society needs to become less 'disposable', less materialistic, and our happiness should not be linked to our bank accounts. The rich should get poorer, and the poor should get richer.

 

Okay, maybe that wouldn't work. I don't know, but something like that :)

[creekland]

 

There is a lot more to this whole issue than just minimum wage.

 

You know what? I've just seen one die-hard liberal teacher at school switch to being a die-hard conservative (all financial - not talking social issues) because HE decided to open up a small business and has been having to go through the gov't hoops himself to try to stay in business and make a profit. When he was "just" an educator, the gov't seemed to be the best answer and he dutifully taught that at a public school. Since he's been in the business owner world his eyes opened up.

 

I've seen it happen to new business owners multiple times and switched myself too in years past, but it is rather interesting to hear it from another recent convert just as this thread is being hashed out. (Though actually, minimum wage isn't the biggest issue, so it's only partially related.) And we're not talking big business nor exploiting anyone - just a guy trying to work to make an "extra" living for himself by providing a product many people want (or need) and the hoops and the fees and the regulations, etc, etc, etc,. associated with it. This teacher now has very little good to say about gov't... and he's in the history dept - still teaching! There's hope. ;)

[QueenCat]

our upper class standard of living should go down,

 

Why? If someone does the job to earn more, they shouldn't be able to buy the nice extras? That's socialism at it's best. And job losses for those who make/sell the luxury products.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't believe one makes laws for today based on history. There has been a lot of education both social and academic that has moved our current society from the society of the sweat shops, etc. So...I still believe freemarket works with some guidelines for safety, etc.

 

And if we're talking about history, I will say that I understand the reason unions came into existence, but IMO they are now a huge part of our current economic problem. Human avarice and bad behavior occurs on both ends of the spectrum (owner - worker). Regulating one simply gives the other room to become tyrannical.

 

But that isn't how it has worked. The meat packing industry got rid of the unions and brought in migrant workers to do those jobs for 1/2 the pay. The safety standards plummeted and worker injuries rose.

 

Regulation is necessary IMO. There are people who will do evil in the world. It is just how it works. No amount of education will stop a person who is out to make a quick buck.

 

We just had a huge financial crisis partly due to lack of regulation. The people who caused it will serve *ZERO* prison time. I am sure they were highly educated.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Sis

[FaithManor]

Yes, we can't really have this discussion without drawing into it the impact on small business. My dad owns a heating business. In a really good year, in this rural area, his gross is $350,000.00 per year. His net profit, $12,000.00 or less and he'll pay half of that in business tax. That's a 50% tax burden! He and mom, between them, work 115 hours per week in the business and draw in wages from the LLC, $32,000.00 for all of that hard work. They employee three people full time and my college aged nephew part time. They used to employ ten, over the years, one by one, they've had to let them go because of the increasing cost of doing business. The office manager makes more in salary and benefits than my parents do and only works 40 hours per week. She complains constantly about my parents getting rich on her back!!!!! Really, the ceiling is caving in in their living room and the area is cordoned off with caution tape because they can't afford to have the old ceiling removed and new drywall hung.

 

Small business employs 65% off all Americans...not large corporations. We are losing small businesses every day in this nation. This is very scary. If the state of Michigan raises taxes on small businesses again, dad is going to have the LLC declare bankruptcy. Bye bye jobs to his employees, bye bye money to the three restaurants in that town that his customers tend to frequent when they come to do business, bye bye money to the gas station where they fill up, it all impacts everything else.

 

Our system has been runaway insane for so long that I'm not even certain that having a discussion on minimum wage is relevant anymore. I think we have to begin with a fiscally viable, accountable, audited government, a repeal of NAFTA, and tariffs on imported goods even if those goods are made by "America" companies. When American can actually employ it's people again, then we can have a dialog about what they should be paid and a reasonable wage formula. If we get manufacturing and technology back here, that will pour a lot of money into local economies which in turn will revitalize small businesses, which in turn, will employ more people. We can't be a services only economy. Services, in and of themselves, do not have intrinsic, concrete value that's easily measured. This is not something on which to base our economic future.

 

Faith

Edited January 12, 2011 by FaithManor

[Rivka]

X-posting this to the other thread:

I have a relative who is a mid-level bigwig in a garment company. Quite a while back they were fined by Target for using child labor. His argument? The kids were glad to have those jobs, they were helping support their families. He could not make the connection that if you paid the adults a living wage, then kids would not need to work, they could go to school.

 

And yes, it means that socks or t-shirts from Target cost more than those from Wal-Mart, but they aren't $100.

 

That's what you get when you let big business police itself. You don't have to look at history, that's what is happening *now* and it's what would happen in this country if you repealed minimum wage jobs. If all of the companies are paying $2/hour, where do you "choose" to work?

 

*Right now* you see companies that have thousands of "part-time" employees, receiving minimum wage and no benefits while working 40 hours (or more, often off the books) per week. At the same time these companies are paying their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Our economy thrives when the workers thrive. When unions were prevalent people bought cars, moved out to the suburbs, put their kids through college. Yes, it meant that the upper crust could no longer behave as robber barons and they had to accept somewhat lower profits and wages for themselves.

 

The meatpacking industry is great example. The union put in place safety measures and made sure people were paid a living age. They could support their families. It was a decent job. With all of the right-to-work laws and union busting? Most of the people working in meatpacking plants are illegal immigrants working for below minimum wage under dangerous conditions.

 

When pay gets too low our entire economy suffers. That's what is happening *now*.

 

To pretend that companies are now all good and benevolent and that horrors of the past wouldn't happen again? It's naive, at best, because it is happening *now*.

 

The reason jobs are being shipped overseas is because of NAFTA and the repeal of tariffs on imported goods. If companies had to pay high import fees to import their goods to the US, then companies who kept their labor within the US would be competitive.

 

Right now, the federal government is enabling companies not to pay a living wage through the Earned Income Credit. The federal government is (in essence) subsidizing low income workers. It is a sort of compromise between robber barons and those who want to see a living wage policy.

 

And, yes, the federal government does have a right to police wages under the commerce clause.

 

:iagree:Thank you for writing this.

 

I'm starting to think that for the sake of my blood pressure there should be a "libertarian content" tag in thread titles.

[goldberry]

Regulation is necessary IMO. There are people who will do evil in the world. It is just how it works. No amount of education will stop a person who is out to make a quick buck.

 

:iagree: The growing loss of the middle class and gap between the rich and the poor is not the result of too much interference from the government. It is the result of people not giving a crap about anyone but themselves and how to make their next dollar.

 

If the poor were making $2 per hour, there would still be the higher ups in that company willing to pay for things. So cost of living would not go down. The poor would just be poorer.

[pqr]

 

 

I think the price of goods should go up, our upper class standard of living should go down, and we should stop being a first world country at the expense of developing (or perhaps, undeveloping) countries.

 

Our society needs to become less 'disposable', less materialistic, and our happiness should not be linked to our bank accounts. The rich should get poorer, and the poor should get richer.

 

 

 

What you speak of is Communism or Socialism (depending on the degree to which you push your ideas)

 

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!- Karl Marx

 

That was tried, after some 100 million dead most have no realised that what you are suggesting only results in misery.

 

Churchill also answered put your position and put it to rest when he spoke about your philosophy.

 

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

[angela in ohio]

None. Government-enforced priceand wage floors and ceilings have caused enough damage to our country and our economy.

[Miss Marple]

But that isn't how it has worked. The meat packing industry got rid of the unions and brought in migrant workers to do those jobs for 1/2 the pay. The safety standards plummeted and worker injuries rose.

 

Regulation is necessary IMO. There are people who will do evil in the world. It is just how it works. No amount of education will stop a person who is out to make a quick buck.

 

We just had a huge financial crisis partly due to lack of regulation. The people who caused it will serve *ZERO* prison time. I am sure they were highly educated.

 

So, if the migrant workers chose not to work for 1/2 price and quit/sued for injury compensation because of the poor safety conditions, the business owners would have suffered the loss of their business - justly. Then someone else could have come in and set up a new business, complete with adequate safety measures and market-driven wages, employed a new workforce and served the community well.

 

What drove the meat packers to get rid of the union workforce? Was it greed or a sense of overburdening and lack of profits? There is a lot more to the story I'm sure. I do believe there are bad businesses and I fully support their demise - but it isn't the government's job to mandate that. A truly free market will manage well. Of course, this whole issue is also dependent on other related legislation such as illegal workers, etc. When the government doesn't handle what it is constitutionally required to handle, there is fallout.

[Slartibartfast]

So, if the migrant workers chose not to work for 1/2 price and quit/sued for injury compensation because of the poor safety conditions, the business owners would have suffered the loss of their business - justly. Then someone else could have come in and set up a new business, complete with adequate safety measures and market-driven wages, employed a new workforce and served the community well.

 

What drove the meat packers to get rid of the union workforce? Was it greed or a sense of overburdening and lack of profits? There is a lot more to the story I'm sure. I do believe there are bad businesses and I fully support their demise - but it isn't the government's job to mandate that. A truly free market will manage well. Of course, this whole issue is also dependent on other related legislation such as illegal workers, etc. When the government doesn't handle what it is constitutionally required to handle, there is fallout.

 

How can a migrant worker sue for injury compensation if they are not here legally? Don't you think that is part of the point of using migrants?

 

I would recommend you read Fast Food Nation.

 

I was talking about Tyson as in Tyson Chicken, they seem to be doing pretty well.

 

There is no history that shows that a truly free market is good for the workforce.

 

This isn't a just world, the bad guy often wins. It would be nice if it was truly just and everyone really was ethical but that isn't the case. That is why regulations and the settings of wages are necessary. If people truly believed in doing the right thing then there would be no need for it, but that isn't the case.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Sis

[goldberry]

So, if the migrant workers chose not to work for 1/2 price and quit/sued for injury compensation because of the poor safety conditions, the business owners would have suffered the loss of their business - justly.

 

People making $2/hour can sue somebody? And what if they had kids starving at home, so they took $2 so they could have a piece of bread instead of nothing?

 

The people who make this argument are the same ones who say "everybody who really wants to work can work, they will take whatever job they can". And yet then say, "if they paid $2, people could choose not to work". If everyone had that philosophy, who would there be left to work for?

[pqr]

And, yes, the federal government does have a right to police wages under the commerce clause.

.

 

...as interpreted in the 40s by the "New Dealers" of the FDR ilk. It was during this time that the Commerce Clause was vastly expanded. There is significant judicial opinion that the Commerce Clause has been overstretched and that the framers did not intend it to be interpreted as it is today. Until the Supremes decide otherwise it is the law of the land, but do not suggest that that this is not a debated and argued over point. It is certainly arguable that the min wage law is a violation of State's Rights as even W. Wilson argued during the first decade of the last century.

[Mrs Mungo]

I have a lunch to go to, but I wanted to say something about this:

 

You obviously choose the $2/hour company if you want to work. So everyone in your scenario will be making $2 per hour and those products which are priced beyond the $2/hour earner will decrease in price because NO ONE (since all are working for $2/hour) will be able to pay the previous price. So as wages fall, consumer prices fall as well. If the minimum wage increases, cost of goods increase. So where is the benefit?

 

Except that is NOT what happens when economies collapse.

 

What happens is what you see in Africa, in Afghanistan, in Russia. It's rule by gangs, thugs and the mob (in the organized sense or the Roman sense). You could look to the fall of Rome of the French Revolution to see the same thing, but you don't need to, it's present in the world now.

 

FaithManor will not be able to live in isolation on her farm if the economy collapses. Violent people will come and take what she has when all bets are off. She and her family will not be willing to harm enough innocent people to establish their dominance. They can't survive on their own. That's not what happens, there is plenty of proof of this in the world.

[goldberry]

None. Government-enforced priceand wage floors and ceilings have caused enough damage to our country and our economy.

 

Wage ceilings? Can you explain?

 

It did bring to mind an idea though...instead of minimum wage, what if there were a regulation about the percentage difference between the maximum wage at a company and the minimum wage at that same company?

 

In such a case, as the company grows, all the workers would benefit equally. And if the CEO wants to increase his own salary, it would have to filter down to everyone. It would keep the greedy CEOs from screwing everyone else at the company.

Edited January 12, 2011 by coloradoperkins

[Mrs Mungo]

Until the Supremes decide otherwise it is the law of the land,

 

This is my point. It's been decided, that makes it the law of the land. Could it be re-interpreted in the future? Perhaps. Is that likely? No.

[pqr]

I have a lunch to go to, but I wanted to say something about this:

 

 

 

Except that is NOT what happens when economies collapse.

 

What happens is what you see in Africa, in Afghanistan, in Russia. It's rule by gangs, thugs and the mob (in the organized sense or the Roman sense). You could look to the fall of Rome of the French Revolution to see the same thing, but you don't need to, it's present in the world now.

 

FaithManor will not be able to live in isolation on her farm if the economy collapses. Violent people will come and take what she has when all bets are off. She and her family will not be willing to harm enough innocent people to establish their dominance. They can't survive on their own. That's not what happens, there is plenty of proof of this in the world.

 

I do not remember that happening in this nation during the Great Depression, not for that matter in the UK. If you would speak of the present how about an example of a nation that has a tradition of law and freedom to make your example? I am afraid Africa and Afghanistan simply do not cut it if you are trying to make comparison to the US.

[Celia]

Why? If someone does the job to earn more, they shouldn't be able to buy the nice extras? That's socialism at it's best. And job losses for those who make/sell the luxury products.

 

Sure, working hard should bring extras. I think we just need a huge redefinition of what the finer things are in our society. In comparison to so many parts of the world, our idea of 'average' is complete luxery. And it's one of the consequences of our greed and desire for cheap goods that so many are suffering. For example, our desire for a cheap cup of coffee causes slave labour on the other side of the world. To buy fair trade coffee might cost a lot more, and most won't do it because the social cost of it isn't right in our faces. If the option simply wasn't there to buy these cheap goods, the world would be better off. Working hard should cause us to prosper to some degree, but slavery and child labour shouldn't be an option.

[Mrs Mungo]

I do not remember that happening in this nation during the Great Depression, not for that matter in the UK. If you would speak of the present how about an example of a nation that has a tradition of law and freedom to make your example? I am afraid Africa and Afghanistan simply do not cut it if you are trying to make comparison to the US.

 

The economy did not collapse during the Great Depression. Government and the New Deal stepped in and provided aid, provided jobs and started one of the greatest economic booms of US history. That's what stopped the US from sliding into chaos similar to other failed nations.

[Miss Marple]

How can a migrant worker sue for injury compensation if they are not here legally? Don't you think that is part of the point of using migrants?

 

I would recommend you read Fast Food Nation.

 

I was talking about Tyson as in Tyson Chicken, they seem to be doing pretty well.

 

There is no history that shows that a truly free market is good for the workforce.

 

This isn't a just world, the bad guy often wins. It would be nice if it was truly just and everyone really was ethical but that isn't the case. That is why regulations and the settings of wages are necessary. If people truly believed in doing the right thing then there would be no need for it, but that isn't the case.

 

Exactly! The migrant workers are here illegally! Why should our government protect them when they should be deporting them? If the migrant workers were not available to work, the businesses would have to deal with a more savvy (hopefully) workforce. And additionally the employers who are using illegal workers should also be penalized to the degree that it will stop the practice. Problems arise when big business and corrupt politicians work together to maintain these practices (lowered fines, decreased penalties, etc.). Government officials often enacts rules only to exempt big business who contribute to their causes (i.e., MacDonalds and other corporations and the new health care legislation). Government is every bit as corrupt as people purport big business to be - probably more so (with more power comes more corruption). To believe that a corrupt government is going to solve our social ills is naive, IMO.

 

In a truly free market, even the worker is free to choose where he/she will work, live, study, etc. And *that* freedom would police the bad guys.

Edited January 12, 2011 by CynthiaOK