national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[johnyj]

One way, you get very low paied jobs and super rich people since they do not need to pay that much tax to support the welfare system

The other way, you set minimum wage, below that is covered by social welfare, which is coming from the tax of super rich people

Either way, the money supply depends on the total consumption of everyone, in the first case, the consumption will mainly come from super rich people, in the second, majority of people

It's not about efficiency, the efficiency is already too high (that's the reason for high unemployment) it's about how to shape the society so that majority of people can get a good living standard

[Axios]

One way, you get very low paied jobs and super rich people since they do not need to pay that much tax to support the welfare system

The other way, you set minimum wage, below that is covered by social welfare, which is coming from the tax of super rich people

Either way, the money supply depends on the total consumption of everyone, in the first case, the consumption will mainly come from super rich people, in the second, majority of people

It's not about efficiency, the efficiency is already too high (that's the reason for high unemployment) it's about how to shape the society so that majority of people can get a good living standard

In the first case the consumption comes still from the majority of the people.

The high unemployment isn't due to high efficiency, it's due to people taking silly degrees. Who needs  an another lawyer?

But if you picked the right education and chose a right place to live, you will be making a lot of money:

Health care: from technicians to medical billers, even can easily become a pharmacy technician
IT field: programmers are always in demand and so are the IT project managers
Mechanical engineerings: these guys never ran out of jobs

Hell just work for the big four for few years to figure what you want.

[Lethn]

All I can say is this is a troll thread. People that support the argument in favor of an unregulated economy have no historical evidence to support their position. It's pseudoscience.

The one thing I love about the internet is it gives me plenty of time to read peoples responses thoroughly, that kind of response is very clever but extremely flawed and tries to present an ultimatum when the fact is there is none. You claim that an unregulated economy is pseudo-science but that is only because it hasn't ever really been tried yet in history until Bitcoin of course. The unregulated markets you seem to be thinking of are actually regulated but it is done through a sort of Darwinism style system where there will obviously be methods that you disagree with but will still work in the long run. This isn't an unregulated economy, in fact one could argue that it is more harshly regulated because it is indiscriminate in who ends up getting killed off in their line of work and who doesn't.

Looking at Bitcoin as the only example of this supposedly unregulated type economy you speak of but even this isn't entirely unregulated, you can see exactly what I'm talking about, you have scammers trying to be clever and scamming people who are daft enough to give them money, you then have the scammers trying the tactic again but now people are beginning to adapt and come up with ways to get around them. I don't think there will ever be such a thing as an unregulated economy realistically, I do think though that Darwinism style economics is probably the best thing, that said, because we're different from animals there's no rule saying that people can't help the weak and the poor out of kindness which is what I believe we'll inevitably end up with because I seriously doubt there are people out there who would be that mean normally.

An extreme example of no minimum wage laws was the cotton farming industry in the Southern US states before the Civil War.

The south from what I know kept slaves so that definitely isn't unregulated you muppet.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

One way, you get very low paied jobs and super rich people since they do not need to pay that much tax to support the welfare system

The other way, you set minimum wage, below that is covered by social welfare, which is coming from the tax of super rich people

Either way, the money supply depends on the total consumption of everyone, in the first case, the consumption will mainly come from super rich people, in the second, majority of people

It's not about efficiency, the efficiency is already too high (that's the reason for high unemployment) it's about how to shape the society so that majority of people can get a good living standard

In the first case the consumption comes still from the majority of the people.

The high unemployment isn't due to high efficiency, it's due to people taking silly degrees. Who needs  an another lawyer?

But if you picked the right education and chose a right place to live, you will be making a lot of money:

Health care: from technicians to medical billers, even can easily become a pharmacy technician
IT field: programmers are always in demand and so are the IT project managers
Mechanical engineerings: these guys never ran out of jobs

Hell just work for the big four for few years to figure what you want.

News flash.  The entry level and short college program IT and Healthcare occupation markets are flooded.

There is no easy market.  Consolidation and efficiency are prominent.

Agreed on ppl taking unmarketable degrees.

[myrkul]

An extreme example of no minimum wage laws was the cotton farming industry in the Southern US states before the Civil War.

A minimum wage law prevents people from reaching a mutual, voluntary agreement on the price of labor, if that agreement would fall below a certain price. Thus, it is a price floor. Your example is more akin to an extreme example of taxation (taxing the laborer 100% of their wages)..

[Axios]

News flash.  The entry level and short college program IT and Healthcare occupation markets are flooded.

There is no easy market.  Consolidation and efficiency are prominent.

Agreed on ppl taking unmarketable degrees.

News flash: we can't hire enough people for an entry level jobs. We have 10 positions and can't fill them.

Entry level programmer (C# and html): 80K

Plenty of positions for seasoned people: senior developers, project managers. If you know mathematics, we need quants to develop models. We need mobile developers, we need html5/websockets guys, we need sysadmins that know how to set up clouds and real time systems.

Of course you need to know stuff, brain dead don't need to apply.

Jobs are there. You probably live in the wrong place then. Jobs won't come to you, you need to get them.

[cbeast]

An extreme example of no minimum wage laws was the cotton farming industry in the Southern US states before the Civil War.

A minimum wage law prevents people from reaching a mutual, voluntary agreement on the price of labor, if that agreement would fall below a certain price. Thus, it is a price floor. Your example is more akin to an extreme example of taxation (taxing the laborer 100% of their wages)..

No. You are wrong. There was a mutual voluntary agreement on the price of labor to be zero by the employers. They were shown the error of their ways. The government only enforced the business practice but did not force every business owner to follow it. Some employers chose to not follow that practice. They were not taxed or penalized for this.

[cbeast]

News flash.  The entry level and short college program IT and Healthcare occupation markets are flooded.

There is no easy market.  Consolidation and efficiency are prominent.

Agreed on ppl taking unmarketable degrees.

News flash: we can't hire enough people for an entry level jobs. We have 10 positions and can't fill them.

Entry level programmer (C# and html): 80K

Plenty of positions for seasoned people: senior developers, project managers. If you know mathematics, we need quants to develop models. We need mobile developers, we need html5/websockets guys, we need sysadmins that know how to set up clouds and real time systems.

Of course you need to know stuff, brain dead don't need to apply.

Jobs are there. You probably live in the wrong place then. Jobs won't come to you, you need to get them.

That's your problem. I'm sure your competition will find a better solution.

[Axios]

That's your problem. I'm sure your competition will find a better solution.

We will deal with our problem. But don't bitch that there are no jobs. Jobs are there.

[cbeast]

That's your problem. I'm sure your competition will find a better solution.

We will deal with our problem. But don't bitch that there are no jobs. Jobs are there.

I never did complain. I'm sure there may be quants willing to work for such a low wage, but don't bitch about grocery stockers wanting more than 8 bucks an hour either. Not everyone is capable of doing the same jobs, but that doesn't mean they are not all valuable to society.

[Axios]

I never did complain. I'm sure there may be quants willing to work for such a low wage, but don't bitch about grocery stockers wanting more than 8 bucks an hour either. Not everyone is capable of doing the same jobs, but that doesn't mean they are not all valuable to society.

I don't bitch, I simply won't pay. I could care less what he wants, he may want $1000 / hour too.

[cbeast]

I never did complain. I'm sure there may be quants willing to work for such a low wage, but don't bitch about grocery stockers wanting more than 8 bucks an hour either. Not everyone is capable of doing the same jobs, but that doesn't mean they are not all valuable to society.

I don't bitch, I simply won't pay. I could care less what he wants, he may want $1000 / hour too.

Maybe you won't. Laws will correct the situation to force a minimum wage whether you like it or not.

[Axios]

Maybe you won't. Laws will correct the situation to force a minimum wage whether you like it or not.

They will? When?

 

[cbeast]

Maybe you won't. Laws will correct the situation to force a minimum wage whether you like it or not.

They will? When?

 

If you are in New Zealand, then it happened in 1894. These laws are spreading globally and exist in all developed nations. If you are in a country that has not adapted them yet, then you do not have adequate security to provide for your own development and don't even have the resources to develop the infrastructure that will attract qualified workers.

[compro01]

A minimum wage law prevents people from reaching a mutual, voluntary agreement on the price of labor, if that agreement would fall below a certain price.

If you're running on the delusion that any relevant percentage of employment agreements in modern times can be considered to be an agreement between equals, sure.

But given that many employers tend to have hundreds/thousands/millions of times greater financial power than any given employee, I fail to see how any sane person can consider that an agreement between equals for the purpose of law.

[Rassah]

What is it with these armchair economists that say "uh dunno could go either way nobody knows derp"? Do they ignore supply and demand? Do they not know what price controls do to the supply of a resource? Do they think that supply and demand will magically not apply because God or a politician say so? Do they not understand that a minimum wage is a price control? Or do they just not want to accept reality, because they would rather believe populist nonsense?

Personally I wasn't arguing against supply and demand. That minimum wage laws reduce the supply of jobs and create unemployment is 100% correct. What I was arguing is whether the demand for jobs remains constant. Take it up one level, and you have an increased supply of income for people, which reduces their demand for jobs. They can (barely) survive with one family working, or both only working part time. And though they may still want full time jobs, an increase in a minimum wage may make them be better off, even with lower employment, than they were before.

But, big emphasis on "may" here. Though minimum wage laws may make people better off financially, despite increasing unemployment, I don't believe we can know for sure. Why? Because there are waaaaay too many distortions in this economy, like those underemployed receiving food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized healthcare, and maybe even direct welfare payments. I'm not arguing for getting rid of those things (shoo trolls!), but they do make it difficult to see how much better or worse off people are with minimum wage laws.

But if you picked the right education and chose a right place to live, you will be making a lot of money:

Health care: from technicians to medical billers, even can easily become a pharmacy technician
IT field: programmers are always in demand and so are the IT project managers
Mechanical engineerings: these guys never ran out of jobs

You forgot finance: needed in every single company and business on the planet.

[johnyj]

Programmer is a bad example, since the purpose of hiring programmer is to further reduce the workers by replacing them with software

I always think that reducing the working hour is the best way to solve the unemployment problem, people have more time to enjoy the life and spend, and employer will need more people to work. But reduce the minimal wage is on the totally opposite direction

If one policy could improve majority of people's quality of life, then it should be the right policy

[Rassah]

If you're running on the delusion that any relevant percentage of employment agreements in modern times can be considered to be an agreement between equals, sure.
But given that many employers tend to have hundreds/thousands/millions of times greater financial power than any given employee, I fail to see how any sane person can consider that an agreement between equals for the purpose of law.

We do actually have a perfect example of this playing out in modern times, in China (and to a lesser extent India), which gives us a perfect example of what happens in a modern globalized country without minimum wage laws:
China has no minimum wage laws, labor is cheap >
Lots of companies move in to take advantage. Unemployed people are still desperate, so take any job >
As more companies moved in to try to compete against other companies, unemployment dropped to near zero >
What used to be long lines of prospective employees at the company gates, has turned into empty parking ports, with not enough employees >
Companies in China started struggling to find workers, and have started to compete for labor >
High demand for employees + low supply of labor = higher wages and better benefits

End result is, despite the media sensationalizing the destitute working conditions in China because drama sells in TV, the quality of jobs and the average wage in China have shot up dramatically over the last decade. So much so that for many companies it no longer makes sense to outsource to China or India, as they'll just break even on shipping charges. The same thing happened in India, but on a much more dramatic, and possibly unsustainable level. So, here's your example of the "tragedy" of the lack of minimum wage laws in modern times. The market works, and it's not as bad as you think.
(Source: series of case papers from my Global Economic Environment graduate class)

[Axios]

Programmer is a bad example, since the purpose of hiring programmer is to further reduce the workers by replacing them with software

Correct and happy to do that. Machines should do basic tasks, humans should do complex tasks - like programming the machines.

I always think that reducing the working hour is the best way to solve the unemployment problem, people have more time to enjoy the life and spend, and employer will need more people to work. But reduce the minimal wage is on the totally opposite direction

If one policy could improve majority of people's quality of life, then it should be the right policy

Basically you're a lazy person.

[cbeast]

If you're running on the delusion that any relevant percentage of employment agreements in modern times can be considered to be an agreement between equals, sure.
But given that many employers tend to have hundreds/thousands/millions of times greater financial power than any given employee, I fail to see how any sane person can consider that an agreement between equals for the purpose of law.

We do actually have a perfect example of this playing out in modern times, in China (and to a lesser extent India), which gives us a perfect example of what happens in a modern globalized country without minimum wage laws:
China has no minimum wage laws, labor is cheap >
Lots of companies move in to take advantage. Unemployed people are still desperate, so take any job >
As more companies moved in to try to compete against other companies, unemployment dropped to near zero >
What used to be long lines of prospective employees at the company gates, has turned into empty parking ports, with not enough employees >
Companies in China started struggling to find workers, and have started to compete for labor >
High demand for employees + low supply of labor = higher wages and better benefits

End result is, despite the media sensationalizing the destitute working conditions in China because drama sells in TV, the quality of jobs and the average wage in China have shot up dramatically over the last decade. So much so that for many companies it no longer makes sense to outsource to China or India, as they'll just break even on shipping charges. The same thing happened in India, but on a much more dramatic, and possibly unsustainable level. So, here's your example of the "tragedy" of the lack of minimum wage laws in modern times. The market works, and it's not as bad as you think.
(Source: series of case papers from my Global Economic Environment graduate class)

Japan and Korea were once like China. It didn't work for them. What makes you think China will not go the same route?