US sees largest protests calling for $15 minimum wage

[cerebus]

There's plenty of proof, the socialists just choose to ignore it, the minimum wage topic comes up very often on MyBB so I'll just link a prior post for proof:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/831648-Why-national-minimum-wage-is-good-for-SA-economy?p=18047482&viewfull=1#post18047482

Plenty of proof in the opposite direction as well. What you believe or ignore is largely a factor of your preexisting biases. I'm fully aware that I have them. I certainly don't think minimum wages are a magical elixir but having a full time worker earning $7.25 an hour in a country as wealthy as the US is also unconscionable. Even Trump went on record to say that the minimum wage should be increased, although he flipflopped around on that one like a fish on a dock, as always with complex economical questions; but his last record was $10/hour.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

having a full time worker earning $7.25 an hour in a country as wealthy as the US is also unconscionable

That's a moral argument though, the simple fact is if they were worth more they would already be earning more.

Speaking of morals though, what gives you the right to steal the money that I earned in order to give it to someone else?

Now of course you're not stealing it directly, you want the government to steal it from me with legislation and threat of force instead, but it still amounts to taking from someone who is unwilling in order to give to someone who has already proven they're not worth more.

If minimum / livable wage is such a moving moral dilemma, then have it funded by charities and leave corporations and the rest of us the hell out of it.

 

[cerebus]

That's a moral argument though, the simple fact is if they were worth more they would already be earning more.

You want to bring morality into it? What's moral about an employer who expects his employee to work for less money than they are able to survive on? Employers will pay their workers EXACTLY how little they can get away with paying them, regardless of any perceived value they bring to the company. There is not a sliding scale of value; at the bottom end of the skills ladder workers have extremely few options and employers have all the power to leverage the threat of easy replacement over them. Morality; what a ridiculous argument.

Speaking of morals though, what gives you the right to steal the money that I earned in order to give it to someone else?

Oh your employees are stealing your money now?

Now of course you're not stealing it directly, you want the government to steal it from me with legislation and threat of force instead, but it still amounts to taking from someone who is unwilling in order to give to someone who has already proven they're not worth more.

If minimum / livable wage is such a moving moral dilemma, then have it funded by charities and leave corporations and the rest of us the hell out of it.

Yea yea, whine whine whine.

Here's Australia, suffering widespread unemployment and economic stagnation since the introduction of a $17.70/hour minimum wage.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

You want to bring morality into it? What's moral about an employer who expects his employee to work for less money than they are able to survive on? Employers will pay their workers EXACTLY how little they can get away with paying them, regardless of any perceived value they bring to the company. There is not a sliding scale of value; at the bottom end of the skills ladder workers have extremely few options and employers have all the power to leverage the threat of easy replacement over them. Morality; what a ridiculous argument.

:crylaugh::crylaugh::crylaugh: YOU brought morality into it, labeling a low wage as 'unconscionable'. Why should any of us care? Because morals, that's YOUR argument. I'm just pointing out theft is also 'unconscionable', and minimum wage can only be funded through theft. Do you propose that two wrongs make a right?

Oh your employees are stealing your money now?

Eish, do try to keep up. Minimum wage means a law is introduced that forces companies to pay employees more by threat of violence or imprisonment from the government. That is theft: taking something from someone else that they own and they are not willing to give to you. The fact that you're asking the government to steal from me for the greater good does not make it any more acceptable, it is still theft.

 

[cerebus]

:crylaugh::crylaugh::crylaugh: YOU brought morality into it, labeling a low wage as to the 'unconscionable'. Why should any of us care? Because morals, that's YOUR argument. I'm just pointing out theft is also 'unconscionable', and minimum wage can only be funded through theft. Do you propose that two wrongs make a right?

Right, being forced to pay more than you're willing is much more unconscionable than running a business off the backs of starving workers.

Eish, do try to keep up. Minimum wage means a law is introduced that forces companies to pay employees more by threat of violence or imprisonment from the government. That is theft: taking something from someone else that they own and they are not willing to give to you. The fact that you're asking the government to steal from me for the greater good does not make it any more acceptable, it is still theft.

Give it a rest will you? Taxes are just as much a theft; it's the cost of residing and doing business in a country. Call it whatever you like.

 

[MrGray]

The effect might be delayed over a long term and subtle. There was a long term study of what happened when fast food workers were granted a minimum wage in New Jersey. While overall employment did not go down, there was a shift away from employing from the poorer ranks, teenagers looking for a first job, and particularly black teenagers. I guess what happened over time is that employers decided that if they were going to pay a high minimum wage they would rather employ older more experienced people from their own demographic, which ironically ended up hurting the people it was most intended to help - but over a period of something like 20 years so the effect was not immediately obvious. Bottom line, this kind of intervention usually always has unintended negative consequences which may or may not be exceeded by the positive ones.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Right, being forced to pay more than you're willing is much more unconscionable than running a business off the backs of starving workers.

At least now you're arguing relative morality instead of just morality, this is progress
And yes, theft is worse than paying someone their market value, glad we could clear that up.

Give it a rest will you? Taxes are just as much a theft; it's the cost of residing and doing business in a country. Call it whatever you like.

No I won't and yes, tax is theft. If there was literally zero repercussions to not paying your tax, would you still do it because 'it is the right thing to do'?

Look at the state of our education system, our police force, our transport system, NKandla ... the list goes on. Who in their right mind would propose to give government yet more influence in running ANYTHING?!? Not only influence, but also give them more money while we're at it?!? :wtf:

 

[cerebus]

At least now you're arguing relative morality instead of just morality, this is progress
And yes, theft is worse than paying someone their market value, glad we could clear that up.

Well, unfortunately governments should be in the business of serving the best interests of the majority of their people. I know you think minimum wages are bad for low skilled workers, in a sort of now-don't-you-worry-about-money-let-old-papa-narrowband-pay-you-what-you're-really-worth kind of way, but it's really up to the majority to make that decision. We've had a minimum wage since almost forever in the US and it hasn't brought the country to its knees; in the past it has been much higher than today in relative terms, and those were during some of the peak years of US growth. What the protesters are asking for is for the minimum wage to reflect parity with living costs, which has always been the point of the MW. The US is a massive outlier compared to similarly developed countries; if the minimum wage was on par with other nations it should be around $12.

No I won't and yes, tax is theft. If there was literally zero repercussions to not paying your tax, would you still do it because 'it is the right thing to do'?

Look at the state of our education system, our police force, our transport system, NKandla ... the list goes on. Who in their right mind would propose to give government yet more influence in running ANYTHING?!? Not only influence, but also give them more money while we're at it?!? :wtf:

MW isn't giving the government more money, it's giving workers more money. Except they're probably incompetent to use it as well. Best it all ends up in the hands of the wealthy where it can be safely entrusted.

 

[CorrieDeBeer]

It will lead to widespread unempoyment. Do these people really think all those fast food places are going to survive a 20 percent increase in labour costs? (Or whatever the percentage may be.)

There is not going to be any increase in productivity to compensate for the higher wage bill. The place is going to produce exactly the same amount of burgers for exactly the same amount of people.

So what will the employer have to do to survive? Either cut 15 percents worth of labour to keep the same cost or just pass it over to the consumer. So either the remaining employees are going to have to work 15 percent harder or the place is going to charge 15 percent more or the local burger joint just simply fails.

Neither option sounds too good to me.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

MW isn't giving the government more money, it's giving workers more money

Oh really?
So when people earn more money they don't pay more income tax?
And when employers get fined when they don't comply, this money does not go to government?

It's cute how you pretend employees don't have a finite, determinable value. It is amazingly simple: if I, as an employer, can find another person who will do as good a job as you for less money, your value drops, if I can't, your value increases.

Force companies to pay wages that are in excess of employees' value and they WILL react by cutting jobs, closing down, automating or outsourcing. There's not a single profit-driven business in the world that will just accept an instantly decreased profit margin through legislation, they have shareholders to answer to after all.

 

[CorrieDeBeer]

Oh really?
So when people earn more money they don't pay more income tax?
And when employers get fined when they don't comply, this money does not go to government?

It's cute how you pretend employees don't have a finite, determinable value. It is amazingly simple: if I, as an employer, can find another person who will do as good a job as you for less money, your value drops, if I can't, your value increases.

Force companies to pay wages that are in excess of employees' value and they WILL react by cutting jobs, closing down, automating or outsourcing. There's not a single profit-driven business in the world that will just accept an instantly decreased profit margin through legislation, they have shareholders to answer to after all.

The long and the short of it. Unfortunately, the average socialist is hopeless when it comes to the real world of business.

 

[cerebus]

Oh really?
So when people earn more money they don't pay more income tax?
And when employers get fined when they don't comply, this money does not go to government?

When businesses earn more profits from worker exploitation they also should be paying more taxes. It's an indirect expense and irrelevant to the issue of MW.

It's cute how you pretend employees don't have a finite, determinable value. It is amazingly simple: if I, as an employer, can find another person who will do as good a job as you for less money, your value drops, if I can't, your value increases.

Oh don't get me wrong; I'm fully aware that employees have a finite value, and that value is exactly as little as an employer can get away with paying them. Businesses aren't charities, they exist to enrich individual owners. If a worker can't survive on the salary the employer feels they are worth, it isn't a concern to the business. This results in situations where the lowest paid workers are the most vulnerable to being replaced by someone who will work for less, massive income inequalities and stratification of society. That's why the MW exists in the first place, to smooth out the imbalances that happen when the interests of the business owner conflict with the interests of the worker.

Force companies to pay wages that are in excess of employees value and they WILL react, either by cutting jobs, closing down, automating or outsourcing. There's not a single profit-driven business in the world that will just accept an instantly decreased profit margin through legislation, they have shareholders to answer to after all.

And yet other wealthy nations get by just fine with a much higher minimum wage than the US; there's no bloodletting, no massive unemployment, and no economic stagnation. Standard of living is higher, economic inequalities are lower, and it's just tickety-boo.

 

[konfab]

And yet other wealthy nations get by just fine with a much higher minimum wage than the US; there's no bloodletting, no massive unemployment, and no economic stagnation. Standard of living is higher, economic inequalities are lower, and it's just tickety-boo.

LOL

Inequality in Europe has risen ‘quite substantially’ since the mid-1980s.
Towards the end of the 2000s the income distribution in Europe was more unequal than in the average developed (OECD) country, though notably less so than in the USA.
It is the within-country, not the between-country, dimension that appears to be the most important factor. Although European Union enlargement has contributed to increasing inequality, it is not the only explanation: inequality has also increased within eight ‘core’ countries, including the United Kingdom.
Large income gains among the 10 per cent top earners appear to be a main driver behind the overall trend, while the poorest 10 per cent have been losing ground.

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-europe-income-distribution-inequality-international-comparisons/rising-income-inequality

GDP Growth Rate in Euro Area averaged 0.37 percent from 1995 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 1.30 percent in the second quarter of 1997 and a record low of -3.00 percent in the first quarter of 2009.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

:crylaugh:

 

[konfab]

And yet other wealthy nations get by just fine with a much higher minimum wage than the US; there's no bloodletting, no massive unemployment, and no economic stagnation. Standard of living is higher, economic inequalities are lower, and it's just tickety-boo.

LOL

Inequality in Europe has risen ‘quite substantially’ since the mid-1980s.
Towards the end of the 2000s the income distribution in Europe was more unequal than in the average developed (OECD) country, though notably less so than in the USA.
It is the within-country, not the between-country, dimension that appears to be the most important factor. Although European Union enlargement has contributed to increasing inequality, it is not the only explanation: inequality has also increased within eight ‘core’ countries, including the United Kingdom.
Large income gains among the 10 per cent top earners appear to be a main driver behind the overall trend, while the poorest 10 per cent have been losing ground.

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-europe-income-distribution-inequality-international-comparisons/rising-income-inequality

GDP Growth Rate in Euro Area averaged 0.37 percent from 1995 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 1.30 percent in the second quarter of 1997 and a record low of -3.00 percent in the first quarter of 2009.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

:crylaugh:

 

[cerebus]

LOL

http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-europe-income-distribution-inequality-international-comparisons/rising-income-inequality

Economic inequalities are rising everywhere in the developed world. Still...
though notably less so than in the USA.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

:crylaugh:

Cherry picking stats, ok

The GDP in Australia grew by 3.3 percent year-on-year in the second quarter of 2016, accelerating from a 3.1 percent in the March quarter and compared to market expectations of a 3.4 percent growth.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

When businesses earn more profits from worker exploitation they also should be paying more taxes. It's an indirect expense and irrelevant to the issue of MW

Get off the emotional koolaid, paying someone exactly what the next guy is willing to pay them is not exploitation, it is business.

People seem to delude themselves into thinking companies force you to work for them, they don't, they offer you a wage in return for work. Don't like it? Then FO.

Slavery has been abolished, everyone is free to carve their own destiny, if you happen to have made shyte choices please, at the very least, do me the favour of not standing in my way with your hands cupped.

 

[cerebus]

Get off the emotional koolaid, paying someone exactly what the next guy is willing to pay them is not exploitation, it is business.

People seem to delude themselves into thinking companies force you to work for them, they don't, they offer you a wage in return for work. Don't like it? Then FO.

Slavery has been abolished, everyone is free to carve their own destiny, if you happen to have made shyte choices please, at the very least, do me the favour of not standing in my way with your hands cupped.

Paying somebody less than they are able to live on because they have no choice but to accept your wages IS the definition of labour exploitation. If I own slaves, and the next guy also owns slaves, we're both willing to pay nothing and the worker has no option but to accept our terms; now that's business.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Paying somebody less than they are able to live on because they have no choice but to accept your wages IS the definition of labour exploitation. If I own slaves, and the next guy also owns slaves, we're both willing to pay nothing and the worker has no option but to accept our terms; now that's business.

You're mixing slavery into your emotions so much you can't see the wood for the trees anymore it seems. Slavery was not about compensation at all, it was the forced labour aspect, the fact that you could literally trade in humans as if they were cattle. THAT is slavery.

In the absence of human trafficking and forced labour, slavery cannot exist and legal slavery does not exist. You want to view profit incentive as a bad thing, then go chat to Karl Marx, but do not pretend to have some magical formula to determine what level of exploitation is fair and what level is not. Communism quite explicitly states that there is no level of exploitation that is fair, do you want communism?

In a free market, nobody would accept a wage of nothing, and as long as people are free, the wage they accept is the wage they get, end of story.

 

[cerebus]

You're mixing slavery into your emotions so much you can't see the wood for the trees anymore it seems.

I'm not emotional about slavery, I'm making a reductio ad absurdum point about your example; whatever the next guy is willing to pay is irrelevant to what someone SHOULD be paid, because you both are probably willing to pay almost nothing, and if the labour conditions exist where you can get away with that - i.e. where a surplus of low-skilled workers are willing to drive wages down - eventually someone will work for a loaf of bread. That is exploitative of the fact that a power discrepancy exists that overwhelmingly favours the employer over the worker. Whether they have the freedom to go elsewhere is immaterial if the same conditions exist everywhere for them.

In the absence of human trafficking and forced labour, slavery cannot exist and legal slavery does not exist. You want to view profit incentive as a bad thing, then go chat to Karl Marx, but do not pretend to have some magical formula to determine what level of exploitation is fair and what level is not. Communism quite explicitly states that there is no level of exploitation that is fair, do you want communism?

I don't want communism or socialism any more than you want slavery. I am quite concerned that the wealth inequality in the US is so severe that .1% of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 90%; I don't think that's good for either the poor or the rich in the long term, or the stability of society. That's why we're seeing social unrest coming from the bottom in America. But there's a long way to go to redress that before America becomes even close to socialist.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

I'm making a reductio ad absurdum point about your example

No you didn't, you introduced slavery into your equation, hence your attempted point is invalid. The free market works differently from de facto slavery.

whatever the next guy is willing to pay is irrelevant to what someone SHOULD be paid, because you both are probably willing to pay almost nothing, and if the labour conditions exist where you can get away with that - i.e. where a surplus of low-skilled workers are willing to drive wages down - eventually someone will work for a loaf of bread. That is exploitative of the fact that a power discrepancy exists that overwhelmingly favours the employer over the worker. Whether they have the freedom to go elsewhere is immaterial if the same conditions exist everywhere for them.

Two kinds of problems in the world: yours and mine, guess who's this is?
Meaning, the large discrepancy and the abundance of low skilled cheap labour is the labourers' problem, not the employers'.

If you're willing to work for a loaf of bread, excellent, that's your business. Don't come begging from me just because you happen to be unemployable at a higher pay grade. It's not my problem, f-off and wallow in poverty.

You may call that view immoral, so what? It still does not justify taking from those who have to give to those who don't, start a charity and I'll wish you well. Steal my money and I will plot revenge against you. Karl Marx != Robin Hood.