Well, such compensation packages exist now and you don’t explain how they would still allow survivable wages. Again, people may decide that not working is better than working through your compensation system. Which, by the way, if it reaches above min wage wouldn’t be subject to this debate since we’re concerned about people at jobs where wages would “naturally” belower. Also, increasing worker productivity is a public good beyond what employers/owners and even laborers would willingly pay, hence the need for subsidized student loans, tax breaks for schooling and what not. Min wage, again not a big part of the argument for it, also requires employers to invest some in workers so that they are worth (or closer to) this required min wage. Again, the evidence on this actually happening is mixed, as I recall.
But everyone starts off this way. Pregnancy and marriage aren’t spontaneous: they require some user interaction to achieve. Only one well known case of “spontaneous” pregnancy exists in the Western world and lots of folk say even that case is hooey.
Just because some people make these choices before they’re income prudently allows doesn’t justify paying wages based on these choices to everyone. The fact the some folk with have kids and others don’t is totally irrelevant to how much compensation they should receive.
Many folk began their working careers on or near the minimum wage without support from the government. Not all of them stay in minimum wages jobs either. After working for a while they’ll have their mewlings, then go on to buy their McMansions and SUVs. Maybe some folk waltz right into high wages as their first jobs before landing the cushy CEO positions, but quite a few start off at the bottom. I know I did. I lived in shared housing for four or five years until I could just barely afford a fine and fancy life style in my individual bachelor pad. I did it without Governmental or Parental support too. I doubt that I’m unique.
That’s right, which is why there are anti-discrimnation a laws and the min wage doesn’t discriminate. 
Remember that choice is not the only deciding factor here. I know I probably won’t convince people of that, but human agency is not the only thing that explains one’s life.
I’m confused. You had a min wage job but don’t think you benefited from goverment support? Maybe you don’t see min wage as government support, but it certainly is an intervention you seem to have benefitted from. Also, what years were those? The min wage is far less valueable now than it was; its not pegged to the CPI. Again, where you lived is also a relevant factor. Finally, your arguments, if anything, don’t seem to be against the min wage but rather that it shouldn’t be higher (higher than what you don’t say, but I guess you mean higher than what it was when you were on it).
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not proposing a system to replace the current one and which must be applied across the board to everyone. I am suggesting one possibility that may be illegal because of the minimum wage, and that would definately help people. As well, I am trying to demonstrate that a system with local feedback built in is preferable to one which requires action from Washington every several years or so.
Except that we are also discussing methods of allowing people to earn more than minimum wage. What I suggested is one way that some specific jobs might be created which allowed people to earn more money in good times, to earn something in bad times, and which might be elliminated altogether by the minimum wage. Again, I am not proposing that such a contractual arrangement could replace all minimum wage jobs.
I may have messed up understanding of your last post. If I did please correct me. I think you typed this:
I think this varies greatly from locality to locality. I don’t think very many cut a person off entirely until they reach a certain income level. My understanding was that many allow benifits to taper off as income increases. I admit I am not an expert on the variations, though.
Or if they have family help. Or if they have private charity help. Or if they are able to survive on less than minimum wage. Again, the decision is far better made on an individual basis than once every couple years from Washington.
I agree entirely. But the central policy calculation cannot possibly be done for individuals, nor can it take into account all of the information presented to all of the individuals.
I don’t deny that there have been coercive and otherwise illegitimate activity on the part of Unions and likewise on the part of some industries. I view this as counter to the ideal of a free market. I personally think that our laws and law enforcement should do their best to prevent that sort of thing. On both sides.
At the base of it, though, negotiations between labor and management are a paragon of free market activity.
pervert: If I said that the great feature of socialist economies was that it makes losers and more losers, would you not chastise me?
Nope, I’m not a socialist and don’t feel the need to leap to the defense of socialism anytime anybody says anything that might be interpreted as critical of it. (Even if I were a socialist, I doubt I’d be as defensive about it as you seem to be about capitalism.) If I felt that your claim about socialist economies was factually wrong, I’d challenge it no matter what my political beliefs were, but as it happens, I don’t understand what you mean by it.
Again, you have to insert the “often at somebody else’s expense”. This is simply not true. Why is that person participating in the transaction it is simply enriches the other participant at his expense?
Because in the real world, markets are imperfectly free. So one party to the transaction may have inferior information, high barriers to non-participation, or another of the disadvantages that impair market efficiency.
That is why I keep stressing that capitalism creates winners and losers: because when we rely solely on market activity in a world where markets are very imperfect, the imperfections often increase existing inequalities. That simply is true, and I don’t understand why you can’t stand to hear it.