Exactly. Just a slightly different one, because consumers pay for the increased safety and the government regulates with that in mind. How much are consumers willing to pay to make the workplace safer. The good news is that now people don’t die for lack of a $1 widget(at least not lawfully. Employers still break the law of course on occasion). But we’re not going to mandate thousands of dollars of improvements to save relatively few lives. For example, two national news stories in the last month about workers getting sucked into wood chippers. I’m sure there’s an expensive way we could make wood chippers even safer than they are now, but at some point you achieve diminishing returns.
I haven’t seen anyone here want to guarantee continued employment for everyone, no matter how unproductive they are. If a manager can’t get a worker up to speed, can him. Some people screw up the opportunities they are given. Employers can’t do anything about that. But if an employer is too chicken to fire someone costing them money, don’t blame society.
Environmental regulations are more like the MW than workplace safety ones. Not following safety rules can lead to costs in the form of lawsuits and reduced production. Environmental issues seldom impact the workplace, but hurts the rest of society - just like MW laws which force costs onto society and away from the employer.
I don’t. I just recognize that you can’t expect every business to run efficiently, and especially not every unit in a very large business like these huge chains to run sensibly. We don’t expect such excellence from government(oh boy we don’t). In any market there will also be businesses that don’t quite run optimally.
I do support minimum wage laws, in part because they force efficiency on businesses. But I also recognize the economic cost and that it does make some people forever unemployable. I also reject the moral case that people are entitled to a certain wage for a day’s honest work. Business owners have no such guarantees and last I checked the restaurant owner has the same rights under our Constitution as the cook. But under our statutes, the cook is entitled to a certain wage, while the owner can actually end up losing money. His employers, the customers, aren’t required to pay him a minimum income.
I covered that earlier.
And if you do go bust, you have the knowledge that any job you get after you lose your business and file bankruptcy will pay you a minimum wage.
Would that person who would be willing to work for $6.50 also be willing to work for $7.25 but can’t can’t negotiate that wage because you will not hire at $7.25 as long as you know that there is some desperate schmuck out there that will take $6.50 for doing unskilled menial labor.
Labor is not like other factors of production. Labor represents living breathing people and not just another form of capital.
Its mostly risk to capital rather than risk to income. If they lose tat capital, they have the benefit of the minimum wage same as everyone else.
Again though, it can hardly be said to pay for itself in the majority of cases.
Or, say, if it’s a million to one chance of having to pay out millions of dollars, then many business owners will opt to take the risk.
So I think it is an equivalent example. So you’ve found a guy willing to routinely carry 100kg boxes by hand? Tough. As a society we think it’s a bad idea to let that kind of exploitation happen. There are bad repercussions for society that maybe that potential worker doesn’t realize himself.
I note no-one has gone full libertarian in this thread and suggested we not have safety regulation.
I never understood that argument from pro-business types. You can make the same claim about the rent the owner pays, or the cost they pay for their supplies. “Hey, I’m not guaranteed to make enough money, so why should I pay the full price?”
Employee wages are another fixed cost of doing business. Period. If a business owner can’t decided not to pay their rent, why should they be able to decide not to pay their employees?
I recently had a boss that did, in fact, think paying her employees were optional.
She’s still paying me off at $100/month, and will be for the next three years. She found out the hard way that you can go to jail if you don’t follow a judge’s orders. Also, the IRS has a piece of her now. Seems she decided paying them was optional, too.
If only it were a million to one. But factories in Texas keep blowing up. Anyhow, people are bad ad estimating small probabilities - especially when not they, but a worker, suffers.
But the reason I think that the MW is more like environmental regulations is that the harm is done to society, not to the workplace. The sewage goes downstream, other people pick up the tab for healthcare for the worker who doesn’t get any. Both of these ill effects are not low probability but pretty much guaranteed.
But I do agree that the need for health and safety regulations shows that not all employers support their workers in any way. In that they are similar to MW.
If I buy T-bills or money market funds I’m guaranteed a return - small, but a return. If I buy a high risk investment, I can lose my shirt but the upside is much better.
I’ll cheer the restaurant owner on. We try to patronize locally owned restaurants whenever possible. But he accepts the possibility of loss with the possibility of gain. So I’m not crying for him.
One simple point that gets overlooked in discussions of minimum wages is that Prices are what they are – Goods have no “absolute” value.
I’ll try to clairfy this with examples. The water a restaurant uses is probably “worth” much more than what the restaurant pays for it. If the price of water were to double, the restaurant might not change its practices much. The “worth” of oxygen relative to its price gives an even more exaggerated example. OTOH, the “worth” of Micro$oft software is likely less than the price paid: Businesses and individuals might switch to free software if that were convenient, and pricing more transparent.
What does this have to do with minimum wage laws? The notion that a dishwasher represents exactly $X of value to a restaurant is confused. If the business were forced, whether by a union or a government, to pay $1.2X for the labor, a new equilibrium would be reached, with the restaurant perhaps charging slightly higher prices, and the dishwasher now “worth” the higher wage.
(Obviously a business owner should think in terms of marginal values in the short term, and the dishwasher “worth” may then be computable and less than minimum wage. But from the standpoint of public policy, forcing a general rise in the cost of unskilled labor does not represent a violation of market fundamentals, though it will lead to a different allotment of “the pie.”)
Your tour guide was completely wrong. Minimum wage for a full-time job in the UK is about £13,000 a year. That’s about $20,000.
And the UK inflation rate is 1.5%.
I hope you come back and respond to this erroneous post that you really should have fact-checked before using in an argument.
What bunch of phony semantic bullshit.
Minimum wage laws don’t say that everyone gets paid money. It says that if you work, you get paid at least this minimal amount per hour. So if a business owner doesn’t want to pay somebody the minimum wage he can avoid it by not hiring that person. The business owner is only required to pay minimum wage once he voluntarily agrees to enter into a commercial relationship with the employee by hiring him.
Potential customers have no such existing commercial relationship with the business owner. They can freely choose not to eat at the restaurant just as the owner can freely chose not to hire somebody. And if a customer does go to the restaurant and orders a meal, he’s legally obligated to pay for it. He can’t eat the meal and then tell the restaurant owner he only wants to pay half the price on the menu.
So the law protects the owner and the employee equally. Each is protected within commercial relationships but neither can expect the government to create those commercial relationships. The employee can’t expect the government to get him a job and the owner can’t expect the government to get him customers.
nm
Regards,
Shodan
I find that in theory, the arguments for no minimum wage laws are good, but in practice, it doesn’t work out the way the theory predicts.
Sure, let’s get rid of the minimum wage… but only if we’re willing to provide a universal basic income (and universal healthcare, naturally).
The workers who work minimum-wage jobs don’t have nearly the bargaining power of their employers, and will be driven to desperate destitution if they are made to subsist only on what they can negotiate for. In some pure market sense, that’s fine; it’s not any particular business’s responsibility to see to their welfare beyond the value the business places on their labor. But society still morally owes them the means for a dignified life; we would just have to fund it out of general taxation instead.
A few years ago SDMB’s own Emacknight started a thread based on the definition of risk: Post after post explaining that employees have limited upsides and limited downsides, while entrepreneurs have neither.
I complained at the time that the thread was all too obvious. Now I wonder. Would you like me to find the thread and link to it for you?