Any owner who pays minimum wage is un-American - here's why

Had you not made this one post, I wouldn't in a million years had guessed you ever taught Econ.

Supply and demand, improve one's skill set so that there is more demand for one's skills, and stop belly aching how unfair the system is. Pretty simple.

Now carry on with your nonsense.

 

I can be unethical if one of the parties in the exchange engages in coercion or uses its influence with government to weaken the bargaining position of the other party (i.e., it is not a free market).

 

Matt.....this guy either lies about having taught Economics or is all about furthering his silly agenda.

Don't waste your time.

 

I don't recall ever being coerced into a low paying job. Also, anti- trust laws, unions and civil liberty laws prevent one from being forced to work for any defined wage.

 

Same reason it's not treason if you pay your plumber less than what he needs to stay above the poverty line. When you purchase labor, you pay for the value of that labor. You are not buying that person's life. Your purchase doesn't make you responsible for his needs.

... and I have no idea how the word treason could possibly apply to that purchase.





​

 

Because in America, profit is more important than any other consideration. It is practically considered a right for a person or a business to exploit others for their own gain. That's not just the American way, it's the generally human way in any society that values it's wealthy above all others while treating it's poor as nothing more than assets to help the wealthy remain wealthy.

 

Nobody is exploited. You perform labor and are compensated for your time. If you want to be better-compensated for your time, then increase the value of your labor.

 

And who decides what your labor is worth? You? Or someone else who benefits from valuing your labor as low as possible?

 

you mean per hour?

.

 

Your labor is worth what you can get for it on the open market. I believe my labor is worth a million dollars an hour. Somebody who wants to hire me may think it is worth slightly to substantially less. I will have to agree to exchange my labor for whatever that somebody is willing to pay me for it... or I am free to keep looking for someone who is willing to pay me one million dollars an hour.

 

and if one wants an employee, they pay them at least the min wage (if not they can do it themselves), if they value them more, pay them more then that

.

 

Correct. You have to pay people what they're worth or they'll go work for someone who will. Or better yet, start their own company and put you out of business.

 

Exactly. The people who have the money control the price of your labor. It is in their best interest to value your labor as low as possible.

 

Yearly. Or 24.00-48.00 per hour. Why not make it these?

My point is that it does not matter what the MW is, it will never be enough to support a family.

 

The employee accepts this amount, if they think they deserve more then they should act accordingly. Minimum wage is an idiotic concept to begin with, employer should pay what the market dictates, perhaps then we will have more support to close our borders.

 

It is in your best interest to get the best education you can, so that you will be in demand. Education is key.

 

It's all about leverage. With a valuable skill you have leverage. Without one, you have none. Of course it is in their best interest to pay as little as they can for your labor. If you go to buy a car and the salesman tells you it's $25,000 would you offer $30,000? Of course you wouldn't...

So it's in YOUR best interest to go out and get a skill that is worth something to an employer. That way you've got some leverage and you don't have to go around looking like an ignorant fool demanding something to which you are not entitled.

 

Some folks spend their lives trying to figure out what "people" "need" and advocating for policies that they think provide for those needs.

The whole endeavor is misguided.

First, they sort people out into groups based on their own subjective criteria, race, sex, age, skin color, heritage, etc. Next, they collect all sorts of meaningless data on these groups and then arrange this data into statistics that are based on their own biases. Last, they demand for action to make everyone's statistics the same using policies that do no such thing.

The premise in this thread is that there's a certain amount of money that every individual needs to make weekly as a wage in order to provide for their most basic of needs. That premise is ridiculous. Not only is it false due to the myriad of poor assumptions made above, but it's also based on a completely false understanding of what money is. Money does not provide for your basic needs. In fact, it provides for no one's basic needs. Money is just a tool that we use to trade value. Like a ruler, or a scale, it's a measuring device. Changing the scale of the measuring device has ZERO effect on the thing you're trying to measure. You can't make someone taller by adding lines to a ruler. You can't make someone thinner by fiddling with the zero on your scale. European race cars aren't faster because their speedometers read in kilometers per hour. All of those things stay exactly the same when you try to change the numbers that we use to represent those things. It's the same with money.

Now the idea that basic amount of money that everyone in the nation needs is X is based on averages and guesses about what it is that people need. These assumptions are inherently wasteful. If you take a second to think about it, you realize that the so called minimum living wage is an average that represents a pool of people that need a lot more, and a pool of people that in fact are fine with a lot less. If you use the same logic, you'll realize that you're proposing giving more to people who actually need less. What effect does this have on the people that need more? Well, if they can't produce enough value to compensate for the difference then you're stealing money from them too, not just the rich people at the top.

 

Well...without profit to sustain and grow a business the business will fail...you call this exploitation?

You do realize a business cannot function without employees and consumers. If a business has employees on the payroll, those employees have agreed to the job position and the wage/compensation. If they have agreed to the wage then how can profits have anything to do with a person's wages?

No business can exploit employees?? The employee MUST agree to the job tasks and the wage or they won't work for the company. It is 100% the decision of the employee to accept a job position or not...how can this be exploitation?

Your problem is trying to blame people's failure in the workplace on others...like the wealthy or those evil business profits. If people desire more of anything then THOSE PEOPLE need to take steps to acquire more of whatever it is they desire...

 

Well...when a company offers a certain job for a certain wage...at that very moment it is the job seeker who decides what their labor is worth...either they take the job or they do not.

 

No body is controlling anything? A business does not control employees? A business needs to hire employees in order to satisfy demand and will need to pay whatever the market labor demands. If a company tries to force a $5/hour wage and no one shows up...who do you believe is in control? This company must pay whatever wage is accepted by the labor. If this cannot be worked out, the company can outsource or relocate or close the doors.

 

You're telling me how the world works. I already know how the world works. That's not what this conversation was ever about.

I'm not demanding anything other than people at least making a wage they can live on. No longer can the rich admonish the poor to just go "get a job" because even getting a job these days doesn't mean you can support yourself let alone a family. I'm also a big fan of profit sharing. If you're a business and you turn a profit, pay your employees extra. Their labor is what accomplished those profits.

And lets not pretend like there are even enough jobs to support the amount of people we have. And lets not pretend that many industries don't rely on paying their workers as little as they can get away with. And lets not pretend like getting a skill solves the problem. If everyone got a skill, we'd be in the same boat as we are now because there are literally not enough jobs that pay a living wage for the people we have that need one.

Capitalism runs roughshod over the poor and disadvantaged. Always has, always will. Even Adam Smith knew that and supported a progressive tax system to help balance the scales.

 

In a market where we have exponentially more people than we have available jobs, the advantage belongs to the employers. That's why some companies can get away with paying so little while making high profits. And if you got rid of welfare, as you righties always seem to want to do, the problem becomes even larger. All it takes is a little collusion within an industry to set whatever labor rate the captains of that industry want to set. If there isn't a better alternative because all the employers are on the same page, then there is simply not a better alternative. People will have to take what they can get because they can easily be replaced from the glut of folks who need work.

You guys keep pretending like the market is an actual real force, like it's God or something. It's not. It's simply the term that we use refer to all the financial transactions that occur in an economy. This market can be easily manipulated through collusion and corruption and regularly is. Relying on it to set fair and living wages is like relying on God to make sure you're fed.

 

No, the employer told the job seeker what their labor is worth and the job seeker decides whether they agree or not. Sometimes there might be some back and forth but the employer always holds all the cards.

 

Well whatever in the hell would we be discussing on a political forum? And not to put too fine a point on it, but this isn't exactly how the world works -- but rather just a part of it. For example, it doesn't work this way in Communist China. Or North Korea. Or Afghanistan. And on and on...

Fine. Those people then need to make sure they are properly equipped to obtain such a wage.

Anybody who thinks they should be able to support a family on minimum wage is simply irresponsible from the get-go.

I think that's a fantastic idea. Where we differ is I'm going to assume you believe this should be done by government mandate.

Their labor + the capital risked by the owners of the company + the labor performed by the owners of the company.

There aren't. And there is only one solution to that problem: greater economic opportunity.

Correction: ALL industries. Why would you pay more for something when you could pay less for it? Will you go to the car dealer and offer $30,000 for that $25,000 car? Why not?

What problem?

But everyone will not get a skill. Not everyone is even capable of getting a skill. And some are far more capable than others. And if everyone had a skill then wages would be determined by the next series of metrics: Like work ethic, attitude, contribution, quality of work performed, etc.

No. Capitalism simply fails to reward the lazy and the self-entitled. No other economic system provides the level of social mobility than does free market capitalism.

YMMV.