Well the point is lost. You said “High school kids flipping burgers don’t need to get $10 an hour”. I don’t understand the point of that sentence. They don’t get $10 an hour. It’s like if we had a discussion about welfare:
“Welfare moms don’t need to live in 10,000 s.f. mansions.”
“But they don’t live in mansions.”
“I was exaggerating to make a point.”
Are you arguing against a $10/hour minimum wage, or are you arguing against any minimum wage? You seem to be vacillating between the 2 positions.
Because there are a lot of numbers between zero and 50,000.
Sorry, I just don’t buy your “all or nothing” reasoning.
So then what you really believe is that there should be no minimum wage whatsoever, but feel that it would be politically impossible to do so, right?
That’s a disigenous argument, though. We don’t have systems analysts or iron-workers making minimum-wage now. Of course they wouldn’t make minimum wage if it were lowered. However, there’s no doubt in my mind that if the minimum wage were lower, that certain entry-level jobs would indeed pay only that minimum-wage.
Wow - nice strawman. :eek:
I disagree. What usually happens is that when Republicans are in power, they don’t touch the MW and let it lag behind inflation. Then when Democrats get in power, they increase it to reflect real, inflation-adjusted dollars. The minimum wage is not causing mass failures of small businesses. It’s quite possible to have a healthy economy without having to pay people less than a living wage.
But supply and demand can be quite arbitrary. Debaser made this point wonderfully:
It seems to me that whatever mechanisms in a system that could enable someone to net $95 for a haircut could swing the opposite way just as easily. Just look at offshoring… look at underbidding.
With that in mind, it seems like some sort of minimum wage is a good thing. That’s all.
Whoa. Way to miss the point. The $95 haircut isn’t arbitrary. He gets paid that much because he’s one of the best stylists in the city. It’s quite the opposite of arbitrary. It makes perfect sense.
The point of the sentance is that when we’re talking about minimum wage workers, that includes many high school kids that don’t deserve high wages. They are doing jobs that require little training or skill. They are easily replacable. They are part time, and probably don’t take their jobs extremely seriously.
I’ve already stated this. I’ll repeat:
In a perfect world, there would be no minimum wage. The market would decide wages. However, here in the real world no politician is ever going to try and abolish the minimum wage because of politics. So, as long as we’re stuck with this crude device which interferes with the market, I’d like it to be as small as possible so that the damage done by it is as minimal as possible.
Arguing against a minimum wage at all is an entirely academic discussion, IMO. It grounds the conversation in reality much more to talk about simply not raising the minimum wage from what it is now. That’s something which actually may occur.
I have a valid point here, you’re just missing it. My $50,000 salary question simply points out what some people don’t seem to get: The market decides what everybody makes, and for good reason. There are only so many resources to go around on this planet, and the market knows best about how to allocate them. If you want to make more money than you need to learn a valuable skill that will increase the worth of your labor.
It’s simply not possible to simply pass a law that would create wealth for everyone (The $50,000 salary law). It’s also not possible to simply pass a law that lifts all workers out of poverty (The minimum wage).
He gets it!
Hold on there. Here are your words that I was responding to:
If you were only talking about minimum wage workers here you certainly weren’t clear about it. It seems to me you were talking about all workers and I responded as such.
That’s not a strawman at all.
Here’s the relevant sub-conversation in it’s entirety:
It seems to me that what you are saying here is that by both creating and enforcing a global minimum wage we could end all sweatshops and starvation wages.
It seems logical to say that “all sweatshops” and all “starvation wages” globabally could be rephrased to simply “global poverty”. Hence, my statement: “You seriously think that just creating and enforcing a minimum wage could do away with all global poverty?”
There you have it. I’m not creating a strawman, It seems to me that is actually what you beleive based on your statements. Please, tell me where I’m going wrong.
I think you misinterpreted his anecdote. The hairdresser gets paid a lot because (s)he is GOOD at what (s)he does. People are willing to pay more because they perceive that they are getting more-- whether it’s acutally a better haircut or just availing themselves of posh, exclusive surroundings.
That is bullshit. It’s an overgeneralization, and I could give you exceptions to teens who did “deserve” and need a job. You’re painting with an awfully wide brush.
The complexity of a job, or the amount of specialized knowledge needed for a job is not strictly or predictably tied to wages: there are all sorts of other factors involved. Access to transportation, knowledge of other languages, scheduling flexibility, willingness to perform a given task, social value, fiscal state of the company, (and in the case of higher paying jobs) name recognition, published works, willingness to relocate, etc., etc.
IOW, not all low-paying jobs are simple; they could have a learning curve of weeks of months to be able to do the job effectively and efficiently. Just because a job doesn’t require years of formal education/ training does not mean it is not valuable in other ways, nor does it mean that such a person deserves low wages.
Oh, and while I’m sure your friend is quite qualified for his job, high wages do not equal talent. If they did, all people that went to CheapCuts would have horrendous haircuts, and all people that went to FrouFrou would have spectacular do’s. But that’s not the case.
Oh, I’m not sure if what’s “good” in hairstyles is too absolute. But as John Mace explained…
… which I understand…
(Emphasis mine.)
There you go. It’s the perception, which can be quite arbitrary, that decides how much they are willing to pay.
Again, this thing swings both ways. The ceiling is determined by the highest bidder, but likewise, the floor is determined by the lowest common denominator. That’s the thing about a free system, as I understand it; you can get a good mean, but the deviance can be all over the place.
I’m living proof. I’m currently working a student job that I would be paid double to triple out in the “real world.” Students and the existing atmosphere, however, have set precedent. So despite that I am good at my job, precedence kicks in and I get paid what I’m willing to take and what they’re willing to pay. Considering how desperate I was when I took the job, I could be working for minimum wage in a job that is worth quite more.
That’s how they got me in the first place: the perception that working for the university is prestigious and carries merit - but more importantly, the fact that I need the money.
But this is all anecdote. The point is that a free system cuts both ways. To avoid exploitation, there should be some minimal safeguards. Should we raise the minimum wage? Probably not. Should we abolish it? Definitely not.
It doesn’t matter. There is no objectively determinable “correct” wage. There is only what the market (you, me and everyone else) is willing to pay. You can pretty something up and charge twice as much as an equivalent product, and if people perceive there to be added value, there’s nothing incorrect about paying twice the price. Same with wages.
You might not pay $100 for a haircut, but Cher might think that was cheap. She doesn’t WANT to get her hair cut by the same person you do-- that’s part of what makes her Cher.
Upward mobility doesn’t reduce the suffering that is happening now. Telling the kids they might be able to eat on Tuesday does’t make them less hungry. Knowing you’ll have heating in a year doesn’t make it less cold. We can’t discount suffering simply because there is a chance- even a good chance- that it might not last forever.
But that wasn’t quite my point…I agree with you (and said in my post) that cost =! quality; but I was trying to point out the flaws in Debaser’s argument that unskilled labor/ teens dont’ deserve higher wages: namely, that there are many more variables than training and skill that determine wages.
I’m sorry, but you have missed my point altogether.
I am not, nor do I advocate, blaming the poor in any way for their state (plight if you wish).
I am not in any way saying that being poor is pleasant, easy, or easily remidied.
I am simply saying that being poor can, in fact, be remidied by those very people who are poor. That is, the power to rise above poverty is within your own grasp. It may not be easy, pleasent, or even desireable to some. But it is within your grasp.
To address your metaphors directly, the fact of upward mobility does reduce the suffering of those who think they have no hope. Telling kids that there are things they can do to eat later will reduce the pain of hunger now. Knowing that you can provide heating to your children next year will lessen the sting of the cold this year.
And finally, I am not trying to discount suffering. Just the opposite. I am trying to alleviate it by letting people know that they do not have to suffer. There are lots of other steps necessary to pull oneself out of poverty, allow me to attest to that. But the most important IMHO is for the sufferer to realize that there is a real solution. It’s just not as pleasant as all of the false ones.
No one (I don’t think) is arguing against charity or certain forms of welfare for those who need it. But when “lack of social mobility” is used to justify the MW, some of us are calling BS. The question really is, is the MW the best way to deliver monetary help to those truly in need. I would argue that it is not, since ANYONE can get a MW job regardless of his or her need. Additionally, the MW supresses job creation at the low end of the scale. Better to expand welfare and target those in need directly. Or, if there is some value in getting that help to a person thru his or her wages, then subsidize the wages out of general tax revenues.
But minimum-wage is NOT “high wages”. Try living on it for awhile and see if you say that.
You may think you did, but it was not clear.
I disagree. A successful business model is one in which expenses are minimized, and profit is maximized. It is not within the nature of business to pay employees more than necessary. What the “market” is going to tend to do is for businesses to pay employees as little as possible while still successfully producing their product or service. That works out o.k. if, as you said, one has a valuable skill, because the demand will drive up the wages. But you’re leaving out a whole class of people. Not everyone has the benefit of a good education, or is in a field that’s in high demand. Not everyone has the opportunity to learn a high-demand skill, but these people still need to live. You’re basically saying they should be S.O.L., and I think that’s a naive way to look at economics. We NEED people to do the minimum-wage jobs; they’re just as important as the high-paying jobs. And in a civilized country, there’s no reason for them to be getting starvation wages. We have a minimum-wage, and it has not caused the economy to come crashing down.
You seem to be saying that we must either lift all workers out of poverty, or we can’t have a minimum-wage law at all. Another false dichotomy.
No need to be flip. The fault is yours for not expressing yourself clearly.
Sorry, I don’t understand what that has to do with whether systems analysts or iron-workers make minimum-wage. They quite obviously don’t, and I never said nor implied that they did. What does your sidetrack have to do with that?
Absolutely wrong. I said that if we abolished the minimum-wage, we could have sweatshop conditions similar to those in 3rd world countries. I did NOT say the converse was true, that enacting a minimum wage in 3rd world countries would end all sweatshop conditions. And I most CERTAINLY never said it would “end all poverty”.
In formal logic terms, you have committed the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent: i.e., "If A then B, Not A, thus Not B " <- doesn’t follow.
Actually, if you look at the graphs, Santa Cruz is about $500/mo. cheaper than S.F. (1 bdrm. is represented by the red line). Not sure what you’re looking at.
Help me with the logic. I agree you did not say that MW laws would end all poverty. But you did seem to imply that minimum wage laws are what keep sweat shops at bay in America. Is there some other factor involved in 3rd world countries which cause sweatshops other than a lack of minimum wage laws? Is there some other factor in America which would give rise to them were it not for MW laws? When you said we could look to 3rd world countries to see the harm in being without minimum wage laws, were you not implying that eliminating MW laws would reduce some workers in America to the same status as the very poorest of workers in 3rd world sweat shops? If not, what was the comparison for?
Yes, but as long as the bussineses are not allowed to force workers to work for them, aka fuedalism, the nature of the workers simultaneous needs will perform the other side of the equation. That is, the workers need more money, they are perfectly free to aquire better skills, do other work, or in general produce greater value. Most people do just this, as a matter of fact.
I don’t know how you are measuring importance. See the conversation with continuity eror about the relative importance of burger flippers with system analysts. It could be expanded to almost every profession and or every meanal job.
If you mean that MW workers have just as much right to make a living, then never mind. I agree with that sentiment.
This I agree with also. Please point out how many people are starving in America while at the same time working full time on minimum wage (I’d add the proviso that they are not squandering their money on drugs or some other non nutritive addiction, but I’m sure it is not necessary) and we could discuss them. You cannot, however simply point to the fact that MW has not risen recently and cry “starvation wages”. Its just not true.
Well, In one of the cite battle I just had with continuity eror, I noted one study which sighted a pretty steep drop in economic mobility since the end of the last century. Not proof, mind you, but certainly a correlation with the advent of minimum wage (as well as other populist policies) laws.
While the economy has not come crashing down, neither have poverty rates. Given that, what good has the MW done?
Yes, but the bottom of the market is in the $500-$600 range (in my actual experience, a one-bedroom in an only slightly iffy neighborhood bottoms around $800). The bottom in Santa Cruz is around $800, and in all my six years here I’ve never heard of anyone renting a one bedroom for less than $900. This is because there is a steady demand for one bedrooms by students, who largely get their money from their parents and are divorced from the local economy and thus push the prices up. There are (somewhat) affordable apartments in SF, and there really are none at all in Santa Cruz.
Being as how I am actually currently looking for a place in San Francisco and spend a lot of time researching the subject, I’m pretty sure I’m right when I say I will save at least $100 a month on this move.
No, I’m just willing to have faith in the free market to best determine what pay people deserve. Sure, some teens are an exception to the rule. The other month Wired magazine had the 18 year old creator of Firefox internet browser on the cover. He hacked Netscape at 14 and is now well on his way to being the next Bill Gates. The market has recognized his talents and rewarded him accordingly.
Sure, and the market takes all that into account. Jobs in a remote area tend to pay more because there is less demand for them. Language skills certainly increase the value of ones labor. Jobs with scheduling flexibility are more in demand so might pay less salary. Etc, etc.
You point at all of this like it’s some kind of problem we need to solve. I contend that the market already solves these things automatically through supply and demand.
This seems arrogant. Who are you to know what’s best? If a job deserved higher wages than it would pay higher wages. Do you think you know better than the market? What’s your background that enables you to make such judgements? Are you some kind of labor expert or a scholar who has studied these issues?
High wages does have a high correlation with talent, though. Most people that go to CheapCuts don’t get as good a haircut as most people who to to FrouFrou.
Of course. This is exactly the way it should work. Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing?
I disagree. Everyone does have opportunity. That’s what’s great about America. Anybody can get an education. Anybody can get into a field that’s in high demand. Everybody can learn skills. It might not be easy for everybody, but it is possible.
If someone doesn’t have any of these things, then they are worth less to employers. As a result they get paid less. That’s exactly how it should be! What motivation would anybody have to get and education, skills or enter high demand fields if there wasn’t a bad alternative to not doing them?
The years I spent flipping burgers lit a fire under my ass to do well in school and enter a field that pays well (IT).
It has caused small businesses to go under and it has caused people to lose their jobs because employers couldn’t afford them. Just because it doesn’t collapse our entire economy isn’t proof that it’s a good thing.
It’s funny that you claim I’m naive about economics when your argument is mostly an emotional one. You feeling bad for people is obviously the main motivator here, not economics.
As far as the economic NEED for minimum wage jobs: The market will take care of that. Are you seriously suggesting that without the MW laws we would have no one to flip burgers? That indicates a serious lack of understanding on your part. If the supply of workers dropped because of low wages, then the employers demand for them would result in higher wages. The market takes care of such things.
It’s also silly to think that they would be getting starvation wages. It just wouldn’t happen.
I have not said that.
This is silly. Thinking that the MW laws are the only thing preventing the US from becomming like a third world country with sweatshop conditions is too far gone to even merit a response. Suffice it to say that I disagree and so will most reasonable people.
You certainly did imply this, as I pointed out from your posts. You can back away from it now, but don’t act like I made it up.
Again: It was reasonable for me to translate “all sweatshops” and all “starvation wages” to “global poverty”.
It was only once I pointed out the blatant sillyness of this idea that you backed away from it.
What? I have not committed any such fallacy. Try again, replacing the “A” and “B” with the actual values you think belong there.
I mean, it’s great that you have found a web site listing the logical fallacies and posted one for us all to read. However, to actually accuse me of something you will need to put a little bit more work into it. You know, like actually stating a case of what it was I said that falls under this fallacy.
But as John Mace explained…