Minimum wage

[DarkLight]

For people who think something like minimum wage is theft: how should we proceed if we end up with a society where there aren’t enough jobs for everyone to support themselves? People also think it’s theft for someone to pay taxes to support another person. Yet as a society we cannot simply let innocent people die on the street. Nor do we wish to do what has happened before and create a class of poverty criminals, beggars and thieves of circumstance and vagrants.

We talk about private charity but for most of our history that “private” charity has not been private at all. Most of the medieval period the church took its tithe by force of law. Prior to that we had generally societies where slavery was often the answer to poverty. Between the times of widespread state assistance and that of widespread organized church assistance we saw many terrible things and still see them in many parts of the world. Young children working in unsafe conditions, families starving because one parent died and they can’t afford to support themselves, many workers being paid barely enough to live on.

Private charity was often ineffective because it depended on the good will of a rapidly shrinking social class with extra money to donate, a class that often had incentives to keep its workers poorer and thus fully dependent on whatever meager wages they got. After all, it’s in the purely financial interest of a business to not only pay as low wages as they can but to prevent any sort of employee action that might lead to them being able to leave and start their own business or to protest their wages or anything.

So if we aren’t to use the minimum wage, what are we supposed to do?

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

Actually, there is no way that the government can force someone to pay more for something than it is worth.

Every time the government makes you pay taxes it is forcing you to pay more for something than it is worth.

.

 

[Erich]

Will Rogers said we should be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Every time the government makes you pay taxes it is forcing you to pay more for something than it is worth.

.

I am not sure that is true. After all, we could move to Bermuda and avoid paying taxes. So there must be some benefit of sticking around and paying the taxes.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

I am not sure that is true. After all, we could move to Bermuda and avoid paying taxes. So there must be some benefit of sticking around and paying the taxes.

My proposition dealt with paying more than its worth. Even if it is worth something does not mean it is worth the price.

.

 

[stinkcat_14]

My proposition dealt with paying more than its worth. Even if it is worth something does not mean it is worth the price.

.

We wouldn’t stick around to pay taxes if the benefit wasn’t greater than the cost.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

They may complain, but it is not theft. The business can choose to hire nobody, it can choose to use more capital and less labor. If a business chooses to hire someone for $20 an hour, it is certain proof that there is no theft.

This may seem a little abstract but I want you to understand where I am coming from…

If a businessCHOOSES to hire someone for $20 an hour that is a free choice and government regulations have no bearing on the choice.

However…answer this question: If a business “chooses” to hire someone for $20 an hour…why not pay $30 an hour or how about $40???

In my business, I hire nobody, at the minimum wage or otherwise. So how is the government going to force me to hire people at the minimum wage? They cannot. If I do hire someone at the minimum wage, it will because they are worth more than the minimum wage, nobody will be stealing from me.

I had a business like that once. It was called a sole proprietorship. I didn’t need employees…just me. When my business grew to the point that I began to consider employees I was faced with a serious decision. If I did hire someone I would be FORCED, by law, to pay minimum wage, additional taxes and required benefits. The job was not worth minimum wage, let alone the taxes, benefits etc. If I could hire an employee at the wage the job was worth, I would have a small increase in profits. But hiring at the REQUIRED minimum wage would have cut into my profits. I was not in business to provide jobs. I was in business to produce and (hopefully) increase profits.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Generally, there needs to be an actual or expected demand for a product that is greater than what can be currently supported that causes growth. If there are no potential clients why would one hire at any wage. Customers are responsible for growth or lack thereof. If one can’t afford minimum wage, maybe the business model being used is wrong.

Let’s say that I own a sweat shop. But…its a nice sweat shop. Zoltan employs 100 union seamstresses. Since they are union workers they all earn well over the minimum wage. Business is good. We have some lucrative contracts and there is plenty of overtime for those who want it. Essentially it is a great business model.

Along comes a new minimum wage increase law. The minimum wage will double over the next three years. My girls are earning more than that BUT union rules require that all union workers’ wages MUST be increased in proportion to the new minimum wage.

Zoltan knows that if he has to renegotiate his contracts and raise prices…his clients will simply go overseas for their goods.

Since Zoltan needs the profits from his sweat shop he now must close his operation and move to a “right-to-work” state, hire undocumented aliens for the lowest possible wage…all while he investigates business friendly foreign countries for re-location.

How does that help our economy? How does that solve our unemployment problems ???

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

For people who think something like minimum wage is theft: how should we proceed if we end up with a society where there aren’t enough jobs for everyone to support themselves?

That’s where we are today?

After several minimum wage increases it should seem logical to liberal politicians that it just “ain’t workin’”.

But a minimum wage increase does buy votes.

People also think it’s theft for someone to pay taxes to support another person. Yet as a society we cannot simply let innocent people die on the street. Nor do we wish to do what has happened before and create a class of poverty criminals, beggars and thieves of circumstance and vagrants.

If you see a rich man walking down the street and he steps over a starving beggar to continue his walk…are you justified in whacking him on the head, taking his wallet and giving the cash to the beggar? No…that is theft. Just as a government forceably takes our money and gives it to someone else…that is the same theft.

Theft for any reason is still theft.

So if we aren’t to use the minimum wage, what are we supposed to do?

Simple…remove all government restrictions from the Free Market, eliminate corporate and income taxes and allow the Free Market to flourish. Business will prosper and grow. More employees will be needed (at higher wages). Unemployment will end. There will be considerably less poverty and with more people becoming prosperous…the more charity will be available to the few who will now need it.

 

[sallybutler]

Let’s say that I own a sweat shop. But…its a nice sweat shop. Zoltan employs 100 union seamstresses. Since they are union workers they all earn well over the minimum wage. Business is good. We have some lucrative contracts and there is plenty of overtime for those who want it. Essentially it is a great business model.

Along comes a new minimum wage increase law. The minimum wage will double over the next three years. My girls are earning more than that BUT union rules require that all union workers’ wages MUST be increased in proportion to the new minimum wage.

Zoltan knows that if he has to renegotiate his contracts and raise prices…his clients will simply go overseas for their goods.

Since Zoltan needs the profits from his sweat shop he now must close his operation and move to a “right-to-work” state, hire undocumented aliens for the lowest possible wage…all while he investigates business friendly foreign countries for re-location.

How does that help our economy? How does that solve our unemployment problems ???

a) Zoltan originally negotiated a bad contract with the union. Bad Business Model
b) If Zoltan has to engage in illegal activities (hiring undocumented workers), he could end up in jail. Bad Business Model
c) I do not know of any state that requires one to have a union. Generally people want to be in a union because the management was not being fair with the employess. Again, Bad Business Model
d) While going overseas may initially sound good, Zoltan may find that due to a decrease in quality work, an increase in shipping prices, a lack of control over the new workers, less flexability in making changes, he may not actually be better off. Potentially Bad Business Model.

The original business model that was being used should not have been affected by a minimum wage increase, as the wages being paid were all well above the minimum. It was a contract that did not account for future changes in the minimum wage (which would eventually happen) that caused the problem. The fictional negotiators for Zoltan should give Zoltan back any monies paid to them.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

a) Zoltan originally negotiated a bad contract with the union. Bad Business Model

It was the standard contract that meets California Labor Laws. There really is no negotiation unless you employ over 200 union members.

b) If Zoltan has to engage in illegal activities (hiring undocumented workers), he could end up in jail. Bad Business Model

Ha! That law is not enforced under the present administration. A few well placed “political” donations and a stream of “willing-to-work-at-low-pay” employees could be guaranteed while officials look the other way. San Diego would be nice. Zoltan loves the climate and the city and/or the county would grant a tax break if I added 100 new jobs.

c) I do not know of any state that requires one to have a union. Generally people want to be in a union because the management was not being fair with the employess. Again, Bad Business Model

Google “Right to work states” . Learn about state laws favoring union employment and membership.

Generally people want to be in a union to get paid more for less work.

d) While going overseas may initially sound good, Zoltan may find that due to a decrease in quality work, an increase in shipping prices, a lack of control over the new workers, less flexability in making changes, he may not actually be better off. Potentially Bad Business Model.

Good points Sally…but they do not bother companies like Apple, Exxon, General Electric,
and a bunch more that band-width limitations keeps me from listing. Zoltan Industries Inc. could do well following the “Big Boys”.

The original business model that was being used should not have been affected by a minimum wage increase, as the wages being paid were all well above the minimum. It was a contract that did not account for future changes in the minimum wage (which would eventually happen) that caused the problem. The fictional negotiators for Zoltan should give Zoltan back any monies paid to them.

Like I said…you don’t negotiate a contract with only 100 people. Also unions are very slow to negotiate anything (like a new law) that will add to their membership and coffers.

But I do like the idea of a refund. Trouble is, legal negotiations are handled by Mrs Trophia Cobalt LLM, who has by now spent her fees on shoes.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This may seem a little abstract but I want you to understand where I am coming from…

If a businessCHOOSES to hire someone for $20 an hour that is a free choice and government regulations have no bearing on the choice.

However…answer this question: If a business “chooses” to hire someone for $20 an hour…why not pay $30 an hour or how about $40???

Businesses want to pay as little as they can get away with and workers want as much as they can get away with. Firms are not forced to hire, nor are workers forced to work.

I had a business like that once. It was called a sole proprietorship. I didn’t need employees…just me. When my business grew to the point that I began to consider employees I was faced with a serious decision. If I did hire someone I would be FORCED, by law, to pay minimum wage, additional taxes and required benefits. The job was not worth minimum wage, let alone the taxes, benefits etc. If I could hire an employee at the wage the job was worth, I would have a small increase in profits. But hiring at the REQUIRED minimum wage would have cut into my profits. I was not in business to provide jobs. I was in business to produce and (hopefully) increase profits.

You weren’t forced to provide jobs, so there is no way the minimum wage can be considered theft.

 

[DarkLight]

That’s where we are today?

After several minimum wage increases it should seem logical to liberal politicians that it just “ain’t workin’”.

But a minimum wage increase does buy votes.

If you see a rich man walking down the street and he steps over a starving beggar to continue his walk…are you justified in whacking him on the head, taking his wallet and giving the cash to the beggar? No…that is theft. Just as a government forceably takes our money and gives it to someone else…that is the same theft.

Theft for any reason is still theft.

Simple…remove all government restrictions from the Free Market, eliminate corporate and income taxes and allow the Free Market to flourish. Business will prosper and grow. More employees will be needed (at higher wages). Unemployment will end. There will be considerably less poverty and with more people becoming prosperous…the more charity will be available to the few who will now need it.

By your logic - the government is theft, period. Not just minimum wage. The wages we pay to the police and the army are theft. The money that’s used to educate children in public schools is theft. The money that built the roads you drive on, that keeps our cities from burning to the ground, all that is by your definition theft as well.

The closest we’ve gotten to free market has been in the early industrial period, which far from being the panacea of jobs led to massive unemployment, frequent child labor, unsafe working conditions, long hours and low pay that essentially prevented advancement, and a general concentration of wealth and power among the very top classes at the expense of the average worker. What prevents that from happening again?

(Also, you might be interested in the part where Aquinas says that it is also theft for the rich to keep his wealth to himself, and it is morally permissible for me as the starving man to take his wallet to buy myself and my family food.)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Businesses want to pay as little as they can get away with and workers want as much as they can get away with. Firms are not forced to hire, nor are workers forced to work.

True. You have an excellent grasp of basic business.

You weren’t forced to provide jobs, so there is no way the minimum wage can be considered theft.

Right again.

In my example no one was forcing me to hire. However if I had an employee working for me at less than the minimum wage and the minimum wage was increased by law…I would be FORCED to pay that employee more than he is worth. That is money that is rightfully mine. The government is reducing my profit for the employee’s benefit. That is theft.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

By your logic - the government is theft, period. Not just minimum wage. The wages we pay to the police and the army are theft. The money that’s used to educate children in public schools is theft. The money that built the roads you drive on, that keeps our cities from burning to the ground, all that is by your definition theft as well.

A government is established to serve those who established it. If the government is authorized to provide protection…then tax money spent on police, fire, and military is necessary and well spent.
If the government is empowered to educate our children then that tax money is necessary. However if there is no authorization to educate then the government is acting beyond its authority and is stealing tax money. Roads and bridges that serve and benefit all are necessary taxes. Programs that only benefit certain individuals or groups and do not serve common good are not necessary and are a theft of tax payer’s money.

The closest we’ve gotten to free market has been in the early industrial period, which far from being the panacea of jobs led to massive unemployment, frequent child labor, unsafe working conditions, long hours and low pay that essentially prevented advancement, and a general concentration of wealth and power among the very top classes at the expense of the average worker. What prevents that from happening again?

Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of the Free Market. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. The Free Market did not create poverty—it inherited it. Compared to the centuries of starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of the Free Market were the first chance the poor ever had to survive.

The Free Market of that time produced the highest standard of living in the history of our country for ALL.

(Also, you might be interested in the part where Aquinas says that it is also theft for the rich to keep his wealth to himself, and it is morally permissible for me as the starving man to take his wallet to buy myself and my family food.)

I don’t always agree with Aquinas. But if a man is capable of taking my wallet by force, then he is capable of doing productive work and should be supporting his family that way.
The trouble with this false morality is that the “rich” man could be as poor as the thief and to steal his crust of bread could be worse for him than the “noble” thief.

 

[clintonm]

There is a lot of discussion about rich and poor, business owner and employee and government and citizen. This is seen as a financial aspect, as a wage could be considered. I am tempted to talk about the origin of a wage being the base value of work of an individual over time, and that anything beyond that value is stupid to pay. But I would like to address a specific evil of minimum wage that occured in the US. In the South the minimum wage was used as a means to prevent blacks from gainful employment. How is that morally justified?

 

[JimG]

There is a lot of discussion about rich and poor, business owner and employee and government and citizen. This is seen as a financial aspect, as a wage could be considered. I am tempted to talk about the origin of a wage being the base value of work of an individual over time, and that anything beyond that value is stupid to pay. But I would like to address a specific evil of minimum wage that occured in the US. In the South the minimum wage was used as a means to prevent blacks from gainful employment. How is that morally justified?

And the problem is that it can still have the effect of shutting out a contingent of those trying to grab on to the lowest rung of the career ladder, preventing them from entering the workforce.

The only way it makes sense to me would be to couple minimum wage with mandatory hiring, which would be unworkable.

 

[clintonm]

The only way it makes sense to me would be to couple minimum wage with mandatory hiring, which would be unworkable.

In the United States (I cannot speak for other nations) I would not be surprised if mandatory hiring became a thing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In the United States (I cannot speak for other nations) I would not be surprised if mandatory hiring became a thing.

Perhaps more likely, making it difficult to fire anybody. I understand in France it’s very difficult, so employers are wary of hiring people at all. If they do and somebody doesn’t pan out, they have to add another person to do what the first one should be doing, and it just builds up the numbers.

Some employers now are afraid to fire people in certain categories because of the likelihood of being sued based on alleged discrimination under one civil rights law or another. So they just keep them on even if they’re not doing their jobs.

It could get much worse, of course.

 

[stinkcat_14]

And the problem is that it can still have the effect of shutting out a contingent of those trying to grab on to the lowest rung of the career ladder, preventing them from entering the workforce.

The only way it makes sense to me would be to couple minimum wage with mandatory hiring, which would be unworkable.

Actually in the US the minimum wage is not much of a barrier to entry into the labor force. Most jobs that we would think of as “minimum wage jobs”, i.e. store clerks, etc, actually pay more than the minimum wage.