Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is it a good thing?

Discuss

Not really. It limits the abilities of an employer to supply jobs and thereby weakens the economy. Of course a Grapes of Wrath type deal is sickening as well, but there are other ways to avoid that.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Is it a good thing?

Discuss

Yes, good thing. Less chance of exploitation.

Like you've ever had a problem being exploited.

I happen to concerned for the less forunate.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I happen to concerned for the less forunate.

"be"

But it does kinda hurt the poor the most.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"be"

But it does kinda hurt the poor the most.

Of course when it isn't there the poor get shit on like no tomorrow. Yes, I'm sure in a magical free market that has never existed and never will no minimum wage would be a good thing but back in reality is really does help the poor avoid outright exploitation.

I do have a question, if the min-wage was done away with and an employer like Burger King could then afford to hire 3 people at 2.50hr instead of the one at 7.50hr; how is that going to help the economy all that much when the same amount of spending money that could potentially go back into the market is essentially the same?

Not to mention that someone working now at a 3rd of the mandated min-wage couldn't afford anything except the bare minimum, even that would be a stretch.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do have a question, if the min-wage was done away with and an employer like Burger King could then afford to hire 3 people at 2.50hr instead of the one at 7.50hr, how is that going to help the economy all that much when the same amount of spending money that could potentially go back into the market is essentially the same?

Not to mention that someone working now at a 3rd of the mandated min-wage couldn't afford anything except the bare minimum, even that would be a stretch.

I think it was shown that in the US it's barely possible to survive even at full minimum wage.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do have a question, if the min-wage was done away with and an employer like Burger King could then afford to hire 3 people at 2.50hr instead of the one at 7.50hr; how is that going to help the economy all that much when the same amount of spending money that could potentially go back into the market is essentially the same?

Not to mention that someone working now at a 3rd of the mandated min-wage couldn't afford anything except the bare minimum, even that would be a stretch.

It is a good point. Also, minimum wage is just that - minimum, to avoid exploitation. I fail to see its negative effect on economy.


Actually... It is essentially just Burger King that will potentially have bigger profit, which will result in more restaurants, resulting in more fat people, which will result in more people being unable to work due to fatness which will negativelly influence economy.
This will potentially result in economy crashing because of high unemployment and fatness and nuclear war erupting.

The problem is when the "minimum" becomes too high, making many employers unable to hire the amount of workers they might need, and thereby hurting the poor people that are unable to find a job and basically denied to accept a lower paying position.

My model did fail to note that Burger King would not (in theory) just have three times the staff just because it could, it would simply only lower it's own overhead in regards to payroll as it would have the same same work-force, just at a third of the cost.

Originally posted by Robtard
My model did fail to note that Burger King would not (in theory) just have three times the staff just because it could, it would simply only lower it's own overhead in regards to payroll as it would have the same same work-force, just at a third of the cost.

Is that a realistic scenario, in your opinion?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem is when the "minimum" becomes too high, making many employers unable to hire the amount of workers they might need, and thereby hurting the poor people that are unable to find a job and basically denied to accept a lower paying position.

That doesn't make sense. Do the jobs suddenly stop existing or something?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That doesn't make sense. Do the jobs suddenly stop existing or something?

...y-yes?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is that a realistic scenario, in your opinion?

Yes and no, but do you really thing large corporations that have a large percentage of their staff at minimum wage (eg Burger King) would simply continue to pay them that mandated wage if the governmant did away with the regulation?

Originally posted by Bardock42
...y-yes?


Is that a realistic scenario, in your opinion?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is that a realistic scenario, in your opinion? Yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes and no, but do you really thing large corporations that have a large percentage of their staff at minimum wage (eg Burger King) would simply continue to pay them that mandated wage if the governmant did away with the regulation? They would likely try to pay them less, obviously.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is a good point. Also, minimum wage is just that - minimum, to avoid exploitation. I fail to see its negative effect on economy.


Actually... It is essentially just Burger King that will potentially have bigger profit, which will result in more restaurants, resulting in more fat people, which will result in more people being unable to work due to fatness which will negativelly influence economy.
This will potentially result in economy crashing because of high unemployment and fatness and nuclear war erupting.





NOT DA FAT PEEPOOL!

Best post in da thread.

I don't quite understand the question. Are you asking, is the current minimum wage sufficient enough for people or are you questioning the minimum wage system in general?

Personally, i don't think that there is anything wrong with minimum wage. I think there are problems with cost of living and health care but the minimum wage system is fine. We need class systems to keep alive the middle class, otherwise you have communism or socialism. Some people are just lazy and choose to stay content with minimum wage for their entire lives. It is their own fault if they do not feel that minimum wage supports them enough. If you are disabled and cannot seek higher learning or a better job there is disability. When a country becomes more socialistic than capitalistic, Minimum wage is still not a problem it just makes it harder to get out of a minimum wage job but on the return it offers cheaper services like health care.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Is it a good thing?

Discuss

only if the cost of living is comparable.

if you cant afford to pay good dont start a business...just stupid and causes to many problems

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
if you cant afford to pay good dont start a business...just stupid and causes to many problems

Aaaaymeeen!

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
if you cant afford to pay good dont start a business...just stupid and causes to many problems

Dumbest thing I might have heard, ever.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dumbest thing I might have heard, ever.

Pfffft.

Unlikely. I've posted thousands of times. You do the math. 313

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pfffft.

Unlikely. I've posted thousands of times. You do the math. 313 Man makes a good point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Man makes a good point.

Well, the joke could have been "You've posted thousands of times..."

But you said I was a meanie head sometimes so I figured I'd be nice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, the joke could have been "You've posted thousands of times..."

But you said I was a meanie head sometimes so I figured I'd be nice.

Not that funny.

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
if you cant afford to pay good dont start a business...just stupid and causes to many problems

Tell that to Bill Gates.

I think it's a good thing for obvious reasons.

How much is the American minimum wage btw?

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
I think it's a good thing for obvious reasons.

How much is the American minimum wage btw?

Varies from state to state usually from $6.00/hour to $8.00/hour. A few states have no minimum wage laws (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee) are I assume all of those are economic and social utopias as a result.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A pound is almost exactly 2 dollars.

Not according to this:

http://www.exchangerate.com/

Originally posted by dadudemon
A pound is almost exactly 2 dollars.

You haven't kept up with dollar exchange rates, I think

A pound is in fact 1.40$

Originally posted by Bardock42
You haven't kept up with dollar exchange rates, I think

A pound is in fact 1.40$

Wow.


Just a short time ago it was like a 1.98.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow.


Just a short time ago it was like a 1.98.

You not hear about the near collapse of sterling?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You not hear about the near collapse of sterling?

Seriously, no. For reals. I check the news multiple times a day.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seriously, no. For reals. I check the news multiple times a day.

Good...we must be covering it up!

the weakening of the sterling is great for us euro users. though the weakening of the euro is great for americans...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You not hear about the near collapse of sterling?

I'm with DDM on this, last I checked (which wasn't all that long ago) pound sterling was almost twice as strong as the US Dollar. What happened, George Soros kick your English asses again?

The pound fell immensely in December, mostly because the economy sucks there, even more than anywhere else, apparently.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The pound fell immensely in December, mostly because the economy sucks there, even more than anywhere else, apparently.

If it makes the Brits feel better, it's been projected that close to one million jobs will be lost in the U.S. in '09.

We have Gordon Brown, he may not be great but...well.

Yes, minimum wage is a good thing

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
I think it's a good thing for obvious reasons.

How much is the American minimum wage btw? The federal minimum will be $7.25/hour by late July. 24 states have a higher minimum than the federal law, 14 have the same as the federal, 5 have no law (and usually just adopt the federal), and 6 have a minimum than the federal (not sure how, due to the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution)

An argument can be made that the minimum wage retards capitalism. It hinders individuals from selling their services (agreeing to work for someone) at an acceptable price (to them). If I wanted to take a 3.50$ an hour job (rather than take an unpleasant fast food job for more money) it is actually illegal for a company to hire me. That company could get two employees to do instead of one for the same price. Productivity is (almost) doubled and profit is increased. This would (naturally) translate to lower prices which would lessen the impact of such a low paying job.

The minimum wage as is simply spreads the cost (of the minimum wage) across the different income levels- it lessens the poor's burden by increasing the burden on everyone else. The removal of a minimum wage could be offset by a negative income tax (one pays nothing receives money] below a certain income bracket) or some other form of welfare.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
An argument can be made that the minimum wage retards capitalism. It hinders individuals from selling their services (agreeing to work for someone) at an acceptable price (to them). If I wanted to take a 3.50$ an hour job (rather than take an unpleasant fast food job for more money) it is actually illegal for a company to hire me. That company could get two employees to do instead of one for the same price. Productivity is (almost) doubled and profit is increased. This would (naturally) translate to lower prices which would lessen the impact of such a low paying job.

The minimum wage as is simply spreads the cost (of the minimum wage) across the different income levels- it lessens the poor's burden by increasing the burden on everyone else. The removal of a minimum wage could be offset by a negative income tax (one pays nothing receives money] below a certain income bracket) or some other form of welfare.

Doesn't work. Minimum wage is typically barely a living wage. No one would accept less unless they wanted to starve to death. So taking out minimum wage would have the wonderfully result of killing all the poor people slowly and horribly while undermining capitalism because all the poor idiots are dead. But then, goes the counter argument, employers would pay people more so they could survive which of course raises the question of why there's a problem with minimum wage in the first place.

Minimum wage IS important because I'm sure some companies out there would LOVE to pay less than what the minimum wage IS... as long as we have minimum wage we know it can't get worse.....

until they lower it... yet again...

They just need make minimum wage higher... at LEAST 9/hr.. shit man, BABYSITTERS make at least like 10! Wtf??

Come to think of it, I'm in the wrong business....

Raising minimum wage causes plenty of problems too. If companies have to pay too much for unskilled labor it does hurt the economy. Someone pointed out earlier that minimum wage should gives exactly the lifestyle it implies and that's true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Raising minimum wage causes plenty of problems too. If companies have to pay too much for unskilled labor it does hurt the economy. Someone pointed out earlier that minimum wage should gives exactly the lifestyle it implies and that's true.

yes Yah, that's better.. I like this answer...

and we have a winnah!!

Actually, minimum wage is often below a living wage, and many workers @ minimum wage (even working full time) fall below the poverty line. (At least for a single parent). Also, the poverty line may ' understate the income needed to support a family.'

People would not have to accept less (ideally) because their labor should not be worth less than minimum wage. If their labor is worth so little then they would qualify for federal/state aid by way of the negative income tax: they would clearly fall below the benchmark and therefore collect money from the income tax.

Poverty line and "living" line are different things though.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Actually, minimum wage is often below a living wage, and many workers @ minimum wage (even working full time) fall below the poverty line. (At least for a single parent). Also, the poverty line may ' understate the income needed to support a family.'

People would not have to accept less (ideally) because their labor should not be worth less than minimum wage. If their labor is worth so little then they would qualify for federal/state aid by way of the negative income tax: they would clearly fall below the benchmark and therefore collect money from the income tax.

All the people who want to get rid of minimum wage condemn taxes and government aid as socialist evils that must be purged . . .

Originally posted by Bardock42
Poverty line and "living" line are different things though.
Damn. What might the correct terminology be?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All the people who want to get rid of minimum wage condemn taxes and government aid as socialist evils that must be purged . . .

Those people are crazy. Taxes are like membership fees- if we don't pay them we can't get the benefits of being part of society. Paying taxes is something people should be proud of; by doing so one is effectively paying for teachers and firemen (both of which are, to the best of my knowledge, generally esteemed positions).

Actually, taxes are more like armed robbery, but carry on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, taxes are more like armed robbery, but carry on.

Do you really only pay taxes out of fear?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you really only pay taxes out of fear?

Pay them or the police are at your door...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
An argument can be made that the minimum wage retards capitalism. It hinders individuals from selling their services (agreeing to work for someone) at an acceptable price (to them). If I wanted to take a 3.50$ an hour job (rather than take an unpleasant fast food job for more money) it is actually illegal for a company to hire me. That company could get two employees to do instead of one for the same price. Productivity is (almost) doubled and profit is increased. This would (naturally) translate to lower prices which would lessen the impact of such a low paying job.

The minimum wage as is simply spreads the cost (of the minimum wage) across the different income levels- it lessens the poor's burden by increasing the burden on everyone else. The removal of a minimum wage could be offset by a negative income tax (one pays nothing receives money] below a certain income bracket) or some other form of welfare.

However, since the poor workers have to spend money for businesses to make money, that might screw up other things (funny how after people actually "save" money everyone starts cutting jobs; I love this system! ).

Before even mentioning that, nothing u said make sense for the point of view of the regular Joe without higher education working a blue collar job.

Price of goods will not go down because the business makes money. Feel free to give examples to show otherwise.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you really only pay taxes out of fear?

Yeah. Well, and because I can't really help having them taken away

I do get them back though, usually, cause i am so poor I fall below the interest line of our thieving masters.

The thing is, all businesses would have their profit margins increased. If one company lowered prices, they would outsell their competition (because consumers would 'vote with their feet' and go tot the place with the best deal). Unless you want to postulate a massive conspiracy within every possible industry, competition would not allow companies to pocket the difference.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Unless you want to postulate a massive conspiracy within every possible industry, competition would not allow companies to pocket the difference.

Which raises the question: why wouldn't they do that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which raises the question: why wouldn't they do that?

"Why wouldn't they do that?" Why wouldn't competing entities, all vying for their own best interest work to help each other?

Well, for starters, the company that undersells its competition is going to do very well for itself, at least until its competitors follow suit. Also, (I think) current anti-trust/monopoly laws would prevent this sort of behavior. Frankly, it defies credulity that every business in any field could be coerced into such a conspiracy- the possibility of easy money (by having lower prices) would mean that a near monopoly would be necessary to achieve the sort of conspiracy you suggest.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
"Why wouldn't they do that?" Why wouldn't competing entities, all vying for their own best interest work to help each other?

Well, for starters, the company that undersells its competition is going to do very well for itself, at least until its competitors follow suit. Also, (I think) current anti-trust/monopoly laws would prevent this sort of behavior. Frankly, it defies credulity that every business in any field could be coerced into such a conspiracy- the possibility of easy money (by having lower prices) would mean that a near monopoly would be necessary to achieve the sort of conspiracy you suggest.

Except that you've been describing free-market economics which requires that the majority of people are perfectly rational, highly intelligent and greedy. The business owners (who are perfectly rational, highly intelligent and greedy) would thus take the most rational course of action in order to make the most money and conspire, thus eliminating the annoying little competition aspect. If people are not rational, intelligent and greedy then the system you're describing wouldn't work in the first place because there are all sorts of human flaws for them to exploit in order to make money.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that you've been describing free-market economics which requires that the majority of people are perfectly rational, highly intelligent and greedy. The business owners (who are perfectly rational, highly intelligent and greedy) would thus take the most rational course of action in order to make the most money and conspire, thus eliminating the annoying little competition aspect. If people are not rational, intelligent and greedy then the system you're describing wouldn't work in the first place because there are all sorts of human flaws for them to exploit in order to make money.

Free market theory does not mean no regulations, a fact many opponents of free market systems seem to fail to grasp.

Except that no greedy person would take a reduction in pay (by conspiring) instead of making as much money as possible (by continuing sound business practices) simply for the sake of maximizing someone else's profits. It doesn't make any sense for someone to give up the chance to undersell (and outperform) a competitor by helping that competitor. It isn't in any company's best interests to conspire, because a single nonparticipant wrecks the system entirely. Anyway, Occam's razor tears your conspiracy to shreds. Which is more likely:
Conflicting interests working together...
-or-
Businesses optimizing their own potential?

The simplest explanation (without the herding cats-esque herculean feat of forming a monopoly) is that the free-market system of competition would continue working the way it should.

EDIT: Fixed 'Occam's Razor' spelling

Originally posted by Bardock42
Free market theory does not mean no regulations, a fact many opponents of free market systems seem to fail to grasp.

But you're anarchist . . . you want no regulation anyway . . .

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that no greedy person would take a reduction in pay (by conspiring) instead of making as much money as possible (by continuing sound business practices) simply for the sake of maximizing someone else's profits. It doesn't make any sense for someone to give up the chance to undersell (and outperform) a competitor by helping that competitor. It isn't in any company's best interests to conspire, because a single nonparticipant wrecks the system entirely. Anyway, Ockham's razor tears your conspiracy to shreds. Which is more likely:
Conflicting interests working together...
-or-
Businesses optimizing their own potential?

The simplest explanation (without the herding cats-esque herculean feat of forming a monopoly) is that the free-market system of competition would continue working the way it should.

Actually Occam's Razor would be that most people are not rational and brilliant and greedy and thus the system doesn't work in the first place. If we assume that the system does work for some reason then we must assume that they will try to maximize profits which does mean working together, short term loss for long term gain is what a logical person would do, what an intelligent person would see and what a greedy person would want.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Actually Occam's Razor would be that most people are not rational and brilliant and greedy and thus the system doesn't work in the first place.
As far as I know, capitalism doesn't require anyone to be brilliant, or even fully rational. Consumers definitely don't always make rational decisions, and it works even though the average American (capitalist consumer) is almost unbearably dim. All that capitalism really requires is that businesses/individuals work to maximize profit. You are trying to force it into a utopian model that simply does not fit the discussion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If we assume that the system does work for some reason then we must assume that they will try to maximize profits which does mean working together, short term loss for long term gain is what a logical person would do, what an intelligent person would see and what a greedy person would want.

Except that the profit to be made by screwing one's competitors over (by underselling them) outweighs any 'non-competition pact' that might be made. The push of competition leads to the maximization of profits. Removing that competition not only endangers the consumer (which is what government is in place to protect) but in the long run diminishes production (by blunting the imperative of comparative advantage to specialize in the most efficient way of money making).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But you're anarchist . . . you want no regulation anyway . .

True.

Just saying...knock the right thing if you have to knock anything.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

As far as I know, capitalism doesn't require anyone to be brilliant, or even fully rational. Consumers definitely don't always make rational decisions, and it works even though the average American (capitalist consumer) is almost unbearably dim. All that capitalism really requires is that businesses/individuals work to maximize profit. You are trying to force it into a utopian model that simply does not fit the discussion.

Technically the 100% fallacy. You'd be shocked by the number of people who think that their personal system of economics/philosophy would create a utopia though. I kinda jumped to the conclusion that you were part of that group.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that the profit to be made by screwing one's competitors over (by underselling them) outweighs any 'non-competition pact' that might be made. The push of competition leads to the maximization of profits. Removing that competition not only endangers the consumer (which is what government is in place to protect) but in the long run diminishes production (by blunting the imperative of comparative advantage to specialize in the most efficient way of money making).

Competition drives prices down. Selling products for less reduces profits. Monopoly (even by tacit agreement) is always superior to competition from the company's stand point.

But yes I take your point about the government preventing it, as long as there is something other than magic keeping monopolies from forming free market systems works pretty well.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The thing is, all businesses would have their profit margins increased. If one company lowered prices, they would outsell their competition (because consumers would 'vote with their feet' and go tot the place with the best deal). Unless you want to postulate a massive conspiracy within every possible industry, competition would not allow companies to pocket the difference.

But why wouldn't everyone just keep the price within a certain range i.e. fast food?

Businesses want to make the most profit possible but workers want to maximize what they make also.

You are really short changing the workers.

Nothing wrong with a minimum wage as long as its reasonable.

Anyone that graduated highschool can get a job above minimum wage anyway.

Its the high-school dropouts with a wife and 6 kids that complain about minimum wage being too low.

I discussed this with a (probable) econ major and she suggested that even if companies were in collusion, such a system wouldn't last because one company would see the potential to stab the others in the back. The lure of the profits to be gained from underselling (and outselling) their competitors would outweigh the known benefits of the monopoly. She cited game-theory as a reason that companies are continually reexamining their policies.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I discussed this with a (probable) econ major and she suggested that even if companies were in collusion, such a system wouldn't last because one company would see the potential to stab the others in the back. The lure of the profits to be gained from underselling (and outselling) their competitors would outweigh the known benefits of the monopoly. She cited game-theory as a reason that companies are continually reexamining their policies.

By wouldn't last, she means that they would simply try to outduel each other in terms of making profit (through production costs, sales , marketing, etc.) but they certainly wouldn't raise wages of employees.

No, they would lower their prices. We haven't been talking about wages, we are (or, at least, I was) discussing the possibility or necessity of a decrease in prices following abolishing the minimum wage.

you guys are working under the assumption that the Sherman antitrust act and the RICO act are actually enforced with any kind of regularity anymore. If they were, the economy wouldn't be in so much trouble and all the corporate criminals would have most of their net worth stripped due to reparations and would be spending the next 30 years rotting in prison where they belong.