Open discussion on a minimum wage in a market system.

[LordMagnusKain]

We have 2 basic sides to the issue:

1.The minimum wage for a 40 hour work week is not a "living wage" in some places

2.The minimum wage is why we have unemployment.

My solution is to adjust up or down the minimum wage per section of America based on the cost of housing, food and transportation so that working a 40 hour work-week at minimum wage is enough to pay for these things at minimum.

People who can't find a job in one place will be encouraged to move to a place that has a lower cost of living, cost of employment and thus more employment. The government already has the numbers for cost across America for section 8 housing and food stamps;

what is your solution, or thought on my solution?

 

[slydecix]

The cost of housing, food, etc. isn't the same for all workers. What about single mothers caring for 3 children?

 

[Ronstang]

You have never studied economics have you? Your idea will simply result in an increase in unemployment.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I love it: honest disagreements from both sides of the issue in the first 2 posts.

The cost of housing, food, etc. isn't the same for all workers. What about single mothers caring for 3 children?

we have a pre-existing work-fair system that helps people who have expences above and beyond their own cost of living.

You have never studied economics have you? Your idea will simply result in an increase in unemployment

It would lead to more un-employment in places that minimum isn't a "living wage" and more employment in places minimum is more than a "living wage";

the minimum in sanfransisco would be about $10 an hour, while minimum in the part of Texas I'm at would be $3 an hour. Businesses would move production that pays minimum to the lower-cost sections of the country, decreasing unemployment over all as those in the high cost of living cities would move to low cost of living places that have employment avalable.

 

[Ronstang]

You just don't get it.....go take an economics class.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
You just don't get it.....go take an economics class.

I'm well aware of economics and belive in the market system. I'll understand any economic terms you use, i dumbed down the language because i know not everyone understands economic terminology.

so what's your specific objection?

 

[Ronstang]

I'm sorry but there are so many holes in your logic and I'm too tired to think and need to go to bed so I will pass the baton to someone else.

 

[JoeKing]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
My solution is to adjust up or down the minimum wage per section of America based on the cost of housing, food and transportation so that working a 40 hour work-week at minimum wage is enough to pay for these things at minimum.

People who can't find a job in one place will be encouraged to move to a place that has a lower cost of living, cost of employment and thus more employment. The government already has the numbers for cost across America for section 8 housing and food stamps;

what is your solution, or thought on my solution?

by your system product cost would still stay the same, but people in poorer areas won't be able to buy them lowering demand and raising unemployemt. Also what about those that don't have to pay rent (ppl living with parents for exampl) everyone would just move to the higher salary regions

 

[LordMagnusKain]

everyone would just move to the higher salary regions

The supply of jobs would fall in places that the cost of employment of people incresed. An increse in unemployment in places that have high cost of living would 'incourage' people living there to move to places that have both lower pay and lower cost of living.In lower cost of living places jobs would be more avalable because producers will want to move production to the places that have lower cost of living because of the lower cost of the factors of production.

by your system product cost would still stay the same, but people in poorer areas won't be able to buy them lowering demand and raising unemployemt.

some production would go up in cost, service jobs in a big city for example, but overall production would fall in cost as employers would move their production to parts of the country with lower costs for land and labor.

Any minimum wage creates unemployment, but this would allow the market system more freedom to increase production and employment while still fulfilling the normative 'living wage' idea.

Also what about those that don't have to pay rent (ppl living with parents for example)

This is a great counter-argument to the normative idea of a 'living wage'; unfortunately explaining how a removing of the minimum wage eliminates non-natural unemployment isn't a populist message. As such a compromise between the normative views of a 'living wage' and opening the labor market to the market system is called for.

I understand the basic philosophical view that market floors and ceilings are bad for everyone, but such ideas are to 'complex' to explain to the populous or to get past 60 years of socialist indoctrination.

Opening the market system in this small way may be a good first-step toward showing that the market system works even when people don't see how. It also creates a more open market system while fufilling the normative ideas of a 'living wage'.

I'd like to hear other solutions as well though.

 

[JoeKing]

But the cost of a product would have to still be the same. Take a TV for example. The people would then move to the lower cost area to follow the job production. raising the costs of living and minimum wage...what happens to the company there? They have to move again?

people would also be carrying around with the same amount of debt when they move (credit cards, loans, whatever)

national minimum wage is the best way to work a democratic system, unless you want to stop people from voluntarily moving around.

Maybe a system by age would work.... say under 16 gets the lowest tier and it goes up by age group from there.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

But the cost of a product would have to still be the same. Take a TV for example.

If part of the factor of production of the TV is minimum wage labor then the cost of production will fall when the TV manufacturer moves his production to a location that this factor is lower at a lower cost.

national minimum wage is the best way to work a democratic system, unless you want to stop people from voluntarily moving around.

Are you saying that it's a normative right of citizens of a democracy to move to anyplace they want and have a job waiting for them there?

People, of course, are free to look for a job any-ware; but it's a good idea to allow the market system to encourage the inputs of production to shift to places that cost of production fall.

normatively: it's better to encourage the homeless working full time in sanfrancisco to lose that job and move to Oklahoma to fill a full time job that, although at a lower pay, that can pay for a home.

For those who do stay employed in sanfransisco they will still have minimum to pay for housing food and transportation, even if there is a local inflation of the price of services.

The increase in the cost of the housing market because of the greater demand will balance out in the market as long as no governmental price-fixing happens.

 

[luvya]

I don't think minimum wage is the "main" contributor to unemployment rate. Demand that is. So for you to be so concerned about minimum wage in order to reduce unemployment rate just doesn't make a lot sense.

 

[JoeKing]

actually I'm saying it will prevent people from moving around due to the debts that occur in the richer regions. A national min wage helps to unify a country with its currency. Your system is good (they have used it in the past...13 colonies ) so why didn't they keep such a system. Also taxes would go out of "wack" as so will social services. ex. doctors and those that can afford health care vs where they would live.

What do you think about the age based min pay?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: luvya
I don't think minimum wage is the "main" contributor to unemployment rate. Demand that is. So for you to be so concerned about minimum wage in order to reduce unemployment rate just doesn't make a lot sense.

Supply of jobs goes up as the price of creating those jobs goes down, by reducing the minimum wage employment will increase.

 

[luvya]

The increase in the cost of the housing market because of the greater demand will balance out in the market as long as no governmental price-fixing happens.

Hehe...can anyone spell out S-A-N-T-A M-O-N-I-C-A ?????????

 

[luvya]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: luvya
I don't think minimum wage is the "main" contributor to unemployment rate. Demand that is. So for you to be so concerned about minimum wage in order to reduce unemployment rate just doesn't make a lot sense.

Supply of jobs goes up as the price of creating those jobs goes down, by reducing the minimum wage employment will increase.

This is true. But you neglect to reflect people's willingness to accept lower wages. (suppose you still keep 18 as the legal age) And also you have to see where the unemployment comes from, if it's from lower class of society, then minimum wage may be a determined factor. If it comes from say..IT or higher class of society then lowering minimum wage will not have the effect as you might have expected.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

This is true. But you neglect to reflect people's willingness to accept lower wages. (suppose you still keep 18 as the legal age)

I agree, but the only way to hold true to the 'moral' requirement of a 'living wage'; It also encourages movement of the population to a location that has a lower cost of living because jobs will exist there.

What do you think about the age based min pay?

I like it. It's a good way to avoid local service-based inflation for low-skilled jobs. We do the same for the farm services and tip-based services; it may well be a better idea to divide this along need lines instead of industry lines.

have to see where the unemployment comes from, if it's from lower class of society, then minimum wage may be a determined factor. If it comes from say..IT or higher class of society then lowering minimum wage will not have the effect as you might have expected.

I agree, but a lower cost of minimum wage production will help the economy across the board. I think of it as free-trade within the country; so now we can out-source to Oklahoma instead of India. It does also ignore structural unemployment, but only re-training can help that.

actually I'm saying it will prevent people from moving around due to the debts that occur in the richer regions. A national min wage helps to unify a country with its currency.

By allowing the value of the dollar to fluctuate between sections of the country we encourage people to invest in jobs in lower-cost locations, thus creating the lowest cost production possible, thus the highest possible employment.

so why didn't they keep such a system. Also taxes would go out of "wack" as so will social services. ex. doctors and those that can afford health care vs where they would live.

We already adjust social services for cost of living w/ section 8 housing and food stamps. The 'new deal' and 'great society' revolutions are against the market system, integrating what works in it while fulfilling ideological concerns could help the institutions we have now. Unfortunately medical services are limited, if we allow movement of medical services to locations that the best quality production can occur the total medical out-put will be maximized. In other low-profit places not-for-profit institutions will fill the void, lowering the cost of medical services, helicopter services to the maximum quality medical facilities are likely as well.

 

[JoeKing]

So you want to change the value of the dollar by region in your system? You never mentioned that before I thought we were just talking about min wage. This change would entail a new type of government entirly if possible this would weaken and fragment the dollar on the world market.

You see my concern would be the low min wage regions. They're needs for taxes would be HUGE as compared to the high costs reagion. It would be like amplyfiing the current criss of the rich pay for the social services of the poor. More areas (whole states) than now would be more or less the slums of the United States. Concentrating these areas instead of spreading them out.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

So you want to change the value of the dollar by region in your system? You never mentioned that before I thought we were just talking about min wage. This change would entail a new type of government entirly if possible this would weaken and fragment the dollar on the world market.

I worded myself poorly; The value of a dollar already floats depending on location; a pack of cokes costs me $2.50 while it costs much more in Austen, for example.

I don't propose that the government change a thing when it comes to local inflation, just adjust the minimum wage to reflect the a 'living wage' for each section of the country; just as they adjust payments for section 8 housing and food stamps.

hope that addresses your issues, if not please expound ; and thanks for the thoughtful responses.

 

[Ornery]

What business is it of the government, to mediate a wage between you and your employer? Why don't you just dictate who hires who, while you're at it? :disgust:

 

[LordMagnusKain]

What business is it of the government, to mediate a wage between you and your employer? Why don't you just dictate who hires who, while you're at it?

I see fully this ideological view: but don't you agree we've got to admit that the best way to get to it is by showing places that the market system works? By playing into the 'living wage' view on the progressive side, but opening the market system to work on the capitalist side we come to a working compromise that helps the country overall.

 

[Ornery]

Compromise?

The employee and employer can reach their own compromise wherever they happen to sit down to negotiate. I could NEVER entertain the thought of having the government interfere with that. You might as well suggest that we have regions of the country where it's legal for priests to molest kids. Hey, the best way to get to it is by showing places that the molester system works!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

so you'd vote against anyone who wasn't 100% against the minimum wage? even if that meant that you could never eventually eliminate it?

 

[Ornery]

There's a helluva lot more issues than the minimum wage. That ranks pretty near the bottom of my list of priorities. I'd like to see prostitution and pot legalized, but you better believe the party I vote for doesn't support that. Hell, no party supports that! But again, those are low on my priority list, too.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Ornery
There's a helluva lot more issues than the minimum wage. That ranks pretty near the bottom of my list of priorities. I'd like to see prostitution and pot legalized, but you better believe the party I vote for doesn't support that. Hell, no party supports that! But again, those are low on my priority list, too.

So your un-compromisingly ideological on things that you don't have very high on your priority list? And you reject this idea that will help all Americans because it doesn't agree with your ideological view that's not to high on your priority list?