“Certain” insofar as “no less than the minimum?” Yes, definitely.
Society requires contributions of various forms from every single one of its members. You sacrifice certain absolute freedoms (eg, the freedom to swing your arm into my skull, or to fire off your gun in my general direction) to be included in society and thusly benefit from it.
In the specific case of theft, there’s a very obvious contribution demanded by this society. Taxes. Part of your taxes pay for the law enforcement that discourages and penalizes theft. There are other contributions that influence this, but taxes are the most obvious.
They are the same in this context. To run a business within this society you must conform to the standards set by society, be that worker safety or wages. Period.
Demand what? Loyalty? Fealty? Does my wage cause these people to bend the knee? Do i expect them to take up my banner? I work for a corporation, but I have 12 direct-hires that report to me, do I demand more? I was the one who put up ads for employment, I set the wage, it was my decision to hire. All of them make more than six figures on average, do I now have the right to ask them cancel their vacation at my whimsy? I am their boss after all.
I have a house with an extra bedroom on about an acre of property. Do I demand more from my landscaper? I have an extra room in my house, who does that go to? I also have a house keeper, an aide for my mother-in-law, and a nanny. Of these 4 guess who I pay as an employee by law? None of them work 40 hours. Do I owe more hours? Who gets the extra bedroom? I really like the work my landscaper does, but he employs at least 5 guys to work my property. Do I have to make room for them? Should I make sure that they’re wages are fairly paid?
US society as a whole has an obligation to provide some minimum amount to citizens.
The most efficient and appropriate mechanism to accomplish 1 is to obligate anyone who hires any citizen to pay that citizen at least the full amount under part 1.
It is entirely possible to agree with 1 without agreeing that 2 is the very best way to accomplish 1. It’s also quite possible to disagree with both, but let’s not insist that disagreeing with 2 is the same as disagreeing with 1.
At the risk of repeating myself, this is more question begging. Yes, the law requires me to pay a certain wage. In this thread we are debating if that wage should be $15/hr, $12/hr, at the current level, or should exist at all.
I agree.
As a business owner, I pay taxes as well. Some really punitive taxes in some respects.
Worker safety and wages are two different beasts. In the first case, society worries about keeping workers alive or unharmed. There is no way to ensure that without placing a burden on the business owner to take basic safety measures.
Ensuring that people have enough money to survive in society is a different beast. The burden could be placed upon business owners, like it is now, or could be placed on society in general. Simply declaring that I must follow the law is true, but doesn’t address the debate.
How could both of you miss the bright orange button at the top of the page that says “download this paper” and the button right beside it that says “open PDF in browser”?
From page 4:
They say later that most of the increased violations are of a less-serious type, that are unlikely to lead to food-borne illness.
You completely missed the point. I don’t mean I disagree with you; I mean you literally did not get what UltraVires was saying.
As UltraVires points out, it’s irrational to say his company has a responsibility to increase someone’s wage from $6 to $15 because the country needs that done. If there is social benefit to John Smith making $15 an hour, **you should pay for it, too. ** It makes no sense for John Smith’s employer to bear the entire cost. The cost should be fairly distributed amongst EVERYONE, and that includes you, me, every other company, etc.
Just penalizing* the one company that is actually giving John Smith money * is ridiculous. It’s like saying the government should spend more money on homeless shelters, but the only people we’ll tax to pay for it are the shelters’ ten biggest donors. That would be stupid; everyone should pay for it. By saying “John Smith should have more money, and we’re going to make one company - the one company that’s giving him money now - pay for all of it, 'cause society needs that” you are irrationally placing all of the country/state/etc’s fiscal repsonsibility on one party, the party that probably LEAST deserves it. Why are you not kicking in a penny or two? Or me? Or Google? If anything, what you’re now doing is encouraging UltraVires to fire John; that way, instead of HIM paying John’s way through life, everyone will, which is the fair way to do things, if you’re saying we have to pay for the roads and police officers.
asahi has it right; minimum wage is an outdated idea. There are, economically speaking, better solutions.
Except that we ARE paying for low wages in the form of food stamps, public assistance and the like.
I honestly have no sympathy for business owners on this. When times are bad, ‘competitive wages’ mean that more workers are competing for fewer jobs and companies can pay lower wages and still attract workers. When times are good, such as right now with our low unemployment, ‘competitive wages’ means companies are competing for fewer workers. Thus they’d better pay more to attract workers.
The Minimum Wage is a floor at which we say “You’re dumping your worker’s economic issues on the rest of us and we’re not having it.” (See also - how much the average Walmart costs it’s community and the federal government to support their employees.) By keeping it at a reasonable level, we lower public costs and ensure people (employees) get a decent amount of money for their work.
The minimum wage also helps people who are not very bright, or just stuck in bad situations, so that their employers cannot take advantage of them by paying them shit wages because “where you going to go?” or “He’s a retard, what does he know?”
It is far from an outdated idea. It is the right thing to do.
As for business owners, that’s Capitalism. Competition in your industry means that if you can’t make a profit by paying the minimum wage and obeying the same rules and regulations as everyone else, someone else will. Because the demand for your service doesn’t up and vanish the minute you go out of business. Your competitors, who are managing their businesses better, will step in and meet that demand.
Except no one is doing that these days. The Republican media would be calling for open revolution about it, telling their poor and poorly educated base that it was ‘slavery’.
I actually favor a Basic Income Guarantee, but one that is so large that most of you will have to pay even the lowliest worker a premium just to get out of bed. Be careful what you wish for, employers.
You’re the landscaper’s client. Is this hard for you? OK, fine, let’s make all employees into independent labor providers who can set their own wages and hours and walk off the job at will. Let’s write that right into law. You won’t even be able to ensure anyone comes in to open in the morning. And then you can say that your employees are just people you paid for a service, and not under you, and not your responsibility.
The contract gives you the use of the time, their bodies, and their minds. Your end of it is that you pay them enough to live on.
I sympathize with the position that we should drop the minimum wage and rely on a guaranteed income, because some services would otherwise disappear: “deadweight loss.” But until we have a guaranteed income that anyone can live on, you will pay a living wage.
I wish you would address the arguments instead of continually stating your bald assertion in different ways. The conclusion does not follow from your premises.
As a business owner, clients/customers pay me for the use of my time, my body, and my mind. That also sets in motion circumstances which require my employees to use their time, minds, and bodies.
Under your philosophy, why have they not assumed the responsibility (and the law should require) that they only pay me in an amount which gives me and all my employees a living wage, or alternatively, pay me nothing and let us all go without?
The response would likely be that it is my job as a business owner to set prices and policies so that what I am able to bring in on the market is sufficient to pay my employees and make a living myself. If I cannot do that, I go out of business. Fair enough, and I agree. Why is that not the same for wage earners as well? Is there something special about me by virtue of having a business license? Am I smarter or better than a wage donkey?
See what? You’ve neither made nor cited an argument to that effect. And we have yet to see one that withstands scrutiny. But you’re welcome to attempt one. Usually people fall back on Jacobs/Perry/MacGillvary, which I would be happy to debunk again.
Their job is to advocate for their version of social justice, which is not the same thing as “answering the question”. And if that is how they present the data, then they fail at even that job. They use national averages compared to the nationally mandated MW, when in fact many states have MWs that are higher than the feds require. They are cherry-picking the data in an absurdly obvious way to slant the argument towards their view of social justice.