Would killing the minimum wage help?

[grantbdev]

The corporate institution isn't rationally comparable to the systemic subjigation of an entire race/culture/religion of people over the course of generations.  Just trying to make this comparision drops your credibility about three points in my opinion.  I shouldn't even have to support that position.  Such a statement is comparable to violating Godwin's Law, as anyone who trys to play that card loses the argument by default.

This was not about comparing corporations to slavery to make the corporate model seem bad, I said and agree that they are on very different levels of immorality. I used slavery as an example of an inherently immoral institution that can be used by genuinely good people to provide exceptions to the majority or a majority that even still would not justify the existence of the institution. And no, you do not have to support my position.

As for Wal-Mart, I was not trying to convict every Wal-Mart store, and I'm not going to deny that you and many other people had a good experience. I do not believe that the cases of wrong labor practices done by Wal-Mart are necessarily the majority of cases. I do believe that those cases have happened (and are not just union propaganda), however, I do believe that they are incriminating evidence against the corporate model when co-operatives, which I believe to be a much more just model (just as corporations are more just than slavery) could be used instead.

[makomk]

Who has more decision making power? 1 man with 5 billion dollars, or 6 billion people, each with 1 dollar?

The former, due to both the communication effort required for the 6 billion people to organise themselves and to information asymmetry. If there's some critical information required to make a decision, each of the 6 billion people either has to discover it themselves or trust someone else, and the latter hands power over to those they trust. The man with 5 billion dollars only has to discover it once, and can pay people to assist him which incentivises them to behave in a trustworthy fashion. It's the same reason that the SEC restricts some forms of investments to "accredited investors".

Oh, do shut up. How would this 'death penalty' be enforced without a State?

That's quite simple really. The market would ensure that those unable to support themselves financially would be unable to obtain food and would starve to death. (Of course, in practice this wouldn't work and state intervention would be required, but that's true of the market in general anyway.)

[myrkul]

Who has more decision making power? 1 man with 5 billion dollars, or 6 billion people, each with 1 dollar?

The former, due to both the communication effort required for the 6 billion people to organise themselves and to information asymmetry. If there's some critical information required to make a decision, each of the 6 billion people either has to discover it themselves or trust someone else, and the latter hands power over to those they trust. The man with 5 billion dollars only has to discover it once, and can pay people to assist him which incentivises them to behave in a trustworthy fashion. It's the same reason that the SEC restricts some forms of investments to "accredited investors".

How would this 'death penalty' be enforced without a State?

That's quite simple really. The market would ensure that those unable to support themselves financially would be unable to obtain food and would starve to death. (Of course, in practice this wouldn't work and state intervention would be required, but that's true of the market in general anyway.)

Well, some well-reasoned and logical responses.
In the first instance, you're right, communication does indeed pose a problem, and does even now. However, in the market, when one party is injured, it's not just them that stop dealing with the inuring party. Word of mouth is a pretty powerful force, especially in a small community. The world is getting smaller, and information only has to go through 5 or six hops to get all the way around the world. Imagine what it would be like in an even more connected world. Piss off the wrong people, and you're penniless.

In the second one, What you've described is essentially the enforcement mechanism in an AnCap society. Unemployment would only come to those with truly nothing to offer, and for those few unfortunates, charities, or more likely employers who are willing to train, would take care of them. Shunning, excluding someone from interactions, would only come as a result of failing to enter arbitration. So while death by starvation is possible, it's not likely to come from simple unemployment.

[JeffK]

Screw you.  I should get to decide the terms and conditions under which I will work, not you.  Take your fairy tale bullshit somewhere else.

Sorry for taking away your freedom to work for next nothing in a sweatshop factory, just like those workers in China and India "decided" on the terms of their wages. Forgive me <3

They actually like their sweatshop jobs because it gives them a first step on a ladder of future careers. In this country, you can't even build experience because of the lack of entry-level jobs. There are a lack of auto mechanics because there are no longer service station attendants that used to work below minimum wage. The majority of technicians started at that job -- now it's gone.

You want to hurt these people more than anything. You will hurt them more if you mandate a minimum wage.

They work them because they have to to feed their families, not because they like them. Dunno why I'd bother posting this on a forum of people who have never had real jobs, let alone factory or labor ones before though.

[myrkul]

They work them because they have to to feed their families, not because they like them. Dunno why I'd bother posting this on a forum of people who have never had real jobs, let alone factory or labor ones before though.

Ahh, passive-aggressiveness.

When logic fails.

[MoonShadow]

Screw you.  I should get to decide the terms and conditions under which I will work, not you.  Take your fairy tale bullshit somewhere else.

Sorry for taking away your freedom to work for next nothing in a sweatshop factory, just like those workers in China and India "decided" on the terms of their wages. Forgive me <3

They actually like their sweatshop jobs because it gives them a first step on a ladder of future careers. In this country, you can't even build experience because of the lack of entry-level jobs. There are a lack of auto mechanics because there are no longer service station attendants that used to work below minimum wage. The majority of technicians started at that job -- now it's gone.

You want to hurt these people more than anything. You will hurt them more if you mandate a minimum wage.

They work them because they have to to feed their families, not because they like them. Dunno why I'd bother posting this on a forum of people who have never had real jobs, let alone factory or labor ones before though.

I've worked them.  I was working for $7.50 an hour; married to a spouse still going in school for her degree, when she had our first child.  I had a two bedroom house, one car, one tv and a computer with Internet access (this wasn't a given at the time, I didn't know the Internet actually had pictures yet, I was an early adopter) phone service, etc.  It is and was possible to raise a family on wages close to minimum wage.  For reference, my first child was born in 2000.  I had zero debt (beyond my mortgage) until my daughter was born.  Kids are freaking expensive.

[makomk]

Well, some well-reasoned and logical responses.
In the first instance, you're right, communication does indeed pose a problem, and does even now. However, in the market, when one party is injured, it's not just them that stop dealing with the inuring party. Word of mouth is a pretty powerful force, especially in a small community. The world is getting smaller, and information only has to go through 5 or six hops to get all the way around the world.

Information can spread very quickly, yes - the trouble is that it's not necessarily accurate or truthful information. Have you ever heard the saying "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes"? In order for this to work the way you'd hope, each person would have to have the ability and time to personally verify the information they receive - and even that might not be enough due to social pressure to ignore contradictory facts. Worse still, if someone owns a significant chunk of the media they can and do direct this social pressure.

Imagine what it would be like in an even more connected world. Piss off the wrong people, and you're penniless.

That's the problem with your idea. It's not doing something immoral that leads to you being penniless, it's crossing the wrong person. Could be that you kicked up too much of a fuss about them scamming you or robbing you or raping you or beating you up. So long as the influential evildoers stick to doing it to people with much less social influence then themselves, they can essentially get away with it - crossing them carries too much risk and those with the influence to damage them have no incentive to do so.

In the second one, What you've described is essentially the enforcement mechanism in an AnCap society. Unemployment would only come to those with truly nothing to offer, and for those few unfortunates, charities, or more likely employers who are willing to train, would take care of them. Shunning, excluding someone from interactions, would only come as a result of failing to enter arbitration. So while death by starvation is possible, it's not likely to come from simple unemployment.

That would require the way people think to change in ways that, frankly, are probably never going to happen. Currently whether someone's seen as having "nothing to offer" is determined by extraneous factors like skin colour, gender, class markers, etc, and while attempts to get some of these factors ignored have met with limited sucess no-one's managed to shake off this kind of thinking.

[myrkul]

That's the problem with your idea. It's not doing something immoral that leads to you being penniless, it's crossing the wrong person. Could be that you kicked up too much of a fuss about them scamming you or robbing you or raping you or beating you up. So long as the influential evildoers stick to doing it to people with much less social influence then themselves, they can essentially get away with it - crossing them carries too much risk and those with the influence to damage them have no incentive to do so.

This just creates incentive for consumers to find unbiased news sources, and for news sources to be unbiased. Of course, the flaw here is that the people have to know they need unbiased sources, which puts incentive on the both news sources and the consumers of the news sources, to get the word out.

That would require the way people think to change in ways that, frankly, are probably never going to happen. Currently whether someone's seen as having "nothing to offer" is determined by extraneous factors like skin colour, gender, class markers, etc, and while attempts to get some of these factors ignored have met with limited sucess no-one's managed to shake off this kind of thinking.

Bigotry is another issue entirely, and IMO, a self correcting one. If indeed the brown guy has better qualifications than the white guy, then the bigot is setting himself up to fail to his competitor, who hires based on qualifications, not skin color or accent.

[makomk]

This just creates incentive for consumers to find unbiased news sources, and for news sources to be unbiased. Of course, the flaw here is that the people have to know they need unbiased sources, which puts incentive on the both news sources and the consumers of the news sources, to get the word out.

The problem is that all the problems with obtaining accurate information in general also apply to obtaining accurate information about the bias of news sources. If your source of news falsely tells you that the other news sources are less trustworthy and the people around you agree, how do you know this is wrong? What's more, if they're good they can create social pressure to trust that news source and emotional investment in it to the point that evidence they're unreliable is just rationalised away by their followers. (Usual rationalization: "All the other news organisations must be just as biased, so I may as well stick with the one that's just been proven to lie through their teeth".)

Bigotry is another issue entirely, and IMO, a self correcting one. If indeed the brown guy has better qualifications than the white guy, then the bigot is setting himself up to fail to his competitor, who hires based on qualifications, not skin color or accent.

That's one of the evils thing about bigotry: it isn't self-correcting like that. In most circumstances it's not just important to hire someone that's well-qualified but someone who's perceived to be well-qualified by others, so ignoring race and hiring the most well-qualified person is potentially setting yourself up to fail.

[myrkul]

The problem is that all the problems with obtaining accurate information in general also apply to obtaining accurate information about the bias of news sources. If your source of news falsely tells you that the other news sources are less trustworthy and the people around you agree, how do you know this is wrong? What's more, if they're good they can create social pressure to trust that news source and emotional investment in it to the point that evidence they're unreliable is just rationalized away by their followers. (Usual rationalization: "All the other news organizations must be just as biased, so I may as well stick with the one that's just been proven to lie through their teeth".)

Good point, but as I've pointed out earlier, it's relatively easy to spot bias. If all else fails, Look for sponsorship. Truly listener supported programing is almost guaranteed to give you better information than one sponsored by the companies it's supposed to be watch-dogging.

That's one of the evils thing about bigotry: it isn't self-correcting like that. In most circumstances it's not just important to hire someone that's well-qualified but someone who's perceived to be well-qualified by others, so ignoring race and hiring the most well-qualified person is potentially setting yourself up to fail.

But most people aren't that bigoted, even in the US, where we had slavery almost within living memory, people don't give a shit if the technician servicing their cable is black or white, as long as they don't fuck up the install.

[The Script]

Screw you.  I should get to decide the terms and conditions under which I will work, not you.  Take your fairy tale bullshit somewhere else.

Sorry for taking away your freedom to work for next nothing in a sweatshop factory, just like those workers in China and India "decided" on the terms of their wages. Forgive me <3

They actually like their sweatshop jobs because it gives them a first step on a ladder of future careers. In this country, you can't even build experience because of the lack of entry-level jobs. There are a lack of auto mechanics because there are no longer service station attendants that used to work below minimum wage. The majority of technicians started at that job -- now it's gone.

You want to hurt these people more than anything. You will hurt them more if you mandate a minimum wage.

They work them because they have to to feed their families, not because they like them. Dunno why I'd bother posting this on a forum of people who have never had real jobs, let alone factory or labor ones before though.

It is so easy to judge and insult people on the internet who you know nothing about, isn't it?  I've done plenty of manual labor jobs (sheet rocking, demolition, framing, windshield repair and replacement, lumber yard boy, etc.) but went to school because I didn't want to do that stuff for the rest of my life.  Stop attempting ad hominem attacks when you run out of logic, it only makes you appear intellectually bankrupt and fucking pathetic to boot.

[sergio]

The minimum wage is extremely necessary, a lot of the people earning it are students making it though college so that later they can become professionals, and going though very difficult economic times, with the elimination of minimum wage you would reduce the number of professionals and skilled people increasing the number of unskilled people exactly what is not needed, for the economy to prosper skilled persons are needed, and before persons become skilled they have to struggle if the struggle is too big they do not survive.

What is needed it to stop bailing out banks and enterprises that are failures with the money of the people, and heavier taxes for the very rich and same ones that print money, and make the laws, laws which are convenient to them.

I believe in exponential taxes, no taxes for people under a certain income, and as income increase so do taxes in a real way without heavy tax loopholes.

The average person does not take advantage of such loopholes, I guess by stop  the welfare of large corporations and heavy taxing incomes of millions, and changing the economy from a debt based economy to one based on savings and production, the economy would be well.

trying to save a penny to destroy a dollar is nonsense, it is like saving money on an oil change and later destroying a fine engine.

[MoonShadow]

The minimum wage is extremely necessary, a lot of the people earning it are students making it though college so that later they can become professionals, and going though very difficult economic times, with the elimination of minimum wage you would reduce the number of professionals and skilled people increasing the number of unskilled people exactly what is not needed, for the economy to prosper skilled persons are needed, and before persons become skilled they have to struggle if the struggle is too big they do not survive.

The sentiment isn't the problem, it's the unintended consequences.  And reality doesn't support your position that the minimum wage is necessary so that college students can work their way through and earn a higher wage.  The only students that I have ever met working minimum wage were either working on campus or in a co-op program.  What you just described is just a back-door subsidy of higher education, which already costs way too much.

[johnyj]

Of course not, it has nothing to do with the minimum wage, the market-based resource allocation will not work after productivity has passed certain level

see my other post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=33267.0

[sergio]

The minimum wage is extremely necessary, a lot of the people earning it are students making it though college so that later they can become professionals, and going though very difficult economic times, with the elimination of minimum wage you would reduce the number of professionals and skilled people increasing the number of unskilled people exactly what is not needed, for the economy to prosper skilled persons are needed, and before persons become skilled they have to struggle if the struggle is too big they do not survive.

The sentiment isn't the problem, it's the unintended consequences.  And reality doesn't support your position that the minimum wage is necessary so that college students can work their way through and earn a higher wage.  The only students that I have ever met working minimum wage were either working on campus or in a co-op program.  What you just described is just a back-door subsidy of higher education, which already costs way too much.

Well the only student employment programs that have subsidy are work study, and it is a tiny subsidy since most of the time it is the minimum wage that is being subsidy in a small percentage. however that majority of student employment programs are not subsidy, and some even generate profits, since the student are basically subcontractors in some cases, it is true also in the last case it is a little over minimum wage that students make, The great benefit for them on working on campus is not so much the extra money but the greater flexibility that allows them to work around their schedules, since flexibility does not normally exist on traditional jobs.

The lack of the flexibility of most jobs is the number one reason adult universities exist in which it is the other way around, the university works around your schedule, but that costs a premium most people can not afford, it is usually the other way around for students they need work that allows them to get around their school schedules, and those are minimum wages jobs or close to it.

[malevolent]

Sure it would.

[NghtRppr]

Dunno why I'd bother posting this on a forum of people who have never had real jobs, let alone factory or labor ones before though.

Ad hominem plus I'm sure I've done more back breaking labor than you have, digging septic line ditches, hauling bags of concrete mix, etc and I still say your ideology is dead from the neck up.

[anticolay26]

Mininum wage only "protects" people who already have a stable job.

But it hurts those who need the most "protection" - the unemployed. It lessens their chance to get their foot in the door and pushes more of them into a vicious cycle of long term unemployment.

Minimum wage is regressive and anti-social.

[chixka000]

Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann quoted "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage-if conceivably it was gone-we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."

We hear about and see in our own personal lives where people who once high paying and respectable jobs are now working in at fast food restaurants and retail clothing stores.

I do like having a minimum wage, since it helps protect the lower income class. However, considering how the economy is now and seeing many jobs being offered offshore, removing the min. wage law may actually help keep jobs within the states.

And wasn't one of the top causes of The Great Depression had to do with Herbert Hoover keeping wages from decreasing which ultimately lead to extremely high unemployment rate?

What are your thoughts on this?

Its wrong in my opinion to remove the minimum wage. Yes it can cut off the unemployment rate however if more workers are working with a very low salary with a very difficult type of job that would just sound really unfair. Minimum wage is created to create a quite far amount for every workers tho we all know that isnt perfect

[GreenBits]

Mininum wage only "protects" people who already have a stable job.

But it hurts those who need the most "protection" - the unemployed. It lessens their chance to get their foot in the door and pushes more of them into a vicious cycle of long term unemployment.

Minimum wage is regressive and anti-social.

Minimum wages only 'protect' all low wage citizens from virtual slavery imposed by corporations. This very low number ensures that (if your state isn't an asshole) any employer you would work with, would pay you enough to actually survive in that particular economy.  This ain't just for the citizens, this is also for the government as well. We all get taxed, and mightily, on those wages, and if they don't pay you enough, the state is going to end up subsidizing the gaps in your existence anyway. So, the state/Fed would rather see the business owners stimulate the economy by actually allowing the value to trickle down, rather than accumulate at the top. Despite this, major corporations have lobbied, and money talks.

 Hence corporate welfare, the scenario where tax payers end up footing the bill for the missing part of worker wages. I'm pointing out McDs, WalMart, but it's the lot of them. Corporations are already skirting their tax bills by and large, the insult to injury that is having to pay food stamps for someone with a full time job, because the guys that hired them don't give them enough to survive. Corps want ever-increasing profits for the shareholders, to usher in ever-increasing valuation of their asset.  You can do this a few ways.

Charge more, but that doesn't fly in the age of dying retail.
Pay your workers less, which has been the norm, and
Ask your workers to do more for the same pay, which is the new trick of low wage worker exploitation. Clever ways to not account for overtime, or subtle policies that have workers doing things outside of their job description (which is a federally regulated thing, your job description per industry is actually a listed thing, for legal purposes). Don't do it, get wrote up or fired. It's a slick system. And with most American apparently being one check away from insolvency, who has time or the appetite for risk to switch jobs?

The nerve to deny a man a fair days pay, for a fair days work, is regressive and antisocial.