Is it time to replace slave (minimum) wage with human wages?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,010
66
91
No, because I worked hard to earn what I earn. I don't want my cost of living to go up because some crack head burger flipper who was too lazy/dumb to graduate high school didn't want to achieve something with their life.

There's always a way to make something of your life. One is never chained to societal situations and outcomes...They make of it what they want.
 
Last edited:

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
EDIT: ATPN is refreshing sometimes though, I have to say you would be hard pressed even on the lunatic fringe of the internet to find people who want to repeal laws that prohibited payment through company scrip. Not here though!
I'm not sure he said he wanted to repeal anything. He said he was "fine with it". If he is interested in actively repealing this law he would probably just come out and say it.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
What if you're on an oil rig in the middle of the ocean for months at a time? What if you're logging in the backwoods of Alaska? Ask yourself why people accepted it back in the day: because they didn't have other options. The idea that people couldn't find themselves without options today is awfully naive.

Some of this pressure to accept such wages has in fact been alleviated by the social safety net, but that's hardly a reason to support such behavior.

EDIT: ATPN is refreshing sometimes though, I have to say you would be hard pressed even on the lunatic fringe of the internet to find people who want to repeal laws that prohibited payment through company scrip. Not here though!

EDIT 2!: I just found out that as recently as 2008 Wal-Mart in Mexico was paying its employees with company scrip.

Wow!

What I find funny is that people say that the government needs to get out of the way of the free market as if government was the one that initiated the regulations in a vacuum. It's as if they are completely clueless about our history and how and why we have such regulations in the first place.

But I guess ignorance is preferred over bursting ones alternate reality bubble.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
So you would support the repeal of provisions that prohibit paying workers in company scrip?

I didn't know any such provision existed. But I suppose I wouldn't care whether it was repealed or enacted. If people don't mind being compensated via a different means than legal tender (although I'm sure it would have an exchange rate for legal tender), I don't see why they should be stopped.

But really, if the government requires that we all be compensated using a single currency, I have no argument against that either. It's really not that big a deal.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
I didn't know any such provision existed. But I suppose I wouldn't care whether it was repealed or enacted. If people don't mind being compensated via a different means than legal tender (although I'm sure it would have an exchange rate for legal tender), I don't see why they should be stopped.

But really, if the government requires that we all be compensated using a single currency, I have no argument against that either. It's really not that big a deal.

The biggest reason was that it didn't really have an exchange rate for legal tender. That was really the whole point. People couldn't exchange it for real money (at least not easily) and the companies were able to charge massively jacked up prices for goods. It was sort of slavery-lite.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
"Slave wage"? Wages "fit for a human being"? These are fluff phrases that mean absolutely nothing. The poverty line of the United States (around $11k for an individual this year) is well, well above the median income in the majority of the non-western world. Last year, World Bank economist Branko Milanovic came up with some pretty convincing calculations that indicated that the median global income is around $1200 per year once adjusted for varying costs of living. That goes along with the widely accepted fact that as much as a third of the world's population subsists on $2 a day.

The federal minimum wage in this nation is $7.25 per hour. That equates to roughly $14.5K in a full-time, two thousand hour work year. That means that even at the lowest legal wage in the U.S. you as an individual are beating the poverty line by 25% and the global median by a whopping 1000% plus. I'm sorry, but those figures do not paint a picture of slave labor or inhuman wages. Anyone who says that they do while a third of the world's population scrapes by on less than $2 a day is the worst kind of first-world hypocrite.

No, we do not need higher minimum wages right now. It's even debatable that we really need one at all. However, it is a certainty that what we do not need is yet more regulation on what should be a predominantly self-regulating market. It is our own incessant need to regulate the market without regard to potential consequences that created this situation in the first place. The rising costs of living, the massive currency inflation, the comparative plunge of worker wages are all due to our meddling in an economy so vast and intricate that we barely understand it well enough to participate in it, much less hope to improve it. Even worse, those arguing for a higher minimum wage seem completely blind to the fact that nearly every study on the employment effects of higher minimum wages is inconclusive at best. To say that it will result in more employment is nearly entirely unfounded. It is more likely that it would result in no noticeable employment changes and could potentially (though not certainly) even cost people their jobs. No, more regulation, more arbitrarily burdensome free-pass legislation is not the answer.

The minimum wage will rise slowly over time because we've created a situation in which it has to. When the wage falls beneath what is required to survive on a large scale, there will be an outcry just as we saw before the Congressional proceedings of 2007 that led to the current federal minimum wage. That's how our system works. However, the rise will not and should not ever result in a comparative gain in actual purchasing power. It will always be the minimum that you need to survive in our nation. That's the whole point, and no one is entitled to more than that. It's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, nothing more.

Make no mistake, you can survive on minimum wage. Will it be easy? No. Will you have to make some tough choices? Absolutely. But these things come down to the idea of personal responsibility. If you can't afford to take care of yourself as an individual, don't have kids for goodness' sake. If you can't afford to own something, don't buy it. If you can't eat what you want or do the things you'd like to, make do with what you can. In short, be responsible. Nobody is entitled to a comfortable standard of living; they are only entitled to the minimum ability to live.

If you don't like that, if you find such a life intolerable, stand up and do something about it. No one owes you anything and success isn't going to simply fall in your lap. If you want it, get out there and earn it. And don't even think about telling me about how your socio-economic position or skin color or sexual orientation has handicapped you. There are far, far too many success stories out there for me to buy that. It's an excuse, and a weak one at that. Strive to do better, push forward, make good choices, compete, and win or lose on your own merits instead of instinctively falling back on the idea that you've been so oppressed or downtrodden that you may as well not bother. Until the people in the lower classes of this country stop making excuses and expecting to be bailed out by others there will be no improvement in the balance of the class system. No amount of legislation will change that.

Personal responsibility, folks. Welcome to America.




Very well-said.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
There is no correlation for either side of the arguement, you idiot. That's why you claim it's basic knowledge but can't cite empirical studies to back up your claim. Reading comprehension is a skill you haven't mastered apparently.

Nice try on the straw man though.

I appreciate your demonstration of the defect in the righty brain though; if you think it's true it must be true. Lol!

Why would you need a study for this?

This is a very very simple business concept. You, as a business, hire a new person if you believe that person will make you more than the total cost of employing that person. Generally it has to be significantly more because of the inherent risk involved. If you increase the cost of employing a person simple math dictates that the basic equation of "is hiring a new person beneficial" changes as well.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
What if you're on an oil rig in the middle of the ocean for months at a time? What if you're logging in the backwoods of Alaska?

Why would this matter? To get there you would have had to agree to that job and the terms of that job in the first place.

Ask yourself why people accepted it back in the day: because they didn't have other options. The idea that people couldn't find themselves without options today is awfully naive.

How can they not have options? They can go anywhere they want to work. Who is forcing someone today to take lets say a mining job that is going to pay in of yore company script?

Some of this pressure to accept such wages has in fact been alleviated by the social safety net, but that's hardly a reason to support such behavior.

EDIT: ATPN is refreshing sometimes though, I have to say you would be hard pressed even on the lunatic fringe of the internet to find people who want to repeal laws that prohibited payment through company scrip. Not here though!

Again, what pressure to accept such wages? A company offers wages and terms for a job. Someone knows what that is going in and either accepts or doesn't accept. I fail to see how its anyones business other than the employer, employee, and Gov (and only Gov because they're due their due in taxes and oversight). I don't care if people agree to work for beanie babies. That's their business, not mine.

EDIT 2!: I just found out that as recently as 2008 Wal-Mart in Mexico was paying its employees with company scrip.

Given the company and the country, doesn't surprise me in the least.

Chuck
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I didn't know any such provision existed. But I suppose I wouldn't care whether it was repealed or enacted. If people don't mind being compensated via a different means than legal tender (although I'm sure it would have an exchange rate for legal tender), I don't see why they should be stopped.

But really, if the government requires that we all be compensated using a single currency, I have no argument against that either. It's really not that big a deal.

Yes.

The biggest reason was that it didn't really have an exchange rate for legal tender. That was really the whole point. People couldn't exchange it for real money (at least not easily) and the companies were able to charge massively jacked up prices for goods. It was sort of slavery-lite.

If it didn't have an exchange rate for legal tender (and I'm not disputing it didn't), how did those companies pay their proper amount of taxes? Somehow they needed to equate their script with USD. Or, they just cheated the system and paid off who needed to be paid off.

Chuck
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
It cost them more money to hire a baby sitter for the children, to get transportation to work, then it would for them to college government aid, and stay at home.

So you are saying that we are paying to much for .gov aid?

Look, I'll agree that we could have a much better system of giving people hand ups instead of handouts, such as helping them with child care IF and only if they are working full time.

Doubling minimum wage will not help them nearly as much as you think it will though. Those people that work at the daycare centers almost surely make close to minimum wage so their wages will skyrocket as well making the cost of daycare skyrocket. Thats just one very simple example.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I'm not sure he said he wanted to repeal anything. He said he was "fine with it". If he is interested in actively repealing this law he would probably just come out and say it.
Stop trying to make sense of Eskimo's ridiculous srawman... instead, just let him sit in the corner, drool, and play with it like a fork with a cork.

Two words: food stamps.
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Wow!

What I find funny is that people say that the government needs to get out of the way of the free market as if government was the one that initiated the regulations in a vacuum. It's as if they are completely clueless about our history and how and why we have such regulations in the first place.

But I guess ignorance is preferred over bursting ones alternate reality bubble.

Free market is working just fine for me. I choose to not work at Walmart for those kind of wages so I go out and bust my ass and make more. What you don't understand is that a free market allows for people to make more with hard work and not have their pay dictated by big brother.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,349
16,727
136
Free market is working just fine for me. I choose to not work at Walmart for those kind of wages so I go out and bust my ass and make more. What you don't understand is that a free market allows for people to make more with hard work and not have their pay dictated by big brother.

Lol! Go back to your bubble.

I'm sure you are pro union too!
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Lol! Go back to your bubble.

I'm sure you are pro union too!

6a00d8341bf67c53ef017d3dd9dfb2970c-800wi.jpg