Does minimum wage do more harm than good? (Page 3)

Lumpenproletariat:

041

WHISKY:

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.
___________________________

They thrived better before those labor laws were enacted. As they became more prosperous, they started enacting labor laws and minimum wage laws.

The more poor countries did not have the luxury to enact such laws. In cases where they became more prosperous, they then enacted them.

There's no evidence that minimum wage law does anything to make the economy function better.
__________________

WHISKY:

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.
_______________________

That will never be tested to determine if it's true.

Lumpenproletariat:

042

WHISKY:

Workers’ Work’s Worth

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

Workers' work's worth is the same as the worth (value) of anything else bought and sold: supply-and-demand.

Or, it's whatever price a worker and employer can agree on, with the employer seeking the lowest he can find, and the worker seeking the highest price he can find.

As they both seek the above and they succeed at agreeing on a price, that's the value of the worker, or the worker's work.

It's basically the same as setting the price of anything else in the market.
______________________

WHISKY:

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).
________________

That can be used, but it's not really the correct measure. Because if that's taken literally, then the way to make more money is to just go as slow as possible, to run the clock longer and longer.

So the basic measure of the value has to be something else.

The real value has to be directly proportional to the demand for the product (labor) --- so with higher demand the value increases accordingly.

But it has to be inversely proportional to the supply of the product/labor. So if there are more workers offering to do it, the value decreases.

higher supply = lower value
higher demand = higher value
__________________

WHISKY:

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).
____________________________

Sounds like the same as demand. It has more value to the one with the greater need/want for it.

And this demand is higher as the number of those who want it (or need it) increases.
_______________________

WHISKY:

Others will say it is based on the qualifications and experience of the worker. And so forth.
_________________

That's the same as supply. As the qualifications become more demanding, the number who have those qualifications are fewer in number.

As it becomes easier to find someone who can do it, that work becomes less valuable. But as it becomes more difficult to find someone qualified, it becomes more valuable.

(higher supply = less value)
____________________

WHISKY:

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

One way or another, it has to translate into supply-and-demand.

There can be both low-paid and high-paid workers in the same industry.

The lower-paid workers are not worth more simply because there are many high-paid workers in the same industry.

Lumpenproletariat:

043

WHISKY:

I’m not sure why you are stating wage determination is an employer – worker private matter. It is often the employer deciding.
_________________

No, it's always both. Even though the employer may have "more leverage," the fact is that the worker is free to turn down the offer. The only reason the worker might accept the stated wage is that he does want the job, at that wage, rather than no job. It's a free choice by that job-seeker.
__________________

WHISKY:

Even when asked what the expected salary is, the employer will just always go with the person who works for the lowest.
_______________

So then it's a guessing game. Both applicants are equal in quality, and the employer chooses the lowest bid. The two applicants are competing with each other.

They're both free to walk out and reject that employer if they don't like that system.
____________________

WHISKY:

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.
________________

As long as the job-seeker is free to turn down the offer, it's a free choice. Just because the job-seeker has little power doesn't mean he's not making the choice, setting the wage level at which he's willing to work. If he accepts that low wage, that is a level he accepts freely. If not, he walks away. You can't say he takes the job and yet didn't make the choice. It was his choice, and he did have his minimum below which he would refuse and walk away.
_________________________

WHISKY:

Let’s be real here, cheap labour is a dime a dozen especially when there’s an influx of immigrants or economically challenging times.
___________________

Yes, in which case that worker's value is lower. The job-seeker still has the choice what his wage level will be and refuses it if the offer is too low.

Having a free choice to set your wage level does not mean that you have the Absolute Choice to set your value at any level you want to claim. Your real value might be very low because of the supply-and-demand, or the hard times, or tough competition. You don't control that. What you control is the wage level at which you will accept a job offer, and below which you turn it down.
______________________

WHISKY:

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.”
_______________

What he does, if he doesn't like the offer, is say: "Man, if you increase that by $1/hour (or whatever), I'll take it, but if not, I'm outta here.

(pause)

No? OK, see ya later, dude."

That's his free choice. By giving that reply, he might cause that employer to increase the offer to the next applicant, by 50 cents or so.

So he had the power to put his minimum at that level, and the employer could not force him to take the offer.

Lumpenproletariat:

044

What is "FAIR"? What is "EXPLOITATION"?

WHISKY:

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.
__________________________

Agreed that there's sort of an objective definition there of "fair".

But let's apply it to particular examples where minimum wage comes into play. And no matter what the scenario, there is no legitimate role played by a minimum wage law, requiring a certain wage minimum be prescribed. The complaint about what is "fair" is not answered by having a minimum be imposed by an outsider.

SCENARIO: there are 2 applicants, and one is more desperate than the other, and is willing to settle for a lower wage. Maybe both are desperate, but #1 is more desperate than #2.

Maybe they are almost equally qualified, but #2 is slightly more qualified. But #1 will do OK, and the employer chooses #1 in order to save a little on cost.

They both think the low wage is "unfair," but they want the job and so are willing to accept a low wage. But #1 is more desperate and underbids #2, so #1 gets hired.

What's wrong with this? There's nothing wrong with this, even if you want to call it "unfair" -- the employer is the only one who can decide if the cost saving with #1 is worth it. He figures the work will get done, almost as well as with #2. There's too little difference between the two, as to the quality.

This is totally a judgment call by the employer. It's not wrong. But if there's a minimum wage requirement, the employer might be forced to pay the higher wage anyway and so chooses #2. That's not better. Because even though #2 is slightly better, now the employer has higher costs and this drives up the price a little.

Either wage is below what someone judges to be "fair," but still it's better for the employer to take advantage of that cost savings, because #1 is making a free choice, taking the alternative that leaves him better off, because the other choice is no job, and a low-paying job is better for him than no job. #2 goes unemployed, but the alternative would be that #1 goes unemployed, which is equally bad.

The gain in this scenario is that the production cost is slightly lower, which benefits all the consumers. Even if the employer enjoys all the extra profit of that lower cost, still it rewards the business, the producer, for getting out a product at slightly lower cost, and so incentivizes that company and others to do more lower-cost production in the future, to the benefit of society, because increased supply is always good.

SCENARIO: Suppose #1 is slightly more qualified than #2. But with minimum wage law, the employer has to pay the same wage to both, and #2 is more attractive, which has nothing to do with the production but is a side factor for the employer.

Minimum wage interferes by not allowing #1 to underbid #2, and so the employer hires the less qualified #2 only on attractiveness. Whereas he would hire #1, the more qualified, if it was permitted to pay less, to save on cost.

With minimum wage interfering, the employer considers if #2's attractiveness is worth it, sacrificing a little on quality, because he has to pay just as much for either, and with #2 he gets the benefit of #2's attractiveness. This is wrong because the employer should be able to have the choice of saving a little, lower cost of #1, and get the slightly better quality.

By giving everyone the free choice, there is a better outcome, in every scenario. Whereas imposing exterior demands reduces the choices. There is nothing wrong with letting those more desperate offer to work for less. In some cases this means a better quality worker, whereas in other cases maybe they're both the same quality, but the lower-cost choice saves on production cost, which is good for society.

There's no scenario where reducing the choices makes a better outcome for society. Regardless of the "fairness." The better quality is always taken into account, if one is slightly better than the other. But the lower cost is also taken into account. No factor should be left out of account, in making the decision. Excluding any factor arbitrarily, with artificial demands, can only lead to a worse outcome.

And it can never be "unfair," because either #1 or #2 is free to turn down the job if it doesn't pay enough. That free choice by the applicant is all that's needed to ensure that the worker is paid enough, because they turn it down if it's not enough.

Of course every worker, and every income-earner of any kind always thinks they're not paid enough, no matter what. The "fairness" is not determined by just the everyday complaint that it's "no fair," but by the choice they make. Do they take the job at those terms or don't they? If they take it, then it's "fair" -- or if it's not "fair," then they turn it down -- their choice. It can't be "unfair" if they freely chose to take it, despite the low wage.

Name a scenario where the minimum wage made it more "fair" or a net improvement for society, as opposed to no minimum wage and everyone makes their own individual free choice.
________________________

WHISKY

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.
____________________

No, if that were the case, they would quit. They have the free choice whether to stay and do that job. They remain because they are getting enough wage so that they're better off to stay and do the work at that wage rather than to have no job at all. That is their judgment, and they're choosing what works best for them, in view of the alternative.

The employer is forcing nothing onto them. If they have a problem somewhere in the world, it's not the employer's fault. That sweatshop did not create their problem in life, whatever it is. Rather, that sweatshop is offering them something to alleviate their problem at least a little. That alleviation for them, even though slight, is better than no alleviation at all.

So they're better off to take that sweatshop job, and also everyone else is better off -- the consumers and the employer. There's no one who is made worse off by the existence of this sweatshop, unless it's committing fraud, which is a separate issue.

If you feel sorry for those workers and have a better alternative to offer them, then go ahead and offer it to them. But to just shut down the sweatshop, or force it to increase its cost, only makes everyone worse off.

Lumpenproletariat:

045

WHISKY:

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.
_________________

OK, not all government "interference" is wrong.

E.g., we need environmental protection. Etc.

But no benefit is served by having government interfere in determining the wages to be paid to workers. Such as minimum wage laws.

You've shown no benefit from such laws. But I've shown the harms it causes. By driving up costs > higher prices to consumers. You've given no justification for doing this net damage to all of society. It's not good for all consumers to have to pay artificially higher prices, and the only benefit is higher incomes to some workers who did nothing to earn this extra benefit.

If they deserved more, they would be paid more or would refuse to work for that employer instead of continuing to do that job. That they freely choose to do that job is the proof that they are being paid enough.

Lumpenproletariat:

046

WHISKY:

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.
__________________

Setting a minimum is an exclusionary measure which prevents millions of job-seekers from getting hired, because employers will not hire them at that wage level, but only at a lower wage level. There is no reason why these less attractive job-seekers should be excluded from the job market, as minimum wage arbitrarily excludes them.

Instead, all job-seekers and employers should be free to deal freely and set their own terms, so there is maximum possible employment of everyone who is willing to work and make the free choice to work under whatever terms they choose. No net social benefit is served by government interfering with these choices, such as by dictating any wage levels or minimums or maximums, etc. All such interference makes society worse off, not better.
_______________

WHISKY:

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?
___________________

Whether those laws are "good" or not, none of those countries is better off as a result of any minimum wage laws. If they're doing well, it's for reasons other than minimum wage law. All prosperous countries became prosperous originally without the help of any minimum wage law. It's only after it became prosperous that it then adopted such laws, as an added luxury made possible by the prosperity gained earlier.
______________

WHISKY:

I think having a minimum wage standard may motivate workers.
________________________

No, it's the opposite. It removes some of the incentive to work harder, because they know they aren't threatened by a wage cut. But the worst harm of MW is that it excludes some workers from ever getting hired, and so the motivation of these job-seekers or potential workers is greatly damaged.

When the system tells you that you are forbidden to offer your work at a lower wage, it removes an opportunity to compete. There is nothing wrong with allowing someone to compete by offering to work at lower compensation. This is good for society, as long as that competitor is always free to change their mind, or to increase their demand or the terms they require.
____________________

WHISKY:

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.
_______________

They're the same. Improved production always means better standard of living for the whole population. When the workers focus on better production, they are improving everyone's standard of living, i.e., all consumers. And those workers themselves benefit from all the other workers/producers focusing on better production.

WHlSKY:
You got through all I typed or still at it?

I’m seeing a lot of repeats.

I’m waiting for you to finish up so I can add some order and address the points.

Hint to me when you’ve completed it all.

Lumpenproletariat:

047

WHlSKY:

Minimum wage

There is no theory vs reality in stating that minimum wage applies to all workers.
__________________

The theory is that all workers earn at least minimum wage.

The reality is that a large percent of workers, probably higher than 10%, are paid less than minimum wage. There is no way to know the exact number. But there many ways workers get paid less than minimum wage. Some of these are legal and others illegal.

But the fact is that even the illegal cases are part of the real economy, maybe the "underground economy," or whatever you want to call it.

The amount of this subminimum wage labor is extreme, in any country with minimum wage.

Here's an article on illegal low-wage work in Britain:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employers-named-and-shamed-for-paying-less-than-minimum-wage

You can preach all you want, and go after the lawbreakers, piecemeal, catch a few and fine them, but this underground economy is huge and can never be stamped out. Just as the underground economy in Soviet Russia and in Castro's Cuba could not be stamped out, despite the oppressive efforts by those regimes. Those regimes finally had to cave in and compromise their oppressive economic practices. That illegal economy helped sustain both Russia and Cuba, giving consumers a chance to buy what they needed when the government stores had only empty shelves.

But it's not only the illegal work.

There are also many workers, and employers, who circumvent minimum wage legally. The law makes exception for many of these.

When government imposes irrational restrictions onto people, the people find ways to circumvent those laws, as they find it convenient.

One kind of legal work, below MW, is that of independent contractors, many of whom are poor workers who are paid much less than minimum wage.

So the reality is that there is a vast workforce which is paid less than minimum wage. And they survive, struggling to do what they have to do. And although everyone wants 10 times more than they're paid, the reality is those far down there, below minimum wage, find a way to survive. It's not true that you cannot raise a family on only minimum wage, or less. That's only theory. Plenty of workers do raise their family on less. Of course many are poor immigrants who send money to their families in a poor country.

Whatever.

There are millions of examples. It is mindless fantasy that all workers are protected by minimum wage and that no one can survive on less than minimum wage.
________________________

WHISKY:

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.”
______________________

Yes, that's the law, i.e., that's the fantasy. Not the reality. Millions of employees do sell their labor for less. Legal and illegal. And to enforce the law against all the violators would cause a significant recession. And cause massive suffering.

Minimum wage law cannot survive except on the principle that it can't ever be enforced, or even come close to being enforced, and it would be suicidal for the country to seriously try to enforce such a stupid law.

No, such a THOUGHTLESS law. That's a more polite word to use.

example: Just one clearcut example of workers paid less than minimum wage (which I know from personal experience) are cab drivers (or WERE cab drivers, from the period of about 1970 to 2005, if not still today). Most cab drivers in my area definitely were paid less than minimum wage, even though there was a theory that they were paid at least MW, but all the drivers knew that was only theory. Under leasing independent contractor arrangement there were a few who did well, but most still did less than minimum wage income level. And under the wage-system there were a very few who had a nose for business and did well. And if the tip income is added in, the net income was higher than MW for a % of them, but still fewer than half the drivers.)

And keep in mind: ALL these low-paid workers, below MW, are made worse off by minimum wage law, because they have to pay the higher prices in stores, as a result of the higher labor cost to companies. And yet they get no benefit, no higher wage. It's a total loss for ALL those poor workers.
___________________

WHISKY:

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.
______________________

What good is a "minimum wage" if not every worker is receiving it?

Aren't workers supposed to "receive" whatever their wage is? The popular perception certainly is that companies actually do pay workers minimum wage or higher and that the workers do "receive" the wage those companies are paying them.

But if you're saying minimum wage is not really received by the workers, then it's not clear what it means.

I would say it's worse than a slogan or chant or propaganda if you mean that the workers are not supposed to receive the "minimum wage" that is guaranteed to them in the law.

Lumpenproletariat:

048

WHISKY:

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.
______________________

Of course there are many factors causing higher prices. So, why add still another which is not necessary?

Every additional cost of business adds to the prices the companies charge to consumers. So 100 or 200 or 300 million consumers have to pay higher prices, in order to subsidize the wages of a few million wage-earners who benefit, while most wage-earners get no wage increase.

WHlSKY:
Still waiting for you to state that you have completed my posts. However, I’m bored waiting and will address one thing you recently stated:


“The theory is that all workers earn at least minimum wage.

The reality is that a large percent of workers, probably higher than 10%, are paid less than minimum wage. There is no way to know the exact number. But there many ways workers get paid less than minimum wage. Some of these are legal and others illegal.”

Minimum wage is the legal. Going below it is illegal. That has been one point you have repeated in your argument. Now you are stating that it is illegal. Even the article you posted has that it is illegal.

That is as saying the crime of murder is theory because murder occurs. Yeah it occurs but it is still illegal and it can thus be addressed.

Do you see how illogical your rebuttals have become?

Lumpenproletariat:

049

WHISKY:

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?
_____________________

No, these are the lowest-paid workers, and they're not covered by minimum wage. So increasing the minimum wage only makes them worse off. Never better off.

How can increasing the minimum wage make workers better off who are not covered by minimum wage.

Some of these are legal workers, and others are illegal. They gain nothing from the MW wage law. Every time MW is increased, they are made still worse off by it, because they have to pay the inevitable higher prices which come from the higher labor cost to companies.

WHlSKY:
“No, these are the lowest-paid workers who are not covered by minimum wage. So increasing the minimum wage only makes them worse off. Never better off.”

There are no wage workers that are under the minimum wage, unless they are illegally doing do. Even these individuals will not turn aside being paid on the minimum wage.

There is no legal wage worker under the minimum wage as this is illegal. Every worker wants to have a minimum wage.

Lumpenproletariat:

050

WHISKY:

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.
______________________

No, there are both illegal and legal workers who are paid less than the minimum wage.

I've already told you about them: independent contractors might be the largest category.

And whether they're legal or illegal, they are a necessary part of the economy, and we benefit from virtually all of them. (This doesn't refer to illegal trafficking, murder-for-hire companies, whatever. Of course there are some illegal operations which should be shut down.) But most of the illegal workers are legitimate contributors to the economy.

If ALL the illegal workers were banned from the economy somehow, it would cause a recession, and we'd all be worse off. Just as it would have made Russia and Cuba worse off to ban the underground economy in those countries over many decades when the underground economy saved those countries from extinction or collapse of the regime.

It's unrealistic to pretend that only the legally-recognized economy matters.

The real economy includes the illegal and legal business that goes on. Of course some of that illegal business really is criminal and should be suppressed, like the bank-robbing "businesses" etc. But most of the illegal businesses make a legitimate contribution to the economy, and perhaps should be legalized. Or a large % of them.

When you calculate the economic forces at work, you have to include the illegal business as well.

E.g., in college I had an Econ professor who told me that the prostitution business has to be taken into account, in analyzing the real economic forces, the supply-and-demand, the competition, profit motive --- it's all there and all the producers have to be taken into account in order to understand correctly how the economy functions.

Almost certainly you personally and everyone you know is partly dependent on the illegal or underground economy, whether you know who they are or not.

Lumpenproletariat:

050

"INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR" definition

WHISKY:

Independent contractors

Independent contractors are not employees to a company. These contractors set their own rates.
__________________________

Yes, but in many cases they are just as intimidated by their "employer" as the wage-earner. In many cases the independent contractor has no more free choice than the wage-earner has in dealing with the company which pays them and imposes other terms.

Some of these companies get sued and have to pay compensation to those "contractors" or "workers" or whatever you call them.

But most of them do not, and this is not a systematic enforcement, but very piecemeal and random.

It causes much disruption in business that the law is so vague, and enforced only randomly. It would be much better for business if the government would get out of the way and just let the workers and companies themselves, individually settle their terms. It would save much cost and allow the economy to function much better. And every worker would have to take responsibility for their problems.

If you want to protect the very poor who have trouble surviving, there are probably ways to do this, without disrupting business, the producers, and interfering by driving up costs. Providing a base minimum for everyone is a legitimate concept which should be discussed and debated.

But the continued scapegoating of employers has only done great damage to the whole economy. Maybe the worst result is the vast destruction of small businesses which could not afford to cope with the onslaught of regulations, especially labor laws, driving them to have to close down, and leaving us with the current domination by large corporations which can more easily afford the artificial costs imposed onto them by labor and Left-wing business-bashing ideology.
______________________


WHISKY:

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.”
____________________

Your technical definitions are not necessarily the only ones.

One definition is at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined

There are other definitions not exactly the same as yours, like the above.

Let's just keep it simple: an "independent contractor" is anyone paid for something, but not paid wages -- i.e., "wages" = so much per hour. And doing this work regularly, as a service to someone who pays them because they want the work done. Working for either a private party, or for a public operation, company, whatever.

The precise definition is not necessary. You can always add in details one way or another if you want to promote your theory.

If you hire an immigrant to mow your lawn, that's an independent contractor. Gardener, etc. Also housekeepers. But also workers for a company who are paid in any way not by an hourly wage.

Whatever you want to call them (pick another term if you wish), they're a legitimate part of the economy, and we need these workers -- all kinds of them. You and everyone is dependent on some of these workers somewhere. They do everything: drive cars, trucks, buses -- mow lawns, work in factories and bakeries, sit at a typewriter or computer, etc. etc.

Some legal, some not legal, circumventing the law legally and illegally. To think all these workers can somehow be nullified or disregarded as not part of the real economy is nonsense and fantasy and delusion.

And virtually ALL of them are hurt by minimum wage law.

Lumpenproletariat:

051

WHISKY:

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.
_____________________

No, they should agree to have everyone's wages cut other than their own.

Each worker obviously wants his/her own wages to go up, not down. But they are made worse off by everyone else's wages going up (unless it's market-driven, to improve hiring, to get more needed workers or retain them, as employers want to do when their need for the labor increases).

So all the higher wages caused by labor law interference in hiring has the result of driving up prices. So every worker should oppose such interference, except in their own individual case, where the interference drives up their own individual wage, in which case they should favor the interference. So each wage earner wants his/her own wage to go up, but everyone else's to go down. Or, each wage earner is made better off if his/her own wage is driven up, by whatever means, but everyone else's is driven down.

BUT again, we all do benefit from the particular case where an employer needs more labor, or more of certain valuable labor, and so increases that particular wage in order to attract the needed applicants. This is the exception to the rule that every worker wants everyone else's wage to go down (everyone other than his/her own).
________________________

WHISKY:

Now applying this to real life scenarios, it has already been shown that the minimum wage is not liveable (and barely liveable).
___________________________-

And yet a large % of workers are surviving on much less than minimum wage. So it's not clear what "liveable" means. Or, it's relative. Like compared to an ant, the mouse is very large, but relative to an elephant, the mouse is very small. Etc.

And compared to Bill Gates, a night-time talkshow host is poor and can't survive on so little. Etc.
___________________

WHISKY:

How would it benefit these persons to have further cuts to their means of purchasing goods?
_________________________

Realistically, what we need to do is stop any further increases in MW. The system will take care of itself to just freeze the MW level as it is, recognize its failure, but let it die over many decades of further inflation until the point is reached where MW is totally irrelevant. (And of course stop making fools of ourselves trying to enforce a law against employers which is doing more harm than good.)

And those MW workers who rely on MW to give them a raise can find other ways to get a raise, if they're willing to take the responsibility to improve themselves.

The workers generally, legal wage-earners and other categories, would be better off overall if the MW would die, to thus put an end to this one cause of inflation or higher prices which all consumers must pay.

There's no need for sudden "cuts" to anyone's income, though lower wage minimums imposed onto businesses would benefit all consumers, including many workers. But whatever change is needed would be best done gradually. Most of the major changes needed are probably best done gradually, not suddenly by drastically "cutting" this or that with the meat-ax. The meat-ax might be good in a few unusual cases, but not most.
___________________

WHISKY:

They then become an addition to the plight of goods being out of their reach.
____________________

But those same goods are made more in reach to all consumers, as the price increases are reduced which were caused by the unnecessary higher labor cost (due to MW). So the real result is that a few minimum-wage workers are made worse off, by their lower income (or non-increased income), while other workers are made better off (i.e., the ones not dependent on MW), from the lower prices (or prices not increased by MW).
___________________

WHISKY:

And these are the majority in a society.
__________________

No, the beneficiaries of MW are not a majority but a pretty small minority. In the immediate period, right after the increase, it's only the official MW workers who gain. But this does trickle up a bit to pressure some other wages upward. Still it's only a minority who benefit, while everyone, 100% of the population, feels the harm of the higher prices, which take effect over a year or 2 or 3 and hit absolutely everyone without exception.

Lumpenproletariat:

052

WHISKY:

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.
_______________________

What does "properly pay" mean? There's no scientific objective guideline to say what is a "proper" wage level. Your subjective feelings about this, your pity for some wage-earners, but disregard for poor consumers who then have to pay higher prices, is not a proper scientific guideline for what is the right wage level.

We can't have ideologues imposing their own feelings and hate toward certain capitalists as the basis for judging what is the "proper" wage which should be paid. This is has not been objectively determined in any way. Just passing a law because if appeals to a populist screaming mob does not make it "proper" or objective.

These businesses do have a proper model, which is to serve consumers, honestly, struggle to make a profit, and offer compensation to the workers in the same way you offer to pay the plumber or housekeeper, and pay according to the contract which the workers agreed to, accepting the terms.

How is it not "proper" if the workers agreed to those terms? They were free to reject the terms and go elsewhere to another employer who would offer them a better deal. Just as a consumer is free to turn down this or that store and find another one that offers a better deal.

How is that not "proper"? Why isn't that just as "proper" as your decision to seek a different shop, or a different gas station to find a lower price?

Why must your subjective feelings about the "proper" wage level be imposed onto others, anymore than your subjective religious or moral beliefs?
___________________________

WHISKY:

They also can get assistance from the government in their initial start-up.
______________________

No, pandering to politicians for special favors is not the solution to this problem which the government creates.

The Small Business Administration and other agencies are very arbitrary in selecting certain favored special interests. Most of the very small startups are not established enough to get any recognition from government bureaucrats, or assistance. When business has to rely on government, there are scandalous horror stories about the blatant discrimination and snobbery they show toward those who are so small that they can't meet requirements, and get stalled off, and accosted with impossible paperwork, and other tactics to obstruct them.

Going on bended knee to government bureaucrats for help is not any solution to this problem.

The need is for government to get out of the way and allow the small operators to find their own solutions, and to not impose unnecessary costs onto them, so they can have a chance to get off the ground and compete.
__________________________

WHISKY

I know the struggle when having a small business but I would not low-ball my employees.
_____________________

No, name-calling also is no solution. Those who look for a good deal, to reduce their costs, are not guilty of anything. Your name-calling and hate and slander against those who are different than yourself is not any solution. Those who are trying to save on costs are not guilty of any crime or harm or injury to society as your are falsely accusing them with your name-calling.

You don't name the harm they're doing, but just continually throw your name-calling hate at them, proving that you cannot make a real case. Name the crime or injury they're doing if you can. And stop the name-calling if you have anything other than intolerance and bigotry to offer.

Different people use different measures of what price to pay and what the value is and how much extra quality is worth paying for. Your personal morality is not the proper measure to be imposed onto all others. You are free to make your choices, but you're not free to impose your personal doctrines onto everyone else.
_______________________________

WHISKY:

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.
____________________

And if you enforce all the labor laws, onto everyone who is violating them, then the "rough" life will be doubled or tripled to everyone.

Trying to enforce all the rules you want to impose would crush the economy and cause vastly greater suffering than already exists. Millions more would starve in the world if you imposed your "properly pay their employees" standards onto every producer.

So your choice is to inflict all that extra suffering onto millions of poor people, double the starving that goes on, and the misery, because of your labor ideologies, and your rationale and answer to all those extra who would suffer and starve is: "everyone has it rough."

You apparently don't understand how you make life much worse, with these delusions about wage, how you inflict far more harm than benefit.

All your hate against the producers is directed against mostly the small operators, while you care nothing about the large corporations which can easily absorb the costs, or circumvent them in ways that small operators cannot, and you care nothing about the millions of consumers, even billions worldwide, who would be devastated if you should succeed in shutting down all those producers who cannot meet your ideological and fanatical demands.

The only reason your doctrines are not already destroying our economy worldwide is that they're not enforced. There is widespread violation of your rules, out of necessity, and the world economy would collapse if you seriously tried to impose your labor laws, like minimum wage, everywhere in the world.

Lumpenproletariat:

053

WHISKY:

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.
__________________

If the above 2-3 lines make any sense, it confirms what I'm saying: Those who can "low-ball" -- i.e., offer a lower price in order to compete -- are thwarted by minimum wage, and thus the benefit they can provide to society, to consumers, is prevented by making it illegal for them to work.

They cannot get hired at the imposed MW level, because employers won't pay that much, and so that work doesn't get done. But by allowing them to work, at lower than MW, it's then possible for their skill to be put to work to create more production, more supply, which MW prevents from happening. And with the increased production and greater supply (GDP), there is more available for consumers, who then can survive better.

So allowing those who can compete at lower wage, letting them offer their service at the lower prices -- then leads to more production and hope, which is thwarted by MW which prevents that work from being done.

Fundamental is the need to allow more work to get done, or more production, instead of to interfere with it and shut it down, as labor laws tend to do and thus make everyone worse off.

Lumpenproletariat:

054

WHISKY:

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.
___________________

In theory. But the reality is that there are many wage workers not actually covered, paid less than the MW, and even though it may be illegal, it goes on anyway and nothing is done about it. And one reason nothing is done about it is that any enforcement would make the economy worse, not better.

And then also there are the independent contractors to whom MW is not applicable.

All these workers not covered by MW are made worse off by MW, not better. They all have to pay the higher prices caused by the higher labor cost, and yet they get no benefit from MW.

Some workers theoretically covered are not really covered. There are ways they end up getting paid less than MW requires, for the total hours they put in. One way they get paid less is that there are certain functions they must perform which are "off the clock" from their official worktime. I.e., functions done before they begin, when arriving, or after their official quitting time, before they leave.

And in small operations there are many situations where the workers put in extra time without getting paid, in one way or another. They mostly see the necessity of this, because it's either that or no job at all.

Some of this is technically illegal, but there is nothing done to enforce the law, and in other cases it is technically legal, and yet the fact is that they work longer than the hours they get officially paid for, in one way or another.

There is no way to document the exact number of workers who are theoretically covered but not really.

But the number of independent contractors can be estimated. Here's a source which says the number in the U.S. is about 10% of the workforce. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/617863204/one-in-10-workers-are-independent-contractors-labor-department-says

But here's another source which says it's 30% of the population: https://www.forbes.com/sites/elainepofeldt/2020/05/30/survey-nearly-30-of-americans-are-self-employed/?sh=658c0dc02d21

But the two above are not measuring the same thing exactly. One is the "independent contractor" number as a % of the workforce, while the other source is giving the "self-employed" number as a % of the population.

It doesn't matter what the exact number is. Every source has its definitions, technical categories, etc.

But it's obviously tens of millions in the U.S., workers, just as legitimate as wage-earners, who gain no benefit from minimum wage law, but who have to pay higher prices as a result of minimum wage. Probably most of these have incomes less than the average wage-earner. Or, maybe only half, but a large %.

There is no answer why all these workers should have to pay the higher prices, caused by minimum wage driving up production cost, in order to subsidize the incomes of wage-earners.
___________________

WHISKY:

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.
_______________

When will you answer why tens of millions of workers not covered by MW must be made worse off in order to subsidize your select wage-earners who are privileged to benefit from minimum wage law? Why are these favored ones so important that tens of millions of other workers should have to subsidize their incomes?

Why are you choosing one class of workers to pity and feel sorry for, and choosing another class of workers, perhaps slightly smaller, to pay the cost of propping up this favored class you select for special pity?

Why isn't it better to have no practice of pitying one class at the expense of another? of not choosing any one group to be privileged over another?
_________________________

WHISKY:

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.

That's one group, but independent contractor workers are another.

And another group is job-seekers who are willing to work without the added benefits of the labor law, who want to compete rather than rely on government to impose the terms, who are priced out of the labor market by the higher costs imposed onto employers.

The excess labor laws impose extra costs onto business, forcing them to reduce their output, eliminate jobs, rather than expand production as they would if the extra costs were not so high. Some smaller companies even have to just shut down because the compliance cost is too high.

This curtailment of production means thousands/millions fewer jobs, fewer workers and reduced GDP. These are millions of workers or job-seekers excluded from getting hired, who are thus made worse off by those labor laws.

So there is a huge number of workers/job-seekers who are made worse off, meaning it's not true that all workers benefit from labor laws, and it's not true that only illegal workers are made worse off.

But also most of the illegal workers are beneficial for the economy and should not be illegal. And all the laws which impose wage levels make a huge number of workers/job-seekers worse off.

Just because the laws are intended to benefit someone does not negate the real harm that they do to many that is not intended.
___________________

WHISKY:

Even volunteers benefit from labour laws (example OSHA).
________________

But the organizations themselves, and people served by them, are made worse off, because of the added costs of compliance with the regulations, thus reducing their resources and curtailing their volunteer activities.

Every additional regulation means higher cost and reduced output.
_________________

WHISKY:

The top countries with very good labour laws thrive and are economically better off than those without.
________________

Once again, all of them became prosperous without those labor laws. The labor laws don't cause any country to thrive or become prosperous. Rather, such laws are a product of prosperity, which came first. And then after the country became prosperous it could afford the luxury of labor laws.

Lumpenproletariat:

055

WHISKY:

More purchases = good/bad

Having a lower wage means these workers would not be full consumers.
______________________

The reason to pay someone is not to make them "full consumers" (or half-full, or whatever).

The "full consumers" would be the top .1% super-rich.

But the reason to pay workers is to get them to do the job, or the needed work, not to worry about their consumption. Each person worries about his/her own consumption. And you pay someone else, a seller/worker/producer, in order to get something out of them.

The reason you pay a gardener or electrician etc., or the store where you buy groceries, is not that you're worried about the seller's consumption. You pay that seller because you want what they're selling -- i.e., those groceries, or their labor, etc.

So stop worrying about whether your gardener or plumber or grocer is a "full consumer" or only half or 1/4 etc. That's his problem, not yours.

The workers are not crybabies who need someone to take care of them to make sure they are "full consumers" instead of only half.
_________________

WHISKY:

If you want cheaper goods then call for cuts to be made somewhere else, not the easy target of worker’s wages.
_______________________

Who demands laws imposing "cuts" to anyone's wages?

The only laws mandating cheaper goods are the antitrust laws and anti-price-fixing laws, which restrict monopolistic practices by business -- not anything requiring "cuts" to wages. You want to protect companies from the anti-price-fixing laws driving them to compete and provide cheaper goods?

Who has called for gov't to put limits on workers' wages? Who is crusading for laws to restrict wages, putting a maximum on how much workers can be paid?

Where is the law which says employers must cut back the wages in order to provide cheaper goods? Where is any such thing being proposed? by anyone? What galaxy are you living in?
_______________________

WHISKY:

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.
____________________

No, the majority of those already make much more than minimum wage and are not affected by the MW increase. (There's possibly a very tiny effect of upward pressure on the higher wages, but that's infinitesimally small, immeasurable.)

So those higher-income workers are unaffected other than by the higher prices they must pay because of MW.
___________________

WHISKY:

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.
______________________

Again, the higher labor cost is one factor causing higher prices. Obviously it's not the only factor.

There are many factors driving prices up and down. Artificially higher wages, due to MW or other labor law, clearly is a factor driving up prices. And obviously this benefits no one but the particular workers getting that increase, while everyone, 100% of the population, must pay the higher prices.

WHlSKY:
Page 2 Responses:

48) Biasness in Job Selection

a) Relevance

In response to the statement, “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. . .”. You responded, “Maybe there's no need to "improve" biases…”

Then why bring up the biases when discussing minimum wage when such biases will always be present? Then your comment was irrelevant to the discussion and can be dismissed.

(b) Biasness in Job Selection: The Claim of leaving posts vacant.

In response to my statement, “Employers don’t leave vacancies open longer than they can afford to, they will eventually pick someone for the job.” You responded “No, not if it's a marginal job…”

Based on what? It is ridiculous to claim that an employer will leave a post vacant because he is bias on the applicant’s race, gender etc. When an employer has a vacant position, there is a need for a position to be filled. If it is as you are claiming that an employer is leaving a job unfilled permanently due to biasness on candidates then that position held no importance to him.



49) Importance of wages

When I said that I want us to establish the importance of wages, it is obviously in relation to minimum wage and the wage-earners.

Minimum wage affects only wage earners.

You are moving the goalpost when you shift the point to “Everyone's income (both wage and non-wage income) is important.” Sure everyone’s income is important, acknowledging the importance of wage-earners’ wages in relation to the topic does not undermine anyone else’s income (whether they got money from the Government, from an inheritance, from fairy god mother, etc).



50) Nothing stops a employers from going too low without Labour Laws

You stated, “There's plenty to stop that from happening, in all cases where the work is worth more than that.”

You said earlier that your view is that ‘workers’ work worth’is based solely on the product/market demands. However, that does not mean an employer will increase the wage of his workers if the worth of the product increases. There is no guarantee that profits will be distributed via a wage increase. And I am not making this up. An example:

\\\

“Big US companies like Amazon and Target saw huge profits as the world shuttered. A new report from Brookings looked back at how those profits compared to worker pay. 
According to Molly Kinder, a fellow at Brookings and one of the report's co-authors, the researchers wondered "are companies moving to a more equitable, more inclusive, fairer version of capitalism — especially in this unique pandemic moment where there's so much goodwill for workers?"
Brookings found that even as profits climbed, worker pay mostly didn't rise at the same rate…
at five companies who "won" the pandemic profit-wise and for which Brookings had wage data, profits rose by 41% together after adjusting by inflation — but real wages rose by just 5% for workers. Those companies are Amazon, Walmart, CVS, Target, and Kroger. This means "profits rose at eight times the pace of worker wages," per the report.
\\\ [1]

You stated: “Employers will not get the applicants they need at that wage, and they will increase the amount offered until they get enough applicants.”

You already argued there will be low-ballers and ‘desperate workers’. We are also aware of sweatshops workers. You already argued that people are out here seeking jobs. In fact you painted a picture of mass unemployed workers who want to work for any given wage. A pool of people who need an income, a wage. Now you are telling me that they have the options to seek better wages elsewhere?? Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself constantly.

You stated: “Most workers are paid far more than the minimum wage, and yet the law does not require it.”

Not in relation to the jobs that we are discussing, which is minimum-wage type jobs and the minimum wage tends to set the bar. It is only set to the ‘minimum’ and allows business owners the option for the rest. Minimum wage workers are not in short demand. Even a highly skilled person can be a rocket scientist one day and then a janitor the next.

You stated: “Companies increase the wage as needed in order to attract the needed workers.”

There is no incentive to increase the wage when there are ‘desperate workers who will always be lowering the wage bar’


Sources:
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/major-companies-together-saw-profits-grow-faster-than-real-wages-2022-4



51) Countries with Faulty Labour Laws.

You stated that Germany is an example without minimum wage, however , they do not have faulty labour laws. And as you rightfully stated they have a strong economy. And as I stated before, should the minimum wage be removed there must be proper labour laws in its place.

Countries with top workers’s right includes Belgium, Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway and Denmark. The worse scoring a “5” : Qatar, Nigeria, Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia [2]

Sources:
[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/3031015/the-best-and-worst-countries-for-workers

From my personal view, countries with proper labour laws and worker’s rights tend to do better as a society. And why wouldn’t they? It is not all on profits or products but also on improving the quality of life experienced by the inhabitants.

You stated that their success is from: “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..”

That reads as bullshit to me. If it is as you claim that these countries are living off the prosperity of the time before labour laws, then there should be a correlation that the introduction of labour laws are causing an overall decline. And also that the countries without proper labour laws and “cheap labour” should in fact be experiencing an overall incline.

Now if you still want to hold that view, fine. Then let us look into what continues to make these countries’ economies ‘prosper’ with proper labour laws and without cutting down on wages. That there is perhaps is a different approach.



52) Competition & Product prices

a) (readdressed)

You stated: “It should be based on whatever terms the buyers and sellers agree to…”

As already shown in the section 50. This does not happen. A buyer can pay X amount and that will not be reflected in the wage of the workers.

Low-balling/Low-baller is not a ‘slander’, it is a slang. Check the meaning of it before taking offence.

You stated: “There are independent contractors who legitimately offer to do work at a lower price than their competitor…”

An independent contractor is not a wage-worker and thus is not affected by minimum wage. There will be independent contractors who will go low and still have a minimum in mind. They do not do a job low without first calculating their expense.

I have no hate and vulgarity. Persons have fought tooth and nail for minimum wage and proper labour laws, it was not ‘gifted out of heaven’ and for someone like yourself to come along and say that it all should be thrown out the window because you can't get a job low-balling or you want cheaper goods at someone’s wage expense annoys me. Indeed.

It is also funny that you talk on name-calling when you went on a rant against me, trying to compare me to Lenin and Stalin, etc. Don’t let me stop you from being the unfortunate victim.

b) Quality

You stated: “The buyer is more qualified than you to determine, in a particular case…” A buyer or someone purchasing an item will not know the quality of work placed in by a worker.

Having a pool of qualified workers all starting at the minimum wage mark is better than having a pool of workers all with ‘low balling’ to offer. Go get offended. That will motive workers to improve their skillsets.

c) Cutting Wages for cheaper goods

You said, “Because it's good for consumers, who are entitled to lower price if the production cost can be reduced…” Consumers are not entitled to anything other than to select what goods they choose to select. To make a product lower in price there are other options than to cut someone else’s wage and livelihood.



52) Wage workers as Consumers/Customers

a) [Section 7 revisited]

You said, “..saying that most consumers are wage-earners is totally irrelevant to anything.” As already explained, wage-earning is a factor in this discussion (not right-handedness or Islam).

b) You asked, “…why should only wage-earner producers be entitled to special treatment, like minimum income guarantees?”
Because they are the top consumers/customers. What makes them the top consumers/customers is their wage-earning criteria. They are also under an employer. If you want minimum wage to be extended to other ‘producers’ then you are free to argue for that cause. Just because wage-earners have pressed for their cause and received it is no business of yours to take it away from them.

You keep saying “…why not everyone else's also?” As an excuse to take away the minimum wage from wage-earners, as like a child who thinks because someone has something and not everyone has it then it should be taken from them. If you want to have everyone with a minimum wage then run along and fight for that cause yourself. I’m not going to support taking away from someone’s livelihood for your tantrums.

c) Drive the demand for products and services
You stated, “ …No, not only the wage-earners, but ALL income-earners of any kind.” There is no “no”, it is a fact that wage-earners drive the demand for products and services, you including others does not change that fact. Wage-earners account for the majority as you already admitted. Hence, they play that important role. Acknowledging that role as being part of reality is not making a ‘religion’ or ‘superior’, it is important to not ignore these factors as a whole just because YOU feel some animosity against wage-earners.

WHlSKY:

53) Countries with Faulty Labour Laws

[Section 51 revisited]

When I stated, “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.” You stated, “..That will never be tested to determine if it's true.” I’ll remind you of countries without legal minimum wage requirements but have strong and good labour/employment laws: Sweden, Denmark, Iceland. They do not have the legal minimum wage set by the government or done by the government that you are against. It is instead set by the industry. It also varies for each businesses.


54) Workers’s Work Worth.

[Section 9 revisited]

a) You stated: "Workers' work's worth is the same as the worth (value) of anything else bought and sold: supply-and-demand.."

That has not been applied, as shown in the example with profits increasing on a product/in a company not being equally reflected in a worker's wage (his indication of worth).

It probably sounds nice to you in theory but as covered, without labour laws, nothing really stops and employer from keeping the profits instead of evenly distributing it via a wage increase.

b) You stated: “Because if that's taken literally, then the way to make more money is to just go as slow as possible, to run the clock longer and longer…”

There is already hourly paid workers. And the 'Time is money’ approach to ‘workers’ work worth is done by contractors also. When a job is taken before setting a charge for the job, a contractor may look at the time the job will take (this is important as some materials are rented like scaffolding etc). So the ‘worth by time’ is not always leading to wastage or a slowdown in production.

c) When I stated: “I’m not sure why you are stating wage determination is an employer – worker private matter. It is often the employer deciding.”, you responded with “No, it's always both…”

An job-seeker do not state their salary, even in the case you mentioned of “turning down the offer”. It was the employer who made the offer or deciding the wage.

d) You stated, “both applicants are equal in quality…” However, this is not often the case, people can apply for a job with different skillsets and qualifications. The competition comes from who has the most suitability.

You nonchalantly say a job seeker can ‘walk out’, when you switched the argument before to it being so tough out there that people can barely get jobs. They’re desperate, etc. That’s funny to me. You often have that habit of switching when it suits you. Like switching who the narrative should have pity for and when ‘pity’ is too emotional and should be disregarded haaha. Carry on.

55) Exploitation
[Section 10 revisited]

At least we agree that ‘fair’ is not purely subjective but can be objective and observable.

On your scenario:

How about adding that the employer is capable of covering the cost of the Applicant with the higher qualifications but decides to just pocket the difference.

You are happy that the applicant who low-balled got the job. But then we can look at the bigger picture. That money pocketed could have gone to someone who will work hard. And even in that scenario there was no assessing the wage based on ‘demand for the product’. It was just based on how much the employer can pocket. With an already low salary applicant 1 has to take on another job/ rely on government assistance to cover expenses and applicant 2 is unemployed. All that could have been avoided if the employer just paid one properly. Now instead of one unemployed person, we have one unemployed person and 1/2 (that half is the other worker who has to either get another job to cover the difference or apply for government assistance etc.

Why should workers be at the mercy of an employer like this? If that suits you, then fine on you.

*****
I want to know one thing though. You said that ‘supply and demand’ will decide. Who will be regulating this? What measures you’ll have in place for employers to increase wages to mirror their profits. Example, that Bezos’ extra profits will no longer go towards himself but redistributed into the wages of his employees. I look forward to reading your plans for this. As it also ties in with your view that sweatshop labour is ‘fair’. Which is funny again because sweatshop labour goes against the ‘supply and demand’ workers’ wage worth you were passionately touting. Suddenly it’s a case of ‘if they don't like it they can leave’.
It looks more like when it comes to reducing a worker's salary it should be done with the excuse of 'supply and demand', however when it comes to the fairness of increasing it, it's 'no, if they don't like it they can leave'.

*****

WHlSKY: 56) Benefits of Minimum Wage

[Section 12 Revisited]

When I stated, “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." And you stated, "OK, not all government "interference" is wrong. E.g., we need environmental protection. Etc.”

I want to stress a bit that I'm specifically referring to government interference when it comes to Labour Laws. The Government is the branch which set laws/legislation. To remove the “Government” element will be to remove Labour Laws or all form.

One of the benefit as already stated, is to protect the rights of workers and employers. This was also why minimum wage was introduced.

\\\
“The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. Others have argued that the primary purpose was to aid the lowest paid of the nation's working population, those who lacked sufficient bargaining power to secure for themselves a minimum subsistence wage.” [1]

[1]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20the%20minimum,and%20well%2Dbeing%20of%20employees.
\\\

As mentioned before, minimum wage has pros and cons. Not sure why you'll need me to repeat the pros as I already stated a few as worker's protection and consumer purchasing power. I’ll take a different approach because I already know you'll say “no", then make up some scenario or move the goalpost. I’ll lay out what has already been studied and found [2] :

Stimulate Consumer spending and grow the economy.
Improve worker productivity
Boost overall economy by generating increased consumer demand.
Reduces turnover
Reduces Absenteeism
Does not kill jobs

[2]
https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FactSheet-RaisingTheMinimumWageIsGoodForWorkers,Businesses,andTheEconomy-FINAL.pdf



57) Harms of Minimum Wage

You stated that there are some harms caused by minimum wage. I personally think that nothing is every cherry and there are cons as there are pros in life.

The harm you stated is: “By driving up costs > higher prices to consumers.”
I should remind you that even the lowering of the wage of workers (I read that lowering minimum wage also can lower the wages of other wage workers) does not guarantee a significant lowered cost for goods/products. It does not benefit all of society when you have the larger share of consumers having a lower wage and decrease their purchasing power. I said this before. Consumers can not be separated from Wage Workers, they too are part of that group. (Yes, not all, but the fact is they are not really separable).

You stated, " If they deserved more, they would be paid more…”
It was already covered that this is not necessary the case and that profits gained from a product/service may not be mirrored in a worker’s wage.

You stated, “..or would refuse to work for that employer instead of continuing to do that job. That they freely choose to do that job is the proof that they are being paid enough.”
Perhaps we have both experienced different things in life. In the real world, workers need money, people need money (save me the shit about the Dj who freely plays at nights and loves his job), stop with the romanticising. In life people stick to jobs they hate, jobs that pay an amount that is not enough. Jobs are hard to get, not waiting around to be filled. When a job does not pay enough, we work more than one job, we work double shifts. This might be something you think is deserving of a worker because you can't see pass ‘profits’ and ‘production', but life encompasses a whole lot more than that. There are social issues that can arise, little nuances that you might want to turn your back to. It's not a matter of ‘work getting done’ but also the quality of life for citizens. A low standard of living for citizens causes a breakdown in Society. You can not press for citizens to work for the lowest possible pay (anything lower than the minimum wage in most countries is barely liveable on its own). and expect everything to run smoothly. To expect that this will not keep more people at a poverty level and unable to make ends meet. And don't tell me that nonsense that suddenly products/services will be lowered. What is the point if it is lowered when the wages are also lowered. When even with the lowered wages that there is no guarantee that the other factors which cause price increases will not occur.

You have not placed any guarantee on the benefits of removing minimum wage. Just as you have not set any guarantee that workers can expect proportional wage increases when profits from products/services regarding their work occurs. Not to mention minimum wage workers who are not in the field/business where there are products (Janitors, Sanitary workers, etc).


When I stated, “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? ..” You stated, “Whether those laws are "good" or not, none of those countries is better off as a result of any minimum wage laws…”

On the contrary, they are looking better off due to having proper labour laws and it has not stifle their production or drove down their living standards, in fact these are countries that are placed high on the standard of living scale. So it shows it is not doom and gloom with labour laws.

When I stated, “I think having a minimum wage standard may motivate workers.”, you stated, “No, it's the opposite…” You might feel that way, but studies have supported this:

\\\
“A large number of experimental studies have supported the hypothesis formulated by Akerlof in 1982 that employees consistently provide higher effort levels in response to higher wages, the so-called “efficiency wage” theory. Most of these studies have focused on pay levels of individual firms, showing that higher pay compared to elsewhere can attract more experienced and motivated applicants. Higher pay can also elicit greater commitment and productivity from existing employees (Ehrenberg and Smith, 2009). The effect of minimum wages - as opposed to higher wages in individual firms - on workers’ motivation has also been found to be positive. Using a standard natural experiment design Georgiadis (2013) for example found that the U.K. national minimum wage has operated as a kind of “efficiency wage” in the residential care homes sector, increasing motivation and leading to a reduction in the level of worker supervision required. Experimental evidence in the U.S. by Owens and Kagel (2010) also points to a positive relationship between minimum wages and workers' effort, leading to the conclusion that – if well-designed – minimum wages can generate improved outcomes where employees have higher wages and employers have the same, or slightly higher, average labour cost.” [3]

[3]
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/genericdocument/wcms_476157.pdf
\\\

WHlSKY:
58) The Struggle of living below the Minimum Wage

You stated, "So the reality is that there is a vast workforce which is paid less than minimum wage. And they survive, struggling to do what they have to do. And although everyone wants 10 times more than they're paid, the reality is those far down there, below minimum wage, find a way to survive. It's not true that you cannot raise a family on only minimum wage, or less. That's only theory. Plenty of workers do raise their family on less. Of course many are poor immigrants who send money to their families in a poor country.."

Do you know how it is survived? By having to take on more than one job, by working full days at a time, by doing extra side jobs, by depending on government support (welfare, food stamps, homeless shelters, etc) by going hungry at periods. Just because you see people are 'still alive' doesn't mean all is well. And that is where you want to keep them. Not for them to be able to get the very little extra from the minimum wage to improve. Nope. You want them to be stuck in a struggle. So that you can hopefully, fingers crossed get a little cheap product? Go fùck yourself. Yes and be offended by that, I want you to be. The minimum wage is not a lavish salary, it is already low in itself. You acknowledge that people are out here struggling and you're calling for more people to be at this struggle. For what? Man, go fùck yourself. You know that it is tough and yet you still call for more people to be set even worse off. Man. I'm moving onto another point.

In response to my statement: "Now applying this to real life scenarios, it has already been shown that the minimum wage is not liveable (and barely liveable)." You said, and yet a large % of workers are surviving on much less than minimum wage. So it's not clear what "liveable" means. Or, it's relative. Like compared to an ant, the mouse is very large, but relative to an elephant, the mouse is very small. Etc. And compared to Bill Gates, a night-time talkshow host is poor and can't survive on so little. Etc."

Because there are not mass deaths, does not mean it is liveable or can not be improved upon. It is 'relative' to poverty. Not subjective. The minimum wage was originally set to allow workers enough income to stay out of poverty. However, even that is not enough, as the minimum wage hasn't kept pace with the rising cost of living, causing many working people to live below the poverty level.

There will be further issues with more persons being in the poverty range than having less in it.



59) Underground Economy

On your side topic of "underground economy", there are societies that benefit from the illegal trades (drugs, arm, human trafficking) all these are big business, just because there is an economic benefit does this mean we should stop trying to improve the situation? No. The fact that you say if 'illegal workers were banned..." that is a contradiction as being 'illegal' itself already denotes a banning. This seems to have strayed from the topic at hand.

60) Independent Contractors

As I mentioned before if you feel that there are other groups who need minimum wage benefits or that standard then you are free to run off and fight for that cause. However, this does not mean that minimum wage should be taken from those who it benefits.


61) Small Business Owners

First, when you say, "...subjective feelings about this," you should hold it there, because you have already taken a subjective feeling and 'emotional' 'pity' approach to certain things on this topic. Cut the bullshit.

Now back to the point, "If a small business owner cannot afford to properly pay their employees then they will have to recheck their business models..."

'properly pay' simply means cover the wages of their workers. Pay the labourers in line with even the bare minimum wage. As a business owner, if the output or product cost more than the input then there is a reassessing of the business model. Example, if someone pays someone to sell items for them, and they find that the output is lower than it cost to even pay the person to sell it, then they reassess their business model. They may simply do it themselves.

You stated: "...No, pandering to politicians for special favors is not the solution to this problem which the government creates." (in response to small businesses getting start up assistance)

This is not pandering, it is paid for by tax payers. When starting a small business there is a lot of expenses and issues. The government extends not only financial aid but also education/lessons on Entrepreneurship. In the end it all pays off as the small business will survive better and contribute back in taxes, etc.


***As stated, I have no hate for producers. I have no 'doctrine'. Calm yourself down***


62) Other

You stated, "They cannot get hired at the imposed MW level, .." It was previously covered under the benefits of MW. The employer may not have hired the low-balling job-seeker, but he would have hired someone else even under MW. So if not one, then the other.


63) OSHA

In my statement, "Even volunteers benefit from labour laws (example OSHA).", You stated, "But the organizations themselves, and people served by them, are made worse off, because of the added costs of compliance with the regulations, thus reducing their resources and curtailing their volunteer activities.

Every additional regulation means higher cost and reduced output."

It is a cost that in the end is cheaper. It is cheaper to prevent accidents than to have to deal with lawsuits, etc when they occur. Don't cut cost at the expense of safety. Look at the bigger picture.

64) Other

You stated: The "full consumers" would be the top .1% super-rich.

The 'super-rich' rarely spend money in small businesses. The bulk of that flow of monies and consumerism comes from the '99%'

You stated: But the reason to pay workers is to get them to do the job, or the needed work, not to worry about their consumption

That's your view. I prefer to think of it all as a whole and assess the connection and the effect each part has to the other. Example how wage affects consumption. In the end, it all goes back to the economy. To pigeon hole things means that you do not see the connection and thus see how one thing affects the other.

WHlSKY:

I have read what you have to say, and your counter arguments. Thanks for your time and effort in responding. I respect that, even though I don't see anything that influences me to agree with you.


There is one thing I have changed my mind on, and it came from reading an article while looking up the different countries' approach to MW, and that is to not have a set MW. Instead to have MW based on the industry/business type. Like what is done in countries as Sweden. Something done between unions and employers. I now prefer that approach.


Take care.

Lumpenproletariat:

056

WHISKY:


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.
__________________________

It doesn't matter what they're "considered" -- they are made worse off by your minimum wage law.

When you impose higher costs onto employers, which is what MW does, you cause reduced employment compared to what it would have been otherwise. I.e., there are fewer jobs offered to those who are seeking work, meaning some of these job-seekers will remain unemployed as a result of your MW law, whereas otherwise they could have gotten hired.

This is BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND. You have made it more difficult for companies to hire, by driving up their labor cost -- so some of them will reduce their hiring, to avoid paying that higher cost. Because that higher cost is now too much, so it's no longer worth it to them to hire someone.

So your minimum wage law is inflicting harm onto a large number of job-seekers. This offsets the benefit to some other workers who get a higher wage. The net outcome -- some better off, others worse off -- is a net loss to society. More harm than good done to the overall population.

Also, that higher cost you're imposing onto employers, plus the reduced hiring = reduced production = less supply and higher prices to consumers.

So you're inflicting net harm onto the economy, onto ALL consumers and many job-seekers and employers. All this damage you do with your MW wage law is greater than the benefit to some workers who get the higher wage.
________________________________

WHISKY:

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.
______________________

Your view is wrong. There is no benefit gained by spurring people like cattle to buy things they don't need.

Also there is no "need for having more consumerism." All that's needed is for everyone to be able to acquire what they need ------- which is a virtual tautology. Need is need. Meet the need, have a society, or economy, or production system which most efficiently meets the needs.

This does not mean to spur on consumerism per se, or pure consumption for the sake of consumption. Just remove the obstacles, and improve the incentives, for people to produce more efficiently, to let them trade and carry on their transactions, as they freely choose to do it, without whipping them along, and without hindering them. Get the government out of their way = FREE TRADE & FREE MARKET, letting buyers and sellers be free to perform as they see fit, making their personal individual choices without interference from ideologues or demagogues getting in their way.

The only need to ever interfere is to prevent fraud, and also to protect against some dangers like pollution which hurts the environment for us all.
______________________________

WHISKY:

I think that in our capitalist society, consumerism is what drives economic growth.
_________________________

No, not needed economic growth. Every dollar wasted by the government, every bridge to nowhere is more "economic growth" ---- no, that's not what we need. Some "growth" is more harm than good. Just aimless spending for no purpose is not needed economic growth.

The only "growth" that we need is that which is aimed at satisfying the particular needs better = need for more stuff that people want, to improve their lives. Not just spending of any kind, but based on satisfying the needs better. Whatever satisfies the needs/wants better is what we need, but not all spending per se, not ALL economic growth per se just for the sake of more spending and consuming of any kind.

There can be TOO MUCH SPENDING and consuming.
____________________

WHISKY:

People spending more on goods or services naturally lead to an increase in production and employment.
__________________________

Yes, but that has to mean EFFICIENT spending, based on satisfying the needs/wants. Not waste. Some spending is waste. Infinite spending is not beneficial. "More" is not always good. At some point there's enough --- no "more" is needed, and any further spending at that point is more harm than good.

What we need is a free market, not artificial driving up the spending just for the sake of more spending. The free market puts a limit at some point and says "That's enough!" Any more isn't worth the extra cost. At that point the market punishes the excess production. At some point any more production is worse, not better, and the money spent on it becomes a LOSS for the one who made the bad decision.

Excess investing is sometimes harmful. Excess debt is harmful. We have to make room for the LIMIT POINT where any more spending or investing isn't worth it, and beyond that point there is a waste, and the losses outweigh the benefits.
_____________________________

WHISKY:

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.
___________________________

Some of the gov't intervention may have been beneficial.

However, no minimum wage law did any benefit. Dictating wages or hiring decisions to employers is more harm than good. In good times or bad. Normal times or times of disaster such as pandemic.

There is never a good time to impose wage controls onto employers or workers.
_________________________

WHISKY:

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

This may be the most legitimate point you've made so far.