If the minimum wage is not the best idea in the world, what's a better idea?

[Smeagol]

When I was a teenager I personally thought the minimum wage was great. :mrgreen:

Fast forward a little and I'm not thrilled with the concept but I realize working adults cannot live on minimum wage. People are real quick to condemn things as bad ideas but rarely offer their own solutions that should be better ideas than the one we're criticizing, myself included.

So let's assume the minimum wage is a bad idea but there are working adults who can't make ends meet on it, let alone less than minimum wage it it were to be done away with. What better idea do you propose when working adults can't afford to live?

 

[Carjosse]

Pegging to inflation has been popular recently here.

 

[Cephus]

6. Change social expectations that everyone, without exception, will get the education that they are offered, will make good decisions in their lives and not live beyond their means. If people live conservatively, they don't have to worry about being over their heads financially.

Personal responsibility. Just do it.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Pegging to inflation has been popular recently here.

Considering the reason people want it to be pegged to inflation is because it is too low, raising it with inflation just ensures it always remains too low.

 

[brothern]

Considering the reason people want it to be pegged to inflation is because it is too low, raising it with inflation just ensures it always remains too low.

How so? By not pegging it to inflation, we'll always be playing catching up.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

How so? By not pegging it to inflation, we'll always be playing catching up.

No if we just peg it to inflation it will remain the same relative to costs so if it is to low now tying it to inflation will just ensure it remains low. Unless it is raised so much that people can 'live' on it then will always be playing catch up. Of course then you get into what does it take to 'live' on.

What really should be discussed before doing anything is what is the actual purpose of the minimum wage? Is it to set an entry level wage? So a single person can live on it? So you can raise a family on it? Originally it was designed to be the lowest a person could earn without regard to the type of lifestyle it afforded you. Now it has become something else. How do you expect something to work when it wasn't designed to do what you ask of it now?

 

[joG]

When I was a teenager I personally thought the minimum wage was great. :mrgreen:

Fast forward a little and I'm not thrilled with the concept but I realize working adults cannot live on minimum wage. People are real quick to condemn things as bad ideas but rarely offer their own solutions that should be better ideas than the one we're criticizing, myself included.

So let's assume the minimum wage is a bad idea but there are working adults who can't make ends meet on it, let alone less than minimum wage it it were to be done away with. What better idea do you propose when working adults can't afford to live?

I tend to believe a small well structured negative tax is superior to a minimum wage. There has not been enough research into the comparativ effects of it with the minimum wage to be totally sure, however. Or better, I have not seen enough such research.

 

[sawdust]

The best idea is to create a business atmosphere that encourages entrepreneurism and full employment. Let the market set wages. McDonalds has to pay workers in North Dakota fifteen bucks an hour with a signing bonus because unemployment is 3.5% and they have to increase wages to attract employees

 

[brothern]

No if we just peg it to inflation it will remain the same relative to costs so if it is to low now tying it to inflation will just ensure it remains low. Unless it is raised so much that people can 'live' on it then will always be playing catch up. Of course then you get into what does it take to 'live' on.

Given the ill status of how our Congress doesn't work, I'd say it's a lot better for economic stability to peg it. Otherwise you have this situation where minimum wage catches up (2009!), and then languishes and erodes for the next 5 years (2014). Then we're going to raise it and catch up, but then let it erode for another 5 years ... it's silly.

What really should be discussed before doing anything is what is the actual purpose of the minimum wage? Is it to set an entry level wage? So a single person can live on it? So you can raise a family on it? Originally it was designed to be the lowest a person could earn without regard to the type of lifestyle it afforded you. Now it has become something else. How do you expect something to work when it wasn't designed to do what you ask of it now?

Oof. Washington don't got nothing on the fight that would be.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Given the ill status of how our Congress doesn't work, I'd say it's a lot better for economic stability to peg it. Otherwise you have this situation where minimum wage catches up (2009!), and then languishes and erodes for the next 5 years (2014). Then we're going to raise it and catch up, but then let it erode for another 5 years ... it's silly.

But to many it never catches up (whatever it is catching up to) in the first place so just pegging it to inflation does nothing but ensure it remains low. At least we need to establish WHAT is if suppose to do and WHAT is the correct starting point for that. Then maybe you can peg it to something.

 

[Dittohead not!]

When I was a teenager I personally thought the minimum wage was great. :mrgreen:

Fast forward a little and I'm not thrilled with the concept but I realize working adults cannot live on minimum wage. People are real quick to condemn things as bad ideas but rarely offer their own solutions that should be better ideas than the one we're criticizing, myself included.

So let's assume the minimum wage is a bad idea but there are working adults who can't make ends meet on it, let alone less than minimum wage it it were to be done away with. What better idea do you propose when working adults can't afford to live?

Union representation.
It doesn't rely on the power of government. It's a choice made by the workers. It gives workers a voice in labor relations. It is more likely to bring about living wage jobs than any action that the government might take.

I, too, thought the minimum wage was a good idea when I got my first job at 15 for $1 per hour (minimum at the time.). Finding an employer willing to pay $1.25 was even better. Getting a union job at $2.60 was better still. Unfortunately, unions have lost power in today's economy, and so have the workers.

That $2.60 in 1963 was the cost of ten gallons of gas. Four days take home would pay a modest rent. Where are the jobs that pay that much now? There are some, to be sure, but they're fewer and fewer all the time.

 

[Cephus]

Union representation.
It doesn't rely on the power of government. It's a choice made by the workers. It gives workers a voice in labor relations. It is more likely to bring about living wage jobs than any action that the government might take.

No it's not. Workers do not have the choice to opt out of the union. Everyone in the shop must join the union and anyone being hired must join the union. Those aren't choices. I'd have no problem if it was a completely voluntary union where anyone could opt out and make their own agreement with their employers but unions don't work that way because otherwise, nobody would ever join.

 

[Smeagol]

No it's not. Workers do not have the choice to opt out of the union. Everyone in the shop must join the union and anyone being hired must join the union. Those aren't choices. I'd have no problem if it was a completely voluntary union where anyone could opt out and make their own agreement with their employers but unions don't work that way because otherwise, nobody would ever join.

I've never met anyone in a union that thinks they're getting a raw deal. One exception: a while back a relative joined one, which was optional. He was just part time and the employer cut his hours. Same hourly rate. The employer was punishing him for joining it seems.

I concur however, some unions have been overly demanding and have driven their employers into bankruptcy.

 

[Smeagol]

I tend to believe a small well structured negative tax is superior to a minimum wage. There has not been enough research into the comparativ effects of it with the minimum wage to be totally sure, however. Or better, I have not seen enough such research.

How does negative taxation work?

Just looked it up. Interesting idea.

In economics, a negative income tax (abbreviated NIT) is a progressive income tax system where people earning below a certain amount receive supplemental pay from the government instead of paying taxes to the government. Such a system has been discussed by economists but never fully implemented. It was developed by British politician Juliet Rhys-Williams in the 1940s[1] and later by United States economist Milton Friedman.[2][3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

The proposed national retail sales tax known as the Fair Tax is slightly similar. Everybody pays federal sales taxes that is rolled into the cost of all products like gas taxes and replaces income, corporate and inheritance taxes. However, everybody also gets a monthly or annual debt card that covers or predates the sales taxes that would be required for basic living expenses. That way the poor who only make enough for basic living expenses are tax exempt. The rich pay more because they spend more.

 

[Cephus]

How does negative taxation work?

I'm sure it means tax credit to people who are making less than a certain amount.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No it's not. Workers do not have the choice to opt out of the union. Everyone in the shop must join the union and anyone being hired must join the union. Those aren't choices. I'd have no problem if it was a completely voluntary union where anyone could opt out and make their own agreement with their employers but unions don't work that way because otherwise, nobody would ever join.

That isn't so.
There are closed shops, where everyone in the company joins the union, and there are open shops where union membership is optional. Even in open shops, the vast majority of workers are members. In closed shops, the workers have to vote to have a union, and then negotiate to have a closed shop before they have one.

 

[sedan]

I think we are approaching an era where full employment is impossible. More and more jobs will be taken over by computers, robots and automated machinery. The jobs that remain will be, for the most part, low-skill service sector jobs and high-skill tech positions. The middle-skill positions where most Americans work today will become harder and harder to find. Twenty years from now an unemployment rate of 20% is hardly unthinkable. In view of this likely future, we should give very serious consideration to a guaranteed minimum income for all American citizens.

We are going to have a significant percentage of our adult workforce who will not be able to find employment. What do we do with these people? Stigmatize them? Belittle them? I think it makes more sense to say that everyone receives at least enough of a stipend to pay for basic necessities. We can also provide employment for everyone who wants a job, even if it is make-work. Picking up garbage, painting houses, taking care of the elderly, renovating neighborhoods ... anything that people can do who want more than the minimum income. If they show up and work they get more than the person who sits at home doing nothing. At the same time, there should be no barriers to higher education for those who can benefit from it -- free school for anyone who keeps a B average or higher.

As a society we need to figure out what to do with a growing population of people who, through no fault of their own, can't be productive in a high-tech fully-automated world.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How so? By not pegging it to inflation, we'll always be playing catching up.

Raising the minimum wage causes inflation.

If inflation causes the minimum wage to be raised, then you'll just have an unstoppable feedback loop causing runaway inflation.

 

[Cephus]

That isn't so.
There are closed shops, where everyone in the company joins the union, and there are open shops where union membership is optional. Even in open shops, the vast majority of workers are members. In closed shops, the workers have to vote to have a union, and then negotiate to have a closed shop before they have one.

I'll take your word for it, I've never seen an open shop in my life, it's either everyone joins or you can't work there. Yes, in closed shops, they do vote for a union, but the people who didn't vote for one have to join and anyone new coming in has to join or they can't be hired. Is that supposed to be fair?

 

[joG]

I'm sure it means tax credit to people who are making less than a certain amount.

There are different ways to structure it, but a negative tax will generally mean a payment to the members of society. It is typically the only payment he/she may receive from the state. This saves the cost of the social bureaucracy.
When a citizen works he pays taxes on all income above the nit amount.

 

[DVSentinel]

When I was a teenager I personally thought the minimum wage was great. :mrgreen:

Fast forward a little and I'm not thrilled with the concept but I realize working adults cannot live on minimum wage. People are real quick to condemn things as bad ideas but rarely offer their own solutions that should be better ideas than the one we're criticizing, myself included.

So let's assume the minimum wage is a bad idea but there are working adults who can't make ends meet on it, let alone less than minimum wage it it were to be done away with. What better idea do you propose when working adults can't afford to live?

Cremation.