It doesn’t matter that it can be performed on the contractor’s term rather than the employer’s. Look at your argument, please, just reread your argument. You said that if someone’s contribution isn’t worth a living wage, it should be dispensed with. Your argument was related to whether a task is worth doing as reflected in the money paid for it and that when the money paid for it reflects that the contribution isn’t worth a living wage, it should be dispensed with. Is it about whether the contribution/skills are worth a living income or not?
If your argument is that people should have enough income for a given living standard, fine, but that isn’t the argument you made and income doesn’t have to come from wage. You made the argument that if it isn’t worth paying a living income, it should be dispensed with. If we take your argument seriously, we should dispense with contractors whose skills/contribution aren’t worth a living income.
You do want a price floor on labor. Wanting a minimum wage or living wage is wanting a price floor. The fact that a price floor already exists doesn’t preclude the fact that you want a price floor yet said that the value of labor is determined by the market.
You didn’t get my argument regarding categories: You, acid lamp, stated that there are only two types of goods: essential or luxury. Yet you’re now saying that there are essential, non-essential and luxury goods. That’s 3 categories.
You seem to view teen jobs are some minor aside, not really relevant to the discussion. But I’d argue that the issue is completely relevant.
If the work the teens do is valuable and worthy, they should they be paid the same amount (a living wage) as full adults? If you make another category that teens can be paid less, then there will be a hue rush to hire teens for lesser skilled jobs, knocking adults out of work.
If you make it so they can’t be hired so they have to do your definition of ‘private’ work, they how are they ever going to learn the skills necessary to do a regular job? You can’t just jump in at a higher level, without staring at the bottom and working your way up. It just doesn’t make sense.
Michael, I’ve addressed your points twice now, and I don’t know how I can be clearer. I can agree to disagree with you, but I’m not going to re-hash it over again.
Paolo, there is no such animal as “teen jobs”. There are only jobs. Any job that is a full or part time position with a company, as opposed to a self employed contractor or someone who make’s their living on tips, should be paid a living wage for their time. Who a company hires for those positions is not relevant to me. If they want to hire teens so be it. There is no particular reason that teens should be paid less than an adult counterpart for performing the same work.
I would predict that many companies would rather hire adults at such rate though as they don’t have to deal with the restrictions of employing minors. Considering the unemployment levels, that wouldn’t be a bad thing overall anyway. Teens would have to compete like everyone else or find work in those fields that are not subject to the same rules.
Acid,
I’m just not getting if your argument is A) people should have a living income and a living wage is the way to do it or B) if a task is not worth a living income, it should not be done. Is it the former or the latter?
John, if you think you can run your business solely with commissioned employees go right ahead and try. Most fields have far too much turnover, or the model isn’t applicable for that to be successful in the long term.
Consider this: I can hire 3 full timers or six contract workers. Either way my manpower is identical because i can only afford so much payroll. My three workers make a living wage, work for me full time and know the buisness in side and out. they are there to for rapport with my customers, and gain skills and experience twice as fast as my contractors. Additionally, my contractors are based on sales, or some sort of per job rate, so they only spend a little time at my business, spitting their work between other employers. They have less loyalty, little stability, and little interaction with regular clients. Sure I might save a few dollars in payroll, but I’m willing to be my teeth that sales, and all other aspects of my business will suffer.
Neither.
A. You are correct.
B. It isn’t that such jobs should not be done. They must be accomplished. My position is that those tasks must be evaluated based upon each owners individual criteria to establish it as a critical job, or one that can be eliminated and performed in some other manner than employing a lone individual to do it. As circumstances change, the needs of any give business will change as well. Solutions to that problem might include delegating those tasks to other, more critical employees as additional work, automation, or possibly hiring private contractors who work on a commission or other basis that affords you their labor only when it is needed.
Ah, I get the distinction you were making earlier about splitting jobs into essential vs luxury.
Now, the heart of the matter is why must a living income be assured through the particular means of a living wage?
I think that might be another thread entirely.
This thread is about whether an employee should have a living wage. If the reason someone wants a living wage is to ensure a living income, then the question of whether a living wage is the best way to ensure a living income is pertinent.
Fair enough, what would you suggest as an alternative?
I believe someone already mentioned the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Let the market do it’s job of setting wages and prices. If we, as a society, want to ensure that adults have a minimum amount of money to live on, we can pay for that out of the general fund. One advantage of that system is you know exactly how much that social policy costs. When you do it by jiggering with wages, you have no way of knowing.
Yup, a tax credit or a cash transfer. Davidm and I talk about this upthread.
Paul Krugman talks about it here:
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/LivingWage.html
Milton Friedman argued for it in Capitalism and freedom, chapter 12 if I remember correctly.
Wikipedia tells me Hayek was in favor of it in The road to serfdom but I can’t confirm.
Missed the edit window…
But keep in mind that you don’t eliminate the inflationary forces if you switch from a MW to an EITC. Small changes at the margins, like we do with MW increases, are usually not enough to have a measurable effect, but surely you realize that, at some point, if everyone has significantly more money there is going to be price inflation.
Would it break forum rules to post 2 pages of a book by Friedman published in 1962?