why not two minimum wages - one for students and teens, one for working adults?

[Kimstu]

pervert: Sufficient nutrition to live.
Sufficient clothing and shelter to avoid death due to exposure.
Some amount of sanitation to avoid exagerated risks of disease.
Anyone able to afford anything more simply is not very “grindingly” poor. IMHO.

Going by Third World standards, I’d agree with you. When I was living in India, I would have considered anybody who could afford all of those things to be above the level of “grinding poverty”. (Me, I was living on about US$18 K annually, and I was absolutely filthy rich by local standards, although I wouldn’t have been considered anywhere near it in the cosmopolitan high-rent districts of Delhi and Bombay, for example.)

But I’m rather shocked at the prospect of applying the same standard to people living in the US, often described as the richest country in the world. IMHO, in a wealthy society, not being in “grinding poverty” ought to mean more. It ought to mean, for example, that you can afford basic health care, as well as health care and decent basic education for your children, if any. It ought to mean that you can afford reliable transportation to and from your employment and for basic errands. It ought to mean that your living quarters don’t only keep you from absolutely perishing of exposure, but provide reasonable security for your person and property and aren’t permanently infested with vermin. Not being in “grinding poverty” by American standards ought to mean what I previously called a “frugal but comfortable life”, IMO.

pervert: I am not trying to suggest that all poor people are irresponsible. I was only trying to suggest that the hypothoses is not unreasonable.

If you’re not suggesting that “all poor people are irresponsible”, though, then how do you explain the trend that we’re discussing? You apparently disagree that it indicates a systemic problem with our economic system, but now you say that you also reject (or at least don’t endorse) the “Magiver hypothesis” that it’s solely a problem of individual irresponsibility. So, what is the explanation?

pervert: Good secrataries have to know almost about their bosses business as the boss does. Highering [? hiring?] temporary workers to rotate through such a position sounds like a very bad idea to me.

Again, if it’s a bad idea, how do you explain the trend that more and more secretarial and similar positions are being staffed by temporary and part-time workers, for lower pay and less benefits than full-time permanent employees?

pervert: “What do you think working a full time job for a company that is turning a profit off your labor ought to provide you?”
Precisely, exatly, no more and no less, than whatever you can get them to agree to pay you.

That’s a non-answer, though. It just ducks the implications of the “ought” in the question. It asserts that there’s no moral dimension whatever involved in setting wage levels. I think that’s a cop-out. We have the right to make moral judgements about an employer based on whether, for example, they cut shop-floor wages to the bone in order to pad executive bonuses. And if we admit that wage levels have a moral dimension, then it makes sense to consider the moral question of what basic standard of living a minimum wage ought to provide.

[Magiver]

@Kimstu

That’s a non-answer, though. It just ducks the implications of the “ought” in the question. It asserts that there’s no moral dimension whatever involved in setting wage levels. I think that’s a cop-out. We have the right to make moral judgements about an employer based on whether, for example, they cut shop-floor wages to the bone in order to pad executive bonuses. And if we admit that wage levels have a moral dimension, then it makes sense to consider the moral question of what basic standard of living a minimum wage ought to provide.

The moral dimension involved in setting wages is an illusion. You cannot raise someone’s wages (purchasing power) beyond that of what people are willing to pay for the service or product. All wages will rise accordingly and prices will be adjusted upward until equilibrium is met. Any gain in purchasing power is short term and potentially harmful because of layoff’s that occur within inelastic markets.

The only leverage a government has with purchasing power is a subsidy or a tarrif. The last time that was tried was by President George W. Bush with steel tarrifs and Europe reacted quickly to get them eliminated. The last untouched subsidy will probably be farm subsidies and they are currently on the chopping block.

[Kimstu]

Magiver: *The moral dimension involved in setting wages is an illusion. *

Doesn’t seem like it to me. After all, a company that is making a profit has some latitude in deciding how it is going to use that profit. Deciding how to divvy up the profit among different potential uses such as wage increases, executive bonuses, shareholder dividends, new equipment, etc., is partly a practical decision but also partly a moral one. We can’t simply ignore or dismiss the moral dimension of the issue just because it’s admittedly a real beeyatch to quantify.

Magiver: Any gain in purchasing power is short term and potentially harmful because of layoff’s that occur within inelastic markets.

As pervert has pointed out, though, there doesn’t seem to be any conclusive evidence that this “potential harm” does actually affect low-wage employment as a result of small changes in the minimum wage.

Magiver: *The only leverage a government has with purchasing power is a subsidy or a tarrif. *

True, and I think we’re all agreed here that a federal minimum wage is essentially a subsidy for low-wage work, on the grounds that (a) we want to improve low-wage workers’ purchasing power and (b) we want this to serve as an incentive for commitment to paid work, even at low wages.

[Magiver]

@Kimstu

Magiver: *The moral dimension involved in setting wages is an illusion. *

Doesn’t seem like it to me. After all, a company that is making a profit has some latitude in deciding how it is going to use that profit. Deciding how to divvy up the profit among different potential uses such as wage increases, executive bonuses, shareholder dividends, new equipment, etc., is partly a practical decision but also partly a moral one. We can’t simply ignore or dismiss the moral dimension of the issue just because it’s admittedly a real beeyatch to quantify.

I’ll concentrate on this single issue because it encompasses all others. Businesses already do what you describe. Otherwise, everyone would get minimum wage. The more competitive the business venture, the closer the wages will be between companies. Not only do workers have to compete for jobs, businesses have to compete for workers. The nature of the product and the amount of competition dictates it’s selling price. The cost of production dictates the wage that CAN be paid. If there are no workers willing to do the job then the product is not made. Wages, bonuses, and dividends are the end result of market forces. You cannot arbitrarily reduce a dividend simply because you think wages are too low. The reverse applies.

Workers trade risk for a guaranteed wage. Investors risk loss for a higher return (over guaranteed interest bearing accounts).

[pervert]

@Kimstu

pervert: Sufficient nutrition to live.
Sufficient clothing and shelter to avoid death due to exposure.
Some amount of sanitation to avoid exagerated risks of disease.
Anyone able to afford anything more simply is not very “grindingly” poor. IMHO.

Going by Third World standards, I’d agree with you. When I was living in India, I would have considered anybody who could afford all of those things to be above the level of “grinding poverty”. (Me, I was living on about US$18 K annually, and I was absolutely filthy rich by local standards, although I wouldn’t have been considered anywhere near it in the cosmopolitan high-rent districts of Delhi and Bombay, for example.)

But I’m rather shocked at the prospect of applying the same standard to people living in the US, often described as the richest country in the world. IMHO, in a wealthy society, not being in “grinding poverty” ought to mean more. It ought to mean, for example, that you can afford basic health care, as well as health care and decent basic education for your children, if any. It ought to mean that you can afford reliable transportation to and from your employment and for basic errands. It ought to mean that your living quarters don’t only keep you from absolutely perishing of exposure, but provide reasonable security for your person and property and aren’t permanently infested with vermin. Not being in “grinding poverty” by American standards ought to mean what I previously called a “frugal but comfortable life”, IMO.

This is, unfortunately, what I thought. Can you explain why? Why, for instance do you even want to use the same term for both states (besides the obvious shock value when applying it to those “frugal but comfortable life”)?

If I am correct, you have added the following to my list:

Afford basic healthcare (Can you define “basic” for me?)
Decent education for your children. (I was assuming a derth of children. But again, what do you mean by decent?)
Reliable transportation to your employment and errands. (This again begs the question of what limitations would you put on it.)
Affordable home which is “reasonably secure” for your person and property.

A home not infested with vermin was, I think, included in my list as basic sanitation. Also, I included the idea of not being exposed to ay exagerated risks of disease. I take it that this is insufficient in your opinion as basic medical care?

If I imagine a person with a decent home, adequate medical care, education for his children as well as all of the things I listed, but without a car. You would call this person grindingly poor. Meanwhile, transplant him to India, and you would call him rich. I find that incredibly odd. Can you explain why the statistical habit of using relative wealth as the measure of rich and poor should be used in this way?

pervert: I am not trying to suggest that all poor people are irresponsible. I was only trying to suggest that the hypothoses is not unreasonable.

If you’re not suggesting that “all poor people are irresponsible”, though, then how do you explain the trend that we’re discussing? You apparently disagree that it indicates a systemic problem with our economic system, but now you say that you also reject (or at least don’t endorse) the “Magiver hypothesis” that it’s solely a problem of individual irresponsibility. So, what is the explanation?

I’m saying that you cannot tell. You are both wrong. Neither can we reject the irresponsible hypothoses nor can we reject the systematic problem hypothoses with the available data.

pervert: Good secrataries have to know almost about their bosses business as the boss does. Highering [? hiring?] temporary workers to rotate through such a position sounds like a very bad idea to me.

Again, if it’s a bad idea, how do you explain the trend that more and more secretarial and similar positions are being staffed by temporary and part-time workers, for lower pay and less benefits than full-time permanent employees?

Yes, hiring. Sorry about that.

IMHO Because many of the tasks handled by secrataries in the past are being automated. Many of the things left are the meneal ones. The trend is only part of the broader trend away from secrataries in general. In the past most executives had personal secrataries. Almost none do anymore.

pervert: “What do you think working a full time job for a company that is turning a profit off your labor ought to provide you?”
Precisely, exatly, no more and no less, than whatever you can get them to agree to pay you.

That’s a non-answer, though. It just ducks the implications of the “ought” in the question. It asserts that there’s no moral dimension whatever involved in setting wage levels. I think that’s a cop-out. We have the right to make moral judgements about an employer based on whether, for example, they cut shop-floor wages to the bone in order to pad executive bonuses. And if we admit that wage levels have a moral dimension, then it makes sense to consider the moral question of what basic standard of living a minimum wage ought to provide.

It is not a cop out at all. The only moral dimension in setting wages should be (and can only be IMHO) one of choice. If either party is forced then the transaction is imoral. I tend to think it is inappropriate to make moral judgements about the choices each of us makes.

I agree that you are completely free to make any “moral judgement” you want. What you are not free to do is to force your moral judgement on others. Which is, IMHO, what you are advocating with a desire to set a “moral minimum wage”.

[even_sven]

@pervert

If I imagine a person with a decent home, adequate medical care, education for his children as well as all of the things I listed, but without a car. You would call this person grindingly poor. Meanwhile, transplant him to India, and you would call him rich. I find that incredibly odd. Can you explain why the statistical habit of using relative wealth as the measure of rich and poor should be used in this way?

Actually, in India, my 19 year old Pizza Hut employee friend was shocked that I didn’t have a scooter or motorcyle, shared a room, had no healthcare access, bought used clothes, and owed the government several times my annual income for my college education.

Of course, there is a depth and breadth of poverty in India that can’t be touched here and I don’t mean to discount that. But the same thing happens if you don’t pay rent here as it does there. The streets are just as cold. A sixteen-hour workday is the same there as it is here. The kids get just as hungry on peanut butter night as they do on chappati night. This kind of poverty does happen here, to working folks, quite regularly.

Go ask the guy at Blockbuster what his life is like. At my store, when popcorn went on sale for $.20 a bag, we’d snap it up before the customers could because it gave us a cheap hot lunch. About a quarter of the staff was always some kind of homeless. several of us had second full-time jobs. Most of us had basic medical problems that we couldn’t afford to fix. And this is America, where the people we were checking movies out to had $500 Louis Vuitton handbags. At least there is a for poverty in India- the police don’t harrass you for camping on the sidewalk, there is ample public transportation, and you can buy the drugs you need without having to pay to see a doctor.

[pervert]

@even sven

Go ask the guy at Blockbuster what his life is like. At my store, when popcorn went on sale for $.20 a bag, we’d snap it up before the customers could because it gave us a cheap hot lunch. About a quarter of the staff was always some kind of homeless. several of us had second full-time jobs. Most of us had basic medical problems that we couldn’t afford to fix.

I thought we agreed not to trade sob stories. I will not offer any to counter this. Unless you want.

And this is America, where the people we were checking movies out to had $500 Louis Vuitton handbags.

Qh, but here you begin to touch the question I was asking Kimstu. What is it about the relative difference that makes a difference? You do realize that many of those with the fancy handbags actually earned them, don’t you? They did not get them by keeping you tied in some serflike fuedal fashion to Blockbuster.

Seriously, can you guys try and grapple with this question for a bit? I promise not to criticize or jump on you. I really want to understand the mindset. It seems like you are saying that people should not enjoy the fruits of thier own labor while others are unable to derive the same sorts of satisfaction while living in the same society. I know this is not what you are saying. It can’t be. But it seems that way to me. Could you try and explain why the wealth differential makes so much difference to you in terms that an idiot like me can understand?

[even_sven]

@pervert

Seriously, can you guys try and grapple with this question for a bit? I promise not to criticize or jump on you. I really want to understand the mindset. It seems like you are saying that people should not enjoy the fruits of thier own labor while others are unable to derive the same sorts of satisfaction while living in the same society. I know this is not what you are saying. It can’t be. But it seems that way to me. Could you try and explain why the wealth differential makes so much difference to you in terms that an idiot like me can understand?

It makes a difference to me because these companies are making a lot more money off those clerks than they are paying them. My store needed two people to run- about $13.50 an hour in labor costs. They took in maybe five hundred dollars an hour. I know that overhead doesn’t eat up more than four fifths of that. We make them at least $86.50 an hour. Without out us, they would not make that. Yet we don’t bring home enough to pay rent, eat, and stay healthy. Who is distanced from the fruit of their labor here?

What do they do to afford their $500 handbag? Mostl likely it’s something that involves reading the Straight Dope most of the day, signing a few papers, sitting in on lots of meetings where they doodle with their pens, and occasional bursts of work. The same guy, making the same amount of money per hour for Viacom or whoever owns Blockbuster nowdays, working in an office doing not too much gets three times the salary of the people actually on the floor selling the stuff. The best paid job I ever had was one I could do half asleep, for a few hours a day, even if I was a total moron. Not half as hard as waiting tables.

Which would be okay, except for this:

The increasing reliance on disposable labor. At some point, companies figured out that instead of training, advancing and bringing their employees to their fullest, they could instead just hire people for a few months and drop them. This has a few advantages.

Mostly, It’s cheaper in the long run. Part-time temporary labor doesn’t bother to organize for higher wages. They don’t expect benefits. When asked to do something illegal or against their rights, they are more likely to quit than rattle for change. They don’t retire. They don’t expect anything. They just work until they are sick of it and then they walk out the door with no questions asked. It’s easier. Why exploit everyone to their fullest when you only have to do just enough? Customers will almost always choose the store where they pay a penny over the store where they get good service. And haveing a large labor force without steady hours cuts down on scheduling problems, overtime, and allows for maximum payroll effiencentcy- you never have to keep people around when there is no work to do.

This works because any economy needs a certain amount of unemployment to keep running. And since everyone does it now, there is always a supply of workers fresh off the last minimum wage job they quit. Since none of these jobs offers much in regards to training or advancement, workers come out of them qualified only for another minimum wage job.

And the best thing is that these people need to watch every penny, so they shop the only places they can- the cheapest bottom of the barrel screw-the-workers places. It’s kind of like Henry Ford’s plan to make his workers able to afford a car, but in reverse. Pure genius.

I guess, in short, the system of labor is broken. Our labor no longer represents our fair worth and the money we bring in, because everyone pays the bare minimum, all the work is the same, there is no way to be recognized or advanced because of your achievements, and there will always be unemployed people who will work for peanuts.

Want to get out of it?

Starting your own business is unlikely. Look around your house (or the house of a friend, if you have unusual buying practices). How many products come from small business, or even businesses that have been small in the last fifty years? How much of that stuff did you buy at small businesses? The same large businesses that are crushing their workers are crushing small business. I have a friend who worked for a big name warehouse store. Her job was to drive around to all the local businesses buying their entire stocks of Shrek 2. The idea is that customers would see the lack of stock, get fed up, and go to the big store. Small businesses can’t fight some things. The golden age of the small business is over.

Some, maybe even most of us, eventually get out. Usually it’s because we know someone. We get lucky. Sometimes it’s because we bust our ass and go to school or work for free for a while.

Doesn’t make the suffering any less when it’s happening.

In conclusion, I AM PART OF THE WEALTH OF THIS NATION. My labor makes people wealthy. While I know that I can never get the full fruits of my labor without also owning the capital, I deserve at least a small standard of living that reflects the nation that I am contributing to the wealth of.

[blowero]

@Debaser

For people who think raising minimum raise is a good idea: If we can just legislate away poverty, then why don’t we pass a law saying that everyone makes $50K a year?

Once you understand why that wouldn’t work, then maybe you’ll understand why we can’t just legislate away low wages and ignore the reality of how the economy functions.

Not sure why this thread got bumped, but since it did - Debaser, do you believe there should be no minimum wage at all?

If you do think there should be a minimum wage, then where do you draw the line, and why is your line intrinsically more correct than any other?

If you don’t think there should be a minimum wage, I wonder if you are aware of the working conditions that exist in countries that do not enforce any minimums, and if you really think that should be allowed in the U.S.? Do you really want sweatshops paying starvation wages?

[pervert]

@even sven

It makes a difference to me because these companies are making a lot more money off those clerks than they are paying them. My store needed two people to run- about $13.50 an hour in labor costs. They took in maybe five hundred dollars an hour. I know that overhead doesn’t eat up more than four fifths of that. We make them at least $86.50 an hour. Without out us, they would not make that. Yet we don’t bring home enough to pay rent, eat, and stay healthy. Who is distanced from the fruit of their labor here?

They are.

Surprised by that answer? Try and build the store yourself. Try and garner the brand recognition they have by yourself. After those exercises don’t pan out, try and perform the same operations you do at that store in your own home or on the street and see what you earn there. $0, you say? The difference is entirely due to the capital built by the company you work for.

What do they do to afford their $500 handbag?

They earn it by providing value to someone willing to trade a greater value for it. Its not complicated.

Mostl likely it’s something that involves reading the Straight Dope most of the day, signing a few papers, sitting in on lots of meetings where they doodle with their pens, and occasional bursts of work. The same guy, making the same amount of money per hour for Viacom or whoever owns Blockbuster nowdays, working in an office doing not too much gets three times the salary of the people actually on the floor selling the stuff. The best paid job I ever had was one I could do half asleep, for a few hours a day, even if I was a total moron. Not half as hard as waiting tables.

This is because you are only measuring the “hardness” of the jobs you have had by the amount of physical labor involved. There are other kinds of effort. Again, try the sorts of physical exhertions you are talking about absent the capitalist’s infrastructure. You will quickly find out that the wealth of nations is not really built on physical labor.

The increasing reliance on disposable labor. …

Can you tell me how you learned this? Your extensive experience in corporate management? Have you ever been involved in the process of hiring or firing anyone? Have you ever had a meeting at a company where your boss said anything to the effect that “We have to get rid of Ted because he has worked here 3 months already.”?

I suppose “cite” would have been shorter.

Want to get out of it?

Been there, done that.

Some, maybe even most of us, eventually get out. Usually it’s because we know someone. We get lucky. Sometimes it’s because we bust our ass and go to school or work for free for a while.

I find this highly insulting. I think you are projecting your insecurities and excuses onto the rest of us. I think it is the very rare exception when someone makes it out of poverty because of nepotism, cronyism, or dumb luck.

In conclusion, I AM PART OF THE WEALTH OF THIS NATION. My labor makes people wealthy. While I know that I can never get the full fruits of my labor without also owning the capital, I deserve at least a small standard of living that reflects the nation that I am contributing to the wealth of.

You see, I agree with this paragraph. The only part I disagree with you on is the methods you want to use to extract this standard of living. I am saying that if you want more money, you need to earn more money. Do something which is more valuable. Provide something which is worth more. Its not merely the best way to get a higher standard of living, it is the only way.

Remember, the studies we have looked at in this thread have indicated that while increasing the minimum wage does not seem to increase unemployment, neither does it decrease the poverty rates. One seemed to think that in amounted to shifting wealth amongst the poor. Are you really sure you would come out ahead in such a transaction?

[Debaser]

@blowero

Not sure why this thread got bumped, but since it did - Debaser, do you believe there should be no minimum wage at all?

No MW at all would be preferable to the too high MW that some people would prefer.

If you do think there should be a minimum wage, then where do you draw the line, and why is your line intrinsically more correct than any other?

Loot at it this way: I don’t want the government interfering with the economy unless there is some demonstrable good that is coming from it. Setting a minimum wage interferes with the natural balance of supply and demand of the market and ultimately does more harm than good. If we must have a MW, I’d rather not raise it. IMO, it’s already too high. High school kids flipping burgers don’t need to get $10 an hour.

If you don’t think there should be a minimum wage, I wonder if you are aware of the working conditions that exist in countries that do not enforce any minimums, and if you really think that should be allowed in the U.S.? Do you really want sweatshops paying starvation wages?

This is silly. It’s not the MW laws that keep this from occuring in the US. It’s the strength of our economy. Workers are valuable, and as a result they get good wages.

If your opinion were correct, then could all third world countries that have sweatshops and starvation wages simply end this practice by creating a minimum wage? Obviously they would not. The wages that people make are determined by market forces. It’s not just some arbitrary decision that can be raised or lowered without regard to economic reality.

[Clothahump]

There is an argument to be made that minimum wages are nothing more than regressive social wealth redistribution programs mandated by the government. Minimum wage levels put an artificial and unrealistic value on low-end labor. As a result, employers don’t get the “bang for the buck” from minimum wage employees that a purely market driven labor value would provide.

In 1999, Thomas MaCurdy wrote:

As in 1996, when we last saw an increase in the federal minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour, political pressure is once again building to raise it by another $1. What accounts for the popularity in the minimum wage? Two beliefs! First, that raising the minimum wage is an effective antipoverty program and, second, that the minimum wage imposes little social cost. Anyone holding either view should acquaint themselves with the facts.

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaffairs/we/current/macurdy_1199.html

MaCurdy points out that minimum wage hikes are a “vicious circle”, so to speak - the hikes are passed along in the form of higher prices:

But then the question becomes, Who pays the higher prices to cover costs? A comprehensive analysis of the 1996 federal hike in the minimum wage estimates that prices rose on a broad range of commodities to fund this increase and that families of all income groups purchase these goods. Families in the lowest 20 percent of the income distribution pay annually an average of $61 in higher commodity costs, whereas families in the highest 20 percent pay only $150 more. The implied coverage of costs is at least as regressive as a conventional sales tax. Moreover, nearly 75 percent of poor families receive no additional earnings, but all paid higher costs following the minimum wage.

Politicians use the minimum wage just like any other vote-buying football that they kick around. There is no consideration whatsoever for the long-term effects of their political field goal: they might have scored their three points, but we the taxpayers and consumers pay for it for the rest of our lives.

[Mr.Slant]

@Magiver

SNIP
The concept that we need low wage earners is elastic. If a person cannot be found to do the job then the job is upgraded, automated or done away with. If you look at the trend in retail it is to do without. There are national chains stores in my area that now have self checkout as the only method of purchase.
SNIP

Magiver,

What national chain store in your area has self checkout its only method of purchase?
I’ve never seen that.

[davenportavenger]

@pervert

I am saying that if you want more money, you need to earn more money. Do something which is more valuable. Provide something which is worth more. Its not merely the best way to get a higher standard of living, it is the only way.

Would you also say this to a third world sweatshop worker? Yes, some poor people–maybe even the majority of poor Americans–have the ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become rich. However, this doesn’t extrapolate to the third world. In fact, the only reason that some poor Americans even have a shot at a better life is the minimum wage. Take that away, and people really do just become cogs in Henry Ford’s machine. Someone making a dollar an hour working fourteen hours a day can’t plan ahead for the future. They have no time in which to do this; their entire life is taken up with work and sleep. Even if they found the time to look for other jobs or expand their range of skills, they wouldn’t have the necessary money to buy clothes for interviews or the bus ticket to get there. Third world sweatshop worker poverty is truly an unescapable cycle. The fact that some people (maybe not necessarily you) want this cycle to exist in America shows that they don’t really care about the dignity of their fellow citizens. Yes, there are some varieties of poverty that really are so grinding that there’s no possibility of recovery–I haven’t experienced them, you haven’t experienced them, even sven hasn’t experienced them, but they’re out there and the only thing that’s stopping poor Americans from getting sucked into the cycle is the minimum wage. If we don’t have that, “hard work” doesn’t mean a thing. You don’t think Indonesian factory workers work hard?

Debaser: The minimum wage in America is nowhere near $10 in any state. In PA it’s only $5.15. And I’ve seen a lot of “high class” jobs that I don’t think are worth what they pay out–I worked as a receptionist in my last job, and I spent most of my time reading novels. People on this very board post while they’re at work. You can’t do that while you’re flipping burgers. In fact, I think food service is a pretty high stress job, and those kids should really be making more than minimum wage. But that’s just my opinion.

[pervert]

@continuity eror

Would you also say this to a third world sweatshop worker?

Yes, of course. Again it is not simply the best way. It is certainly not the easiest way. It is the only way.

Yes, some poor people–maybe even the majority of poor Americans–have the ability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become rich. However, this doesn’t extrapolate to the third world.

I can agree with that. Political reform has to happen in many third world countries before more people will have the opportunity to advance. But once you remove the tyrany of force all you have done is provide the space for people to take advantage of an opportunity. It will still be up to them to do so.

In fact, the only reason that some poor Americans even have a shot at a better life is the minimum wage. Take that away, and people really do just become cogs in Henry Ford’s machine. Someone making a dollar an hour working fourteen hours a day can’t plan ahead for the future.

Let’s do some math, shall we? If you sleep 8 hours a night (many of us get by on less but let’s use that figure) and granting an hour tranport to and from work, then working 14 hours a day gives you 2 hours every day to plan for the future. I’ll grant that this is certainly not copious amounts of free time. But it is certainly more than 0. Not to mention that much thinking can be done during other activities. Much labor which pays $1.00 an hour does not require excessive amounts of brain power.

They have no time in which to do this; their entire life is taken up with work and sleep. Even if they found the time to look for other jobs or expand their range of skills, they wouldn’t have the necessary money to buy clothes for interviews or the bus ticket to get there. Third world sweatshop worker poverty is truly an unescapable cycle.

But the fact that some people do in fact excape it proves this untrue. You are simply denying the history. The fact that many do not escape only means that the process is hard, tricky, or otherwise not widely known.

The fact that some people (maybe not necessarily you) want this cycle to exist in America shows that they don’t really care about the dignity of their fellow citizens.

Please name one person who wants people to live in “grinding poverty”.

Yes, there are some varieties of poverty that really are so grinding that there’s no possibility of recovery–I haven’t experienced them, you haven’t experienced them, even sven hasn’t experienced them, but they’re out there and the only thing that’s stopping poor Americans from getting sucked into the cycle is the minimum wage.

But this is simply not true. People had it much worse before the minimum wage laws. Even so, people did, in fact rise above said poverty. In fact, I’d argue, that if you remove the general growth of the economy from the equation, the minimum wage has helped very few people indeed rise above poverty. How do you explain this? Did everyone who made it in America simply luck out?

My favorite anecdote: from here

Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland. He went to the U.S. in 1848 and soon began work as a bobbin boy in a cotton mill in Allegheny, Pa., for $1.20 per week. The following year he became a messenger in a Pittsburgh telegraph office and learned telegraphy. He was then employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad as the private secretary and telegrapher to the railroad official Thomas Alexander Scott (1823–81). Carnegie advanced by successive promotions until he was superintendent of the Pittsburgh division of the railroad. His financial interest in what is now the Pullman Co. laid the foundation of his fortune, and investments in oil lands near Oil City, Pa., increased his means. During the American Civil War he served in the War Department under Scott, who was in charge of military transportation and government telegraph service. After the war Carnegie left the railroad and formed a company to produce iron railroad bridges. He later founded a steel mill and was one of the earliest users of the Bessemer process of making steel in the U.S. Carnegie was extremely successful, acquiring a controlling interest in other large steel plants. By 1899, when he consolidated his interests in the Carnegie Steel Co., he controlled about 25 percent of the American iron and steel production. In 1901 he sold his company to the United States Steel Corp. for $250 million and retired.

Debaser: The minimum wage in America is nowhere near $10 in any state.

Here is the cite In San Francisco the minimum is $8.50. Several states have minimums over $7.00. I suppose that’s nowhere near $10.

[Debaser]

@continuity eror

Debaser: The minimum wage in America is nowhere near $10 in any state.

:rolleyes:

No kidding.

And I’ve seen a lot of “high class” jobs that I don’t think are worth what they pay out–I worked as a receptionist in my last job, and I spent most of my time reading novels.

I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that a receptionist is a high class job?

People on this very board post while they’re at work. You can’t do that while you’re flipping burgers.

What’s this got to do with anything? I’m a systems analyst. 10 years ago, while in high school I flipped burgers at Wendy’s. I now make about seven times what I did then, as I should. If I post on the SDMB while I wait for a database update to run, that doesn’t make my labor any less valuable. It’s certainly much more valuable than it was ten years ago when I didn’t have the skills required for my current job.

In fact, I think food service is a pretty high stress job, and those kids should really be making more than minimum wage. But that’s just my opinion.

Why should kids get paid more because of the stress level of the job? You seem to think that wages are determined by some sort of level of fairness of the world that just doesn’t exist. Kids get paid less to flip burgers because that job requires less skill. If flipping burgers were difficult or the required skills were rare than the market would automatically correct itself by raising the wages of burger flippers. This isn’t something that we need to regulate manually. It takes care of itself much better than we could ever plan it.

[even_sven]

@pervert

Here is the cite In San Francisco the minimum is $8.50. Several states have minimums over $7.00. I suppose that’s nowhere near $10.

Wow, sweet. I’m moving to San Francisco in a month. The rents cheaper, and while I hope to find a “decent job”, at least I’ll know I will be able to make it okay even if I end up at Taco Bell for a while.

After all, someone’s gotta flip those burgers. Someone’s gotta make all those lattes. Starbucks isn’t going to pull out of SF because it costs them $4.00 an hour more to keep their shop open. San Francisco is actually quite a hotbed of local businesses and commerce. Don’t you think it’d be a ghost town if minimum wage jobs destroyed economies?

[TonyF]

@Debaser

If flipping burgers were difficult or the required skills were rare than the market would automatically correct itself by raising the wages of burger flippers. This isn’t something that we need to regulate manually. It takes care of itself much better than we could ever plan it.

Just curious - by what mechanism would this occur?

[blowero]

@Debaser

No MW at all would be preferable to the too high MW that some people would prefer.

Loot at it this way: I don’t want the government interfering with the economy unless there is some demonstrable good that is coming from it. Setting a minimum wage interferes with the natural balance of supply and demand of the market and ultimately does more harm than good. If we must have a MW, I’d rather not raise it. IMO, it’s already too high. High school kids flipping burgers don’t need to get $10 an hour.

You don’t think the minimum wage should keep up with inflation? That makes no sense. If it doesn’t keep up with inflation, then it is in effect, decreasing. And I don’t know where you’re getting this $10 an hour figure. I don’t see that figure proposed by the OP at all. As pointed out before, there is a lot of middle ground between zero and “$50K a year”. If you believe there should be a minimum wage at all, then I don’t understand the reasoning that says it shouldn’t keep up with inflation.

This is silly. It’s not the MW laws that keep this from occuring in the US. It’s the strength of our economy. Workers are valuable, and as a result they get good wages.

I disagree. If you look at the history of the United States, before workers were protected, you’ll see some very similar labor practices to what’s going on in 3rd World countries today.

If your opinion were correct, then could all third world countries that have sweatshops and starvation wages simply end this practice by creating a minimum wage? Obviously they would not.

No, you can’t just create a minimum wage; you have to enforce it as well.

The wages that people make are determined by market forces.

Yes, and the nature of a free market is that businesses will tend to maximize profit by employing the cheapest labor they possibly can. And unless we have a 100% employment rate (which we do not), they will always be able to find people willing to work for a low wage.

It’s interesting how you Libertarians tend to have this idealized version of how the market functions, that often ignores reality. It’s a fact that no matter how far the MW lags behind inflation, there are always jobs that pay exactly the MW. “Market forces” do NOT drive up the minimum wage by themselves.

It’s not just some arbitrary decision that can be raised or lowered without regard to economic reality.

Who said it’s arbitrary? There’s a big difference between “shouldn’t be arbitrary” and “shouldn’t exist at all”.

[John_Mace]

@TonyF

Just curious - by what mechanism would this occur?

Supply and demand. If the skills were rare, it’d be hard to get people with those skills and you’d have to offer a higher salary. Do you think the wage setting mechanism in our economy is arbitrary?