I Cringe When I Hear The Term "living Wage."

[4588686]

Every post you make on economics is deeply flawed.  I don't have the time to go through each one and explain all the inaccuracies only to have you jump to something else that's equally inaccurate in the next reply.   If I thought it would benefit the readers I might do it, but my impression is that people find the back and forth annoying.

 

To say it is in the name of "equality" is a bit of hyperbole, but I reserve the right to be hyperbolic when I want to because it amuses me.  The actual reason we have spent trillions we don't have and printed trillions more is because democrats want to.   The reasons they want these things change every speech depending on the latest focus group.  Everything else in my post is correct.

 

 

Right.  Well I find your posts highly frustrating as well.  Or, rather, I find your stream of statements that you apparently know to be inaccurate frustrating.

 

Now, since your statements on this topic have been both deceptive and vague it's difficult to know for sure which trillions of dollars you are referring to.  However if you are referring to the bank bail outs and stimulus program then it must be pointed out, for people concerned more with accuracy than 'hyperbole,' that such spending occurred by Republican and Democratic Administrations.  

 

But again, it would help if there were any sort of specificity in your wild and, by your own admission, exaggerated claims.  

 

Every post I make on economics is deeply flawed?  Is that intended to be an actual claim or is that some more 'hyperbole?'  If it's hyperbole then it would help do know which posts I've made about economics are deeply flawed.  

[Pliny]

What I'm trying to get at is, should human society be based solely around consumption and production? When I read Pliny's post, I have to wonder if that's what he is trying to say. But human worth is not based on what we can produce for ourselves or others to consume.

 

Not "human" worth, but what is the worth of our labor in the marketplace.

 

If I weave place-mats out of corn husks all day, I'm not going to produce enough value worthy of a "living wage" and it would be wasteful and unjust to force that to happen by government decree.

[arfink]

You are absolutely right, Human worth isn't based on what we can produce or consume.   What part of Pliny's post makes you think that is what he is trying to say?
 

 

That would be when he says:

 

So we have uneducated and unskilled people living being an unnecessary burden on their families and/or society, when instead they could be producing, contributing, and learning skills that would lead them to better paying jobs.  Minimum wage is an impediment to the economy and to a "living wage."

[NotreDame]

Right.  Well I find your posts highly frustrating as well.  Or, rather, I find your stream of statements that you apparently know to be inaccurate frustrating.

 

Now, since your statements on this topic have been both deceptive and vague it's difficult to know for sure which trillions of dollars you are referring to.  However if you are referring to the bank bail outs and stimulus program then it must be pointed out, for people concerned more with accuracy than 'hyperbole,' that such spending occurred by Republican and Democratic Administrations.  

 

But again, it would help if there were any sort of specificity in your wild and, by your own admission, exaggerated claims.  

 

Every post I make on economics is deeply flawed?  Is that intended to be an actual claim or is that some more 'hyperbole?'  If it's hyperbole then it would help do know which posts I've made about economics are deeply flawed.  

 

Dude, this has nothing to do with bills that were passed 6 or 7 years ago and now it's you who are being melodramatic.

 

And no, every post you make on economics is deeply flawed.  Not hyperbole in the least.
 

[4588686]

Dude, this has nothing to do with bills that were passed 6 or 7 years ago and now it's you who are being melodramatic.

 

And no, every post you make on economics is deeply flawed.  Not hyperbole in the least.
 

 

 

Do you have any specifics?  Any particular bills you would like to point to?  Any particular economic claims I've made that you would like to cite?  

[arfink]

Not "human" worth, but what is the worth of our labor in the marketplace.

 

If I weave place-mats out of corn husks all day, I'm not going to produce enough value worthy of a "living wage" and it would be wasteful and unjust to force that to happen by government decree.

 

OK, so I obviously misunderstood that one then. My bad.

 

I do find it very interesting that you assert a minimum wage would make it so that people who only know how to weave mats can't have jobs. That's not precisely true. It just means that an employer can't hire someone to weave mats and have it be profitable for him.

 

I know a little bit about this because I've spent many years as a contractor or freelancer or self-employed, depending on the situation, and it's allowed me to make money at jobs where someone won't hire an employee. But generally speaking I did not ever work minimum wage at these jobs, I earned far more. And the employer got to have far less say in what I did and how I spent my time, and ultimately I think, got less value from me than he would have got had he hired someone as an actual employee and followed all the supposedly onerous rules about benefits and wages and such. :P

[Pliny]

There are some people who have the ability to work but are idle. They are then a burden to someone else but unnecessarily so, since without a minimum wage, they could work for $4 per hour and be adding more goods and services to the economy, while reducing or eliminating their cost to society. But an alleged well-meaning concept locks them out and we are all poorer for it, especially the unskilled and marginally productive who are forbidden to trade ther labor for what it is worth.

[Slappo]

OK, so I obviously misunderstood that one then. My bad.

 

I do find it very interesting that you assert a minimum wage would make it so that people who only know how to weave mats can't have jobs. That's not precisely true. It just means that an employer can't hire someone to weave mats and have it be profitable for him.

 Seeing as employers are in the business of making a profit, it means there will be no jobs for weaving mats because those positions are unprofitable due to the minimum wage, therefore those who are only qualified to weave mats can't get a job.

 

Employers drop products that aren't profitable (at least... once they realize the product is not profitable). The only instances where they may not do this is if the product itself doesn't inherently make a profit, but by getting customers to come buy it, the business as a whole is more likely to make a profit. Example: you go to the store to pick up a loaf of bread on coupon being sold at a loss for $.10 and leave with a 12 pack of soda as well. The business makes no profit on the bread but the profit on the soda more than makes up for the loss on the bread.

[Pliny]

That's the point. The higher the minimum wage the more the under productive are locked out as well as those good and services which cannot support paying a minimum wage. But if you believe that price controls work to our benefit, why not set minimum wage at $100 per hour so everyone can be affluent?

[arfink]

You are both making the assumption that the only way to trade your goods or services for money is to do it through an employer who also gets to take a cut. That's what I'm trying to talk about here: the mat-weaver can do an end-run around employers who can't make a good enough margin post-minimum-wage and just sell their own mats.

 

I'm suggesting that perhaps the way to think about this is that by paying minimum wage, an employer receives a benefit, mainly, the ability to have someone else do the work for him under conditions which he dictates to the employee.

[Slappo]

There are some services that are not profitable in and of themselves that businesses might pick back up if they could do it for personnel cost. Things such as bag boys that actually carry your groceries to the car for you when shopping. Gas pumps where while you're pulled over they will check your tire pressure and oil for you, or at least run a squeegee across the window (Some states require employees to pump gas for you, but states that allow self-service have pretty much lost all service).

[Slappo]

You are both making the assumption that the only way to trade your goods or services for money is to do it through an employer who also gets to take a cut. That's what I'm trying to talk about here: the mat-weaver can do an end-run around employers who can't make a good enough margin post-minimum-wage and just sell their own mats.

 

I'm suggesting that perhaps the way to think about this is that by paying minimum wage, an employer receives a benefit, mainly, the ability to have someone else do the work for him under conditions which he dictates to the employee.

 

So you are perfectly fine with someone making less than minimum wage and paying self-employment taxes, doing more work as they have to market their own product, assuming they can build a market with zero infrastructure, but you have a problem with the idea of jobs that pay below minimum wage for the reason that the employer is making a profit?

[arfink]

So you are perfectly fine with someone making less than minimum wage and paying self-employment taxes, doing more work as they have to market their own product, assuming they can build a market with zero infrastructure, but you have a problem with the idea of jobs that pay below minimum wage for the reason that the employer is making a profit?

 

I'm not saying I have a problem with it, I'm saying that rather than complain about minimum wage, people could simply adapt and work around it. Both the people who want to work but can't seem to get employed, but also employers who want to get other people to do work for them without paying minimum wage.

 

Let's take our hypothetical of mat-making though. Building a market in today's environment would be pretty easy. Make some videos of your process and product with lots of hipster-cred, maybe get on Kickstarter, use the internet. You don't need a specific infrastructure for marketing or selling when you have the Internet.

 

Of course, the whole argument that minimum wage is making society less productive is a little bit silly if you ask me. It's making society less productive for the employers who wish they could get cheaper labor, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be idle unless they have been given a buck. Huge volunteer efforts like Wikipedia continue to flourish with labor which is entirely volunteered. At the same time, there will always be people who wish to be idle even if they are being offered money.

[Slappo]

I'm not saying I have a problem with it, I'm saying that rather than complain about minimum wage, people could simply adapt and work around it. Both the people who want to work but can't seem to get employed, but also employers who want to get other people to do work for them without paying minimum wage.

 

Let's take our hypothetical of mat-making though. Building a market in today's environment would be pretty easy. Make some videos of your process and product with lots of hipster-cred, maybe get on Kickstarter, use the internet. You don't need a specific infrastructure for marketing or selling when you have the Internet.

 

Of course, the whole argument that minimum wage is making society less productive is a little bit silly if you ask me. It's making society less productive for the employers who wish they could get cheaper labor, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be idle unless they have been given a buck. Huge volunteer efforts like Wikipedia continue to flourish with labor which is entirely volunteered. At the same time, there will always be people who wish to be idle even if they are being offered money.

The problem is... this person is not internet savvy, not market savvy, not computer savvy. S/he might not know what kickstarter is. This is someone who can't get employed working minimum wage, and the solution you offer is to build your own market to make and sell your own product?

 

If you can build your own product, market it, sell it, and handle all the administrative croutons that comes along with running your own business, then you're not someone who can't land a job as a Wal-mart cashier because of incompetence.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Slappo

[arfink]

The problem is... this person is not internet savvy, not market savvy, not computer savvy. S/he might not know what kickstarter is. This is someone who can't get employed working minimum wage, and the solution you offer is to build your own market to make and sell your own product?

 

If you can build your own product, market it, sell it, and handle all the administrative croutons that comes along with running your own business, then you're not someone who can't land a job as a Wal-mart cashier because of incompetence.

 

OK, so thank you for narrowing the topic down a bit, this helps. :)

 

Next question: Do people utterly devoid of imagination, will-power, or competence of any sort need to work? Why must society demand profit of them in order to justify their existence?

[Slappo]

OK, so thank you for narrowing the topic down a bit, this helps. :)

 

Next question: Do people utterly devoid of imagination, will-power, or competence of any sort need to work? Why must society demand profit of them in order to justify their existence?

:pinch:

 

The entire topic is about a living wage, the particular tangent we were on is about a minimum wage (which really isn't even a tanget). If we're talking about people who can't get a job at $7.25, but would be able to do something worth say $5 an hour to an employer, then I don't see where your confusion came in.

[Slappo]

Next question: Do people utterly devoid of imagination, will-power, or competence of any sort need to work? Why must society demand profit of them in order to justify their existence?

Obviously society does't which is why we have numerous programs and social services offered to those who are not employable. Unfortunately a lot of employable people take advantage of those programs as well.

 

If those people WERE employable though, then why not let them do what little they can to make something rather than nothing? Such as somoene to carry the grocieries to the car or to wipe your window when you get gas. It's a very little thing that we can live without, but it also adds dignity to the person because they feel like they can help others.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Slappo

[arfink]

Obviously society does't which is why we have numerous programs and social services offered to those who are not employable. Unfortunately a lot of employable people take advantage of those programs as well.

 

If those people WERE employable though, then why not let them do what little they can to make something rather than nothing? Such as somoene to carry the grocieries to the car or to wipe your window when you get gas. It's a very little thing that we can live without, but it also adds dignity to the person because they feel like they can help others.

 

Yes, but why must pecuniary exchange be used as the sole device for enabling this?

[Pliny]

It would be nice if those who can exchange something for what they receive do so.  It would not only be nice, it would be just.  And it would be good for them.

 

Employers should be able to hire labor for whatever price they can and whatever the employee agrees to.  That's called freedom.  

 

Employee wages without a minimum wage law will be based on supply and demand just as are all other prices where the government is not intruding and mucking things up.

 

Sure I could be greedy and envision hiring a huge labor force at $1.00 per hour, but how many laborers do you think will work for me for that wage?  Other employers will bid up the price until an equilibrium is reached, which will be much fairer and efficient than whatever overpaid bureaucrats in government come up with, and NOBODY who can work will be out of some kind of job.  And that job does not need to be permanent.  After acquiring skills, the low-paid employee can apply for a higher-skilled and higher-paying job.

 

It's sad to think of all the inner city youth having an enormous unemployment rate because of do-gooders who say it's unfair and wrong for them to work for something they are actually worth.   Idle hands and minds are the devil's workshop, so many end up wasting their time or using it in immoral pursuits or criminal activities.  Remove the minimum wage ant they will have constructive things to do.  There will be less crime.  And we will all have more goods and services at our disposal.

[Pliny]

deleted--wrong thread

Edited February 11, 2014 by Pliny