Should we get rid of the minimum wage?

[n0cmonkey]

And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: her209
We should get rid of the legal working age too.

we should put everyone in camps and force them to work for free !

These bastards should be glad that they get a penny or two an hour and dont get shot instead.
I am also for putting pregnant/sick people and young kids in these camps....the big companies would be the overseers of these camps....i am sure it would totally benefit the COMPANIES.

We should also cancel healthcare/insurance and wellfare. The big burdens of our soiety which only cost money and dont give any profits to the companies....if people get sick, well lets just shoot 'em. Would save a lot of money !

 

[Eli]

How would it benefit people at that level?

Are you suggesting that if there wasn't a minimum wage, the "minimum wage" would increase?

I thought the argument is that minimum wage hurts businesses because it is too costly. That implies that minimum wage is already too high, and would be reduced.

That doesen't sound like a benefit to the people.

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
The economy would hit the toilet. Instantly.

No. Do you realiza how well the economy would do when businesses aren't restricted needlessly?

Huh?

How is imposing a higher minimum wage being "restricted"? WTF????? That's like an oxymoron. "restricted" implies "held down".

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

This is irrelevant.

You could also ask the moral reasojing behind outsourcing to india/swasiland or whatever....because basically outsourcing means taking away a job at home...but its's cheaper...so 'they' do it,
Its for sure not THEIR concern whether you eat or have a place to stay - the people who think about lowering wages and putting kids at work FOR SURE have other priorities than YOUR well-being.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Eli
How would it benefit people at that level?

Are you suggesting that if there wasn't a minimum wage, the "minimum wage" would increase?

I thought the argument is that minimum wage hurts businesses because it is too costly. That implies that minimum wage is already too high, and would be reduced.

That doesen't sound like a benefit to the people.

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
The economy would hit the toilet. Instantly.

No. Do you realiza how well the economy would do when businesses aren't restricted needlessly?

Huh?

How is imposing a higher minimum wage being "restricted"? WTF????? That's like an oxymoron. "restricted" implies "held down".

Restricted, as in not allowed to legally pay employees $0.53/hr.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

This is irrelevant.

You could also ask the moral reasojing behind outsourcing to india/swasiland or whatever....because basically outsourcing means taking away a job at home...but its's cheaper...so 'they' do it,
Its for sure not THEIR concern whether you eat or have a place to stay - the people who think about lowering wages and putting kids at work FOR SURE have other priorities than YOUR well-being.

Obviously the companies don't give a damn about anyone, but the government should. If the government took away minimum wage though, there would have to be a reasonable solution to the problem stated above. I am just curious what that solution would be.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Eli
How would it benefit people at that level?

Are you suggesting that if there wasn't a minimum wage, the "minimum wage" would increase?

I thought the argument is that minimum wage hurts businesses because it is too costly. That implies that minimum wage is already too high, and would be reduced.

That doesen't sound like a benefit to the people.

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
The economy would hit the toilet. Instantly.

No. Do you realiza how well the economy would do when businesses aren't restricted needlessly?

Huh?

How is imposing a higher minimum wage being "restricted"? WTF????? That's like an oxymoron. "restricted" implies "held down".

Restricted, as in not allowed to legally pay employees $0.53/hr.

Right, that's my point.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

0.53 an hour better than one making nothing.
The mistake is to assume the alternate is that person making minimum wage.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

This is irrelevant.

You could also ask the moral reasojing behind outsourcing to india/swasiland or whatever....because basically outsourcing means taking away a job at home...but its's cheaper...so 'they' do it,
Its for sure not THEIR concern whether you eat or have a place to stay - the people who think about lowering wages and putting kids at work FOR SURE have other priorities than YOUR well-being.

Moral reasoning?
Last I heard, India was in desperate need of money.
Sending them jobs and money is immoral how?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Apex
A lot of the people supporting minimum wage seem to not care (or know) about the unemployment it causes. Seems kinda elitist as well.

Fine, the ask the unemployed if they support minimum wage.

I'm betting as few of them as people posting here understand the fact that minimum wages cause unemployment. Basic economic principles of supply and demand are lost to the vast majority of the population.

And you are calling them elitist? :roll:

I'm saying that those who don't care that they are creating a whole class of unemployable people are elitist. Seems pretty straight forward.

If they aren't worth paying the minimum wage to, they should be in school increasing their economic value, not permanently working for pennies, and leaching on the taxpayer to make ends meet.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

0.53 an hour better than one making nothing.
The mistake is to assume the alternate is that person making minimum wage.

Hmmm........

but wait.. lol.. if there was no minimum wage, what about all the people that are working?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

0.53 an hour better than one making nothing.
The mistake is to assume the alternate is that person making minimum wage.

That in no way answers the question. In fact, it has nothing to do with my question. If your answer was based on the assumption that I am against abolishing the minimum wage, it was a bad assumption. I'm not entirely sure how I feel on the subject, but would like to understand atleast this one simple thing.

My question was: How does a person making $0.53 afford to eat and have shelter?

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

If they aren't worth paying the minimum wage to, they should be in school increasing their economic value, not permanently working for pennies, and leaching on the taxpayer to make ends meet.

I agree that they should be in school or otherwise trying to increase their economic value. However, Using a tool such as minimum wage, which carries such a high cost (unemployment), may not be the right way to facilitate that change.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

This is irrelevant.

You could also ask the moral reasojing behind outsourcing to india/swasiland or whatever....because basically outsourcing means taking away a job at home...but its's cheaper...so 'they' do it,
Its for sure not THEIR concern whether you eat or have a place to stay - the people who think about lowering wages and putting kids at work FOR SURE have other priorities than YOUR well-being.

Obviously the companies don't give a damn about anyone, but the government should. If the government took away minimum wage though, there would have to be a reasonable solution to the problem stated above. I am just curious what that solution would be.

You think someone who's only worth 50 cents an hour is working and earning minimum wage right now? I doubt they're working at all. And minimum wage generally already won't buy you a place to stay and food. Also, as stated in that huge paste above (if I understood correctly), social welfare programs work just as well or better at supporting poor people than a minimum wage does.

Ever heard of the book "The Bell Curve"? I haven't read it, but we talked about it a little in class today. Basically it says that:

- IQ is directly related to position in society (criminals/poor people/etc have low IQs)
- intelligence is largely hereditary

thus, trying to toss money at these people is not going to make them any smarter, so they don't have much chance to lift themselves up out of poverty.

Interesting theory; I want to read the book.

But I don't really put myself on either side. As far as I can tell, neither liberal nor conservative economics have "won," i.e. shown that they are superior, so I don't see how anyone can have such a firm opinion that the country would be best either way. How do they know?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
And how does someone making $0.53/hour afford to eat and a place to live again?

This is irrelevant.

You could also ask the moral reasojing behind outsourcing to india/swasiland or whatever....because basically outsourcing means taking away a job at home...but its's cheaper...so 'they' do it,
Its for sure not THEIR concern whether you eat or have a place to stay - the people who think about lowering wages and putting kids at work FOR SURE have other priorities than YOUR well-being.

Obviously the companies don't give a damn about anyone, but the government should. If the government took away minimum wage though, there would have to be a reasonable solution to the problem stated above. I am just curious what that solution would be.

You think someone who's only worth 50 cents an hour is working and earning minimum wage right now? I doubt they're working at all. And minimum wage generally already won't buy you a place to stay and food. Also, as stated in that huge paste above (if I understood correctly), social welfare programs work just as well or better at supporting poor people than a minimum wage does.

Ever heard of the book "The Bell Curve"? I haven't read it, but we talked about it a little in class today. Basically it says that:

- IQ is directly related to position in society (criminals/poor people/etc have low IQs)
- intelligence is largely hereditary

thus, trying to toss money at these people is not going to make them any smarter, so they don't have much chance to lift themselves up out of poverty.

Interesting theory; I want to read the book.

But I don't really put myself on either side. As far as I can tell, neither liberal nor conservative economics have "won," i.e. shown that they are superior, so I don't see how anyone can have such a firm opinion that the country would be best either way. How do they know?

I don't think it has anything to do with whether someone is worth fifty cents, but that a company could get away with only paying fifty cents.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

You think someone who's only worth 50 cents an hour is working and earning minimum wage right now? I doubt they're working at all. And minimum wage generally already won't buy you a place to stay and food. Also, as stated in that huge paste above (if I understood correctly), social welfare programs work just as well or better at supporting poor people than a minimum wage does.

Ever heard of the book "The Bell Curve"? I haven't read it, but we talked about it a little in class today. Basically it says that:

- IQ is directly related to position in society (criminals/poor people/etc have low IQs)
- intelligence is largely hereditary

thus, trying to toss money at these people is not going to make them any smarter, so they don't have much chance to lift themselves up out of poverty.

Interesting theory; I want to read the book.

But I don't really put myself on either side. As far as I can tell, neither liberal nor conservative economics have "won," i.e. shown that they are superior, so I don't see how anyone can have such a firm opinion that the country would be best either way. How do they know?

I strongly disagree with such a blanket statement and would never listen to anybody that says such a thing.

I also disagree that intelligence is "largely" hereditary. I don't believe it is largely at all. I believe that everybody has the potential.

Everybody is born with the same blank slate. Some peoples slates may be a little larger than others(think Einstein), but that's where the differences end.

Shrug.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Eli
I strongly disagree with such a blanket statement and would never listen to anybody that says such a thing.

Why, if the data shows that there is a direct corelation between IQ and these "undesirable" / "unsuccessful" ways of life? A person who disagrees purely because they don't want it to be so is a fool. The truth is the truth.

However, whether or not it is the truth is certainly up for debate.

I also disagree that intelligence is "largely" hereditary. I don't believe it is largely at all. I believe that everybody has the potential.

Believe? Or know? You can believe that santa claus exists; doesn't really change anything. Like I said, we only briefly talked about the basic points of the book, but if IQ is tied to heredity -- then it is. Denying reality is absolutely NOT going to help fix anyone's problems.

Everybody is born with the same blank slate. Some peoples slates may be a little larger than others(think Einstein), but that's where the differences end.

Are you just saying that because it's what you want, or do you know it to be so? If you know, please feel free to inform me. And everyone else for that matter.

Another thing to consider is how valid IQ tests are.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I don't think it has anything to do with whether someone is worth fifty cents, but that a company could get away with only paying fifty cents.

That's how markets work. If the value of a job that a company wants done is 50 cents, without minimum wage laws, the company could offer that, and if anyone wants that, they can apply for it.

You say "getting away with only paying fifty cents" as if companies are forcing people to accept those wages and not allowing them to quit and work elsewhere. That's not strange to you?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think it has anything to do with whether someone is worth fifty cents, but that a company could get away with only paying fifty cents.

People can get away with all kinds of "bad" things already within the law. I would like to think that a free market would take care of these things -- i.e. people would just refuse such horrid conditions, since there would certainly be many, say, $3/hr jobs. Or whatever. I don't know that the market *would* do that, but that's the idea.

Perhaps we could pass a law to gradually lower the minimum wage over many years, ending at $0, while adjusting social welfare programs and whatnot appropriately. There could be a sunset on it where we could revert back if it didn't turn out well.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: SuperTool

If they aren't worth paying the minimum wage to, they should be in school increasing their economic value, not permanently working for pennies, and leaching on the taxpayer to make ends meet.

I agree that they should be in school or otherwise trying to increase their economic value. However, Using a tool such as minimum wage, which carries such a high cost (unemployment), may not be the right way to facilitate that change.

What are you talking about? Unemployment has been around 5% for a long time. It's not going to go much lower than that, regardless of minimum wage. There is a minimum wage whether mandated or not. You gotta buy food and shelter to live. The only question is who is going to pay it, employers or taxpayers.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I don't think it has anything to do with whether someone is worth fifty cents, but that a company could get away with only paying fifty cents.

That's how markets work. If the value of a job that a company wants done is 50 cents, without minimum wage laws, the company could offer that, and if anyone wants that, they can apply for it.

You say "getting away with only paying fifty cents" as if companies are forcing people to accept those wages and not allowing them to quit and work elsewhere. That's not strange to you?

I admit, those are poorly chosen words.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Apex

The Card/Krueger study is actually one of the most important disproved studies available. It's important because they are the only notible economists who did not believe that minimum wage affected employment. It's also important because they were working for the Clinton administration.

When researchers tried to duplicate Card & Krueger's findings, they could not. As it turns out, those working for Card & Krueger simply picked up the telephone and asked employers whether they intended to increase, decrease, or keep employment flat after the minimum wage hike. That's it.

Researchers seeking to duplicate the Card/Krueger studies went a step further and actually bothered requesting payroll cards in order to verify employment. The non-effect of hiking minimum wage on employment COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED. In fact, both Pensylvania and New Jersey both suffered a decrease in employment following their minimum wage hike.

Nobel Laureat economist Gary Becker, after reviewing the Card/Krueger study and others concluded "the Card-Krueger studies are flawed and cannot justify going against the accumulated evidence from many past and present studies that find sizable negative effects of higher minimums on employment."*

*Bruce Bartlett, "The Minimum Wage Trap," Wall Street Journal, 4/16/1996.

the way they conducted the study was simply negligent. they would call up a fast food place, and instead of asking to speak to a manager or someone who might know how many people actually worked there, they asked the person who answered. is the guy working the deep frier really going to know how many people work at that mcdonalds?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The only question is who is going to pay it, employers or taxpayers.

it doesn't really matter because it comes around and bites everyone in the ass just the same regardless of where the legal burden is initially placed.

 

[biostud]

Our minimum wage is around $15

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Apex

The Card/Krueger study is actually one of the most important disproved studies available. It's important because they are the only notible economists who did not believe that minimum wage affected employment. It's also important because they were working for the Clinton administration.

When researchers tried to duplicate Card & Krueger's findings, they could not. As it turns out, those working for Card & Krueger simply picked up the telephone and asked employers whether they intended to increase, decrease, or keep employment flat after the minimum wage hike. That's it.

Researchers seeking to duplicate the Card/Krueger studies went a step further and actually bothered requesting payroll cards in order to verify employment. The non-effect of hiking minimum wage on employment COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED. In fact, both Pensylvania and New Jersey both suffered a decrease in employment following their minimum wage hike.

Nobel Laureat economist Gary Becker, after reviewing the Card/Krueger study and others concluded "the Card-Krueger studies are flawed and cannot justify going against the accumulated evidence from many past and present studies that find sizable negative effects of higher minimums on employment."*

*Bruce Bartlett, "The Minimum Wage Trap," Wall Street Journal, 4/16/1996.

the way they conducted the study was simply negligent. they would call up a fast food place, and instead of asking to speak to a manager or someone who might know how many people actually worked there, they asked the person who answered. is the guy working the deep frier really going to know how many people work at that mcdonalds?

Don't know about other burger joints, but at mcd, only managers can/do answer the phone.