And? If you’re as compassionate as you imply, shouldn’t you be willing to sacrifice yourself so that those poorer than you are may eat? Or would you rather they starve? It appears here that you want to make it illegal to work for food not to protect others, but to protect yourself, because you aren’t willing to work for food.
It beats being paid nothing. There are welfare recipients and Medicare patients who are unable to get jobs because they would then be making too much money to continue receiving assistance. If they were permitted by the government to work for less than a federally-mandated minimum wage, they might be able to get some cash coming in to the house and begin accumulating savings until they did not need assistance at all.
Why don’t we instead ask someone who they would suit if they would suit them? I am not so arrogant as to assume that what I prefer is what everyone prefers.
Of course, one can always find an individual case that goes against the trend. But in general work weeks for factory and office workers are shorter in 2000 than they were in 1900.
Well, I can’t get data going back to 1900, but according to U.S. Department of Labor Statistics and Data, the average weekly hours of production workers in manufacturing (seasonally adjusted) were 39.5 hours/week in January of 1932, and 41.7 hours/week in January of 2000.
Good questions. A report by the conservative Economic Policy Foundation challenges the 40% figure, saying that
“According to data reported by Heritage Foundation from tabulations of March 1996 CPS data only 11.7% of workers were sole earners in families of 2 or more members and singles individuals were 19.3%, for a total of only 31% even if the singles were (improperly) counted as families.” (I don’t quite see what’s automatically “improper” about counting singles as families: yes, single people cost less to feed (although not necessarily less to house), but they are ineligible for many of the benefits that dependent-supporters get, and a single person on minimum wage can still be plenty poor.) So “sole earners” are at least 31% of the minwage workers, and “significant earners” in 2-or-more-earner families must account for many more; it seems unlikely that “pocket-money employees” like most teenagers, whether rich or middle-class, are anywhere close to half of the total, and among full-time workers they’d be a tiny fraction.
Note also (I don’t have an electronic cite, but it’s from an article in the 3 July 2000 American Prospect) that a lot of “living-wage” advocates suggest that the living-wage minimum should apply only to full-time, year-round jobs. Of course, that would probably motivate employers to change more full-time jobs to part-time ones, but that’s happening a lot already, and will need to be addressed as a separate issue.
And to descend to the personal level also, shouldn’t you applaud me for acting out of self-interest and what I judge is best for me?
I don’t agree with your conclusion that allowing a business to pay employees less benefits the poor. What I’m arguing is that businesses can almost always find someone willing to work for less. What eventually happens is that the salary of everyone drops, so what seems like a benefit for the unprivileged becomes a long-term disadvantage. Look at the history of unions in Western Europe. When workers decided to strike to protest dangerous working conditions, you could always find scabs desperate enough to accept those conditions. The strikers would try to prevent the scabs from breaking the strike. One could argue that the strikers were being selfish, but I prefer to think that they actually showed much foresight in sacrificing their immediate gain for a potential future benefit.
We look at the same situation and draw too different conclusions. If a welfare recipient and medicare patient, by having a job, would lose their benefits even though the job is not sufficient to cover living expenses, then the rules governing welfare should be changed so that someone working for a low salary whould still be able to get a small government stipend. I don’t agree that the conclusion should be “allow businesses to pay people less money.” In that case, if I were a business owner, I would hire the employees who accept the lower salary and fire the people with the hire salary. Net result: a decrease in salary for all employees.
The reason you don’t ask someone what suits them: I will refer to my arguments above. Take the example of the workers that decide they are willing to work in unsafe environments. That will affect other workers as well. Of course there is a balance to be chosen between regulation of business practices and allowing a company to do whatever they want. I personally favour more regulations than you do.
P.S. I know sometimes I’m accused of being paranoid in thinking that business owners are unconcerned about the welfare of workers. Let me mention a quote from a Los Angeles Times article from Monday 17 July 2000 discussing mining in Idaho. (I don’t think you can get the article unless you register with the LA Times web site so I won’t provide a link.)
Los Angeles Times
Monday, July 17, 2000
Home Edition
Section: Part A
Page: A-1
COLUMN ONE
A Deep and Wide Mining Scar in Idaho
By: KIM MURPHY
TIMES STAFF WRITER
This is indeed a big problem, and is one of the major disadvantages of “welfare as we knew it” that inspired so much support for the partial “defederalization” of welfare a few years back. The same TAP issue I mentioned above also devotes an article to examining some of the new welfare-to-work transition programs for avoiding that trap, and the role of the Manpower Development Research Corporation in designing and testing them.
Not necesarily. pay i sgenerally based on the number of people that can and will do a certain job. That is why I am paid well over minimum wage. So some jobs that many wanto, and can do would drop. But I imagine that CEO’s and Doctors would still make the same.
I have e better idea. Instead of legislating higher pay, why don’t we force all companies to lowere their prices?
> Instead, almost 40% of minimum wage workers are the sole support of their family.
Sounds like they need to get some skills so they can make more! It’s also a good idea not to start a family until you can support yourself financially.
I’m curious about the mandatory profit-sharing idea. Say I worked for a company that lost $50,000 for the year and had 10 employees. Would I have to pay back the $5000 that’s my share of the loss?
I think that the purpose of minimum wage is to help the economically disadvantaged, and not the people already highly paid. So while you may be correct that people highly paid will continue to receive large salaries, I don’t think that it is a convincing argument for abolishing the minimum wage rule.
I’m not an economist, so I can’t guess what the ramifications would be. It seems to me however that having a minimum wage benefits mostly the disadvantaged, whereas lowering prices would benefit everybody, and I thought that the purpose of minimum wage was to help the lower economic stratus of society. (see argument above)
I personally would prefer for everything to be free.
Sorry Libertarian, I didn’t notice your post until now.
OK, but practically speaking? Obviously there was needed to reinforce the ethical considerations of parents and factory owners since Congress thought it necessary to include the outlawing of child labor in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
Libertarian:
I’ve read that around 1900 in the USA greater than 50-hour work weeks were not uncommon. The drop between 1900 and 1932 can be explained by the rise of labour unions in the USA in the interval. Many employers who unilaterally decided to reduce the working hours of their employees did so to prevent them from joining a union. The slight rise from 1932 to 2000 could be explained I guess by the loss of union membership since the 1970s? I would have to investigate that further to get a better answer.
