• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should min wage be removed?

Should min wage be removed?

  • Total voters
    68
Wiseone said:
Actually in the first model, at 3.15 minimum wage, the hamburger would be 11 minutes of work or 18% of his hourly wage, or roughly 5.3 hamburgers an hour.

In the second model the hamburger is worth 8.7 minutes of work or 15% of his hourly wage or 6.8 hamburgers an hour.

So in relative terms even though the price of the hamburger went up, he's actually earning more purchasing power in terms of dollars to hamburgers.
Click to expand...

That's fine and dandy, but the inflation calculator shows that his purchasing power went down.
 
earthworm said:
When man learns to RESPECT his fellow man.....then the minimum wage, and many other things can be lifted.
But this is yet to happen.
It was not that long ago when slavery prevailed.
Is this what the tea bagging conservatives want?
Me?
I just want honesty....and truthfulness.
Click to expand...

Competition: learn it, love it, live it.
 
Guy Incognito said:
By your logic, why not just throw child labor in there while you're at it?
Click to expand...

The only reason that children stopped working is because they no longer had to for survival. There are countries out there that have outlawed it but still experience. Children don't work because there are evil people forcing them to. They work because the only other option is starvation.
 
Orion said:
Right... better to eliminate minimum wage so that companies can exploit our own people instead of going overseas like they usually do. If this is the method to lure the manufacturing sector back, then it's not worth it. We should be regulating the companies more in that case, not paying our people pennies.
Click to expand...

How is it exploitation if people AGREE to work for that wage?

Those in favour of this idea don't seem to understand what cost of living means. Great, so you'll have a job at $3/hr, and after working for 12 hours you can maybe by some groceries to last for two days. What about the rest of your bills? It doesn't matter how many jobs you get, you can't fit enough work in 1 week to cover expenses because the cost of living is not going to decrease in line with minimum wage being tossed out.
Click to expand...

$3 per hour is better than $0 per hour. Isn't it?

I don't see how making the poor and unqualified working class slaves is the answer to jobs being outsourced. The proper thing to do is place controls on business itself, not the individual.
Click to expand...

Where do people come up with this stuff? WTF is a voluntary slave?!
 
See I need cheaper labor. Right now with alot of people making part time wages they will work full time for less. So if the artificial wage set by the government was lifted I could expand. Right now I have part time help because its tied to the Minimum wage.They would be glad to get it the market will bare lower wages and that in tiurn will help everyone.Especially my customers.
 
mac said:
Eliminating the minimum wage would create jobs and create more labor competition.
Click to expand...

This assumes that more people will look for a job or maintain a similar search effort if a minimum wage was removed. Does this seem logical, considering they will now be looking for a job worth less money (assuming the minimum wage is binding)?

Use your own experience in the labor market. When you search for a job, you do not go around and bargain with the companies and set your own wages (for the most part). You look in the paper, on monster.com, etc at particular job openings and look for acceptable offers. This, I believe, is especially true for those "minimum wage" type of jobs.
 
phattonez said:
The only reason that children stopped working is because they no longer had to for survival. There are countries out there that have outlawed it but still experience. Children don't work because there are evil people forcing them to. They work because the only other option is starvation.
Click to expand...

And why did this happen? Largely due to increases in productivity. What brings about such changes? Well, it is well known that technology plays and integral role, but investment in capital goods (physical and human) also brings about such changes. A minimum wage gives an incentive to invest in both.
 
The_Patriot said:
That's fine and dandy, but the inflation calculator shows that his purchasing power went down.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I think using the mcdonalds hamburger was probobly a flawed measure of inflation. Here is a graph showing the minimum wage and the inflation adjusted minimum wage. It is obvious it has been going down for some time when we adjust for inflation.

dsg762_500_350.jpg


Edit: I found a slightly better graph with the recent years on it. The real minimum wage has increased a considerable amount with the recent increases, although it is still below its highs in the 60's,70's and early 80's.

slide0001_image002.gif
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
And why did this happen? Largely due to increases in productivity. What brings about such changes? Well, it is well known that technology plays and integral role, but investment in capital goods (physical and human) also brings about such changes. A minimum wage gives an incentive to invest in both.
Click to expand...

At what current expense though? Goldenboy made the argument that minimum wage ended the elevator boy and brought about automatic elevators so the elevator boys could do other jobs. But he forgot that automatic elevatrors are more expensive, so this scheme would contribute to a shortage of buildings. You have to look at unintended consequences. Besides, what would be more important for those countries is foreign investment. It would bring them up to speed much quicker than internal investment.
 
drz-400 said:
Use your own experience in the labor market. When you search for a job, you do not go around and bargain with the companies and set your own wages (for the most part). You look in the paper, on monster.com, etc at particular job openings and look for acceptable offers. This, I believe, is especially true for those "minimum wage" type of jobs.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? Either way you have a lowest acceptable wage you will work for. Minimum wage does not affect that, just as it does not affect the highest wage that they will pay a new worker.
 
phattonez said:
At what current expense though? Goldenboy made the argument that minimum wage ended the elevator boy and brought about automatic elevators so the elevator boys could do other jobs. But he forgot that automatic elevatrors are more expensive, so this scheme would contribute to a shortage of buildings. You have to look at unintended consequences. Besides, what would be more important for those countries is foreign investment. It would bring them up to speed much quicker than internal investment.
Click to expand...

way too simplistic....savings from not having an elevator operator more than pays for added cost for automatic elevators....or we would still have elevator operators....
You could say that it allows for cheaper buildings, thus more buildings, but we all know that the cost of an elevator is a very small part of any building that requires one.
 
phattonez said:
What's the difference? Either way you have a lowest acceptable wage you will work for. Minimum wage does not affect that, just as it does not affect the highest wage that they will pay a new worker.
Click to expand...

There is actually quite a difference. It has to do with how we characterize the labor market. You make the argument that a minimum wage causes a large amount of unemployment because it is a binding price floor in a competitive market. This shows that such a simplistic characterization may not be the most accurate description of labor markets in general.
 
b.larset said:
See I need cheaper labor. Right now with alot of people making part time wages they will work full time for less. So if the artificial wage set by the government was lifted I could expand. Right now I have part time help because its tied to the Minimum wage.They would be glad to get it the market will bare lower wages and that in tiurn will help everyone.Especially my customers.
Click to expand...


Why are you even in business?
 
UtahBill said:
way too simplistic....savings from not having an elevator operator more than pays for added cost for automatic elevators....or we would still have elevator operators....
You could say that it allows for cheaper buildings, thus more buildings, but we all know that the cost of an elevator is a very small part of any building that requires one.
Click to expand...


Ever had an elevator break and have to call the Otis man?Then there is also required inspections.
 
phattonez said:
At what current expense though? Goldenboy made the argument that minimum wage ended the elevator boy and brought about automatic elevators so the elevator boys could do other jobs. But he forgot that automatic elevatrors are more expensive, so this scheme would contribute to a shortage of buildings. You have to look at unintended consequences. Besides, what would be more important for those countries is foreign investment. It would bring them up to speed much quicker than internal investment.
Click to expand...

One could easily make the argument that an automatic elevator has a continually downward sloping average cost curve, and a marginal cost that is always less than this average total cost. Hence, investment into such a cost saving senario would be discouraged because it could not be done without an initial loss, unless of course we gave an incentive to do it...
 
UtahBill said:
way too simplistic....savings from not having an elevator operator more than pays for added cost for automatic elevators....or we would still have elevator operators....
Click to expand...

No, you are being too simplistic. What if at $4 per hour they are cheaper than an automatic elevator? At $7.50 per hour then the automatic is cheaper. $4 per hour would be a good job for say some 13-year old kid.

You could say that it allows for cheaper buildings, thus more buildings, but we all know that the cost of an elevator is a very small part of any building that requires one.
Click to expand...

More risk without the potential of more profit means less of something.
 
drz-400 said:
There is actually quite a difference. It has to do with how we characterize the labor market. You make the argument that a minimum wage causes a large amount of unemployment because it is a binding price floor in a competitive market. This shows that such a simplistic characterization may not be the most accurate description of labor markets in general.
Click to expand...

I never said large. It only has a large effect on those worst off in society. For the typical middle class schmoe, there would be virtually no effect on his employment opportunities (directly).
 
drz-400 said:
One could easily make the argument that an automatic elevator has a continually downward sloping average cost curve, and a marginal cost that is always less than this average total cost. Hence, investment into such a cost saving senario would be discouraged because it could not be done without an initial loss, unless of course we gave an incentive to do it...
Click to expand...

This is basically an argument that people don't take risks or take out loans for future productivity gains. That's nonsense. People take risks all the time. The incentive is a potential profit, and if it was worthwhile, then people would have done it. If it wasn't worthwhile and you needed minimum wage to do it, then the company probably would have made more money staying with the elevator boys rather than going to automatic elevators.
 
phattonez said:
No, you are being too simplistic. What if at $4 per hour they are cheaper than an automatic elevator? At $7.50 per hour then the automatic is cheaper. $4 per hour would be a good job for say some 13-year old kid.



More risk without the potential of more profit means less of something.
Click to expand...

baloney, automation is always preferred. the operator becomes the maintenance guy, or finds other work. inspections are required whether operated automatically or by a person. You can try to complicate the issue all you want, but these are facts.
Machines don't retire at age 65 and then draw a pension for 20 years. The fewer humans you employ, the better the bottom line...
You knew that....
 
phattonez said:
This is basically an argument that people don't take risks or take out loans for future productivity gains. That's nonsense. People take risks all the time. The incentive is a potential profit, and if it was worthwhile, then people would have done it. If it wasn't worthwhile and you needed minimum wage to do it, then the company probably would have made more money staying with the elevator boys rather than going to automatic elevators.
Click to expand...

They might have eventually done it anyways, but a minimum wage increases or creates more incentive to do so. Minimum wage is a policy to steer the market, not create it. Its not like I am saying without the minimum wage there would be no automation of industry, what I am saying is it promotes such a thing.
 
phattonez said:
I never said large. It only has a large effect on those worst off in society. For the typical middle class schmoe, there would be virtually no effect on his employment opportunities (directly).
Click to expand...

Those who it effects are almost all younger workers. For the most part the younger workers that are "negatively" effected have lower employment, not higher unemployment. This is because most of the teens that are affected by the minimum wage simply leave the labor market. I can only assume that most of them go back to school and learn so that they will be worth more than the minimum wage when they re-enter the labor market.

Plus you cannot simply discount that those who are searching for a job may now very well search harder because the potential payoff is larger with a minimum wage. Perhaps for those that are looking for a lower end job now, a minimum wage actually makes them better off.
 
Last edited:
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes. Labor is essentially a market good; its price is determined by the same forces of supply and demand that govern every other market good. Government policies, like price controls on other goods, can alter the price of a good but not its value meaning that the minimum wage decreases the demand for labor and thus reduces the amount of labor that businesses choose to purchase. It drives people out of jobs and depresses the wages of jobs that would otherwise be worth more than the minimum wage.

If we want to help the working class in this country, we should working on keeping jobs here rather than driving them overseas.
Click to expand...

Nobody but a few greedy corporate assholes are responsible for outsourcing. Everything else is elitest bull**** excuses.
 
If you support minimum wage, then why not raise it to $100, $500, or even $1,000?
 
Vader said:
Nobody but a few greedy corporate assholes are responsible for outsourcing. Everything else is elitest bull**** excuses.
Click to expand...

People do whatever feels good to them. There is no sense blaming them for the inevitable instead of making undesirable behavior sufficiently painful.
 
Vader said:
Nobody but a few greedy corporate assholes are responsible for outsourcing. Everything else is elitest bull**** excuses.
Click to expand...

I think you are turning into to Vader. He had an anger problem too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom