Just to be clear, and this is probably mostly my fault, I’m arguing two different positions here.
Given where we are now, I would not lower the MW. I would index it to inflation. I think it’s too firmly built into our system.
If we were starting from scratch, I’d prefer an EITC rather than a MW. I would rather we didn’t build a MW into our system, but looked at ways to offer assistance at whatever level a person was employed at, if they needed it. If they are someone else’s dependent or they are part of a household that doesn’t need assistance, then no, they don’t get any government assistance.
Let me help you with a list of countries where neither the government nor labor unions set minimum wages: Somalia, Ethopia, Tonga, Quatar, UAE. Doh! Almost forgot Workers Paradise of North Korea!
That’s where you were supposed to respond with a “Well, the problem is ____________”. Now if you can’t formulate an intelligent rebuttal or if you feel you’ve been boxed in a corner with your own words and are flummoxed as to how to respond, I can definitely see how that would be a problem, one that might cause you to offer the non-point you typed above.
I’m not boxed into any corners, or flumoxed. You said:
Your opinion is that people society shouldn’t guarantee even a bare minimum of dignity and compensation for workers, mine is different and we won’t see eye to eye so there isn’t a point in discussion. I wasn’t being snarky, you LITERALLY don’t see a problem with slave wages in the USA in 2013.
Curious though would YOU want to live in a neighborhood of only people getting paid $4/hr? Or is it only okay when it’s other people’s ghetto slums with slave wages? Because I bet you it would be none too safe to walk around at night in one, desperate times call for desperate measures and all.
Yes, I get it. Corporations exist to make money. They do a pretty damn good job at it too. However, I’m not a CEO, and I doubt I ever will be. I’m like most Americans – struggling to get by. I look at CEO’s who have more money than they could ever spend. I see this trend continuing. You don’t seem to understand the danger in it.
Look at it this way. What is the better option for the company and society in general?
Option 1: pay your lowest workers a decent wage. Invest in them. Support further education and benefits. Yes, it cuts into profits at the top, but CEO’s will still be fabulously wealthy. At the end of the day we are all better for it.
Option 2: The current choice. Pay your workers as little as possible. Give them no benefits or help with education. Lobby to have their social services cut. Impoverish a huge part of the population. Become SUPER fabulously wealthy.
Why is this so hard to understand? Are you a CEO or are you apart of the middle class? I’m going to bet your with the middle class. Why are you fighting against your own best interest? These corporations have ENOUGH. It’s not even a fucking opinion as people like to say. They do not need your help with this bullshit Libertarian ideology.
Apparently not, as is revealed by this post. Surely you could see how I thought you might be.
My opinion is that you show more dignity for workers by not dictating a minimum wage at all. By not having one you’re sating to a man that he’s free to place his own value on his time and sweat, and that whatever wage he actually winds up receiving he is fully entitled to.
People through around “slave wage” as if no on will notice the sleight of hand. The fact is that most slaves received no wage, and those who did certainly had no say in whether they would accept it or not. This sort of dishonesty and appeal to emotion is why these discussions are so frustrating. I suggest you read up on chattel slavery in the U.S. Also, no snark intended.
The emotional, incorrect and fallacious “slave wage aside”, I would probably avoid those neighborhoods they way I tend to avoid the poorest neighborhoods now. But you know what, someone who chooses to accept a $4 job probably won’t be a problem. Why? Because he’s busy working.
I think on main point of departure for us is the notion that a MW should be a living wage. I think that’s counterproductive in the extreme. The message that our policies should send is that you get paid what you work is worth. No more, no less. If you have zero skills you’ll need to accept the lowest wage—that day. But as you acquire skills and offer value as simple as always showing up on time, you will be able to make more. And more again. Why anyone would want to divorce people from that concept is quite bizarre to me.
Yeah they don’t seem to get this. This is why I keep pointing out how dangerous this point of view is. These people seem to think that no minimum wage, unions, social programs, and low taxes will somehow make everything better. When in actuality, it will just result in anarchy. More often than not people are going to fail. So when they don’t have money, food, shelter, or anything, then what? Well, I’ll bet they’ll come rob your ass. So you’ll either get jacked, get killed or injured in the process, or defend yourself which just lands them in prison with you and I footing the bill with our taxpayer dollars.
BUT, the corporations will make more money. Great idea let me tell ya.
What happens when that $4 hr job doesn’t pay enough to live? (which it won’t) Then what?
How do you get skills? Answer: Education. How do you get an education? Answer: Money.
So, please elaborate on how a $4 hour job, or possibly less, is going to wind up with all of these educated and skilled workers? Please, keep in mind these same corporations that you are supporting are the ones trying to cut education. So, that is not an option.
Government assistance. You seem to want to paint virtually everyone who disagrees with you as being against government programs in toto. That notion is incorrect. But government assistance should be more like a safety net. Even better yet, a pair of crutches you use for a short time, not a prosthetic you live with.
Formal education is only one way to get skills. And I’d say, not even the best way. Have you really never heard of learning something on the job? Have you not learned things on the job? I certainly have. And that includes even MW jobs I’ve had, including being a parking lot attendant or doing the nasty job of cleaning toilets at an amusement park.
You take the best job you can get. Then you pay attention and see what is valued and work hard at providing that to the employer. As I’ve said numerous times, in some MW jobs that can be as easy as being known as the guy who is always there, the guy who doesn’t complain, the guy that is always pleasant, the guy who is always five minutes early, etc.
Serious question, do you really not know these things. I learned them when I was washing dishes and then cleaning bathrooms when I was in high school. Junior high for the dish washing job.
The topic is the minimum wage. And as has already been pointed out in a recent post, there are plenty of countries that liberals profess to admire that have neither a MW nor anarchy:
[QUOTE=Terr]
Some countries that do not have government-set minimum wage: Sweden, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Switzerland,
[/QUOTE]
Also, can you point out who in this thread has argued for zero social programs? If you can’t, maybe you could dispense with the straw.
Fair enough. Honestly, if you support social programs, I can be more lenient with the idea of no minimum wages. I think that’s how it should work. First, we build our foundation by creating a strong safety net. We work to make access to food, housing, education, justice, and a number of other programs as abundant as possible. Once we do this, then we can free business up to do as they please. But, not the other way around.
All I can say is that when you espouse ideas like no minimum wage, without being forthcoming about the need for social programs, people are going to assume you are Conservative. Conservatives share this idea, but at the same time do not support social programs. Like it or not, there are two main parties - Democrats and Republicans. I’m sure you can tell that I vote Democrat.
Yes, of course I’ve heard about learning on the job. However, in a technological world, we need more scientists, engineers, doctors, and the like. That takes formal education. More engineers = less Walmart workers. Also, I have a good work ethic. I don’t know what would make you think I don’t.
We’d probably disagree on the levels of social programs, but agree they there should be a safety net. But I have to ask you, what do you mean by “as abundant as possible”? Should we have free groceries available in every city, every neighborhood, every block? The point is that all these things cost money. I accept that your “as possible” stipulates a level of reasonableness, but again, I’m sure that not everyone would agree with your interpretation. Nor mine.
I have to ask you, where the hell are you getting this from? I am a conservative and know quite a few conservatives, and not a one—not one—believes that the country should not have social programs. In fact, can you identify one? Even on this board? Just one? Maybe you’re conflating conservatism with libertarianism, but even so, I’m not aware of anyone who advocates no social programs at all.
There’s much wrong here. First, there will always be workers at the lower end of the spectrum, because there will always be a lowest end of the spectrum. We will always need people to bus tables, wash dishes, clean bathrooms at amusement parks and sling burgers. Next, your “more engineers = [less]Walmart workers” is incorrect, I’d say. In fact, the more people who have money to spend the more Walmart workers that will be needed. Unless you think that, given the choice, people prefer to pay more for paper towels and the like than they have to.
As possible is exactly what it means. If we can create abundant food that’s free to everyone, then let’s do it. Yes, I understand these things cost money and at this point, it’s not feasible. But, the goal remains the same.
Most of the politicians. They’re looking to cut Welfare, Social-Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, and more. That’s the point really. You may not share their ideas, but your views have implications. That’s why I take the stance that I do.
No, this point stands. More engineers = less waiters, dishwashers, burger slingers, and whoever else. With technology, we can automate these simple processes.
Yeah protections like minimum wage are SO OFFENSIVE to the poor people, I bet every dollar they make over the $4 their labor is actually worth is like so many more spits in the face.
Would you prefer “sweatshop”, does that not offend you?
[quote[The emotional, incorrect and fallacious “slave wage aside”, I would probably avoid those neighborhoods they way I tend to avoid the poorest neighborhoods now. But you know what, someone who chooses to accept a $4 job probably won’t be a problem. Why? Because he’s busy working. [/quote]
Here you reveal the typical canard: That no one in poor neighborhoods works ALREADY. MOST POOR PEOPLE WORK. The only thing you are doing by lowering the minimum wage in ghettos is PAYING THEM LESS, making them WORSE.
This is just utterly hilarious and shows how out of touch you are with minimum wage and the poor. You know what someone’s reward is for showing up on time is making moor? No, your reward is making minimum wage and not being fired, if you’re lucky. Bosses are not sitting around looking at minimum wage workers and waiting for them to show their worth and improved skillsets so they can pay them more, that is utterly laughable.
Minimum wage isn’t just shitty because you get paid as little as legally possible, you also typically are treated as bad as legally possible (and sometimes illegally). There is no golden ladder to the top as long as you show up on time and do your job. You cannot leave your Burger King job and put on your resume “BK: showed up on time with good attitude, learned how to ring up a cash register and eventually learned how to order mayonaise”, no one gives a shit.
There is no rich guy just waiting to see you try hard and are worth investing in at minimum wage, you are a disposeable cog in the machine and no more. Typically, in general, et al.
I doubt the existence of the “corporations exist to make money for shareholders” rule too, at least in its current form as justification for anything that could be considered cheap. I work for a non-profit so the statement is untrue on its face - that corporations exist to make money for shareholders - although we could all probably agree that “wealth” is, in fact, “money” and save going off on a possible tangent. Investors don’t like to lose money; it defeats the purpose of investment, and it’s also true that investors do not automatically dump all shares in Acme, Inc. when the company posts a third quarter loss, because that also defeats the purpose.
A corporation often springs from a privately-held company that wants to expand and at the same time create for itself an identity apart from its owners as a form of protection. Then the public is invited in to become owners with the expectation of investment growth, not promises of profit on the dollar. Nothing would say “risk” quite like paying employees $4/hour, so at that point what looks to be an obvious cost savings might trigger re-evaluation by investors based on the company’s lack of ethics and/or investment in its own workforce, and a possibly damaged brand.
Unfortunately, despite the capitals, that isn’t true, at least not in the sense of “working full time, year round”. Less than half of low-income families have a full-time, year-round worker. (Cite.)
