Does minimum wage do more harm than good? (Page 2)

WHlSKY:
Back. Instead of addressing each statement of yours, I’ll address each point. Because I’ve read what you say and your statements get repeated.



1) Volunteer work vs Wage work.

First, there is nothing wrong with volunteer work; I have not seen anyone arguing against volunteer work. It is also not illegal to do it. I don’t see it as bad as I too have done the volunteering work.

You try to argue that Volunteer work has no wage to it and therefore Wage work should not have a minimum wage or an issue with wages. That Person A (the volunteer) is working for free so Person B (the wage worker) should be fine working below the minimum wage. Correct?

The issue with that line of reasoning is that minimum wage is as a protection for wages. It sets a bar or standard or baseline. Volunteer work does not fall into this category because there is no expected wage from volunteer work. Anything to do with wages does not matter to volunteer workers. It is however the concern of wage workers. It is specifically for them.

We addressed the importance of wages. Yes, out of all of society there is a minute population who can live off of not having a wage (as they receive their finances through other means).



2) Free (zero wage) vs Low wage.

Minimum wage is low wage in itself and legal. Have you ever lived on the minimum wage? I’m not sure why you consider it to be a high wage. Minimum wage is meant to be the lowest liveable/living wage. We can look at the US (a country that is one of the top minimum wage countries)

“The U.S. minimum is less than half the “living wage” for a single adult ($15.41 an hour, or roughly $32,000 a year before tax), according to national data compiled by MIT. It’s a third of what a family of four needs to live — around $21.50 per hour per parent, or almost $90,000 a year combined. And the effects are compounded for single parents.”

You have also made statements like, “…we should also allow them to do work at a low wage, without imposing a minimum onto them and making it illegal,” hmm who are these workers who feel restricted by no receiving below minimum wage rates? Who is out here feeling forbidden for working for an amount that is below the properly liveable standard in some countries? And do they go to the Night time Dj volunteer sessions? Haa sorry, just a little joke on that last bit.

Human labour is a resource, as much as raw material is a resource to businesses. Some raw materials are given for free, others at a price. There is no worker who feels restricted by a minimum wage. Sure an unemployed person might feel restricted as he can’t low-ball his way into getting a job.

The very low wage of the minimum wage is a safe level, it is even below the living wage in most cases.

You sated too “..you are not giving a reason why we must forbid the low-paying job, to gain some social benefit, but must not forbid the zero-wage job, or unpaid job. You're not saying what the social benefit is of forbidding the low-wage job, which would not also be provided by forbidding the zero-wage job…”

Well, I already covered the difference in volunteer work and wage work and that minimum wage is the concern of a wage worker and not a volunteer worker. So I’ll not reiterate that point again. I’d say though that at one time society’s economy benefited heavily from slavery. That benefit extended to whom? The removal of a minimum wage benefits who? You get cheaper goods sure. You have shown some contempt for wage-workers (bit strange to me), however wage workers account for the vast majority in society, and thus the greater share of society. So if things are not working for the benefit of wage workers, then it by extension isn’t working for the majority of society. There is little separation. I will discuss the benefits of minimum wage in a bit but the point of this section is to show that minimum wage is low wage.



3) Minimum Wage and Unemployment


You made the statement: …“One simple answer is: they are the same ones (or some of these) who are barred from employment because they cannot get hired at a typical low-wage job which pays higher than an employer is willing to pay them.”

I have seen the cases of unemployment due to places being filled, but not the cases of a country having too many vacancies due to the minimum wage. However, I’ll take your word on this and address it. At the end of it someone else still gets employed and will complete the job.

You also stated: “..There are MILLIONS who are barred from paid employment because they are not attractive to employers, in the job-screening process, and so get filtered out and never get any chance to show what work they are capable of doing.”

That is not the fault of minimum wage. If anything the minimum wage makes the employer select a candidate based on their qualifications and suitability for the job rather than which can low-ball the lowest. How will that be competitively fairer for say a single mother who has more expenses vs a single person who can afford to make cuts? So in any case there will be biases. But the minimum wage at the very least makes the room for that part being fair in the competition as each candidate starts at a level and not at zero.

I agree with you that biasness occurs in the job selection process. I don’t see how the removal of minimum wage will improve those biases as it also opens the issue of an employer choosing to pay someone much lower based on their race etc.

Employers don’t leave vacancies open longer than they can afford to, they will eventually pick someone for the job.



4) Other

I want to express to you why I bring up the importance of wages. Once we acknowledge the importance of wages, then we can see how vital setting a minimum wage is to a wage worker and to living in general (living in the sense of caring for expenses, etc). There is also the need to protect the wages of workers because let us be real here, no one is up in arms about getting too much pay. There will be nothing stopping employers from paying $1 for 15 hours’ worth of work. We already know what happens in countries without minimum wage and no faulty labour laws. Now look at the countries with proper minimum wages and proper labour laws.



5) Contracts


When I stated that “not fully that ‘the "contribution" for the exchange cannot be set by any outsiders, but only by the employer and worker, each of whom has total sovereignty to decide the terms, without any interference from the outside…”’ It goes to contract law. There are terms contracts must have by law not just to prevent fraud but also for fairness etc.



6) Competition & Product prices

When you say: “..Setting wages or prices for anything interferes with competition and makes all consumers worse off, by driving prices artificially higher.”

Competition is good. It depends on what is the competing mark. In the world of work that competition should be based on qualifications and suitability for efficiency and not on ‘low balling’. I’d say having that competition based on low-balling or which worker takes the lowest wage will cause more issues with quality. I can just see that in contract jobs, cheaper doesn’t mean better. So basing it instead of qualifications is better.

Why make a product cheaper by cutting wages? Perhaps it is better to pay the full price of a product than want everything cheap at someone else’s expense.



7) Wage workers as Consumers/Customers

You stated “Most consumers are also right-handers…” ha I’ll take it as light humour. Right-handedness has no relation to consumerism, but when I state wage workers make up the majority of consumers/customers, it is related. How so? All wage workers are consumers/customers. The wages they earn goes directly back into the system to purchase things. Sure you’ll say “but Whisky, the Dj who lives off his parents buys stuff”. I’d say indeed, he probably buys something when his family gives him a stipend. But the point is that since most consumers/customers are from the employed set, it is a benefit to secure their purchasing power (wage).
And therefore are the ones who drive the demand for products and services and thus play an important role in the system. You even said yourself that it should be ‘Customer/Consumer’ focused, great and in order to maintain the majority of ‘customer/consumer’s power to purchase we secure their wages.


I am glad that you have mentioned the following: “…And also, the hardest workers in the economy are the struggling small business entrepreneurs, some working 16 hours a day…”

If you wish to claim these are the hardest workers, that’s fine with me. I don’t know what is your quantifying marker as some might even state single mothers are the hardest workers haa but these are minor things that can be looked over. Now on your point on small business entrepreneurs; they also need that consuming wage worker presence in order for their businesses to thrive. We can see that during the covid pandemic how low turn outs affected the small businesses. The entrepreneurs may often provide services/products that are ‘wants’ vs heavy needs. A person who lives under the minimum wage cannot pander to their wants. It was already shown too how even the minimum wage earner struggles. Securing the wages of that consumer/customer group therefore benefits the small business entrepreneur.



8) Comparing countries.

We can look at countries with good/strong labour/employment laws and high minimum wage brackets and compare that to countries with bad/weak labour laws and low minimum wage brackets. The first group thrives better. The only way to remove minimum wage and for it to work out will be for that country to have strong or good labour/employment laws.

WHlSKY:
I'll read through your latest posts and will respond to anything that wasn't already covered in the post above.

WHlSKY:

9) Workers’ Work’s Worth

There are many different criteria used to judge a work’s worth. It’s maybe still a debatable topic.

Some will place the worth to be based on the time it takes to complete the job, so when writing up their bill, they will assess the time it took. (The Time is Money mantra). There is also some who’ll say it depends on how much the work will be worth for the employer/ the client who asked for the work to be done (example a graphic designer making a logo will have that ‘work’ price as dependable on the client –charge more for big companies as the work will be worth more to that company and more is at stake and less for some granny wanting a logo for her knit club). Others will say it is based on the qualifications and experience of the worker. And so forth.

To me, I think a worker’s work worth will be based on the industry they’re working in.

I’m not sure why you are stating wage determination is an employer – worker private matter. It is often the employer deciding. Even when asked what the expected salary is, the employer will just always go with the person who works for the lowest. In the cases of low-wage jobs, the employer already sets the wage. It’s not really a coming together and minimum wage being some interference. The low-wage worker has no influence or power. Let’s be real here, cheap labour is a dime a dozen especially when there’s an influx of immigrants or economically challenging times. When has it ever occurred that a potential employee sits with an employer and says “man that minimum wage, I wish you did not offer me that barely liveable wage and gave me much lower.”


10) Exploitation

I disagree that ‘fairly’ is solely subjective and based solely on feelings. When you mentioned in a previous post about the employer selecting who to employ based on race, class etc, I’m sure you labelled that was no fair. Is it because you were being subjective or it was based on your feelings? No, it is based on an expected standard. You expected 1+1 to be 2. You expect what you put into a job to be balanced with what you get out of it. If you work the hardest, the longest and hold the most experience, and you get a promotion, will you say it was fair? Of course anyone will, because you received a change based on your input.
Just because there is no written formula for ‘fairness’ does not mean it is not observable.

We know exploitation. If you enter a sweat shop right this moment, you will know it is not fair labour. Why? It’s not because you became emotional, it is because you observe and mentally can deduce that these workers are putting in more than they are getting as an output.


11) Other

You stated: “Finally you've got it right. It is unfair, and it's criminal exploitation if the employer violates any of the terms agreed to in the contract.”
There was no argument being made that a worker or employer should violate an agreed contract. What was being stated was that there are legal requirements for contracts that when written up, has to be included.


12) Government ‘interference’
The government tend to have labour/employment laws to protect the rights of workers and employers. I’m not seeing why they should not as they already carry out legislation for contracts, company law and laws for all other aspects of society.

The government do not set wages, they set a minimum wage. The minimum is the starting point and leaves the rest to the worker or employer. Much like the laws for contracts, when writing up a contract an employer has to make sure it aligns with Contract law and the rest is left to him.


When you say “this stifles production and drives down the living standard from what it would be if employers and workers alone and individually were left free to set their own terms.” Then how does it work for countries with really good labour laws? I think having a minimum wage standard may motivate workers. I’m sure there are cons and there are pros to minimum wage. However, I think it benefits society to have the members of society to have a better standard of living vs solely focusing on product-first.

Lumpenproletariat:

018

WHlSKY:

You stated: “ But there is no need to increase "purchasing power" to certain select workers we feel sorry for. …”

Minimum wage isn’t specific, it applies to all workers. There is no ‘certain select workers we feel sorry for…’
_______________________

Right -- intention vs. reality. The INTENTION, in theory, is to benefit all the working class, and especially all the working poor.

But the reality (and actually many workers are not stupid and know what really happens) is that certain particular workers benefit and others do not, and in fact MANY ARE MADE WORSE OFF.

That is the fact, whether your slogans and chants and propaganda recognize it or not.

First, it is a fact that ALL consumers are made worse off, as consumers, as a result of minimum wage, which includes all workers. AS CONSUMERS they are all hit with higher prices. However, it's true that some of them still gain a net benefit, because they also got a wage hike.

But that is a minority, at least in the short run. Maybe longer-term the majority gain a benefit, for 5 or 10 or 15 years ---- it's impossible to calculate this. No economist has really figured this out.

But it's not true that ALL workers gain a net benefit. Many get no wage increase at all, or it's so small that it does not offset the higher prices they must now pay because of the higher labor cost.

EVERYONE, i.e., all consumers, have to pay these higher labor costs, indirectly, through higher prices.

Many of the workers who are hurt are the lowest-paid workers who don't even experience the wage increase at all. Many of these are left out, one way or another.

Those in the UNDERGROUND ECONOMY probably are not covered by the minimum wage increase. All they experience is the higher cost of living, no wage increase.

All the INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS are hurt, because they get no wage increase, and the fact is that many of the poorest workers are actually independent contractors, like street vendors, who are struggling to survive.

Many SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS are damaged by the minimum-wage increase and get no benefit from higher wages. Some of these are "illegal" -- struggling to survive in the only way they know how, and are not suppressed by the law, because everyone knows they are mostly honest and do contribute to the economy. Many of them can't even afford a business license, but still they are allowed to operate, because to enforce all the licensing and other laws against these millions of producers would severely crush the economy and cause a recession, or make the current recession much worse.

MANY LOW-SKILL WORKERS are damaged by minimum-wage, because they can get hired only at a low wage, not at $15/hour or whatever the MW is. But when the minimum-wage is enforced, it closes off jobs to them and forces them onto the streets to beg.

So stop pretending that your minimum-wage fantasy really "applies to all workers. There is no ‘certain select workers we feel sorry for --"

that's the fantasy ---- but the reality is that only certain select workers benefit, and many others are crushed by minimum wage. And many workers who benefit and are not ignorant idiots know perfectly well that they are the ones who will benefit while millions more workers will be made worse off.

It is known that labor law always benefits certain workers while shafting others. Those who don't know this are just illiterate bumpkins, or they are hopeless idealists who know nothing about the real world, the real economy.

These idealist fantasizers don't understand the basic point: You can pass all the laws you want --- but that doesn't make it so. You can pass a law saying that everyone is to be happy, everyone prosperous, no one to suffer any harm ----- you can pass these laws forever, but it does not make it so just to mandate it in the law. And that's all that minimum-wage law does.

So yes, it's intended to benefit ALL THE WORKERS from A to Z, but when you cut out the fantasy and demagoguery and look at the real world, it clearly benefits only a few at the expense of a very large number who are victimized by these laws.
___________________

Lumpenproletariat

019

WHISKY:

Having more persons being able to purchase helps businesses. How is this a ‘no’?
__________________

Higher minimum wage means higher cost to all businesses, meaning higher prices, which means lower purchasing power to everyone, as consumers.

Again, there are some workers who benefit, with higher income, so this might offset the higher prices they pay as consumers. But the majority of consumers, probably more than 90%, do not get any higher wage, but instead have only the higher prices to pay.

Furthermore, some workers, or job-seekers, are actually prevented from getting hired, as a result of minimum wage, and so their income is not higher, but lower, and so their purchasing power DEcreases as a result.

So it's not true that minimum wage results in higher purchasing power overall, even if it does produce that for a small minority of consumers.
___________________________

WHISKY:

The entire market depends on this, hence why companies dish out huge sums of cash to advertise and market their business. It thrives on consumerism and more persons having that purchasing power. People buying things they don’t need is what it all hangs on.
—————
What's the "it"?

First, it's not true that MW causes any overall increase in purchasing power.

But secondly, it's a fiction that if we goose the economy to increase someone's purchasing power, it's going to make the economy perform better. There is no social need served by arbitrarily pumping up someone's purchasing power somewhere.

There may be a legitimate need to help some of the poor, to help them to survive better, and this might result in them spending more money. But getting someone to spend more money, especially "buying things they don't need" does not serve any social need.

There is no need to pump up demand, drive up spending or purchasing power per se, etc. This is all Snake-Oil Economics, preached by some economic quacks who make a living writing books and preaching to gullible devotees who think there's a magic formula, printing money and distributing it everywhere to anyone who will spend it immediately, etc., to crank up the economy, run it up into high gear, gun the engine, R-R-R-R-R-R -- R-R-R-R-R -- 'til it explodes, etc.

This is all delusion. This is not what produces prosperity. What we need is more production and better performance by producers, and some RESTRAINT on unnecessary spending, though it's fine for consumers to spend on what they really want or need. But preaching any doctrine to get people to spend spend spend -- out of control, just spend per se, just for the sake of the spending, to spend to throw money around everywhere, more and more and more money on "things they don't need" is a hoax.

And it's true that minimum wage helps to proliferate this hoax, at least psychologically, to the ignorant masses, who imagine they are "stimulating the economy" to go out and just spend spend spend on stuff they don't need. It is a shame that even some respected economists have participated in this massive hoax. And most of them, at least secretly, know it's a hoax.
________________

WHISKY:

Your statement: “No, minimum wage law does more harm to the poorest workers, because many of these cannot get hired at higher wage levels…”

Man. I read what you say, and to be honest it seems to come from a position that’s detached from reality. Do you understand what it takes to survive? What sense will it make for a man to work from 7 in the morning to 7 in the night for a wage that does not covers his expenses?
_____________________

You're ignoring millions of poor (maybe unskilled?) people WHO CANNOT GET HIRED at the wage levels you demand.

Can't you figure it out? You are forcing the wage level up higher than the level at which an employer is willing to pay them. So they don't get hired! Can't you see?

How are they supposed to benefit from the higher wage level if they have no job at all?

That's what you do to them by driving the wage level up to a level the employer won't pay them. These may not be 40 or 50% of the population. Maybe not 20%. But they are a huge number you have cut off, disconnected from the job market, because you have priced them out of the market, making it illegal for employers to hire them who otherwise would hire them (at the lower wage level).

What you're saying to them is that it's better for them to starve (or beg on the streets) than to have a low-wage job. Why do you want to crush these would-be workers who could otherwise get hired? What good do you accomplish by forcing them out of the market, so the work they could do never gets done?

MORE PRODUCTION is part of the formula for more prosperity. And yet your minimum-wage bludgeon against employers is a prescription for LESS PRODUCTION, as you drive up the cost of production = less gets produced.
______________________

Lumpenproletariat

020

WHISKY:

You honestly think that in poverty a man is cheering that he has a job that does not balance the work he puts in with what he gets out of it?
_________________

Virtually every wage-earner, and 90% of capitalists, think they get less in income than they put in. If we're going to use Crybaby Economics ---- Whoever whines the loudest gets pandered to ---- we will create good-paying jobs for 20 or 30% of the population, and the other 70-80% will pay the higher costs of providing these profitable jobs to the minority.

That's all you can ever honestly promise with your labor law fantasies, like minimum wage.

It's not true that you're making most workers better off. It's not true that your scheme brings out anyone "in poverty" and gives everyone the high standard of living you're promising them. Lenin and Stalin made similar promises ---- just making promises does not improve the lives of those in poverty. Your false promise that minimum wage brings more poor workers out of "poverty" and will "balance what he gets out" to what he puts in is just empty words. You have no evidence or facts to show that minimum wage produces these "paradise on earth" results. Just because you can sloganize and preach the utopian words does not mean there's any truth to it.

What we need are not the flamboyant words of the utopian demagogues, but the truth of the economic reality, the facts of supply-and-demand and competition.

What we need is IMPROVED PERFORMANCE by producers, getting them to LOWER their cost while improving their production for consumers. There are ways to get this result, but it's not from simplistic promises and slogans to workers and scapegoating of employers, which is all the minimum wage is.
____________________

WHISKY:

It’s best you don’t take the approach of talking for someone in poverty.
—————
I hope you're wrong implying that those in poverty are too stupid and ignorant to ever understand the realities of economics. But you may have some history on your side -- e.g., the promises of demagogues like Lenin and others. It's true that they developed a talent to manipulate the poor masses. But in the long run, this is not the best approach for talking to the poor, as you're implying. (Or at least hopefully you're wrong about this. Hopefully the solutions for the future will move in the direction AWAY from lying and fraud and toward more truth-telling.)
______________________

WHISKY:

Your statement: “But there is no legitimacy in imposing this charitable obligation onto their employer..”

As I said, an employer is to pay a worker based on the value of work/service rendered by the worker.
__________________

Which is determined by the market, by supply-and-demand, not upon sympathy for the worker. And the only way to calculate supply-and-demand is by means of the terms agreed to by the workers and employers, and not by any 3rd party interfering because they feel sorry for one or the other.
__________________________

WHISKY:

There is no charity or one-sidedness in this interaction.
_____________________

OK then you agree that no 3rd party has any say in determining the wage level, but that only the terms agreed to by the employer and worker. Anything other than the agreed terms between the two is charity and one-sidedness in favor of whoever benefits from this interference.

And this interference makes the whole society worse off. Because it counteracts the legitimate role of market supply-and-demand determining the wage and replaces it with an inefficient and anticompetitive bias against proper determination of the value, and so distorts the market, distorting the production from the optimum level.

So to prevent this distortion and damage to the economy, to make sure there is no "charity" to either side, you must oppose the government or any other outside party from interfering with the terms agreed to by the individual employers and workers, i.e., buyers and sellers, who are the only ones competent to make those decisions to determine the real value of the work.
____________________

Lumpenproletariat

021

WHISKY:

The employer can not expect to run a business successfully that demands more than it is giving out.
____________________

The only ones competent to calculate what is successful and what demand is "more than it is giving out" in any transaction are the buyers and sellers only, individually making those decisions, and each making their own individual offer and individual demand on the other. I.e., only the employer and worker individually can decide this, in their agreed terms, which they each agree to without any outside interference from others who are not a party to their transaction.

Each side might complain about the other, but neither has any legitimate appeal to an outsider to make a calculation of what the agreed terms should be. If they can't agree, then very simply there is no contract and no transaction. Each side has to judge at what point they should withdraw from the transaction. Neither is obligated to do the deal if no agreement is reached.

But whatever agreement is reached between the 2 individual sides, that is the only determining factor of what is successful and a proper demand on the other, or what is "more than it is giving out" -- no law from the state interfering in this can do anything but screw it up worse and make everyone worse off. Despite the wishful thinking on either side that the state should step in and impose terms onto the other side.
__________________

WHISKY:

His inability to pay for the value of the service inputted by workers is not the fault of minimum wage but on his own for running a business that runs at a loss.
___________________

translation: SHUT DOWN THAT BUSINESS, shut down the economy (the dirty capitalist pigs!), crush all competition, destroy the production --- employer-bashing is always the solution.

And this is the result. This is the only solution that this Snake-Oil Economics theory has to offer -- SHUT THEM DOWN! "They're not viable --- shut them down!" Small businesses by the millions have been crushed by labor laws and labor unions who imposed costs which could not be paid by the dirty capitalist pigs.

The accusation that they're "NOT VIABLE" so shut them down is where this leads.

The alternative: If there's a worker who is willing to take that low-wage job, out of desperation perhaps, then it's better for the economy if that business is allowed to continue, at lower labor cost.

WHY NOT? You can't give a reason. All you can do is complain for some worker who is whining about his low wage. But meanwhile, here is another job-seeker who is willing to do that job at the lower wage.

WHY CAN'T THE COMPANY HIRE THAT WORKER???????

Why not? give a reason why it should be prohibited from hiring that desperate worker?

Either the company survives, with the lower labor cost, or it is crushed, and all that production is lost. Why do you prefer for the company to be crushed?

What is gained by crushing a company which could survive with workers who are willing to take that lower-wage job?

Just because you or someone you know refuses that wage level doesn't mean no worker is willing to take that job out of desperation. Why can't this be allowed?

You can't give a reason. All you have are leftist Snake-Oil Economics slogans.
______________________________

WHISKY:

Perhaps as the employer he can make these cuts to himself and place it as ‘voluntary services’.
________________________

Just another way of saying -----

"SHUT 'M DOWN, THE DIRTY CAPITALIST PIG!"

And after shutting down all these dirty capitalist pigs who no longer are allowed to produce, what have you gained? Have you made the poor any better off?

No, you have reduced the production = less supply = higher prices everyone must pay, for the lower amount now being produced = all the poor have to now pay higher prices and the overall living standard is reduced.

This is all you have to show for your minimum-wage fraud.

And this is partly the explanation why we see so much of the economy going more and more into the hands of large corporations, which can afford the government-imposed higher costs, and away from small companies struggling to survive and unable to afford the artificially-high costs.

Lumpenproletariat:

022

WHlSKY:

I agree with Sir Loin’s statement “What people need is a living wage, not a minimum wage . . ."
__________________________

Slogans like this don't answer any questions or give any facts. This is pure preaching.

There is no scientific or objective definition of "living wage" -- it's just Left-wing sloganism.
________________________

WHISKY:

The employed (workers) make up the largest group in society. Having that group at a stable level benefits a society in the long term.
______________________

There is no reason to provide any special benefits to any select class of people, just because they're a majority, or any other category. It's a fact that right-handers make up the majority of the population. Yet there is no need to provide any special benefit or favoritism to right-handers.

The idea that wage-earners are a special class which should be favored out of sympathy for them is pure demagoguery and populist pandering to the idiot masses. And the resultant scapegoating of employers is ugly and low-class and should be repudiated by all good Americans.

The right social philosophy should be merit, and accountability, not membership in a favored class we're supposed to feel sorry for.
________________________________

WHISKY:

The employed are the top customers. Having that group at a level that they can continually purchase benefits businesses in the long term.
_________________________

Minimum wage drives up the cost of business and with it the prices ALL consumers must pay. When you drive down the purchasing power of ALL customers, top-middle-bottom, you don't benefit business.

Driving up business costs, making it more difficult for companies to stay in business, does not produce benefit to them, but only harm to the whole economy, to all classes.
_________________________

WHISKY:

Arguments against the minimum wage looks more to me as excuses to make cuts at the expense of workers.
________________________

So ---- no worker should ever get a pay cut? All cuts at the expense of any worker should be made illegal?

No? So then you agree that at least some "cuts at the expense of workers" are legitimate because those workers were overpaid -- right?

So how do we decide if a particular worker should get a pay CUT or pay INCREASE? Isn't that a decision to be made by the individual worker dealing with the individual employer? Why should the government interfere with that decision?

No one is arguing that government should impose pay cuts.

The argument is to allow freedom for all buyers and sellers to make their own decisions (i.e., employers = buyers, workers = sellers). Whether to buy more or less, whether to pay higher or lower price, whether to sell at higher or lower price, etc. Why shouldn't this be decided individually in each case, by the individual employers and workers?

How is this a demand for pay CUTS? It's only a demand for freedom by individuals to make the decision.

Why shouldn't a desperate job-seeker be free to take a low-wage job? If he prefers a low-wage job to no job at all, why shouldn't he be free to make that choice?

Why do you insist that no job at all is the only legitimate choice for that desperate job-seeker?

You can't impose a decree that NO PAY CUT IS EVER ALLOWED. You have to allow that sometimes a pay cut is permitted. Along with pay increases, which also happen.

Is permitting the desperate job-seeker to make that choice a PAY CUT to some other worker?

Isn't COMPETITION good for the economy? and yet competition inevitably means someone (the less competitive) will get paid less. So do you want to OUTLAW ALL COMPETITION in order guarantee that no one ever gets undersold by anyone else = pay cut?

When are you willing to allow a pay cut and when would you prohibit it? Would you also protect a marginal business from ever having a loss, because it's less competitive? No, you have to allow that some of the less competitive will suffer a "pay cut" because they're less competitive. And so why not also the less competitive worker? Isn't it appropriate for some less competitive workers to experience a pay cut?

And how do we know who is less competitive, other than by the supply-and-demand conditions in the market, where buyers and sellers individually set their demand or their price? or hold out for a higher price? or sell at a loss? Whose decision should that be? How does the government know better than those individual buyers and sellers? employers and job-seekers?
_________________________

Lumpenproletariat

023

WHISKY:

Wage should be based on the input value of work provided. So any ‘cuts’ should be based on that.
______________________________

But who decides what the "input value" is? If that worker becomes more easily replaceable by machines, hasn't his input value decreased? Why isn't it OK for his wage to be cut to reflect his lower value, now that the job can be done at lower cost by a machine?

Who is best able to decide the changing input value? Why not the individual worker and employer, bargaining together, and each making their own individual choice?

If another job-seeker offers to do that same job at a lower wage level, even lower than the machine cost, why shouldn't the employer be free to hire that more desperate worker, and hold off on replacing the worker with the machine?

What is the formula for suppressing the employer and judging that the worker may not be replaced and also must continue to be paid the higher wage, when this means higher costs for the company and thus higher prices to consumers?

Why should this price increase to all consumers take priority over the cost savings of the lower labor cost? Why should the higher-cost workers be given favor over the consumers who are made worse off?

Why should it be more important for companies to babysit the workers than serve the consumers with better production?

WHlSKY:
12) Minimum wage

There is no theory vs reality in stating that minimum wage applies to all workers.
Look at the definition: “A minimum wage is the lowest remuneration that employers can legally pay their employees—the price floor below which employees may not sell their labor.”
Every single worker has minimum wage as their baseline even though not every worker is receiving minimum wage. This is not a slogan or chant or propaganda.


13) Increase in prices and minimum wage

You said, “First, it is a fact that ALL consumers are made worse off, as consumers, as a result of minimum wage, which includes all workers. AS CONSUMERS they are all hit with higher prices.”
A product can increase for many reasons. It can range from raw material price increase to higher demand.


14) Other

It is funny that you say “…Many of the workers who are hurt are the lowest-paid workers who don't even experience the wage increase at all. Many of these are left out, one way or another.” This will be the minimum wage earners themselves. Now you are calling for their wages (the minimum wage) to be increased?


15) Illegal immigrant workers

When you say those in the “UNDERGROUND ECONOMY” are you referring to illegal immigrant workers? Every legal worker is covered by minimum wage.


16) Independent contractors

Independent contractors are not employees to a company. These contractors set their own rates.
One correction to your statement, “…many of the poorest workers are actually independent contractors, like street vendors, who are struggling to survive.”, from what I understand, a vendor is not a contractor. Vendor: “These are people or businesses who sell products to customers or to other businesses..” Contractor: “a contractor is a person assigned specific tasks in an organization that has a set completion date.”


17) Who should suffer the loss?

Based on what you have been saying, it seems that you think that the workers should agree to have their wages cut or lowered (minimum wage only becomes noticeable at this point) with the hopes of cheaper goods. Now applying this to real life scenarios, it has already been shown that the minimum wage is not liveable (and barely liveable). How would it benefit these persons to have further cuts to their means of purchasing goods? They then become an addition to the plight of goods being out of their reach. And these are the majority in a society.


18) Small Business Owners

You stated, “…Many SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS are damaged by the minimum-wage increase and get no benefit from higher wages…”
If a small business owner cannot afford to properly pay their employees then they will have to recheck their business models. They also can get assistance from the government in their initial start-up. I know the struggle when having a small business but I would not low-ball my employees.

You stated “ some of these are "illegal" -- struggling to survive in the only way they know how, and are not suppressed by the law, because everyone knows they are mostly honest and do contribute to the economy. Many of them can't even afford a business license, but still they are allowed to operate, because to enforce all the licensing and other laws against these millions of producers would severely crush the economy and cause a recession, or make the current recession much worse.” Seems as a generalisation and laid out to pander to my emotions. Sure small business owners have it rough, everyone has it rough.


19) Low-Skill Workers

You stated “..MANY LOW-SKILL WORKERS are damaged by minimum-wage, because they can get hired only at a low wage, not at $15/hour or whatever the MW is. But when the minimum-wage is enforced, it closes off jobs to them and forces them onto the streets to beg.”

Unfortunately, unemployment is an issue. However, the person who is skilled and could not low-ball would be unemployed and in that position.


20) Other

You stated: “So stop pretending that your minimum-wage fantasy really "applies to all workers. There is no ‘certain select workers we feel sorry for --"

I already addressed this, minimum-wage is applicable to all wage workers. It is ironic you talk about ‘feeling sorry for…” after giving several emotionally tear jerking scenarios. I guess your ‘feel sorry for’ is selective. This appears to be an emotional subject for you.


21) Labour Laws

You stated: “It is known that labor law always benefits certain workers while shafting others...”
The only workers who do not benefit from labour laws are illegal workers. Even volunteers benefit from labour laws (example OSHA). The top countries with very good labour laws thrive and are economically better off than those without.


22) More purchases = good/bad

Having a lower wage means these workers would not be full consumers. If you want cheaper goods then call for cuts to be made somewhere else, not the easy target of worker’s wages.
You stated: “Again, there are some workers who benefit, with higher income, so this might offset the higher prices they pay as consumers. But the majority of consumers, probably more than 90%, do not get any higher wage, but instead have only the higher prices to pay.”

Seeing that the majority of consumers are wage workers (working for the minimum wage or above), they will be able to offset any high prices. You should also note that lowering wages will not mean lower in product prices as the price of a product can increase for various reasons not related to wages.


23) Redirected to #3

On your statement: …Furthermore, some workers, or job-seekers, are actually prevented from getting hired, as a result of minimum wage, and so their income is not higher, but lower, and so their purchasing power DEcreases as a result.” See point number 3 on minimum wage and unemployment. Someone who is a job-seeker is considered unemployed.


24) Consumerism

The entire market depends on this, hence why companies dish out huge sums of cash to advertise and market their business. It thrives on consumerism and more persons having that purchasing power. People buying things they don’t need is what it all hangs on.
—————
What's the "it"?
--------------
The “it” is the ‘entire market’. It is a point emphasising the need for having more consumerism.
You stated: “But getting someone to spend more money, especially "buying things they don't need" does not serve any social need.”

Not sure why you take that view but okay. I hold a different view. I think that in our capitalist society, consumerism is what drives economic growth. People spending more on goods or services naturally lead to an increase in production and employment. Using the Covid19 Pandemic situation as an example; businesses were close due to low consumer turn outs. Those that thrived were the ones that were online and allowed for consumerism to occur.

The rest of your statements seem to be pivoting to a rant. I’ll let that slide.


25) Living on the Minimum wage.

No I am not ignoring persons who cannot get hired. They cannot get hired due to being unskilled. You are requested the removal of a minimum wage level so that unskilled workers can low-ball instead of competing based on skill set for the job and suitableness. It will always be only ONE person to get the job, if not the skilled person at the minimum wage then the unskilled one without the minimum wage, someone will still be left unemployed of the two. The minimum wage is already low in itself. An employer can be willing to pay shit and you think people should be ‘ah yes master thanks’. Enough of that shit talk. People demand better and they get better. If you want to be a low-baller then be a low-baller but don’t try to bring anyone down to your level. Kudos to the workers that stand up for their rights with backbone and demand better. Fuck that weak ass shit of being docile when better can be achieved.

And on your little statement “How are they supposed to benefit from the higher wage level if they have no job at all?” Like I said someone will always be without the job as a vacancy is for one. However, at least the person who has that job will be able to have a basic level for living. Get mad at that if you wish, be envious if you wish.


26) Small Violin

On your statement: “What you're saying to them is that it's better for them to starve (or beg on the streets) than to have a low-wage job. Why do you want to crush these would-be workers who could otherwise get hired? What good do you accomplish by forcing them out of the market, so the work they could do never gets done?”

What I am saying is that those who are employed and those that are selected for the job should have proper wages. Like I said minimum wage is a low wage job. It is not even livable on in itself.


27) More production

More production for who to consume since you don’t seem to believe in the importance of consumerism. More production to have the products piled up? You confuse yourself.


28) Made up Percentages

Your statement, “Virtually every wage-earner, and 90% of capitalists, think they get less in income than they put in. If we're going to use Crybaby Economics ---- Whoever whines the loudest gets pandered to ---- we will create good-paying jobs for 20 or 30% of the population, and the other 70-80% will pay the higher costs of providing these profitable jobs to the minority.”
Reads like a rant with unfounded percentages. I’ll let this slide too.


29) Addressing your Rant 1

On your statement: “It's not true that you're making most workers better off. It's not true that your scheme brings out anyone "in poverty" and gives everyone the high standard of living you're promising them. Lenin and Stalin made similar promises ---- just making promises does not improve the lives of those in poverty. Your false promise that minimum wage brings more poor workers out of "poverty" and will "balance what he gets out" to what he puts in is just empty words. You have no evidence or facts to show that minimum wage produces these "paradise on earth" results. Just because you can sloganize and preach the utopian words does not mean there's any truth to it.”
I have not stated that minimum wage will bring workers out of poverty. As I already posted the living on the minimum wage is not a liveable wage. Someone on the minimum wage line can already in poverty. I fail to see how even lowering that unliveable wage brings ‘prosperity’ to an individual who is already struggling at the minimum wage.


30) Addressing your Rant 2

On your statement: “I hope you're wrong implying that those in poverty are too stupid and ignorant to ever understand the realities of economics..” Are you struggling with comprehending my basic words? I said that you do not take the approach of talking FOR someone in poverty. This simply means that you should not position yourself to speak on the behalf of persons in poverty.


31) Redirected to #9

Your statement: “Which is determined by the market, by supply-and-demand, not upon sympathy for the worker….”
This was already covered by number 9 on Worker’s Work Worth. You can redirect back to it.


32) Addressing your Strawman

When I stated, “There is no charity or one-sidedness in this interaction.” I don’t know where you got that to mean: “OK then you agree that no 3rd party has any say in determining the wage level, but that only the terms agreed to by the employer and worker…” If you read what was being referred to and what was said which was “ As I said, an employer is to pay a worker based on the value of work/service rendered by the worker. There is no charity or one-sidedness in this interaction.” A charity will mean that the employer is paying a worker out of kindness or out of a donation, when in reality this is not the case. An employer pays a worker based on the work the worker is doing.


33) Other

You stated: “The only ones competent to calculate what is successful and what demand is "more than it is giving out" in any transaction are the buyers and sellers only, individually making those decisions, and each making their own individual offer and individual demand on the other….”

When someone runs a business, he should be aware of his accounts. If he sees that his business demands more (more money usually) than it is outputting then that is not a successful business. He is operating at a loss. That was the point of my statement that you are responding to. I cleared that up as I see your points were unrelated to what was stated.


34) Addressing your rant & strawman

When I stated: “His inability to pay for the value of the service inputted by workers is not the fault of minimum wage but on his own for running a business that runs at a loss.” I’m not sure how in your mind that translated as “SHUT DOWN THAT BUSINESS, shut down the economy (the dirty capitalist pigs!), crush all competition, destroy the production --- employer-bashing is always the solution.”

It simply means that when running a business, all this is taken into account; the price of labour, raw materials, expenses, etc and the expected gains/profits. This is the responsibility of a business owner. You can settle yourself down. Nothing implies a call for a shut down.


35) Personal

I see from your statement : “WHY NOT? You can't give a reason. All you can do is complain for some worker who is whining about his low wage. But meanwhile, here is another job-seeker who is willing to do that job at the lower wage.” That you are arguing from a position of a job-seeker who cannot get a job? Now it makes some sense your hostility towards wage workers and your pity for job-seekers. It seems very selfish to me to demand that others do not have minimum wage because it’s the only way you can lowball and get a job. The job market is hard for everyone right now. Even for the skilled labourer. Life in general is difficult, why you will feel envious of someone who can have a job and a minimum wage is beyond me. Leave them be.


36) Other

You say: “What is gained by crushing a company which could survive with workers who are willing to take that lower-wage job? Just because you or someone you know refuses that wage level doesn't mean no worker is willing to take that job out of desperation. Why can't this be allowed?”

Because someone will get the job and that person who gets the job should have a proper wage, the minimum wage is already a low wage job that an individual can barely survive on. You think I’d demand that that individual does not deserve that job or that wage? Why? Because you can afford to lowball. There is no mass crushing of companies due to minimum wage.


37) HA

I like that you said I have “ leftist Snake-Oil Economics slogans.” I’m merely responding to a topic you propose. I’ve not leaned on any political spectrum. But it is funny that you think the right-wing will be fine with giving illegal/unskilled workers jobs? HA.


38) HAHA

From the simple sentence, “Perhaps as the employer he can make these cuts to himself and place it as ‘voluntary services’…” You saw: “SHUT 'M DOWN, THE DIRTY CAPITALIST PIG!"
Funny. Don’t burse a vein.


39) Living wage

On my statement: “I agree with Sir Loin’s statement “What people need is a living wage, not a minimum wage . . ." You said, “Slogans like this don't answer any questions or give any facts. This is pure preaching. There is no scientific or objective definition of "living wage" -- it's just Left-wing sloganism. ”
Correction. It is not a slogan, ‘living wage’ is a term. [1]

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp

WHlSKY:
Here is what you can do since the minimum wage disturbs you:

When you get employed, minus the wage till it reaches below the minimum wage and put it in an envelop and give it back to your employer saying it's a contribution to the company.

There, I solved your little problem.

Lumpenproletariat:

023

WHlSKY:

You stated: “You cannot distinguish paid and unpaid/volunteer work simply by saying one is an easy and unstressful luxury while the other is demanding or oppressive and miserable. This does not distinguish the two categories of work even though it might apply to most cases.…”

And no where did I state that one is “unstressful luxury” or “oppressive and miserable”.

What is the point of quoting my words if you are going to strawman what isn’t even implied?
_________________________

Nothing above is "quoting" your words.
______________________

WHISKY:

Volunteer work and paid work is very different. Paid work is a necessity to an individual (and also to society as aids workers in becoming consumers).
___________________________

"necessity"?

Even if that's partly true, which is questionable, why does that mean that a ZERO-paid job should be allowed but a low-paying job should be prohibited?

In both cases there is legitimate work to be done, equally important, and employers are trying to operate efficiently to serve the demand or need for their service.

In either case there might be high or low profits to the company, there can be a product for sale, and other output for someone who benefits.

What difference does it make what the worker's particular needs or motives are, or the worker's particular condition or "necessity"? What does that even mean -- "necessity"? Why does something like that determine what the wage level should be, or how low the wage can be allowed to go?

Not all the unpaid workers are the same, or have the same motives, or needs. Maybe some fit your characterization, but others do not. What social purpose is served by trying to impose artificial terms onto certain companies because you think "necessity" is a greater problem for its workers than another company? Why should some worker's "necessity" lead to the government interfering in the decisions about what the wage level should be?

The state interfering in these decisions leads to higher prices all consumers must pay, which itself leads to higher "necessity" throughout the economy, forcing all consumers to pay higher prices. Why do you ignore that added "necessity" imposed onto millions of consumers because you worried about a "necessity" certain paid workers have?

Are you saying UNpaid workers don't also have "necessity" to worry about? Everyone has "necessity" to deal with in life, but why does that mean the state must interfere into people's lives to dictate what the wage level should be? The employers probably have more "necessity" to deal with than the workers do, in view of the huge risks they take financially. Why not say the investors are entitled to some extra profits (minimum profit law) because of the "necessity" they must face in the possibility of heavy losses which threaten them? at least the investors who lost their shirt? Why not have a heart for their "necessity"? Some of them are professionals, doing it for a living, even out of "necessity" in some cases.

It's not clear that these paid workers face overall more "necessity" than the millions of unemployed and many independent contractors and small businesses who also are under huge pressures and threats of bankruptcy and poverty and risks which could wipe them out.

And what about the "necessity" faced by the very poor, the homeless, the indigent, etc. who are much worse off than the paid workers? Why should all these other hard-pressed ones struggling to survive have to pay the higher prices you impose onto them with the minimum wage law which drives up business costs and prices all the poor have to pay? Why should their hardship be increased because some workers better off than they are whine about a "necessity" problem they think makes them more special than others?

What is this "necessity" rhetoric? There are plenty of paid workers who are much better off than many unpaid and volunteer workers. Throwing around the word "necessity" does not answer anything.

"Paid work is a necessity . . . also to society as aids workers in becoming consumers)."

And what is this rhetoric about workers "becoming consumers"? Isn't everyone trying to become a consumer? Why do independent contractors have to compete in the marketplace, some being paid far less than minimum-wage, and yet "paid workers" have to be protected against competition because of some "necessity" that unpaid workers don't face?

How does whining "My 'necessity' is more important than your 'necessity'" entitle them to be paid more than their value in the competitive supply-and-demand marketplace?

"necessity"?

Why should this buzzword mean that a desperate job-seeker must be prohibited from having a job at a wage level he's willing to accept? Why does the "necessity" of the paid worker mean that desperate job-seeker must be denied having a job even though he's willing to work at the wage level which reflects his value in the marketplace? Why can't that desperate job-seeker be allowed to compete with the higher-paid worker who got hired because he had a prettier face?

How does that paid worker have any more "necessity" than about 50% of everyone else in the population? Arguably the paid worker's "necessity" is actually lower than the average person's -- all the consumers paying the higher prices due to inflation, all the unemployed, most of the poor, all the independent contractors -- if you add all these others up, the paid workers are the lucky ones probably having lower-than-average "necessity" than the population overall.
____________________

Lumpenproletariat

024

WHISKY:

Hence why to date you can not explain to me how someone can solely volunteer and sustain their expenses without being dependent or already wealthy.
_________________________

Some of them have savings. And some don't waste half their income on non-necessities. Maybe they can survive 3 or 4 or 5 years that way. Your point must be that you know everyone who exists and can document each person's income, and you know for a fact that there are no unpaid workers.

What difference does it make? There are many, fitting into hundreds of different categories. It's irrelevant what each one's particular story is.

The topic is why we should prohibit low-wage work but not also prohibit ZERO-wage work. Why don't you answer that question, which is relevant to the topic? No matter how you want to characterize the volunteer work, you're not giving any reason why the low-wage work must be made illegal, but the ZERO-paid work must be legal.

Give a reason why.

The word "necessity" does not answer this question.

Why does it matter how you distinguish the psychology of paid vs unpaid workers, or their differing problems, or differing needs? How does this lead to the doctrine that zero-paid workers are allowed but low-paid workers are prohibited? How does your theory about why someone does this or that work lead to making certain workers or jobs illegal? How does the "necessity" or lack of it mean certain workers must be prohibited? Who cares why someone is doing this or that work, for whatever reason, out of whatever "necessity" they have --- there are millions of "necessities" people face. Why do we need to get hung up on who has what "necessity"? --- there's plenty of complaining about this or that necessity someone has. That's no reason to prohibit a desperate job-seeker from being able to take a low-wage job.
__________________

WHISKY:

How the disc jockey in your little scenario pays his rent or is he a dead beat living off his parents?
_______________________

So then your theory is that no one ever did volunteer work, or free unpaid work. If you're not brashly making such a claim, then forget the irrelevant details about them and explain why their unpaid work is to be allowed, but the paid workers have to be restricted, and prohibited if they don't fit your requirements, crushed if it pays less than a figure you dictate to the employers and workers, even to the desperate workers willing to take the low-paying jobs. You send in the cops to arrest him and his employer, to crush his chance to earn a living, because he wants $2/hour instead of working for free (which you would permit).

You refuse to explain the justice of suppressing that employer and desperate worker who otherwise cannot get hired.

What good are you providing to society by suppressing this business and the worker, so that he has to starve or beg in order to survive? How are you making the world a better place by suppressing people like that who are struggling to survive?
________________

WHISKY:

It is a “luxury” option because not everyone can engage in volunteer work, however, everyone strives to engage in paid work to sustain themselves.
______________________

Then why do you make it illegal for them to do precisely that? You make it illegal for them to engage in that work if they are desperate and unable to get hired at the mandated wage level that you arbitrarily impose.

There are millions who could get hired at a lower wage, and yet you want to suppress all of them, forbid them from having a job, because they cannot get hired at the wage level that you dictate.

By doing this you reduce the total production, so that prices are made higher and everyone's cost of living goes up as a result. How do you think you're making anyone better off from this?

Your theories about the difference between paid work and unpaid work don't answer why you must prohibit millions of job-seekers from having a low-wage job rather than no job at all. Why do you insist that NO JOB is better than a low-paying job which they would take if it were allowed?
____________________

WHISKY:

So that point you have that volunteer work is on par with paid work made no sense.
________________________

You haven't said what the difference is such that the one kind of work must be prohibited and the other not prohibited.

Low-pay work is just as legitimate as zero-paid work, regardless of how the zero-paid worker is sustained. All the work is done to benefit someone, consumers, the public, those performing a needed service. It doesn't matter what the reason is or what the need is --- ALL the work is legitimate as long as someone is willing to do it under the terms offered, whatever it may be.

Why do you allow other low-paid work which is not illegal? There are hundreds of examples. Such as independent contractors --- Why don't you prohibit these ones who are low-paid? Many independent contractors are under worse pressures than the low-paid wage-earners.

You are giving no reason why you want to crush these workers and employers who are doing no harm. The low-wage jobs don't do harm but produce benefit to the economy, serving consumers, competing to help keep prices down in many cases. Many illegal jobs, some sweatshops, low-paid, go on anyway, with no enforcement to shut them down, because it would do more harm than good. Many are marginal, barely escaping notice, others get harassed, some employers are dragged into court, and then shut down for violating the labor laws. For what benefit?

No one can say what the benefit is to society. Only certain select worker categories benefit to the detriment of everyone else. And if all the labor laws were enforced, including MW, it would cause an economic collapse.
_________________

WHISKY:

It isn’t because the system we live in is a capitalist system. Every man has to work to sustain himself.
____________________

No, not "every man" by your rules --- your minimum-wage law EXCLUDES all those men who cannot get hired at the wage level you dictate must be paid to them (no competition allowed).

So -- "Every man has to work to sustain himself"
translates to: Those workers lucky enough to get hired are entitled to bludgeon others trying to compete with them, in order to crush them and secure their jobs against that competition.

That's your "Every man has to . . . sustain himself" = the man who managed to get a good job must crush the outsiders who are more competitive.

Minimum wage means that the less attractive job-seekers, or less lucky for whatever reason, must be excluded from the labor market so the inside privileged ones are made secure against the competition from the outsiders.

Lumpenproletariat:

025

WHISKY:

On your statement: “ …OK, so you agree that low-wage workers are also making a free choice…”

You are free to make your own statements, Lumpenproletariat, however when I make a statement let us take it exactly as I have implied or stated. I will repeat it again.
________________

OK, but also, do you agree, or do you not agree, that low-wage workers are making a free choice when they apply for that job and get hired? Is that a free choice? Or are you saying all such workers are being coerced against their will?

Can you answer that? It's pretty simple. No rocket science.
____________________

WHISKY:

Try to understand my point and not impose your own onto it. Take it easy:

In volunteer work there is not competition in choice (once a person is qualified & able they can volunteer). An individual can choose from any volunteer work. However, when it comes to paid work at the level of minimum wage (because minimum wage only becomes an issue for those in low paying jobs) it is out of necessity.

If you have any confusion on my statements I suggest you ask a question for me to expand on it.
—————
I don't understand what "competition in choice" means.

And I don't understand what is "out of necessity" with the minimum wage job.

The minimum wage job is a free choice, just like the choice to volunteer to fill sandbags to stop a flood. Both are "out of necessity" and can be equally demanding on the worker, or filling sandbags might be much worse.

I don't see the point in claiming there's a huge difference which requires one to be prohibited unless the wage is above a certain mandated level, while the other is never prohibited because it's unpaid.

Suppose the sandbag fillers are paid, to attract some extra help, but still they're paid less than minimum wage. Should that be illegal? Suppose by paying that $4/hour or so, they're able to attract the needed help and the town is saved. You'd make that illegal?

The whole notion that zero-paid work has to be protected, but low-wage work is banned by minimum wage makes no sense. You've given no rationale for this. The "necessity" rhetoric clarifies nothing.
____________________

WHISKY:

I have read what you say and your argument is very much that we should offset money from the wages of workers and take away from the rights of workers so that “society will thrive”, that is to make products cheaper, etc. Is this correct?
___________________

No. The market should set the wages and prices, not the state and not "we" offsetting anything. (Except that "we" make choices individually as consumers which guide the producers to make better decisions.) It's Supply-and-Demand and competition and profit motive which keeps down prices and makes everyone better off.

WHlSKY:
40) Quoting and Strawman

“Nothing above is "quoting" your words.”

In your post you quoted my words and then proceeded to create an argument on something that was not stated in the quote or insinuated by the quote.

I brought it to your attention so you’ll be aware. It has happened often and I’ve brushed aside a few others. It makes you appear not interested in a discussion but only focused on arguing.


41. Volunteer Work vs Paid Work Addressed pt 2

In my statement: “Volunteer work and paid work is very different. Paid work is a necessity to an individual (and also to society as aids workers in becoming consumers).”

I see nothing in what you responded as presenting anything opposing that statement. After we already agreed on the importance of wage to a worker (even took the time to comb through how volunteers need to sustain themselves).

You can take the approach that this important part should be ignored because “motives” should be noted. Motives are not important. Didn’t you say that earlier in your postings? Yes. I checked you said “The motives or personal problems of the zero-wage workers are irrelevant”. It seems that you move back and forth depending on which suits your arguments.

You rambled a bit off point. I’ll brush those aside.


42) Other

You keep repeating: “why we should prohibit low-wage work but not also prohibit ZERO-wage work. Why don't you answer that question, which is relevant to the topic?”

This was already addressed. I also stated that minimum wage is low wage. I also stated that wage is not the concern of volunteer work. Wage is the business of the wage-worker.
Once wage is involved, minimum wage will be applies to it. People who volunteer do not want a wage for the work they are applying for. However, when someone is applying for “money-earning employment”, they want a wage. And should expect to enter that job with a minimum worth. Now proceed to tell me about some obscure little Dj who goes against this generalisation.


43. Your appeal to the Emotions

You stated: “What good are you providing to society by suppressing this business and the worker, so that he has to starve or beg in order to survive? How are you making the world a better place by suppressing people like that who are struggling to survive?”

What good are you providing society by calling for hard workers to carry out a job that will add them also to the bread line and will also put them on the struggling line? You don’t see the ridiculousness of your statements because you are caught up with thinking all those on the minimum wage should have cuts to their salary so you’ll magically get cheap products. Which is ridiculous as the percentage of minimum wage earners are low! And product prices are determined by more criteria than minimum wage earners’ wages. Maybe your emotion is clouding reasoning.


44. Living on the Minimum Wage

From my statement:
“It is a “luxury” option because not everyone can engage in volunteer work, however, everyone strives to engage in paid work to sustain themselves.”

You responsed: “Then why do you make it illegal for them to do precisely that? “

It is not illegal to do volunteer work and it is not possible for anyone to sustain themselves below the minimum wage mark. Do you not understand? Do you not understand that a person needs proper wages to live and the bare fcking minimum. Have you never lived on minimum wage before? This stupid fantasy you seem to have that the minimum wage is a luxury lifestyle is naive.


You say: “There are millions who could get hired at a lower wage, and yet you want to suppress all of them, forbid them from having a job, because they cannot get hired at the wage level that you dictate.”

You can exaggerate if you wish. There are people who are getting hired at the minimum wage level. There are countries that function very well at with the minimum wage. You say you like competition then good, go up your qualifications so that you can get the job by competing through quality and not through how low you can go.


45. Low Wage

The Minimum wage is low wage. The small group of workers who have minimum wage jobs are already struggling with this salary. Many in the US for example without that family financial support will have to depend on having additional jobs and government assistance. You want to have it that more people are on the bread line? The people can live independent of outside support on the minimum wage and now you want to chant for wages to be even lower because YOU can’t get a job via low balling. People on the minimum wage are already pressed to take more than one job to make ends meet and YOU want it so that they need even more. Fck out of here with that shit. If you want a sweatshop country go live in one. If you want sweatshop work go find one. But don’t you dare come up to me and talk shit on interfering with the livelihood of someone else.

Every man has to sustain himself. Got issues with that statement? I’ll say it again EVERY MAN HAS TO SUSTAIN HIMSELF. Survival is rough out here.


46. Clarification

From my statement:
Try to understand my point and not impose your own onto it. Take it easy:
In volunteer work there is not competition in choice (once a person is qualified & able they can volunteer). An individual can choose from any volunteer work. However, when it comes to paid work at the level of minimum wage (because minimum wage only becomes an issue for those in low paying jobs) it is out of necessity.

You stated: I don't understand what "competition in choice" means.

Competition in choice: means the volunteer workers are not competing to get the job. There is an array of options to volunteer and a space is always available.

You also stated: And I don't understand what is "out of necessity" with the minimum wage job.

A person goes after a minimum wage job because they have little to no options for better. And I know you’ll say “but Whisky everyone has a million and one motives”. Sure, sure keep thinking that minimum wage jobs are the goat’s tits. Keep thinking that the minimum wage earner had 10 choices open to him and he chose the minimum wage.

***Side note: most of what you retyped I’ve addressed, not sure if you read what I saw or simply have not come across the posts as yet or forgot***

WHlSKY:
I’ve been unemployed. It feels like shit. But it never once crossed my mind that I’m to blame the minimum wage or the minimum wage earner for my predicament. This is the strangest thing. I see minimum wage earners struggling themselves and I know what minimum wage salary is like, it’s as working hard and yet being pushed under water, struggling to keep on top of things. To think of someone else going through that and cutting their wage even further is fcking nuts. I’d rather have my struggle than mess with someone else’s.

That’s just my take.

I also do not see a guarantee on two things:

1) That prices will go down as there are many many more elements that affect prices than labour cost. And since other countries have successfully have handled their economy with labour laws then they can be looked into.

2) That an employer will not take advantage of a desperate job-seeker. It is often the case that lowballing will occur and not quality.

Lumpenproletariat:

026

WHISKY:

You seem to be confusing yourself a bit. I’ll remind you on the origins of what you are responding to.

In this part:

When I said: “Have you ever met anyone who does volunteer work and no other jobs to bring in a wage? I have not. I have done volunteer work and needed to balance that with regular employment.
The only persons who can do this has to either be wealthy or on welfare.”

You stated: “…There are some such workers..” and proceeded to talk on motives and that I was imposing arbitrary conditions, but you mentioned nothing directly on the point which was a person needs a wage job (unless they are wealthy or on welfare…).

Hence why I said, “Now proceed to state how those workers who do not need a paying side job finance themselves...”

You responded back with “In some cases they have a supporter of some kind, family, etc. Also they have savings. There are many cases...”

[Then okay I will humbly rephrase it to include dependency on family or a support system]

Wonderful. It took a lot of rambling for us to come to this point.

Now let me refine the point so far:

An individual can not survive in the long term on volunteer work, he will need something that substitutes for a wage-paying job (either already accumulated wealth to feed off of, welfare, financial/resource dependency on family or friends, etc).

Wage work allows a person to finance themselves when volunteer work does not. It may sound nice to have everyone volunteer but it is impractical as a capitalist society can not sustain itself without wage-work/wage workers. You will need another type of society for this.

So when you stated: “If it's wrong to allow anyone to work at low wages, or to allow employers to hire workers at low wages, then why isn't it also wrong to allow volunteer work?”

Volunteer work is not seen as bad because it is an additional choice an individual makes. Let’s say as ‘extracurricular activities’ in life. Meaning that in order to survive and be independent (no dependency on family etc) it is necessary to be having a job. This applies to the majority of individuals (the few who are on welfare, wealthy to have savings to last a lifetime, etc can be excluded).
_____________________

I'll concede to everything you say above.

But nothing in it leads to the conclusion that low-wage work should be prohibited, which is what minimum-wage law presumes to do.

Of course there are differences between paid work and unpaid or volunteer work. Maybe you've laid out the differences above most eloquently -- maybe someone could shoot holes in it, or maybe it's a perfect infallible analysis of the difference between the two.

THE PROPER FUNCTION OF WORK

But the proper function of work in society does not concern the subjectivity of the worker, but society's need, or the "employer's" need for something to be performed, or achieved.

The purpose of work is to get something desired accomplished. Its purpose is not to provide incomes to the workers, or to make the workers feel secure, or to provide meaning and comfort to them.

The purpose is to get something done which humans want to have done. Or which society wants to have done, i.e., collective or social need/want.

This goal of getting needed work done is not accomplished by making any kind of work illegal, whether it's paid or unpaid. As long as the work is performing the function of getting that need met, it's good for it to be done, and as long as no one is forced against their will to do the work.

And there's a qualification:

In some exceptional cases there is even COERCION to get the needed work done. This is a very difficult problem, for which I don't know for sure what is the philosophical answer.

Probably the best example of this is military conscription. But perhaps this is not an issue we need to deal with. But it must be mentioned, because FREE CHOICE is a very basic concept here, and in general we must consider it almost as an ABSOLUTE, even though maybe it's not a 100% absolute value which can never be overruled.

There cannot be an ABSOLUTE prohibition against military conscription ever, making it absolutely forbidden under any imaginable circumstances. Somewhere in the analysis, room has to be made for certain cases of forced labor, mostly an abhorrent evil, and which we can generally take as an evil which is fundamentally not allowed in any decent society.

Yet examples of WW2 and other cases might argue that there are exceptions.

So let's take it as a general absolute principle that FREE CHOICE is always to be respected, i.e., individual free choice whether to work or not, how much to offer for buying from another, or how much to accept in selling. These must be accepted as free individual choices, not to be overruled. And if there is any exception, the rules for that must be subject to extreme critical judgment.

And this is part of the problem with imposing any wage onto anyone. On to the employer or the worker. If that individual worker or employer (or buyer or seller) is to be suppressed by having a price imposed, that violates a fundamental principle and is tantamount to slavery. You can't say you're against slavery if you do not respect the basic principle of absolute free choice by the individual, whether to buy or sell (including sale of one's labor), at whatever price that individual agrees to.

So you must explain why low-wage labor is to be prohibited, in that it violates the free choice of the buyer or seller to set his/her own price. And why your act of violating this would not also apply to ZERO-wage labor.

And you must explain how you can respect the principle that it's good to get the needed work done, while at the same time imposing a law that suppresses the work from getting done.

It makes no difference whether that work being suppressed is paying $1/hr ($1/day) or is paying ZERO wage. Either way it is just as wrong and harmful to society, by preventing needed work from getting done. And the value of the work is that of getting the need met, not providing some kind of comfort to the worker.

The worker's legitimate need is met by the FREE CHOICE principle. Nothing more need be done to protect the worker. or the employer or any buyer or seller, because that individual is free to say yes or no.

Lumpenproletariat:

027

WHISKY:

On your statement: “ …you cannot enact rules dictating that certain work has to be done for some price that you dictate (or rather, you make us all worse off by imposing such rules.”

Can not? Minimum wage already exist. Looks like a ‘can’ to me.
_____________________

"or rather, you make us all worse off by imposing such rules" ---- Read the fine print!

Yes you can AND you make the world worse by doing it. The end result is people made WORSE OFF, not better. Just as the slaveholders in the South could do it and made the world worse off.

Of course you can do bad things which make us all worse off. When you prohibit work from being done, you reduce the total production. A certain amount of work never gets done because of the high cost you impose onto the producers.
___________________________

WHISKY:

How about you just pay a little more for a product as it will be worth that much when someone is paid fairly for their time and effort than trying to wish for cheap goods.
_____________________________

That's a good argument against antitrust laws, the purpose of which is to force companies to compete in order to produce lower prices. Or it's a good argument in favor of price-fixing, where companies controlling the market conspire together to set prices higher, rather than compete.

Those monopolists, violating the antitrust laws, agree with you in saying: How about you consumers just pay a little more for a product so we can make more profit.

You have no evidence to show what the right price is. When you artificially drive up the production cost (as MW does by driving up the labor cost), you not only impose higher prices on to consumers, many of whom are poor people, but also cause some of the production to shut down. You have no way to prove that this is a net benefit -- causing less production, higher prices to consumers, less total consumption.

You can arbitrarily pretend to know what is the right price for something, but you have no evidence. Just as the Bolsheviks and other price-fixers had no evidence that their dictated prices were the right prices. And also FDR had no evidence that his dictated prices for products and services were right. The emergence of the Underground Economy pretty much proved those regimes were wrong, and so have all other oppressive regimes been proved wrong when they presumed to dictate the prices and production levels.
_____________________

WHISKY:

The fault is not in the wages of the workers.
___________________

This is about facts, not "fault" and other subjective judgmentalism.

The facts of economics are that higher cost (imposed artificially rather than by market supply-and-demand), including higher labor cost, leads to higher prices for consumers. There is no way to get around this fact.

When you drive up that production cost with your imposed higher wages, you also drive up the prices. Higher prices to ALL consumers, including millions of poor people who are forced to pay higher prices but who do not benefit at all from those higher wages, because many of those poor people will not get a wage increase as a result. You cannot escape this fact of economics any more than you can escape the law of gravity. It's basic supply-and-demand.
______________________

WHISKY:

I’d personally prefer to live in a society of proper wages than on that ‘thrives’ on sweatshops and low wages.
______________________

"proper wages" is totally subjective and unscientific terminology, meaning nothing. The only way to measure the real value of the work performed, is by the supply-and-demand conditions, just as with anything else bought and sold in the market. How much will someone offer in return for that product/commodity/labor, and how much will someone demand in return (wage) for performing the work?

These 2 factors together, individually decided by the employer and the worker, each one making a sovereign free choice, is the only objective way to determine what is the proper wage (or price between any buyer and seller).
________________

WHISKY:

I did a quick check on the countries with the highest minimum wages and they appear to be top economy countries.
___________________

They all became higher economy countries by once having very cheap labor --- no exception. They became wealthy first, relying on lots of cheap labor, and then they gained the luxury to adopt minimum wage laws and other labor laws.
_____________________

WHISKY:

Perhaps it is not an issue of wage. I also did a quick check of the countries with the lowest minimum wage. Not economically well off.
___________________

Of course, they don't have the luxury to adopt labor laws. They were even more poor 100 years ago. Every country uses cheap labor to become wealthier, and eventually some become developed enough to begin to enact labor laws intended to benefit workers.

It is a slow process. The Chinese today are far better off, on average, than 50 years ago, and their wage level has increased, but it happens very slowly. No instant gratification. So today the Chinese wage level has increased higher than a few other Asian countries, but they are still far behind Japan and S. Korea and Singapore, where the cheap labor and more free trade and capitalism drove them to prosperity faster than China.

Allowing more free choice to buyers and sellers leads to faster results.
_________________________

WHISKY:

Guess which society I think benefits better…
—————
The ones which work better are the ones which allow more trade, more free choice for buyers and sellers.

But also, rather than getting bogged down on economic theory, we must recognize that science and technology are the most important contributors to prosperity, not economic theory.

Lumpenproletariat:

028

WHISKY:

On your statement: “ There's a simple rule: Leave people alone to do what they choose if they're doing no harm. Or "Live and let live!" What's so difficult to understand about this?”

I was searching online for a mass protest or a strong call from the people to remove minimum wage. I found none.
____________________________

It's true that mass hysteria can drive the mob to demand something out of ignorance. But caving in to an hysterical mob is not the meaning of "Live and let live."

It means allowing each individual freedom to make their own choice, rather than having the mindless mob bullying individuals who want to live their own lives, individually.

The decision whether to buy something, or how much to pay for something, is a private individual choice. Not a social choice for the mob to impose onto each individual.

E.g., the choice whether buy that shirt is made by you, individually, not by a mass protest movement trying to dictate to you individually what shirt to wear. "Live and let live" means that the mob leaves you alone and allows you to make that individual personal choice.

Likewise there are many other examples, and some more realistic than this. Where to live, where to worship, or WHETHER to worship, whether to wear a burkha (or any other goofy item), whether to hire an immigrant to mow your lawn, . . . .

There are many examples. And sometimes there is a legitimate reason for society to impose some choices, like which side of the street to drive your car on . . .

etc.

etc.

So if you can give a reason why society should dictate to an individual worker, or an individual employer, or any other individual seller or buyer, what is the right item to buy or sell, or to produce, or at what price ---- if you can give a reason, then give the reason.

The reason cannot simply be that some mindless mob of screaming protesters dictates the right choice for you to make. The witch-burners centuries ago were a screaming mob who did a poll and decided by majority (maybe even 90% vote) that this witch should burn.

That's not what "live and let live" means. It means allowing each individual to make his or her personal choice, based on their personal belief, or value, or preference, or need.

When we overrule the individual choice, we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is doing more harm than good by their choice. So in certain cases it may be legitimate to overrule "live and let live" and impose conditions onto those individuals (like driving on the right/left side of the street and a few other examples).

But INDIVIDUAL FREE CHOICE IS INNOCENT until proven guilty. That might be the best rule of thumb.

So you need to give your proof that a worker hired at only $1/hour is doing society more harm than good, even though someone wants that work done, no one would be harmed by that work getting done, and that worker desperately wants the $1/hour and is choosing freely to do it at that agreed price.

You have to bring forth your facts, your evidence, to show what is the harm done by allowing this free choice. Even if it's only for this one case alone. Or if it's for 1000 or 1,000,000 workers being hired. The answer to this is not found by referring it to a screaming mob of mindless idiots responding to a popularity poll or being preached at by Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump or other charismatic demagogue stampeding them to the polls.
__________________________

WHISKY:

I might be wrong but … who cheers that they are receiving a wage lower than the work they are putting in?
__________________________

If all you are capable of understanding is the screaming mob, then we are not communicating. My "live and let live" slogan is not about your screaming mob.

It's about one individual at a time. One desperate job-seeker wants any job he can find. He'll take a $5/hour job (or however much) out of desperation.

You are stomping on that job-seeker, because you are making it illegal for anyone to hire him at that wage level. The reality is that no one will hire him at the wage level that you dictate.

So you are crushing that worker, in addition to the employer, rich or poor, and also preventing that production from taking place, which should take place if it's not harming anyone and someone wants it.

Even if it's a large corporation, still you are preventing that production from ever happening, and also preventing that job-seeker from fulfilling his need.

Your rhetoric about the screaming protest mob has nothing to do with this. You must explain how you're making the world better off by crushing this poor job-seeker from getting what he wants, forcing him to have NO JOB rather than a low-paying job.

Why will you not explain why you presume to crush this poor person and the one wanting to hire him? How are you making the world any better? Just because you might find a screaming mindless mob to cheer you on in this dictatorial suppression of those individuals does not make your suppression legitimate.

Anymore than the mob of witch-burners made it legitimate to commit those crimes 500 years ago.
______________________

Lumpenproletariat

029

WHISKY:

The people appears to want what they have, which is a minimum wage standard.
—————
translation: Any screaming mob is entitled to overrule any individual, and suppress individual free choice, without having to give any reason, except that it screams loud enough to bully everyone into submission to its clamor.

No?

Then give a real answer to the question, rather than only appealing to your "The people" screaming mob popularity poll.

What you call a "minimum wage standard" is actually making all our society worse off. It's true that you can get a mindless mob to approve something based on mass delusion.

Maybe our biggest mass delusion today is the obsession with cheap gasoline. You could make the same appeal today to the mindless mob, and most of them vote in favor of cheap gasoline and increased damage for the future due to climate change. This is just one of many examples where your mindless mob popularity poll is not the way to determine what is best for the general welfare.

"Live and let live" is not an absolute Infallible Doctrine which can never be overruled. But those who overrule it must produce evidence, facts, to show that the "state" has to intervene in some cases to impose what will make the nation better off overall, perhaps long-term.

This is what you must do in order to prove low-wage labor is bad for the economy. Not drag out your screaming mindless mob being preached at by your favorite demagogue preacher pundit.
____________________________

WHISKY:

On your statement: “ The point is that, however many the number is, there is nothing wrong with them doing free work. No matter what their reason is, or what their means of support is…”

The point was never on saying volunteer work is wrong, I even said I’ve done it. I mentioned previously in this post the point so I’d not repeat it but Id redirect you to it.
_________________________

You caught me in a misstatement/omission. I should have said:

". . . however many the number is, there is nothing wrong with them doing free work or low-wage work. No matter what their reason . . ."

You still have not given a reason why free work should be allowed but low-paid work must be illegal.

Lumpenproletariat:

030

WHISKY:

1) Volunteer work vs Wage work.

First, there is nothing wrong with volunteer work; I have not seen anyone arguing against volunteer work. It is also not illegal to do it. I don’t see it as bad as I too have done the volunteering work.

You try to argue that Volunteer work has no wage to it and therefore Wage work should not have a minimum wage or an issue with wages. That Person A (the volunteer) is working for free so Person B (the wage worker) should be fine working below the minimum wage. Correct?

The issue with that line of reasoning is that minimum wage is as a protection for wages. It sets a bar or standard or baseline.
_________________

Yes. But you're not explaining the benefit of having such a baseline, or bar. You're not yet giving a reason why there should be an exclusion of the low-pay work (below the baseline), and why free work should not also be excluded for the same reason. You could just as easily say that the ZERO-paid work falls below the baseline.
________________

WHISKY:

Volunteer work does not fall into this category because there is no expected wage from volunteer work. Anything to do with wages does not matter to volunteer workers. It is however the concern of wage workers. It is specifically for them.
____________

Why doesn't it matter to them? How do you know they wouldn't be better off if all the free labor was also made illegal? along with the low-wage labor?

In fact, the wage workers would be made better off if all free labor was made illegal. Because in that case, probably millions of new jobs would open up, for paid workers, to replace the previous unpaid workers (volunteers).

So you're not explaining what good is accomplished by eliminating low-wage labor which would not also be accomplished by eliminating free labor.

Why should those companies or organizations, the employers of free labor, be allowed to exploit all those unpaid workers?

You said part of the purpose was to "stimulate" demand, increase the purchasing power, etc. Well, assuming that makes any sense, why wouldn't that happen also if the unpaid jobs were eliminated and those employers were forced instead to hire paid workers? That would mean thousands of new jobs (even millions?) and new incomes to all those new workers, giving them extra purchasing power and increasing demand in the market.
______________________

WHISKY:

We addressed the importance of wages. Yes, out of all of society there is a minute population who can live off of not having a wage (as they receive their finances through other means).
__________________

You're not answering the question.

Again, what benefit is gained by making the low-wage jobs illegal which would not also be gained by making the unpaid jobs illegal?

crickets

crickets

crickets

Lumpenproletariat:

031

WHISKY:

2) Free (zero wage) vs Low wage.

Minimum wage is low wage in itself and legal. Have you ever lived on the minimum wage? I’m not sure why you consider it to be a high wage. Minimum wage is meant to be the lowest liveable/living wage.
________________

That's just theory, and wishful thinking.

There are literally MILLIONS of job-seekers, desperate, who cannot get hired for a minimum-wage job. And yet could get hired if the wage was lower, so the employer is willing to hire them at that low wage.

And furthermore, the truth is that there are literally millions (probably tens of millions) of jobs which are paying LESS than minimum wage. Some legal and some illegal, but they are necessary for the economy and it would cause a recession to suddenly enforce all the labor laws now being broken. It's standard to break these laws, paying less than the law mandates, and other violations. And the workers themselves know it (in most cases) and know that it has to be this way.

So the minimum wage is not really the lowest liveable wage, as many are already living much below the minimum wage, and they're not starving, and they don't want to report anything, because they're better off accepting this lower-than-minimum wage. They know this is the best employment they can find, regardless that there are others higher up, in a higher caste effectively.

Just because you are privileged to get hired, for whatever reason, because of your status, etc., doesn't men that everyone is. There are millions. There's no way to know the actual numbers, but many of them are those dregs you see out there on the streets, in many of our urban areas.

Of course maybe it's too late to rescue most of them. Their lives perhaps are wasted by now, beyond hope. Thanks to your labor laws which effectively excluded millions of them from ever being able to break into the labor market.

There's no way to know the real numbers. And most economists maybe don't even want to know. And the labor unions, their demagogues in Washington, the economics theorists, etc., mostly wish that somehow all those dregs would just disappear, maybe be washed away by a giant flood or something, just to get rid of them.

So your rhetoric "why you consider it to be a high wage. Minimum wage is meant to be the lowest . . ." is just a way to say "to hell with all those who are victimized by our labor laws" which have crushed so many, because we have instituted a privileged class of secured workers, protected from competition and protected by their demagogue speechmakers who make sure that the bottom dregs are excluded and cannot have a chance to break into the market. "Let 'em eat cake."

I.e., pretend that they don't exist.
___________________________

WHISKY:

We can look at the US (a country that is one of the top minimum wage countries)

“The U.S. minimum is less than half the “living wage” for a single adult ($15.41 an hour, or roughly $32,000 a year before tax), according to national data compiled by MIT. It’s a third of what a family of four needs to live — around $21.50 per hour per parent, or almost $90,000 a year combined. And the effects are compounded for single parents.”
_____________________

These numbers are relevant for only a certain favored class, not for everyone.

Such numbers as these totally ignore the bottom 5 or 10 or 15% of the population. These at the bottom are savaged by your minimum wage laws and other labor laws, which are aimed at protecting those in about the 30-60% income range of the population, in the middle.

(There's no way to identify the exact numbers here.)

Those at the bottom are completely ignored, as far as any hope of finding employment. At best there are some welfare handout programs to try to make those at the bottom disappear. Possibly during a very tight labor market, like now, this is eased somewhat. But this present tight market would have to continue for many years, even decades, to finally open up job opportunities to most of those near the bottom, as most of them still cannot get hired today, after so long with a system which systematically shuts them out. Too many difficult conditions, long-standing, have suppressed this class of excluded ones so that any change to improve their chances would have to occur very gradually.


So your numbers above are pretty meaningless, as they are done totally with the exclusion of the bottom dregs in mind.

Anyone can come up with numbers to make their theories look good, as long as those numbers totally exclude vast numbers of people who also should be allowed to participate, but who are excluded by your theories.
_____________________

Lumpenproletariat

032

WHISKY:

You have also made statements like, “…we should also allow them to do work at a low wage, without imposing a minimum onto them and making it illegal,” hmm who are these workers who feel restricted by no receiving below minimum wage rates?
____________________

What they are restricted by is the nonexistence of employment opportunities open to them.

Those jobs would exist, at lower wage levels, if there were no artificial minimums imposed. And some of those near the bottom would get hired, at those lower levels where employers would be willing to hire them.

But not at $15/hour.

Of course everyone demands $25 or $35 or $50 or $100/hour as what they think they're worth. Obviously no one will choose only $20/hour if the law guarantees them $50/hour minimum, and anything else is illegal anyway.

If you really believe $5 or $10/hour is unrealistic, and that no one would apply, then stop making it illegal.

If no one really would apply, then why do you need a law making it illegal for employers to offer such a low-wage job?

The truth is that you don't have to make something illegal if it could not happen anyway. So what are you afraid of? go ahead and eliminate your minimum wage and let's see how many new job openings there are and how many would apply. You're against doing that. Because the truth is that millions of new jobs would open, and millions new workers would be hired. Which you don't want. You prefer to shut that down and exclude that lower class from being able to participate.

Although it's true that a real beneficial outcome would require several years to take place.
_______________________

WHISKY:

Who is out here feeling forbidden for working for an amount that is below the properly liveable standard in some countries?
____________________

You don't want to find out. If you do, then agree to allowing the wage level to go down, eliminating any minimum, to allow employers to offer jobs to anyone, at $5 or $10 / hour. No minimum at all, even $1/hour. There would be some takers, though very few at that very low level.

But you're against allowing that. You don't even want your own question to be answered:

"Who is out here feeling forbidden for working for" $3 or $6 or $8 or $10/hour?

The answer: there are many, and we could find out the number by changing the law to make it legal to hire them at those levels.

But you don't want to find out. You don't want the answer to your own question, because your basic theory is based on EXCLUSION of the low dregs from being able to participate, in order to entrench those higher up in their secure jobs.
___________________

WHISKY:

And do they go to the Night time Dj volunteer sessions? Haa sorry, just a little joke on that last bit.

Human labour is a resource, as much as raw material is a resource to businesses. Some raw materials are given for free, others at a price.
_________________

All (or almost all) those prices are based on competition and supply-and-demand in the market. That's the best system, to get the needed commodities to where they are most needed, and used most efficiently.

But the labor resource is mismanaged, because we've suppressed competition and the supply-and-demand mechanism, and have distorted the market so that the price of labor is too high, in many/most cases.
___________________

WHISKY:

There is no worker who feels restricted by a minimum wage.
_______________

They feel the restriction of having no job and being shut out.

There are plenty of job-seekers who cannot get hired, but who could get hired if the free market and supply-and-demand were allowed to operate in labor just as it does for other commodities. And you're giving no reason why there should not be the same free market for labor as there is for other commodities.
________________________

WHISKY:

Sure an unemployed person might feel restricted as he can’t low-ball his way into getting a job.
__________________

translation: keep the restrictions in place to shut out the inferior dregs and protect the privileged ones so they don't have to compete. It doesn't matter who we have to stomp on. Or, just pretend they don't exist.

Those who are the lucky ones, in a privileged place, always like to pretend that those down below don't exist. This is true throughout the social strata, from the very top .1% down to the bottom dregs. Those in the middle or just below have this same snobbery toward those down lower, as the top .1% have toward the 99% down below them.

Lumpenproletariat:

033

WHISKY:

The very low wage of the minimum wage is a safe level, it is even below the living wage in most cases.
_______________________

It shuts millions out of the labor market, arbitrarily preventing that production from taking place, reducing the GDP, keeping millions in poverty with no job, and drives up prices all consumers have to pay.

The only ones who benefit are some workers who are made more secure against competition from the inferior dregs below them who are kept down by being shut out from employment opportunities.
________________________

WHISKY:

You stated too “..you are not giving a reason why we must forbid the low-paying job, to gain some social benefit, but must not forbid the zero-wage job, or unpaid job. You're not saying what the social benefit is of forbidding the low-wage job, which would not also be provided by forbidding the zero-wage job…”

Well, I already covered the difference in volunteer work and wage work and that minimum wage is the concern of a wage worker and not a volunteer worker.
_______________________

But you didn't say why the wage worker should not be concerned to eliminate the volunteer workers and gain the same benefit from this as s/he gains from eliminating the low-wage work.

The question, again, is: What benefit is gained by eliminating low-wage jobs which would not also be gained by eliminating volunteer or unpaid jobs? You have no answer?
________________

WHISKY:

So I’ll not reiterate that point again. I’d say though that at one time society’s economy benefited heavily from slavery.
_____________________

No, the slaves did not benefit.

Those who enslave others might benefit, like right-handers enslaving left-handers. But we're assuming that we want a society in which no random class can enslave another. Probably we're all better off if no class enslaves another, because we can't be sure we won't ourselves become unlucky and get enslaved. But further, if we should allow it, hoping that the non-slave class benefits, that might be a miscalculation, as the enslaved class might not perform as intended, and perhaps a better outcome is gained by having no class enslaved.
_____________________

WHISKY:

That benefit extended to whom? The removal of a minimum wage benefits who?
_____________________

The whole population benefits when more production takes place. And no one is threatened as long as every producer is guaranteed free choice whether to do any production or work under whatever condition, under any terms, any compensation they freely choose.
___________________

WHISKY:

You get cheaper goods sure. You have shown some contempt for wage-workers (bit strange to me), however wage workers account for the vast majority in society, and thus the greater share of society. So if things are not working for the benefit of wage workers, then it by extension isn’t working for the majority of society.
________________________

But it is working for the vast majority of workers, if it's working for ALL consumers, so that all the production happens at maximum performance, to produce the maximum supply for all consumers who are the beneficiaries of the production.

To guarantee that the production is maximized for all, we must guarantee the maximum performance by all producers, rich and poor, meaning maximum competition, and free-market principles, prices all based on supply-and-demand, with the market rewarding those who are more competitive. All the producers must be under the same discipline of the competitive market, all free to make their choices, but subject to the penalties and rewards of the market according to their performance at meeting the consumer demand.

For the market to perform optimally, there can be no preference given to any class, rich or poor or any other category, other than just the market pricing mechanism based on supply-and-demand and every individual's free choice -- every consumer, every producer.

If anyone might be hurt by this competitive system, it can only be the least competitive performers, but even they benefit from the much higher performance of all the producers generally.
____________________

WHISKY:

There is little separation. I will discuss the benefits of minimum wage in a bit but the point of this section is to show that minimum wage is low wage.
______________________

And yet the truth is that there is a large percent of the workforce who work at less than minimum wage, and they don't want to overturn the system to enforce the law, because the reality is that it would make them worse off.

And also, there are plenty of unemployed who would be better off getting hired at a wage lower than the mandated minimum-wage level. Though they don't request a low wage, they want any job, even a low-wage job, rather than the NO JOB which the minimum-wage law offers to them.

LOW WAGE JOB is better than NO JOB.

Lumpenproletariat:

034

WHISKY:

3) Minimum Wage and Unemployment


You made the statement: …“One simple answer is: they are the same ones (or some of these) who are barred from employment because they cannot get hired at a typical low-wage job which pays higher than an employer is willing to pay them.”

I have seen the cases of unemployment due to places being filled, but not the cases of a country having too many vacancies due to the minimum wage. However, I’ll take your word on this and address it. At the end of it someone else still gets employed and will complete the job.
______________________________

We don't know how many vacancies are due to minimum wage law. What the law does is make it illegal to lower the wage so it's worth it to the employer to hire someone.

Of course in some cases they can get more applicants by increasing the wage, but the reason they don't do that is that it's not worth it to the company at the higher wage level. When it is worth it to them, they do increase the wage they're offering. Of course they might hold out, but if it really is worth it to get the needed work done, the company will increase the wage as necessary in order to attract someone.

You can't presume to judge what's good for the company to do. If they don't offer a higher wage it can only be because it's not worth it to the company to do so.

But at a lower wage they will be less particular who they hire, because the cost will be lower and they'll go ahead and hire someone they otherwise would not hire. There are many good and bad points about the different applicants, and they could easily change their mind about this or that one if their cost goes up or down. With the minimum being eliminated, there might be many less attractive applicants which now become attractive, costing less.

But if the problem is the need to increase the wage to attract better applicants, the company automatically does that anyway, regardless of what the minimum legal wage is.
______________________

WHISKY:

You also stated: “..There are MILLIONS who are barred from paid employment because they are not attractive to employers, in the job-screening process, and so get filtered out and never get any chance to show what work they are capable of doing.”

That is not the fault of minimum wage.
______________________________

Yes it is. Those less attractive applicants would become more attractive if the lower wage level is allowed. At the lower wage level, that job becomes less costly to the employer, and so there is more incentive to hire that less attractive applicant. And meanwhile, there is nothing preventing the employer from offering a higher wage to a more attractive applicant if one shows up.

So with no minimum wage, the employer has more possibilities to find someone acceptable and a vacancy is more likely to get filled.
____________________________

WHISKY:

If anything the minimum wage makes the employer select a candidate based on their qualifications and suitability for the job rather than which can low-ball the lowest.
____________________

Again, that's just snobbery against the lower-caste dregs who are excluded by labor law such as minimum wage.

There is nothing wrong with offering to perform the same service at a lower price. The prejudice against someone willing to work for less has no legitimate role to play in production. What matters is both the quality and the lower cost. Both have value in production. It is prejudice and bigotry to accuse those who would do it for less as being inferior. What they are is more competitive.

Any producer who can do the same function at lower cost is more competitive and is doing a benefit to the economy by offering their service at a lower price.

Obviously any buyer has to consider the quality of anything being offered, but there are many cases where a lower-cost producer is just as good as the higher-cost producer. You cannot arbitrarily condemn the lower-cost producer only because they are offering their service at lower cost.

In some cases it's worth it to settle for some lower quality in return for a lower cost. This is a perfectly legitimate part of the competition process. Sometimes a higher-cost producer is offering extra features which are not really necessary.

Each individual buyer must be left totally free, individually, to make the choice of how much extra to pay for whatever extra quality a producer offers. Individual freedom of the buyer and seller is the only rule that ensures the best possible production for the benefit of all consumers.
________________________

Lumpenproletariat

035

WHISKY:

How will that be competitively fairer for say a single mother who has more expenses vs a single person who can afford to make cuts?
___________________

The employer trying to get work done, serving consumers, is not obligated to provide a job out of pity for a certain applicant who might have more financial problems than another.

The employer herself might be a widow struggling to survive, raising 2 or 3 kids, behind on the lease. To have employers perform "Queen for a Day" contests to crown the most needy job applicant/contestant with prizes is not what business and economics is about.

No -- the employer hires whoever will give the company the best return for the money. Like any other buyer or consumer shopping for the best deal.

When consumers go shopping, choosing which store or product is better, their decision to buy or not to buy isn't based on their pity for the store owner, worrying about the store owner's family problems and finances.

All buyers, including employers, are entitled to choose what's in their best interest, to make the company perform better, to serve consumers. Not to be better babysitters of their workers.
__________________

WHISKY:

So in any case there will be biases. But the minimum wage at the very least makes the room for that part being fair in the competition as each candidate starts at a level and not at zero.
___________________

Each company, or employer, or individual buyer or seller, sets their own start "level" -- no one setting anything for another. Any company, employer, etc., dealing with several "candidates" for something, will set a "level" that is right for that operation, whatever works best for the optimum performance it can achieve. No outside 3rd party is competent to set this for someone else.

No one can give a reason why someone outside can make wage-level decisions for the company better than the particular company, or for an individual buyer or employer -- each buyer and seller, individually, is best qualified to make those decisions.

Judging who will perform this service best, for the buyer (or company or employer) and under what terms and cost, is something proper only to the one who must pay the cost for it. Almost never is this decided better by someone else, i.e., someone spending someone else's money. Each buyer/owner is best at deciding how his/hers/its own money should be spent.

WHlSKY:
Do you acknowledge that minimum wage jobs are low wage jobs?

Do you acknowledge that solely lowballing is not a good competition criteria but instead qualifications and suitable for a job is?

Do you acknowledge that the price of a product is determined and can be affected by more elements than labour price? Therefore lowering the already low wage of minimum wage earners will not guarantee low products for everyone.

Do you acknowledge that volunteer work, while good, has no connection to wages?

Do you acknowledge that no worker is fighting tooth and nail to have their minimum wage lowered?

Do you acknowledge that countries have been operating fine with minimum wage and good labour laws? In fact the countries that are placed as fine examples of overall performance (economically, socially, etc).

Do you acknowledge that society in general are not against minimum wage as they have not pushed back against the law?

WHlSKY:
I noticed that some of the things you are responding to are from my earlier posts and not the recent ones. Do you want me to give you time to read through all before responding to you?


I’ll wait for your response to that. One thing though,


47) The Purpose of Work

You said: “The purpose of work is to get something desired accomplished. Its purpose is not to provide incomes to the workers, or to make the workers feel secure, or to provide meaning and comfort to them.”

I disagree. I think that work includes that but also more. And that ‘purpose’ is loose as one end result of something may not be the purpose for all involved. However, let me not argue that down, I’ll leave you with your viewpoint. Since you have this view of work, and in the past you have expressed a disdain for work that is redundant, it brings up some issues.

1) For efficiency and to cut down on redundancy, the most qualified worker should be selected and not the cheapest. A worker who can carry out more tasks quickly and effectively. I’ve noticed this is happening lately: a worker now has to have several skillsets and carry out more tasks. While in the past two workers were needed for one job, one worker is taking on two roles. Businesses are now merging roles and expecting more out of workers. Why? I think for efficiency.
Jobs have changed and many of the manual labour jobs that can be low-balled are becoming computerised/done by machines. When you bring in lowballing, that can only be applied to few manual jobs and not enough that will affect the overall economy as you suggest.
An employer who is focused on quality and growth selects the most suitable candidate for the job’s requirements. I have seen the issue from lowballing. I’ve seen government contract jobs being handled by contractors who have no fcking idea what they are doing but was chosen because they lowballed. And perhaps you’ll say to me “whisky who is to say the low bidding employee can’t do an equally good job“. Cool then let his ability speak for itself and not the desperate low bid advantage. If he is the most suitable then the employer will select him. That minimum wage serves as a starting mark that each candidate can start at. Noone gets a head start with a lowball, instead all the applicants start the same and the focus now is on the quality of work they’ll provide.
How do you think that plays on the mind of potential workers? Do you think they’ll strive to depend on lowballing or that they’ll strive be better qualified for a job and strive to improve their skillset to be distinguishable from the pile of applicants? And which of these two will add greater quality to the work?

So as someone who talks on competition and removing redundancy etc, perhaps you see now the role minimum wage can play in that.

I’ll add too that employers in these modern times are looking for more than a worker who works. They want interpersonal skills, conflict resolution skills, more shit haa because there is a pool of qualified persons out here.

Lumpenproletariat:

036

WHISKY:

I agree with you that biasness occurs in the job selection process. I don’t see how the removal of minimum wage will improve those biases as it also . . .
________________________

Maybe there's no need to "improve" biases. The only need is to allow more desired work to get done, or to let more work be performed that someone wants done.

Getting the needed work done is what matters. Nothing else is more important than this.

But when artificial interference from the outside obstructs this, we are all made worse off. In each case it's the producers, and the consumers who want what is produced, who know best what the work is for, not outsiders who are not the buyers or sellers. Each transaction is done for whatever reason the buyers and sellers want it, or the producers and consumers.

You are an expert only on what you are doing in this or that transaction as the buyer or seller, or as the producer or consumer. In that role only are you an expert qualified to say what is the purpose of the transaction.

No outsider, like an economist or politician or philosopher
or social planner, has any enlightenment to impose their theory onto the buyer or seller, to dictate to them what the purpose is of their transaction. In some cases an outside authority might be consulted for information to the benefit of those doing the transaction. And of course there is a policing function by the state to ensure honesty or lack of fraud happening on either side.

Honesty and good information is a general criterion applying to ALL transactions, which is enforced by the state in all cases equally because both sides to a transaction want good information and honesty. Other than this assurance (honesty and good information) to everyone doing transactions, there is no proper place for an outsider (i.e., the state) to have any say in whether the transaction should happen and what the terms ought to be.

All an outsider is qualified to judge is that this transaction should take place because we have these 2 parties, involved in the transaction, who want it to be done. The one paying for it, the buyer, is ultimately the one who dictates why it should be done, or why it's needed. However, the producer, or the seller, also dictates how much is worth sacrificing, or how much trouble is worth it to be imposed onto the workers/producers needed to make it happen.

So both the particular buyer and seller in each case, or consumer and producer, have the sole prerogative to judge if the transaction should happen at all -- such as some work to be performed -- and what the price of it should be.

No one else has any business interfering in this to say that this transaction should or should not happen, and how much should be paid or sacrificed in order to make it happen if it is to happen.

(Again, for now we're overlooking the "externalities" issue, and maybe some other issues, where someone else is impacted by the transaction and therefore has a proper role in it. But those are unique or particular exceptions, not pertaining to all transactions, but to only certain ones falling into some irregular problem pattern due to the particular kind of work or activity needed for the transaction.)

So, the reason for "removal of minimum wage" is that this interferes with the transaction, making it more difficult for the parties to get that needed work done. There is no legitimate purpose served by this interference. Letting them do their transaction is what matters, not the outside agenda of the politicians or others who want to interfere in the transaction. So an agenda to "improve these biases" is irrelevant to anything. To "improve" anything here means to get the obstacles out of the way which prevent the needed work from getting done.

By allowing the buyer full freedom to hire someone, according to whatever terms work best to execute the transaction, the best possible result will happen, i.e., getting the work done, as the buyer (consumer) can make this happen by choosing whoever gives him/her the best deal, and they're free to choose someone of lower status and at lower cost, if that works best. Nothing should stand in the way of the buyer, other than the seller's sovereign authority to dictate a price, which both must agree on in order for the deal to go through.

This reaching the goal, getting the desired work done, is disrupted by minimum wage law, which interferes by preventing the buyer from doing what is necessary and instead imposing this impediment or obstacle. As a result of this obstacle, the work sometimes never gets done, because there can be no agreement to the terms permitted, and the deal is thwarted. There is no social good gained by thwarting the needed work from getting done, but only harm (as long as the work is not something criminal, which is a different issue).
_________________________

WHISKY:

. . . as it also opens the issue of an employer choosing to pay someone much lower based on their race etc.
__________________

Or on their looks, their personality, their status, etc. To think all discrimination can be policed is a futile fantasy. Employers do discriminate, and always will. Some of it is legitimate and some is not, but no outside authority can police every business in order to purge it of all discrimination practices. To try to do so makes everyone worse off.

Companies which serve the public can be required to serve all consumers equally, without excluding some arbitrarily, and this is mostly enforceable. But to think we can force them to never discriminate in hiring can only make everyone worse off, as companies are shut down and harassed and so service to consumers is reduced, and general standard of living and GDP decline.
_______________________

WHISKY:

Employers don’t leave vacancies open longer than they can afford to, they will eventually pick someone for the job.
____________________

No, not if it's a marginal job. And many many jobs are marginal. The employers are often satisfied to just leave that job unfilled if they are unable to fill it on the terms they prefer, such as a low wage, or whatever conditions they want.

There are many cases -- many right now -- where employers have left a job unfilled permanently, never filling it, because they have to pay the worker a little more than it's worth it to the company.

You cannot dictate to the company what it has to do. All it has to do is make a profit. It does not have to conform to your social agenda or other terms which interfere with its pursuit of profit.

The best social agenda is to let companies be free to choose, and also let the workers or other parties to transactions be free, individually, to set their own terms such as price and wage, according to their individual free choice free from outside interference. This agenda of free choice will do best at letting all the producers do their maximum to serve consumers, which is what the producers are for.

Lumpenproletariat:

037

WHISKY:

I want to express to you why I bring up the importance of wages. Once we acknowledge the importance of wages, then we can see how vital setting a minimum wage is to a wage worker and to living in general (living in the sense of caring for expenses, etc).
___________________

Everyone's income (both wage and non-wage income) is important. But this doesn't mean there's a need to set minimum incomes for workers/producers. It's no more "vital" to set minimum income for wage-earners than it is to set minimum income for independent contractors, or investors, or freelance workers of one kind or another. Just because these others are not paid "wages" doesn't mean their incomes are any less important.

All that makes wage-earners special is that they are a very large percent of the population, or large percent of all the producers. Other than this they are no more important than other classes, and their incomes are no more "vital" than other kinds of income, or more needing to be protected than anyone else's income
________________________

WHISKY:

There is also the need to protect the wages of workers because let us be real here, no one is up in arms about getting too much pay. There will be nothing stopping employers from paying $1 for 15 hours’ worth of work.
____________________

There's plenty to stop that from happening, in all cases where the work is worth more than that. Employers will not get the applicants they need at that wage, and they will increase the amount offered until they get enough applicants. This already happens all the time. Most workers are paid far more than the minimum wage, and yet the law does not require it. The law says already that rocket scientists can be paid only $15 (or even less) per hour. So is that all they're paid? Obviously not.

Companies increase the wage as needed in order to attract the needed workers. They compete with each other for the more valuable workers, and they do whatever is necessary, increasing the wages and benefits, without any law requiring a certain wage level.
________________________

WHISKY:

We already know what happens in countries without minimum wage and no faulty labour laws.
________________________

There's no country without minimum wage in one form or another.

In Germany they'll say there's no minimum wage law. However, they have a system which seems to produce about the same result, forcing up the wage levels. Officially though, Germany has "no minimum wage" like in most other countries. And yet Germany's economy is about the strongest.
_______________

WHISKY:

Now look at the countries with proper minimum wages and proper labour laws.
________________________

All of them began creating their prosperity long ago, 100-200 years ago, allowing cheap labor and no labor laws, or no labor laws such as we understand it today.

Then after this system of cheap labor slowly created a prosperous economy, these countries began to enact labor laws, including minimum wage. The pattern is that prosperity and development occurs during the period prior to labor laws, and then after the country becomes wealthy, it then has the luxury to enact labor laws.

Every country which developed and became wealthy then enacted its labor laws and protection of wages. AFTER the prosperity was created first.

Lumpenproletariat:

038

WHISKY:

When I stated that “not fully that ‘the "contribution" for the exchange cannot be set by any outsiders, but only by the employer and worker, each of whom has total sovereignty to decide the terms, without any interference from the outside…”’ It goes to contract law. There are terms contracts must have by law not just to prevent fraud but also for fairness etc.
___________________

There are good and bad laws.

We need some laws about production and employment and about how companies operate, their selling practices, etc.

What we do not need is any law dictating to any producers their wages or prices (which they pay or which they charge to someone). All laws which try to set the wages or prices (such as imposing a minimum) end up making the whole economy worse off.

That interference into the market artificially drives up prices consumers must pay. There is no need to do this. If the producers themselves, individually, are left free to make their own personal choices about price (how much to pay or how much to charge), the result is the optimum level of performance by producers to the benefit of consumers. Any interference by the state in setting wages or prices (forcing these up or down) makes everyone worse off, by resulting in restricted production, due to the higher costs.

Lumpenproletariat:

039

WHISKY:

Competition & Product prices

When you say: “..Setting wages or prices for anything interferes with competition and makes all consumers worse off, by driving prices artificially higher.”

Competition is good. It depends on what is the competing mark. In the world of work that competition should be based on qualifications and suitability for efficiency and not on ‘low balling’.
_________________________

It should be based on whatever terms the buyers and sellers agree to, without any interference from 3rd parties dictating the terms.

If there's fraud, or contract default, there are laws dealing with that. The contracts should be enforced.

A job-seeker is entitled to offer to work for a low wage. That you can slander that worker by calling him names does not mean he should be prohibited from offering to take that low-wage job, or that the employer should be prohibited from offering the job at a low wage.

There are independent contractors who legitimately offer to do work at a lower price than their competitor. You can't prove there's anything wrong with this by just calling people vulgar names out of your hate for them.

Your hate and vulgarity is not sufficient grounds to pass laws driving up wages and forcing consumers to pay higher prices, and to reduce production because an employer chooses to cut back production rather than pay your higher mandated wage level.

You have to come up with a better argument than this name-calling.
____________________

WHISKY:

I’d say having that competition based on low-balling or which worker takes the lowest wage will cause more issues with quality.
_________________

That is up to the buyer to decide, not your name-calling.

There are many cheap products competing in the market, and also lower-cost producers, offering the same service at lower cost.

That is up to each individual consumer. And it's legitimate to have anti-fraud laws, and enforcement of them. But this does not require any laws propping up anyone's wage level, which only imposes higher costs and makes consumers worse off.
____________________

WHISKY:

I can just see that in contract jobs, cheaper doesn’t mean better. So basing it instead of qualifications is better.
____________

The buyer is more qualified than you to determine, in a particular case, whether the higher-cost item or higher-cost job applicant is better than the lower. There's no need served by having you send in the government to interfere and suppress contracts you disapprove of because they are more competitive. There is a proper place for competition and cost-cutting. And the buyer must take the necessary steps to ensure quality control.

Quality control does not happen automatically just because you pass laws driving prices up higher.

There have to be tests, of the final product, and of the service, to measure the performance and quality. Government might play a role in providing information, perhaps even doing ratings or certifications. But if it mandates certain prices or wages to be paid, suppressing free choice, this only entrenches special interests into power, and shuts out competitors who perform better but are excluded arbitrarily, who could offer consumers a better deal but are not allowed to.
____________________

WHISKY:

Why make a product cheaper by cutting wages?
_____________________

Because it's good for consumers, who are entitled to lower price if the production cost can be reduced. Why make the product more costly for consumers if it's not necessary? Why should poor consumers who make only $30,000 or $40,000 / year pay higher-than-necessary prices in order to subsidize the jobs of workers making $60,000 / year?

Aren't those consumers entitled to lower prices as a result of replacing workers with robots which do the job cheaper? So, why not also lower prices as a result of hiring cheap labor?
___________________

WHISKY:

Perhaps it is better to pay the full price of a product than want everything cheap at someone else’s expense.
________________________

"full price"? The consumers are already paying higher than "full price" if those workers could be replaced by robots or by cheap labor and yet are not being replaced.

How do you know what the "full price" of a product is? If the company can reduce cost, doesn't that mean that the "full price" is reduced? Why should the "full price" be any more than the real costs necessary in order to produce it? Why shouldn't the company try to reduce that "full price" by reducing some of the costs?

Why do you want to make 99% of the poor worse off by imposing higher prices onto them, when those prices could be made lower through reduced costs?

Again you're giving an argument against antitrust laws. You're rejecting the premise of antitrust law, and anti-price-fixing law, which says it's good for companies to keep down their prices through competition.

The competition is universally good for everyone, as long as there's no fraud.

There's nothing fraudulent about replacing a high-paid worker with a lower-paid worker, or with a robot, in order to save costs and offer lower price to consumers.

Why should certain workers receive this artificial subsidy at the expense of consumers who are forced to pay higher prices because the company is prohibited from reducing the costs?

Lumpenproletariat:

040

WHISKY:

You stated “Most consumers are also right-handers…” ha I’ll take it as light humour. Right-handedness has no relation to consumerism, but when I state wage workers make up the majority of consumers/customers, it is related. How so? All wage workers are consumers/customers.
_____________________

So are all right-handers consumers/customers.

Saying that most consumers are wage-earners is totally irrelevant to anything.

In some societies the majority of consumers are Muslims, or whatever religion. Does that make them special, deserving a special wage subsidy, or other special benefit for that group?

This membership in that religion might result in their spending money, more than others. So should that group having a majority of the population get some special attention from the government, and be propped up in order to promote their demand, or give them more purchasing power?
_______________________

WHISKY:

The wages they earn goes directly back into the system to purchase things.
____________________

OK, they're paid something. But so are non-wage-earner producers paid something. Independent contractors, investors, piece-meal workers, and other categories.

So, why should only wage-earner producers be entitled to special treatment, like minimum income guarantees? Why not require that ALL producers get a minimum income, instead of only wage-earners?
_______________________

WHISKY:

Sure you’ll say “but Whisky, the Dj who lives off his parents buys stuff”. I’d say indeed, he probably buys something when his family gives him a stipend. But the point is that since most consumers/customers are from the employed set, it is a benefit to secure their purchasing power (wage).
_______________________

No, not only their purchasing power. Why not everyone else's also? Why are you saying that only wage-earners are entitled to have their purchasing power secured? Why not everyone who has any income, no matter where it's from? Why shouldn't poor struggling independent contractors also have their purchasing power secured?
____________________________

WHISKY:

And therefore are the ones who drive the demand for products and services and thus play an important role in the system.
___________________

No, not only the wage-earners, but ALL income-earners of any kind. They are all the ones who drive the demand, not only wage-earners.

Why are you making a religion out of wage-earners? Are they the chosen race? What's special about them that isn't also true of all other income-earning classes?
___________________________

WHISKY:

You even said yourself that it should be ‘Customer/Consumer’ focused, great and in order to maintain the majority of ‘customer/consumer’s power to purchase we secure their wages.
__________________

No, why only wage-earners? Why not everyone else also who earns income?

"in order to maintain the [even greater] majority of customer/consumer's power to purchase we secure their" incomes, whatever is their source of income.

What is this bias which says wage-earners are a special class, superior to others, and entitled to certain protections that others are not entitled to?