What wage is just?

[niceatheist]

Banks largely fuel the US, as with all industrialized countries. Let’s not forget where a lot of cash comes from. And whatever we think of risk, if the business model is basically to take advantage of workers and base profits on low wages, then I see no reason to applaud that small business.

 

[JimG]

What kills me is these multi-billion dollar American companies could pay a decent wage for the standards of these countries and STILL save a TON of money over employing people here in the U.S. it’s WORSE than greedy, it’s downright predatory.

The reason that these jobs are in great demand in less developed nations is that workers do receive a wage which is greater than other local companies will pay. I presume that these US. corporations could pay their foreign workers the same wages that would be required in the U.S. Then those employees would become the one-percenters in their own nations because of their high earnings. But it the pay was equal to U.S. pay there would be no incentive for the U.S. corporations to manufacture in other nations. Those nations would not want those jobs to disappear by going back to the US. I recall a story about President Obama once asking a tech CEO why his manufacturing jobs couldn’t be brought back to the U.S. The CEO replied, “Mr. President, those jobs are never coming back to the United States.”

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I get it. It’s greedy to keep the money that you’ve earned but it’s not greedy to take it from the person who earned it.

Makes perfect sense to me …

Yeah, no. I’m a social AND fiscal conservative so I don’t subscribe to anything of a socialist nature such as “taking” money that someone earned to redistribute elsewhere that I see fit. I’m talking about people that EARN the money by working, but instead of being paid something that’s ok EVEN by THAT country’s standards, they instead pay a pitiful amount so these people have to work endlessly, and then they take those products made and sell it for good money by OUR standards in the first world. That’s the only thing I have a problem with. I am not one of these $15/hour for flipping burgers people. But, I am also not for being predatory.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Oh I get it, I wouldn’t expect a company to pay what they would pay us here. They could still pay much less than what they pay us here, and be saving a lot on labor costs. But we shall see how much manufacturing comes back. I know it won’t all come back, but the new tax laws have made it friendlier and we’ve had more come back than I thought would. Hopefully whoever is elected next won’t reverse everything and sent everyone running away again. It’s sad that many people don’t seem to want us to be producing anything.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Or it means that some laborers’ work has been overvalued in the past, or has become less valuable over time.

 

[DarkLight]

I think it’s a bad system that requires someone to work up to being able to earn a living wage. It might work ok for young adults from healthy, safe families who have parents to help get them started. But we need something that also works for those who got thrown out at 18, or had to get away from abuse. Right now in the U.S. they basically can’t go to college and they won’t have any work experience. So what are they to do if minimum wage won’t pay enough to support themselves? (And don’t say the military - a lot of people don’t qualify, and anyway literally being shot at shouldn’t be a requirement for supporting yourself.)

 

[Socrates92]

Really? Probably the fact that worker will need a second job to survive. Which takes time away from their families. Which may result in delinquent kids which you see often unfortunately. We also know when people feel they are slaves to their environment their chances of drug taking/risk taking behaviours increases. It’s got something to do with a feeling of little control over their lives.

Why are you assuming that this is a breadwinner we are talking about, or that the person is trying to use the job to support anyone? The person in question could just see it as an investment in future skills. Instead, because we don’t allow this sort of thing, people are forced to actually pay to earn those skills (Ie: degrees, unpaid internships, etc…). I’m not sure disallowing one option gives anyone additional “control”. As long as the person retains the right to refuse work at the <$5 rate, he is not harmed by the rate being legal.

Rising wages for a livable lifestyle (not luxurious just enough to be able to live simply) would be so much better for families and society as a whole. Business that are paying their workers $5 an hour are being unethical as it is and they know it. USA is not a third world country, there should be laws to protect the less educated/able/fortunate.

In many places in the world, $5/hr is a princely sum. The “protection” bit is mostly rhetoric, as most labour laws backfire on the common worker. One of the things I loved about working landscaping a couple years ago was that there are no overtime “protections” (1 1/2 time), meaning that the employer was not punished if he decided to let me work 50hrs+/week. I’m speculating a bit, but I would assume my hourly wage was probably higher than it otherwise would have been, and I definitely got to work more hours. A win-win for me, because I wasn’t “protected.”

Protection is the wrong goal. Someone in grinding poverty doesn’t want to be “protected”. They want an opportunity to escape it.

I’m surprised any catholic would argue otherwise to be honest. They are asking for minimum wage. Nothing extravagant.

Well, get over the surprise and actually consider the argument. Lack of min-wage laws does not equal exploitation.

 

[StatuensNParteDextra]

To be on par with the sort of lifestyles enjoyed by families in the 1950s, the median income in the United States would today have to be $40 or $50 an hour. Unfortunately the collective selfishness of those sitting around the board room tables hinders this, along with the loss of union strength (many of which have gone down paths of degeneracy) and the whole “made in China” fiasco thanks to Nixon.

 

[Socrates92]

If you own a small business which fails, in the current economic climate your employees are probably every bit as likely to lose their houses and cars as you are. That is a plenty big risk, which frankly deserves a whole lot more than treating them as if they somehow are not worthy of earning enough from full time work to provide for their basic needs.

If they are supporting their lifestyle on a min wage, this is unlikely. It’s fairly easy to find another min wage job in a short amount of time, so they’re not likely to face a huge interruption in earnings.

 

[Socrates92]

They aren’t paid enough to live on even by their country’s standards many times. So they end up working many more hours than people work here in order to make ends meet.

Which is it? Are the conditions bad by their home country standards, or by first world standards? You’re shifting the goalpost.

 

[DarkLight]

If they are supporting their lifestyle on a min wage, this is unlikely. It’s fairly easy to find another min wage job in a short amount of time, so they’re not likely to face a huge interruption in earnings.

This really depends on where you live and what resources you have. In more urban areas that’s probably true. But I’ve also been in a situation where living in a somewhat small area + not owning a car meant most minimum wage jobs weren’t interested in me. Especially since I couldn’t work the weekends/evenings that was when those sorts of jobs wanted workers.

 

[Sarcelle]

Question is, where does this CEO plan to sell his corporation’s products?

The US?

Not if we’re all unemployed due to offshoring.

 

[DarkLight]

As I recall that was part of Ford’s reasoning to providing a better wage to the manufacturing workers. Workers who were paid better were much more likely to decide that they wanted a new car.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Which is it? Are the conditions bad by their home country standards, or by first world standards? You’re shifting the goalpost.

People should not have to work 10 hours a day 6 days a week in a 37C (98F) factory to make ends meet. No goalposts shifted. Do you agree that a 98F factory is a cruel work condition, or is it ok since it’s “just Cambodia” and standards may not be as high there?

Cambodian female workers in Nike, Asics and Puma factories suffer mass faintings

Sportswear brands review spate of incidents in factories where employees on short-term contracts work 10-hour days in soaring temperatures

www.google.com

 

[Gingersnaps4]

And no they are not paid a decent wage even by Cambodian standards, in this case. Thus the constant need to work.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t expect it to match the US. Where did I say that?

I said it should allow a viable wage in that country. Workers should be able to work full time and afford rent and food.

Why don’t you go there and become a union activist?

You have no supporting evidence that US employers depress wages and do harm to worker prospects.

 

[Theo520]

Nope, those are locally owned companies.

I’m all in with developing countries such as Cambodia developing their version of OSHA and other labor rights laws. But it’s a process they have to work through, and they have to develop it regardless of whether the factory is producing goods for export or local consumption.

 

[DarkLight]

The worry is that if most jobs in the country are for export, often there’s outside pressure that blocks the changes. So the country wants to develop more labor rights laws, but then the big international companies threaten to pull out if they do (killing a large number of jobs). So they end up giving in to avoid the economic crash. It might actually be better long-term for them to have those protections, but it causes too many problems short-term and no one wants to pass laws that would put that many people out of work.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Those brands should not let their products be made in 98F plants where the workers have to work 60 hours a week. They are letting it slide to make a buck. I can’t believe people are arguing this on a catholic forum.

 

[Theo520]

The worry is that if most jobs in the country are for export, often there’s outside pressure that blocks the changes. So the country wants to develop more labor rights laws, but then the big international companies threaten to pull out if they do (killing a large number of jobs). So they end up giving in to avoid the economic crash. It might actually be better long-term for them to have those protections, but it causes too many problems short-term and no one wants to pass laws that would put that many people out of work.

Can you give an example that supports your statement, for discussion.

I used to take buyers to our factories in China, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
They were very concerned about how our workers were treated, our conditions were pretty good with air conditioned environment etc. Foreign buyers are a constant pressure to maintain/improve worker conditions.

I worked in electronics but knew people in the garment industry. It’s very very competitive and the required worker skill level is the lowest, so they see comparatively worse conditions. However, even there brand name buyers don’t want to be associated with a slave shop. As the above linked article made clear, foreign buyers expect their local suppliers to comply with local laws and regulations on safety and worker conditions.

Developing countries repeatedly work through the same cycle of first producing garments with their low wages and then slowly increasing the complexity and value add of their export products. Worker conditions improve through the cycle as the economy and regulatory bodies of the local country adapt and improve.