Jump to content

Minimum Wage Thread

921 replies to this topic

#921 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13036 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 12 June 2019 - 03:43 PM

Andy, I found the argument quite compelling that most all of the non employer-dependent benefit programs represent competition for wages, and thus raise them. This is why I sought an explanation of why that is wrong. I suppose we could take it to extremes, and recognize that we cannot let folks founder with no support at all, and thus lower competition for wages even more. So we put in the benefit programs to make sure folks didn't starve to death. And in so doing, we set the wage floor.

How could employers somehow band together to suppress wages (not talking about non competes)? The issue with inflating their own wages has a LOT to do with how we treat unearned income. It biases folks to promote shareholder gains, often very short-sightedly. A LOT of these problems can be attributed to POG tax policy. That is where folks should focus.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#922 D. C. Sessions

    I don't have to pretend to be an adult any more

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9449 posts
  • LocationCentral New Mexico

Posted 12 June 2019 - 03:54 PM

View PostTraveler, on 12 June 2019 - 01:12 PM, said:

Calling it bull does not advance the discussion. I was looking for a coherent argument why that article is wrong.

It's the classic right-wing argument I heard yesterday while getting my car's AC fixed.

Thesis: if it weren't for welfare (etc.) people would be lining up to take his sub-minimum wage agricultural work because it's that or starve. Since they have alternatives to starvation (even if it means hot-bunking eight to a room and eating at soup kitchens) they're just slacking for that sweet, sweet free money.

If you're a junior enlisted member of the US armed forces, there's a very good chance your family is getting by with the help of food stamps and some other not-on-the-DOD-budget support. Absent that support, you would have little choice but to take some other work. That support really should be billed to the DoD. The same goes for WalMart: they can get someone to take their crap jobs because they can do so and not starve immediately and might even get halfway decent healthcare.

Because the competition is not "no work and layabout watching TV," it's "work for Costco" or "work for Trader Joe's" or any of a score of companies that actually pay a living wage, provide good health benefits, etc. WalMart is not anyone's first choice, but the government support for the low wages lets them be in the competition compared to employers that are farther away with poor public transit, or that require relocation, or that insist on continuing training, or ...
The way a lot of catastrophes happen is that X doesn't occur because there are safeguards in place, therefore people assume X isn't a worry and they remove the safeguards. Then X happens.
— Nate Silver
"Robots aren't the problem. Capitalism is." -- Last words of Stephen Hawking.
These days, "libertarian" is just a euphemism for a Nazi who's afraid to commit.
"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." -- Heather Heyer
"I'd rather have my child, but by golly, if I gotta give her up, we're gonna make it count." -- Her mother
"Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." -- some RINO

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users