national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[franky1]

although you would at first think that the national minimum wage LAWS prevents employers from paying their employee's pennies per hour.

have you ever thought that the use of national minimum wage LAW was to prevent people being paid in non government fiat.

what i mean to say is governments are requiring a business to pay atleast £6.19 $7.25 etc BY LAW instead of allowing businesses to pay in groceries, gold bars, or other forms such as bitcoin.

can someone clear up the matter of the ability for businesses to ever pay workers in other forms LEGALLY. as this page on the UK government site clearly states that only accommodation provided by the employer can be use to subtract a very small part of the FIAT wage and no other benefits such as cars, vouchers or other forms of payment can be subtracted.
https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-accommodation

so look into amercan and other countries laws on minimum wage. as from what i can tell on the UK point of view. paying someone in bitcoin is not paying national minimum wage, even if the value of the bitcoin exceeds NMW value.

So businesses in england can be sent to court for breaching employment laws if they only paid their employee's with cars or bitcoins

[1715487951]

1715487951

[1715487951]

1715487951

[1715487951]

1715487951

[Fjordbit]

I can't really speak for Britain, but in the U.S. there are barter laws that cover this. It's actually pretty common for people to barter trade (I'll cut your lawn if you give me some vegetables from your garden), but doing it a lot gets very difficult from an accounting perspective. This also has the effect you're describing, but I'm not sure if it's really that intentional or just a side benefit.

[franky1]

there is a bartering system that is accepted in britain too for non formal employment. but when an employment contract is used. then the minimum wage is critical.

[TTBit]

Minimum wage laws make it illegal to create a job worth $7.00 / hr or less. (Wonder why there is high unemployment?)

As for debts, legal tender laws keep from offering to pay in another currency/barter. If you claim I owe you 100 sheep / 500 bitcoins / 20oz of gold, A court would not order me to pay in specie. A USD amount would be assigned that I pay you.

[franky1]

just been reading the american minimum wage stuff
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2:

alot of waffle to read but i found the term "certified professional employer organisation" which basically means a proper employer who uses employment contracts. is legally suppose to pay national minimum wage and tax revenues.

so USA is similar to UK. if you have employment contract your suppose to be paid in FIAT.

goodbye any hope of walmart, bestbuy and 7-11 paying their staff in bitcoins as their salary instead of FIAT.

cunning government..

[FreeMoney]

This forum is for bitcoin legal questions and info. There is a politics and society board where this would belong. I think you can move it on your own.

It would be great if the person who made the least made a lot.

It would be bad if someone got hurt for offering a job (especially bad if someone wanted to take that job).

[franky1]

im not talking about government ethics. im asking what are the national minimum wage LAWS concerning the ability to accept bitcoin as wage. ill reword the topic to clarify this

[reyals]

I can't really speak for Britain, but in the U.S. there are barter laws that cover this. It's actually pretty common for people to barter trade (I'll cut your lawn if you give me some vegetables from your garden), but doing it a lot gets very difficult from an accounting perspective. This also has the effect you're describing, but I'm not sure if it's really that intentional or just a side benefit.

That's different because the guy isn't your employee.  You can do a contract specified in anything you want.



Now I'm not really knowledgeable on labor laws... but a plain reading of the law

(m) “Wage” paid to any employee includes the reasonable cost, as determined by the Administrator, to the employer of furnishing such employee with board, lodging, or other facilities, if such board, lodging or other facilities are customarily furnished by such employer to his employees: Provided, That the cost of board, lodging, or other facilities shall not be included as a part of the wage paid to any employee to the extent it is excluded therefrom under the terms of a bona fide collective-bargaining agreement applicable to the particular employee: Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to determine the fair value of such board, lodging, or other facilities for defined classes of employees and in defined areas, based on average cost to the employer or to groups of employers similarly situated, or average value to groups of employees, or other appropriate measures of fair value. Such evaluations, where applicable and pertinent, shall be used in lieu of actual measure of cost in determining the wage paid to any employee. In determining the wage an employer is required to pay a tipped employee, the amount paid such employee by the employee’s employer shall be an amount equal to—
(1) the cash wage paid such employee which for purposes of such determination shall be not less than the cash wage required to be paid such an employee on August 20, 1996; and
(2) an additional amount on account of the tips received by such employee which amount is equal to the difference between the wage specified in paragraph (1) and the wage in effect under section 206 (a)(1) of this title.
The additional amount on account of tips may not exceed the value of the tips actually received by an employee. The preceding 2 sentences shall not apply with respect to any tipped employee unless such employee has been informed by the employer of the provisions of this subsection, and all tips received by such employee have been retained by the employee, except that this subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.

says no you can't pay an employee in bitcoins.

[FreeMoney]

im not talking about government ethics. im asking what are the national minimum wage LAWS concerning the ability to accept bitcoin as wage. ill reword the topic to clarify this

Sorry, my mistake.

[Rudd-O]

Good, if you want poor people and black people in particular to remain jobless.

Bad if you want to give everyone an opportunity to find a job, even if it is at a wage you would dislike for yourself.

Minimum wage laws are among the most racist laws on the books -- they are part of the modern Jim Crow laws together with zoning restrictions to keep people segregated. Nominally, they allegedly "benefit" (translation: ruin) everyone equally... but in reality it is minorities that get the most royally fucked.

[SgtSpike]

Minimum wage laws are a perfect example of liberalism gone wrong.  They only look at the surface of the problem (low wages) and try to fix it without considering the consequences of such laws.  Sure, people don't get paid less than $5.XX an hour now, but all of those jobs that COULD have been in place without minimum wage laws are simply lost.  Higher unemployment is a result.  I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a low paying job than no job at all.  I could work hard, better myself, and move my way up the ladder or have enough experience to move on to a better job with a different company.

True unemployment in the US is around 50% (153 million working people out of 306 million people in the US).  A large part of that is children and stay-at-home moms, sure, but I'm also certain a significant number of those people would like to work if they could.  Instead, they're stuck in a never-ending loop of collecting welfare to survive instead of working a low-paying job and gaining experience to better themselves.  All at the taxpayer's expense.  Yay.

[hazek]

Any type of price fixing is bad because it leads to higher prices, poorer quality and shortages.

[mrich8]

True unemployment in the US is around 50% (153 million working people out of 306 million people in the US).  A large part of that is children and stay-at-home moms, sure, but I'm also certain a significant number of those people would like to work if they could.  Instead, they're stuck in a never-ending loop of collecting welfare to survive instead of working a low-paying job and gaining experience to better themselves.  All at the taxpayer's expense.  Yay.

You're seriously saying a significant number of children (including young children) want to work?

Any type of price fixing is bad because it leads to higher prices, poorer quality and shortages.

I agree with the latter two points, but how does a low fixed price lead to higher prices?

[hazek]

I agree with the latter two points, but how does a low fixed price lead to higher prices?

minimum wage is fixed up, not down. If employers are forced to pay more what that job is worth, they'll transfer that cost onto the consumer -> higher prices.

[Rudd-O]

True unemployment in the US is around 50% (153 million working people out of 306 million people in the US).  A large part of that is children and stay-at-home moms, sure, but I'm also certain a significant number of those people would like to work if they could.  Instead, they're stuck in a never-ending loop of collecting welfare to survive instead of working a low-paying job and gaining experience to better themselves.  All at the taxpayer's expense.  Yay.

You're seriously saying a significant number of children (including young children) want to work?

Is this, like, so hard to believe?  Are people in your country so thoroughly brainwashed that kids wanting to work appears baffling or incomprehensible to you?

I worked when I was 14 because I wanted.  I was doing software for an uncle already.  I got paid, too.  I worked at a factory.  I walked around the factory whenever I wanted, and I learned the whole process.  I even got to use the machines myself -- bandsaws, punch presses, a bunch of other machines that would be considered "dangerous" for a child.  Was I a "child slave"?

No offense, but to me, your question is like asking a rape victim "so why is it that you don't want to have sex?", because the answer is exceedingly obvious.  Kids don't work today, by and large, because the State punishes and marginalizes people who allow kids to work in all but the most menial and poorly paid occupations.

This is not a mystery -- you can go and look up the laws that prohibit and / or sabotage children and adolescents from being gainfully employed.  If you're a kid looking for paid work but nobody wants to give you a job, it isn't because "people are evil" or "work is not for children" -- it's simply because anyone giving you a paid job gets threatened with jail.  Only certain kinds of jobs are legal for adolescents (but not children!), and even then, there's mountains of paperwork, without which the employer gets put in a cage.

By the way, you can thank union lobbyists for that -- they didn't want the cheap competition, so they had the competition outlawed.

To me it's funny when people appeal to the State to "protect children from labor" -- the State was the very same criminal group of people who ruined work for adolescents who wanted or needed to work, and they did so exclusively to benefit a political class at the expense of everyone else.

[TheButterZone]

I also worked off the books, I think maybe even when I was a single-digit minor, and for more than minimum wage. When I did music gigs, it was way more, and I don't think anyone ever asked for my Entertainment Permit. LOL

[cbeast]

I agree with the latter two points, but how does a low fixed price lead to higher prices?

MAXIMUM wage is fixed up, not down. If employers are forced to EARN more what that job is worth, they'll transfer that cost onto the consumer -> higher prices.

FTFY.

[hazek]

I agree with the latter two points, but how does a low fixed price lead to higher prices?

MAXIMUM wage is fixed up, not down. If employers are forced to EARN more what that job is worth, they'll transfer that cost onto the consumer -> higher prices.

FTFY.

Actually I did make a mistake but you didn't fix it. It should have said:

I agree with the latter two points, but how does a low fixed price lead to higher prices?

Minimum wage is fixed down, not up(it should be lower but isn't allowed). If employers are forced to pay more what that job is worth, they'll transfer that cost onto the consumer -> higher prices.

[SgtSpike]

True unemployment in the US is around 50% (153 million working people out of 306 million people in the US).  A large part of that is children and stay-at-home moms, sure, but I'm also certain a significant number of those people would like to work if they could.  Instead, they're stuck in a never-ending loop of collecting welfare to survive instead of working a low-paying job and gaining experience to better themselves.  All at the taxpayer's expense.  Yay.

You're seriously saying a significant number of children (including young children) want to work?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I'll make it more clear.

- The number of unemployed people in the US is about 50% of the population.
- Many of those who make up that 50% are children and stay-at-home-moms (and retired persons as well).
- A significant number of the REMAINDER of that 50% would like to work if they could.

Getting rid of the minimum wage laws would allow those people (the remainder of the 50%) to work.

[cbeast]

I agree with the latter two points, but how does a low fixed price lead to higher prices?

MAXIMUM wage is fixed up, not down. If employers are forced to EARN more what that job is worth, they'll transfer that cost onto the consumer -> higher prices.

FTFY.

Actually I did make a mistake but you didn't fix it. It should have said:

I agree with the latter two points, but how does a low fixed price lead to higher prices?

Minimum wage is fixed down, not up(it should be lower but isn't allowed). If employers are forced to pay more what that job is worth, they'll transfer that cost onto the consumer -> higher prices.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fixed down." Minimum wages are supposed to reflect a living wage (which they currently don't) and force employers to make business choices that reflect market reality.