During WW-II, all you needed was a body temperature of 98.6 and to walk by a defense plant, and you were immediately, if not sooner, offered a job. Even under such high demands for labor, the unemployment rate was still 2%. So to eliminate the inefficiencies that caused unemployment under those types of conditions, we should make the MW $0 just to be sure every one has a job.Let say you had a minimum wage of $1 per hour. Who would be thrown out of work? No one.
The point of having a job is in order to be able to pay one’s living expenses. I know of no landlord (we happen to be in that business) who would accept a tenant whose take-home pay is lower than his monthly rent.During WW-II, all you needed was a body temperature of 98.6 and to walk by a defense plant, and you were immediately, if not sooner, offered a job. Even under such high demands for labor, the unemployment rate was still 2%. So to eliminate the inefficiencies that caused unemployment under those types of conditions, we should make the MW $0 just to be sure every one has a job.
A beg to differ here.The point of having a job is in order to be able to pay one’s living expenses.
The reason we tell 18 year olds, welfare recipients, and homeless people to "GET A JOB!!’ is in order that they will be financially independent, and no longer having their living expenses paid for by other people - right?A beg to differ here.
The point of a job is to pay expenses. We do not have the god-like omniscience necessary to narrow it down further.
As far as I know, newspaper delivery people are considered to be “self-employed” and they receive a percentage of the amount from the number of newspapers that they actually sell. An adult doing that work would also have time to go to a regular day job, since it doesn’t take eight hours, or anywhere near that, to deliver a route of newspapers.What about a 12-year-old kid delivering newspapers? Should he be paid a MW high enough for him to support a family of four?
So there are jobs that don’t require payment of MW.As far as I know, newspaper delivery people are considered to be “self-employed” and they receive a percentage of the amount from the number of newspapers that they actually sell. An adult doing that work would also have time to go to a regular day job, since it doesn’t take eight hours, or anywhere near that, to deliver a route of newspapers.
Of course there are. Minimum wage is designed to ensure that full-time workers have the ability to support themselves on the income from that full-time job.So there are jobs that don’t require payment of MW.
Not quite.The reason we tell 18 year olds, welfare recipients, and homeless people to "GET A JOB!!’ is in order that they will be financially independent, and no longer having their living expenses paid for by other people - right?
There are. I have one. Many people I know have them.If we say that they have to get off the dole and start supporting themselves, then we need for there to be jobs for them to have that pay them enough for them to pay their own living expenses.
If the homeless person wishes to beg rather then get a job, that is his choice.It does no good for a homeless person who makes his living by begging all day long, to get himself a job for eight hours a day, that doesn’t even replace what he was getting in his begging bowl - he’ll quit the job and go back to begging, in that case.
The expectation that people are supposed to be doing certain things with their money is a mistake.People who have part time jobs are expected to also get a full-time job, or else to have someone else supporting them (husband, or parents), and the money from the part time job is only expected to be spending money; not bill-paying money.
People go into debt to put themselves through college because they believe that the job they will be qualified for when they come out of college will pay well enough both to pay all of their living expenses, and pay off the debt.Were this really the case, no one would go into debt putting themselves through college.
His choice is based on what is better for him, in terms of what brings him more money, and allows him to stay alive.If the homeless person wishes to beg rather then get a job, that is his choice.
This is not how the proposal to raise the MW is justified. According to its usual advocates *, all workers should be paid enough to support a family of four in a middle-class standard by a single wage-earner. Period.Of course there are. Minimum wage is designed to ensure that full-time workers have the ability to support themselves on the income from that full-time job.
People who have part time jobs are expected to also get a full-time job, or else to have someone else supporting them (husband, or parents), and the money from the part time job is only expected to be spending money; not bill-paying money.
They are acceptable, and they can still vary without a company going bust or shedding jobs. Why are the interests of investors or managerial staff the only ones that count anyway? Employees also spend money in the economy.Why are these not acceptable expenses? If not for these expenses, no one would create jobs to begin with.
Correct.His choice is based on what is better for him, in terms of what brings him more money, and allows him to stay alive.
Correct again.People go into debt to put themselves through college because they believe that the job they will be qualified for when they come out of college will pay well enough both to pay all of their living expenses, and pay off the debt.
They’re not the only ones that count. But you simply have to realize that certain jobs are harder to do and have fewer people who are willing and/or capable of doing them. Furthermore, some jobs create more wealth than others. Factor those two things together and you get wage rate, which is basically the price for doing an hour of a particular job.They are acceptable, and they can still vary without a company going bust or shedding jobs. Why are the interests of investors or managerial staff the only ones that count anyway? Employees also spend money in the economy.
According to its usual advocates , all workers should be paid enough to support a family of four in a middle-class standard by a single wage-earnerall workers should be paid enough to support a family of four in a middle-class standard by a single wage-earner. Period.
Time was, and that time was well within the living memory of some of our citizens, when it WAS, fairly routinely, expected that a family of four (two parents and two children) WOULD, if a single member was a full-time wage-earner, be able to exist in a middle-class standard on that single wage.
Married women, for example, were almost unanimously expected to resign upon being married, as a working husband was assumed to be able to support wife and whatever number of children might come along.
And it wasn’t just unions, Democrats, or do-gooders who had this expectation.
Many families didn’t live a middle-class standard, true. Many families had more than the four members. It was very common to have large(r) numbers of children and aged grandparents all living under the same roof, all relying on the one wage-earner who for that reason had to make the money spread further and couldn’t provide a middle-class standard for all the dependents.
So this theorized homeless individual you brought up would take a MW job because it will provide a means with which he can do better in the future.
The job does not simply yield a paycheck, it also provides valuable skills necessary to advance to a higher paying position in the future.
Unless the foresight you readily concede college students have is somehow missing in your theorized homeless individual.
Just curious here…Time was, and that time was well within the living memory of some of our citizens, when it WAS, fairly routinely, expected that a family of four (two parents and two children) WOULD, if a single member was a full-time wage-earner, be able to exist in a middle-class standard on that single wage.
Married women, for example, were almost unanimously expected to resign upon being married, as a working husband was assumed to be able to support wife and whatever number of children might come along.
And it wasn’t just unions, Democrats, or do-gooders who had this expectation.
Many families didn’t live a middle-class standard, true. Many families had more than the four members. It was very common to have large(r) numbers of children and aged grandparents all living under the same roof, all relying on the one wage-earner who for that reason had to make the money spread further and couldn’t provide a middle-class standard for all the dependents.