• 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!

What should the minimum wage be, or should we not have one at all?

ludin said:
there is no evidence to support this argument. Without a minimum wage workers can work and negotiate their labor fairly. employers will not race to the bottom
as then they will have no workers. No one will work for lower wages. So employers that do try to race to the bottom will be eliminated by employers that won't.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then there wouldn't be illegal immigration.
 
This is an easy debate. You can set minimum wage where ever you want. It will still be MINIMUM wage and everything will adjust to it rendering it meaningless again. Just thin about this. The average wage for a phlebotomist is somewhere around 15.00, which up until recently was near 2x minimum wage. Now, do you think if you raise minimum wage to 15.00 that phlebotomist will just be happy saying, "yay, I am now making minimum wage!" No their wage will go to 30 dollars pretty quick. What you have actually done now is induce inflation. Milk will cost more, eggs will cost more, rents will go up and people making the new minimum wage of 1,000,000 dollars an hour will be making.......minimum wage. They won't be able to do anymore with it then as they do now. The only way that it can "work" differently is with price and wage controls across the economy. Ask places like Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, and Mexico how that turned out for them.....
 
lwf said:
If that were true, then there wouldn't be illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

not at all. these people are working illegally and under the table. if caught they will be sent back
to their home country. good way on ignoring the main argument though.
 
Crabby0311 said:
This is an easy debate. You can set minimum wage where ever you want. It will still be MINIMUM wage and everything will adjust to it rendering it meaningless again. Just thin about this. The average wage for a phlebotomist is somewhere around 15.00, which up until recently was near 2x minimum wage. Now, do you think if you raise minimum wage to 15.00 that phlebotomist will just be happy saying, "yay, I am now making minimum wage!" No their wage will go to 30 dollars pretty quick. What you have actually done now is induce inflation. Milk will cost more, eggs will cost more, rents will go up and people making the new minimum wage of 1,000,000 dollars an hour will be making.......minimum wage. They won't be able to do anymore with it then as they do now. The only way that it can "work" differently is with price and wage controls across the economy. Ask places like Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, and Mexico how that turned out for them.....
Click to expand...

that is exactly what they expect.
they expect everyone else that is working for more than minimum wage or at the new minimum wage to just work for that.
 
ludin said:
not at all. these people are working illegally and under the table. if caught they will be sent back
to their home country. good way on ignoring the main argument though.
Click to expand...

So you agree that people WILL work for lower wages, if they must.
 
lwf said:
So you agree that people WILL work for lower wages, if they must.
Click to expand...

Nope not legal people here. illegal people might just to keep under the law but legal people won't.
 
ludin said:
Nope not legal people here. illegal people might just to keep under the law but legal people won't.
Click to expand...

What will they do for money?
 
lwf said:
What will they do for money?
Click to expand...

go back and read what i posted the answer is in there not going to repeat myself again.
 
The minimum wage should be no less and no more than what an individual employee and the employer agree upon.
Perhaps employers should start using a timed method of employment contract, new employees would be hired and paid for a pre-determined length of time allowing both the employee and the employer to re-negotiate and extend the employment contract for an equal or greater length of time prior to the expiration date?
If a machine is producing the output equal to what 10-100 or more humans can produce, the employees that remain needed may see a wage increase with a reduction of performed labour, but the business owner(s) and other investors are entitled to most of the profits as a result.
 
cpwill said:
The actual minimum wage is $0, because unemployment exists.

If you wish to maximize the number of people employed, then you should

A) get rid of the minimum wage, and
B) ensure that public support to the poor or working poor don't discourage work below a certain threshold.


Otherwise people have to choose between low paid work and low paid leisure, and the latter will often win out.
Click to expand...

An interesting perspective from someone in the biggest union in the union. However, in the spirit of Labor Day (it's a civilian holiday), minimum wage should be $19.50/hr. That would maximize the number of people employed.
 
d0gbreath said:
An interesting perspective from someone in the biggest union in the union.
Click to expand...

If you meant me, then, no. I am not in a Union.

However, in the spirit of Labor Day (it's a civilian holiday), minimum wage should be $19.50/hr. That would maximize the number of people employed.
Click to expand...

That statement ignores the reality of the impact of price on demand. A $19.50/hr m/w would, in fact, dramatically increase the number of unemployed, as those whose labor was worth less than that got priced out of the market. That policy would be particularly cruel to the poor, and those who have the least social capital or ability to self-fund up-skilling.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
That statement ignores the reality of the impact of price on demand. A $19.50/hr m/w would, in fact, dramatically increase the number of unemployed, as those whose labor was worth less than that got priced out of the market.
Click to expand...

Why can't people understand this.
 
aociswundumho said:
Why can't people understand this.
Click to expand...
Because it means we can't get a free lunch. It means that reality is sometimes hard, that easy answers often have large unintended consequences, etc., and we don't like that.
 
cpwill said:
If you meant me, then, no. I am not in a Union.



That statement ignores the reality of the impact of price on demand. A $19.50/hr m/w would, in fact, dramatically increase the number of unemployed, as those whose labor was worth less than that got priced out of the market. That policy would be particularly cruel to the poor, and those who have the least social capital or ability to self-fund up-skilling.
Click to expand...
Too many people and not enough openings. I suppose that translates to price on demand. The mw keeps potential workers from low bidding to the point of ridiculous. If being employed paid twice as much as welfare, people would at least try to get hired. Work a year at minimum wage, get fired, and draw an unemployment check of equal amount? It's a common way of life for many. Why kill the mw and have them get an unemployment raise?
 
Huey Freeman said:
Two points:

First point: Remember Reagan's: trust, but verify? I would verify the shop owner's balance sheets and tax returns. Here's an example. I owe quite a lot for student loans and believe a fair payment to the government each month would be about $150 - $200 per month for my loans. The Department of Education does not care about what I think I can afford, it wants to my adjusted gross income and the agency makes a determination on what's a fair payment per month. I pay about $500 per month for my student loans because the government has determined that I can afford that amount. What's good for the individual, is good for business. Isn't that the whole conservative mantra? Treating the individual and business the same? Don't bother answering that, it was a rhetorical question. If I were a business owner, I'd be screaming to high heaven that about not being able to afford $15 an hour. Why wouldn't I? Not doing so cuts into my bottom line.

Second point: Your screen name borders on obsession. If I were a woman and you lived near me, I'd warn the local authorities to keep an eye on you. There is no way you should have so much hatred for a woman you don't even know. And, because of that, this'll my first, last, and only response to you.

Have a great weekend.

ImpracticalDisgustingDarklingbeetle-size_restricted.gif
Click to expand...

Remember Reagan's: trust, but verify? I would verify the shop owner's balance sheets and tax returns. Here's an example. I owe quite a lot for student loans and believe a fair payment to the government each month would be about $150 - $200 per month for my loans. The Department of Education does not care about what I think I can afford, it wants to my adjusted gross income and the agency makes a determination on what's a fair payment per month. I pay about $500 per month for my student loans because the government has determined that I can afford that amount. What's good for the individual, is good for business. Isn't that the whole conservative mantra? Treating the individual and business the same? Don't bother answering that, it was a rhetorical question. If I were a business owner, I'd be screaming to high heaven that about not being able to afford $15 an hour. Why wouldn't I? Not doing so cuts into my bottom line.

so now you think the worker has a "right" to see how much the owner makes?

you been smoking some real good stuff there cowboy....maybe time to put that there pipe down...

:rofl

:cuckoo:
 
d0gbreath said:
Too many people and not enough openings. I suppose that translates to price on demand. The mw keeps potential workers from low bidding to the point of ridiculous. If being employed paid twice as much as welfare, people would at least try to get hired. Work a year at minimum wage, get fired, and draw an unemployment check of equal amount? It's a common way of life for many. Why kill the mw and have them get an unemployment raise?
Click to expand...

If you'll notice the second part of my post, you'll see that I agree with that latter problem, and argue we should reform welfare so that it doesn't discourage work (or, at least, does so as little as possible).

But yes, at $19.50, the demand for labor drops well before supply, and our least experienced, skilled, and educated become locked out. We force them into poverty and crime.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
SmartCat said:
Minimum Wage: Catching up to Productivity
BY JOHN SCHMITT

Between 1979 and 2012, after accounting for inflation, the productivity of the average American worker increased about 85 percent. Over the same period, the inflation-adjusted wage of the median worker rose only about 6 percent, and the value of the minimum wage fell 21 percent. As a country, we got richer, but workers in the middle saw little of the gains, and workers at the bottom actually fell behind.

The economy did not always work this way. From the end of World War II through 1968, the wages for workers in the middle, and even the minimum wage, tracked productivity closely. The economy, bolstered by the labor, civil rights, and women’s movements, greatly expanded opportunity and delivered strong wage growth at the middle and even at the bottom. By the 1970s, however, conservatives and corporate interests had had enough. They regained control of the political system and enacted a series of economic changes that, taken together, greatly reduced the bargaining power of workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution. The link between productivity growth and wages was broken.

The refusal to pass legislation maintaining the value of the federal minimum wage—now $7.25 per hour—was one of the most visible manifestations of the shift in policy. At first glance, it may be hard to see why the minimum wage is relevant to the middle class. But the relevance jumps out if we consider where the minimum wage would be today if, as was the case during the early postwar period, the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity growth from its high-water mark in 1968.

If it had, the minimum wage today would arguably be about $22 per hour. Even if we use a more conservative measure of productivity growth suggested by my colleague Dean Baker, the minimum wage today would still be about $16 per hour.

Minimum Wage: Catching up to Productivity : Democracy Journal

View attachment 67262708
Click to expand...

By the 1970s, however, conservatives and corporate interests had had enough. They regained control of the political system and enacted a series of economic changes that, taken together, greatly reduced the bargaining power of workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution. The link between productivity growth and wages was broken.

so little time, and so many to teach

lets see....early 70's...till now

could there have been OTHER factors that happened that made productivity JUMP? computers maybe?

i have told this many times on this board....in many threads....i watched and PARTICIPATED in this change

my office was was approx 23 people doing accounting on 18 column spreadsheet books....then presto, LOTUS 123 was developed, and we were down to 13 or 14 doing the same amount of work...cant remember the exact numbers, but approx 10 people lost their jobs in 2-3 years, because of desktop computing and spreadsheets. Most of us got tiny raises....but no where near the amount saved from the 10-11 people who lost their positions. Productivity was exactly the same....but was accomplished because of technology. The owner had paid a LOT of money for the computers, training, and software....and was getting in investment back quickly. This happened ALL over the country.....in a lot of types of jobs. From office, to industrial, to warehousing....technology from the advent of computers made work easier, faster and more affordable.

And the OWNERS reaped the benefits.....they invested millions....the workers who stayed and learned earned more at the places which is how it was supposed to be

it really isnt that hard to comprehend....computers have made most of this possible
 
d0gbreath said:
If being employed paid twice as much as welfare, people would at least try to get hired.
Click to expand...

The unstated assumption is that every worker is worth whatever the minimum wage is. They are not. If you set the minimum wage at $20 per hour, then a worker who is only worth $10 per hour will be shut out of the labor market. Employers are not going to pay $20 for a $10 item. Neither would you.
 
cpwill said:
If you'll notice the second part of my post, you'll see that I agree with that latter problem, and argue we should reform welfare so that it doesn't discourage work (or, at least, does so as little as possible).

But yes, at $19.50, the demand for labor drops well before supply, and our least experienced, skilled, and educated become locked out. We force them into poverty and crime.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We kind of force them into poverty and crime with a mw that a person can't possibly get by on.
 
d0gbreath said:
We kind of force them into poverty and crime with a mw that a person can't possibly get by on.
Click to expand...
When are we going to separate minimum wage from living wage? There are two distinct things.

A minimum wage is for people with no skills and no experience, who must be trained by the employer. There are good reasons not to have that where you can get by on it. If the rate is too high, new prospects cannot get work at all. We saw it in Seattle. Restaurants closed or moved out of town because they could not afford to pay someone to bus tables and wash dishes.
 
gdgyva said:

By the 1970s, however, conservatives and corporate interests had had enough. They regained control of the political system and enacted a series of economic changes that, taken together, greatly reduced the bargaining power of workers at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution. The link between productivity growth and wages was broken.

so little time, and so many to teach

lets see....early 70's...till now

could there have been OTHER factors that happened that made productivity JUMP? computers maybe?

i have told this many times on this board....in many threads....i watched and PARTICIPATED in this change

my office was was approx 23 people doing accounting on 18 column spreadsheet books....then presto, LOTUS 123 was developed, and we were down to 13 or 14 doing the same amount of work...cant remember the exact numbers, but approx 10 people lost their jobs in 2-3 years, because of desktop computing and spreadsheets. Most of us got tiny raises....but no where near the amount saved from the 10-11 people who lost their positions. Productivity was exactly the same....but was accomplished because of technology. The owner had paid a LOT of money for the computers, training, and software....and was getting in investment back quickly. This happened ALL over the country.....in a lot of types of jobs. From office, to industrial, to warehousing....technology from the advent of computers made work easier, faster and more affordable.

And the OWNERS reaped the benefits.....they invested millions....the workers who stayed and learned earned more at the places which is how it was supposed to be

it really isnt that hard to comprehend....computers have made most of this possible
Click to expand...

Two computer programs I coded for my company enabled the company to fire four clerical workers. I did not know that would be the result of my assignment until I finished it. When my boss and I were told that at a meeting with business office my boss was pleased. I was shocked. Nevertheless, there was nothing I could have done to save their jobs. If I had refused to do my assignment, my boss would have fired me, coded the programs himself, and replaced me in two weeks. Needless to say, I did not get a raise or bonus for doing that, just a guilty conscience.
 
d0gbreath said:
We kind of force them into poverty and crime with a mw that a person can't possibly get by on.
Click to expand...

The reality is that many people are faced with an array of options they do not like. That absolutely is true, but that's very different from someone forcing you to stay poor, let alone forcing you to round up your monthly budget with a thieving side hustle or by opening a drug smuggling business. People not offering you voluntarily things that you want is not anything like using force. Saying "no" to an offer is not to use force. Even taking advantage of favorable circumstances to negotiate a deal is not to use force. In all of those cases, no one would do anything to hurt you. The rate at which people are willing to trade in exchange for your toil might not be very enticing, but that does not make them responsible for your plight. They are not entitled to your work, nor the fruits thereof, so why would you be entitled to anything from them? No one owes you a job or a paycheck, let alone a good job and a good paycheck. To get any of that, you need to give them something of equal value in return. And you don't get to decide on what is of equal value. It's a consensual agreement, so they are the ones who judge of what is enough.

In the US right now, no one is stopping you from cumulating jobs, studying on the side or starting a business on the side. Maybe one day, you'd be the one digging people out of poverty, as opposed to asking the government to do it on your behalf with other people's money.
 
d0gbreath said:
We kind of force them into poverty and crime with a mw that a person can't possibly get by on.
Click to expand...
Not really - firstly, you can, just not well, and secondly, there is an entire ocean of public support to buttress that income, from eitc to snap to wic to Medicaid, and everything in between.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Minimum wage cannot be set by the Federal Govt then forced on all states and here is why.

The difference in the cost of living state to state can vary dramatically, for example

California and New York, just take those 2 and compare them to Alabama and Louisiana. Florida is so much cheaper across the board in every category than NY thats why there is an exodus out of NY and NJ to florida and an Exodus from California to Texas and other states.

Each State should set their own Min Wage because in the end they are the ones that have to live with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom