Is minimum wage a lot?

MoSurveyor · Jan 14, 2014

Federalist said:
Minimum wage laws criminalize paying someone below a fixed price. Paying someone below a fixed price does not assault or damage anyone's person or property. Therefore, based on your statement that the function of government is to protect the person and property of the citizen, a minimum wage law does not serve this function. And because it uses the force of government to punish a person who has not assaulted or harmed anyone's person or property, such a law is itself a violation of person and property.

On what grounds to you then support minimum wage laws, if they are contrary to the function of government?

You can't piecemeal a country. Society as a whole can be harmed by economic activity very easily (the Great Recession showed that). Unless you want a race to the bottom of the world economy we'd better have worker laws in place.

Federalist · Jan 14, 2014

MoSurveyor said:
The economic definition is meant to differentiate between the various types of 'ownership', not declare that ownership is ONLY a legal institution or that ownership MUST be protected (by some force except the owner) to have meaning. It's possible for people to recognize ownership from a position of physical power as opposed to legal power. Our society may not recognize such but that doesn't exclude the possibility. Go ask the general public in South America what the drug cartels "own" regardless of what deeds and titles might say. Ask the people in the slums who "owns" what, it won't always match the legal owner. I'm sure the whole "it MUST be this way" fits in well with your green little world but it's not reality.

Ownership is a bundle of legal rights to use and control a particular rivalrous resource. A thief who steals something does not own that thing. It is still the property of the original owner.

You want legal, here it is ...

Monopoly: a privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity.
-Black's Law, Fifth Edition

Note it says "one or more persons or companies".

Precisely what I just said. Monopolies, to the extent they exist, are government grants of privilege in which certain actors are vested with exclusive rights to stop competition.

Absent such government interference in people's rights, monopolies don't exist. No company has ever eliminated every one of its competitors without the government helping it do so.

Monopolies don't exist because they're illegal and there's a reason we've made them illegal. You think we made a law to stop a myth?!? What will we outlaw next, gremlins?

Yes, I think the law was unnecessary. Unless vested with special privileges by the government, monopolies cannot occur.

You've not shown even the first part of that statement let alone the rest of it. You're trying to make capitalism dependent a given political and legal system but it's not.

Capitalism, a system in which the means of production are owned by private individuals, necessarily depends on a legal framework that recognizes ownership rights. A might makes right society cannot be a capitalist society, because there is no legal concept of ownership.

You're saying the South wasn't a capitalist society????

Slavery is not capitalist. It violates the ownership rights of people to their own bodies.

MoSurveyor · Jan 14, 2014

OscarB63 said:
I understand that there is a difference between a 40 y/o who gets laid off from a good job and has to work minimum wage and a 40 y/o who has never done anything except work for minimum wage

Do you?

What are you going to do, write a law that says your minimum wage is at least 1/3 of your last year's wages?

Federalist · Jan 14, 2014

MoSurveyor said:
You can't piecemeal a country. Society as a whole can be harmed by economic activity very easily (the Great Recession showed that). Unless you want a race to the bottom of the world economy we'd better have worker laws in place.

Your crank economic theories notwithstanding, you are admitting that the act of paying someone below a particular price does not assault or damage anyone's person or property. As such, the government has no business punishing people for an act that does not assault or damage anyone's person or property.

OscarB63 · Jan 14, 2014

Hatuey said:
You're speaking like a man who doesn't have a family of his own. What does financially ready mean in your world? A house paid in full? A car paid in full? Say for example that you have about $500 left over after paying all of your monthly expenses not including a kid. Is that enough to raise a kid on? Laughable really. Financially ready as a condition for having kids is nowhere near as subjective as minimum wage. You need a certain amount of money just to have kids and what if you don't have it? Then are you're not financially ready? Good luck finding anybody in the middle class who is financially ready to have a kid then. Yourself included.

seriously, if everyone waited until they were "financially ready" to start a family, the human race would go extinct in about 60 years.

OscarB63 · Jan 14, 2014

MoSurveyor said:
What are you going to do, write a law that says your minimum wage is at least 1/3 of your last year's wages?

WTF are you talking about?

my point was simply, I can feel some sympathy for the first guy. he worked hard and had a good job and then lost it. I have no sympathy for the second guy.

FWIW, minimum wage should be based on the value that the job brings to the employer and not on some "warm and fuzzy" concept of what the employee "deserves"

MoSurveyor · Jan 14, 2014

Federalist said:
Ownership is a bundle of legal rights to use and control a particular rivalrous resource. A thief who steals something does not own that thing. It is still the property of the original owner.

He owns it if his society recognizes it. In the end that's all that ownership really is, a recognition that an object is controlled by a given person or entity. Ownership can just as easily be determined by physical power or some other attribute as by legal power - it all depends on the society. Your definition is provincial at best but unrealistic is closer to the mark.

Federalist said:
Precisely what I just said. Monopolies, to the extent they exist, are government grants of privilege in which certain actors are vested with exclusive rights to stop competition.

Absent such government interference in people's rights, monopolies don't exist. No company has ever eliminated every one of its competitors without the government helping it do so.

What a load! LOL! Be thankful we don't allow monopolies.

Federalist said:
Yes, I think the law was unnecessary. Unless vested with special privileges by the government, monopolies cannot occur.

Wrong! Though I'm sure you MUST see it that way or all is lost. LOL!

Federalist said:
Capitalism, a system in which the means of production are owned by private individuals, necessarily depends on a legal framework that recognizes ownership rights. A might makes right society cannot be a capitalist society, because there is no legal concept of ownership.

Ownership does not depend on a legal framework.

Federalist said:
Slavery is not capitalist. It violates the ownership rights of people to their own bodies.

You mean England beat us to the punch? - America wasn't a capitalist society until 1860-something?!?
What a load of horsecrap!

3/3 for repeating your mistake! :lamo :lamo :lamo

MoSurveyor · Jan 14, 2014

OscarB63 said:
FWIW, minimum wage should be based on the value that the job brings to the employer and not on some "warm and fuzzy" concept of what the employee "deserves"

It should but seldom, if ever, is. For business, labor is nothing more than another commodity where wages are determined only by their market value. It doesn't matter how much money the employee makes for the company, all that matters is what the replacement cost is.

Hatuey · Jan 14, 2014

OscarB63 said:
seriously, if everyone waited until they were "financially ready" to start a family, the human race would go extinct in about 60 years.

It came as a shock to me just how much a kid can cost. I had the luck that my kid was born healthy, but what if she hadn't been? I hate to use this example but let's say you have a "financially ready" family. They have saved up $20K before the kid is born. They think they're financially ready. Then the kid is born and 3 years later some kind of heart decease/cancer/lung problems/mental disability is found. They get hit by $70K of hospital bills and that family that was considered financially stable can be considered irresponsible by Libertarians who don't have family of their own? **** that noise.

MoSurveyor · Jan 14, 2014

Federalist said:
Your crank economic theories notwithstanding,

:lamo

MY crank economic theories?!? Last time I looked (about 5 seconds ago) you're the one tooting the Dreamland horn, not me. I know what reality is, I've been there and lived it. You think one debate for fun defines my ideals? How little you know. Now, go read The Probability Broach, again, and get your rocks off.

:lamo

Federalist said:
you are admitting that the act of paying someone below a particular price does not assault or damage anyone's person or property. As such, the government has no business punishing people for an act that does not assault or damage anyone's person or property.

In fact, I said the exact opposite - it harms a huge number of people, namely anyone in society that isn't independently wealthy. Or don't you understand what "race to the bottom" means?

Cephus · Jan 14, 2014

vasuderatorrent said:
Can I share some reality with you? or Is reality too foolish for you?

So long as it's actually reality and not your emotional wishful thinking, sure.

OscarB63 · Jan 14, 2014

Hatuey said:
It came as a shock to me just how much a kid can cost. I had the luck that my kid was born healthy, but what if she hadn't been? I hate to use this example but let's say you have a "financially ready" family. They have saved up $20K before the kid is born. They think they're financially ready. Then the kid is born and 3 years later some kind of heart decease/cancer/lung problems/mental disability is found. They get hit by $70K of hospital bills and that family that was considered financially stable can be considered irresponsible by Libertarians who don't have family of their own? **** that noise.

After multiple trips to the ER and a couple of hospital stays to the tune of over $20K (after insurance paid their part), we finally discovered that our firstborn had childhood asthma triggered by a peanut allergy. There is just no way to be "financially ready" for stuff like that.

Federalist · Jan 14, 2014

MoSurveyor said:
MY crank economic theories?!? Last time I looked (about 5 seconds ago) you're the one tooting the Dreamland horn, not me.

Hm, I don't recall offering any economic theories. Can you refresh my memory and tell me theory I have put forth?

In fact, I said the exact opposite - it harms a huge number of people, namely anyone in society that isn't independently wealthy. Or don't you understand what "race to the bottom" means?

Yet you are impotent to identify anyone whose person or property has been assaulted or damaged by the act of offering to pay below the fixed price. Duly noted. No victim. Victimless crime.

Hatuey · Jan 14, 2014

OscarB63 said:
After multiple trips to the ER and a couple of hospital stays to the tune of over $20K (after insurance paid their part), we finally discovered that our firstborn had childhood asthma triggered by a peanut allergy. There is just no way to be "financially ready" for stuff like that.

Similar situation - but different country. My kid was hit in St. Maarten by a nasty but nonlethal bark scorpion. It was bound to happen. She was walking in the grass during a party and there it was. The bill for the doctor's visit alone came at around 5 sheets because neither of us had established a residence in the country yet. Sure, we can afford it - no problem - but imagine a family that is putting away maybe $50-$60 a month and using the expensive ass American system? 5 sheets won't even cover the medicine in some cases. That f'n comment about being financially ready before having a family just made me chuckle. I got 20-30 people on my FB that couldn't possibly afford kids if they had to deal with 1) today's prices 2) being financially ready.

VanceMack · Jan 14, 2014

vasuderatorrent said:
How much money should an adult ought to be making? Follow up question: where can this rule be found?

Enough to pay for his or her own needs and those of the offspring they chose to create. Really...is it that difficult to understand? Hell...if you live in a Yurt in the woods and drink from a stream and crap behind a bushes and eat only berries and twigs and make your clothing out of woven materials plucked from the earth...you can live pretty cheaply.

Federalist · Jan 14, 2014

MoSurveyor said:
He owns it if his society recognizes it. In the end that's all that ownership really is, a recognition that an object is controlled by a given person or entity.

Uh, yeah. That's what I just said. Ownership is NOT the same as simply having something. Ownership is a legally recognized right to have something.

Without ownership, capitalism (private OWNERSHIP of the means of production) cannot exist. It is predicated on the legal concept of ownership.

Ownership can just as easily be determined by physical power or some other attribute as by legal power - it all depends on the society. Your definition is provincial at best but unrealistic is closer to the mark.

Nope. Ownership is a legal right, and can only be determined legally, not by might makes right.

What a load! LOL! Be thankful we don't allow monopolies.

Wrong! Though I'm sure you MUST see it that way or all is lost. LOL!

I duly note your failure to provide any example of a company that has eliminated all it's competition and achieved monopoly status.

Ownership does not depend on a legal framework.

You once again display your ignorance. Ownership is a collection of legal rights to use and enjoy property, including the right to transmit it to others.

You mean England beat us to the punch? - America wasn't a capitalist society until 1860-something?!?
What a load of horsecrap!

Slavery is a violation of a person's ownership rights in his own body.

vasuderatorrent · Jan 14, 2014

Cephus said:
I'd say that if you can care for your family, keep a roof over your head and food on the table and not have your hand out to the government, you're probably okay.

Some people that are eligible for government assistance do not accept it on grounds of pride.

Some people that are eligible for government assistance do not accept it on grounds of fear of the government knowing their business.

Some people that are eligible for government assistance don't even need it but they accept it just to be richer than they already are.

Some people that are eligible for government assistance think they will die without government assistance.

If I put $300 in my left hand and $0 in my right and let people pick which one they wanted, most people would pick the left hand.

Nobody has their hand out to grab government benefits. Please redirect your passionate hate for the poor at a more reasonable culprit. Please redirect your passionate hate towards the politicians who create these programs. Otherwise you end up looking very silly and we surely don't want that.

You should always give credit where credit is due. Blaming government beneficiaries for decision made by congress is very misdirected. Please use a brain at your earliest convenience. If you don't have a brain, borrow one from a friend just to analyze why government programs exist.

There used to be a cartoon back in the day. I'm just a bill.................... Maybe you could watch it.

Maybe then you would understand who is really screwing you over.

vasuderatorrent · Jan 14, 2014

OscarB63 said:
if you are 40 and STILL making minimum wage..... the implication here is that you started at minimum wage and are STILL there.

Do you mean he started the job at minimum wage when he was 18 and kept the same job at minimum wage for an additional 22+ years? That sounds like a stable person to me.

vasuderatorrent · Jan 14, 2014

OscarB63 said:
I understand that there is a difference between a 40 y/o who gets laid off from a good job and has to work minimum wage and a 40 y/o who has never done anything except work for minimum wage

Do you?

No. You probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference if you looked at them. They also both make the same amount of money. They both meet the same eligibility requirements for social services. What is different about the two? Nope. I don't see any difference at all unless one of them start rambling to me about their past. Otherwise, no. They are both exactly in the same boat. One might be happier than the other statistically speaking but in general you wouldn't know the difference between these two people.

Master PO · Jan 14, 2014

MoSurveyor said:
Yawn.

Of course you don't recognize the ramifications of the commerce clause in the modern world. You're still living in 1789.

and your not interested the following supreme law

Neomalthusian · Jan 14, 2014

Hatuey said:
You're speaking like a man who doesn't have a family of his own. What does financially ready mean in your world? A house paid in full? A car paid in full?

Relatively speaking, that is a great start. For the record, this is exactly what my wife and I did (except we have two cars). We didn't even contemplate having kids until certain things like that were accomplished.

Say for example that you have about $500 left over after paying all of your monthly expenses not including a kid. Is that enough to raise a kid on? Laughable really. Financially ready as a condition for having kids is nowhere near as subjective as minimum wage. You need a certain amount of money just to have kids and what if you don't have it? Then are you're not financially ready?

There is a spectrum of financial readiness as vast as the spectrum of household debts and incomes. You asking me to draw lines in the sand about it doesn't negate my comment that having children before establishing financial and lifestyle security is not smart.

Good luck finding anybody in the middle class who is financially ready to have a kid then. Yourself included.

Hatuey · Jan 14, 2014

Neomalthusian said:
Relatively speaking, that is a great start. For the record, this is exactly what my wife and I did (except we have two cars). We didn't even contemplate having kids until certain things like that were accomplished.

There is a spectrum of financial readiness as vast as the spectrum of household debts and incomes. You asking me to draw lines in the sand about it doesn't negate my comment that having children before establishing financial and lifestyle security is not smart.

Your refusal to define what "financially ready" is very telling. The fact that you resort to meaningless anecdotal evidence that isn't relevant to actual economic conditions is far more telling. "Financially ready" is in the same group of terms that mean nothing. If I were you, I'd be worried to be in the same company as "fair & balanced" and "living wage". Face it, there are so many factors that declaring 1 couple financially ready while another not is a wide brush statement that doesn't hold much water when applied to the real world.

Neomalthusian · Jan 14, 2014

Hatuey said:
Your refusal to define what "financially ready" is very telling. The fact that you resort to meaningless anecdotal evidence that isn't relevant to actual economic conditions is far more telling. "Financially ready" is in the same group of terms that mean nothing. If I were you, I'd be worried to be in the same company as "fair & balanced" and "living wage". Face it, there are so many factors that declaring 1 couple financially ready while another not is a wide brush statement that doesn't hold much water when applied to the real world.

It's undeniable that there is nothing intelligent about starting a family before you've figured out how you'll provide for it. Specific cutoffs aren't needed for that statement to be valid. That's the basic reality this all boils down to and it's hard to rail against basic realities, although I see you're trying.

Hatuey · Jan 14, 2014

Neomalthusian said:
It's undeniable that there is nothing intelligent about starting a family before you've figured out how you'll provide for it. Specific cutoffs aren't needed for that statement to be valid. That's the basic reality this all boils down to and it's hard to rail against basic realities, although I see you're trying.

3 posts and you still won't define financially ready? I didn't think you could either. Here's an easy way to define it: A couple living on $3,000 a month, are they "financially ready" to have children in a city like New York? After that: what about a couple living on $1,500 a month in West Virginia? Are they financially ready to have a family? Come on Neomalthusian, own up to those statements about "financially ready"? You're sounding like you don't actually have a family of your own when you duck and dodge

Federalist · Jan 14, 2014

Hatuey said:
3 posts and you still won't define financially ready? I didn't think you could either. Here's an easy way to define it: A couple living on $3,000 a month, are they "financially ready" to have children in a city like New York? After that: what about a couple living on $1,500 a month in West Virginia? Are they financially ready to have a family? Come on Neomalthusian, own up to those statements about "financially ready"? You're sounding like you don't actually have a family of your own when you duck and dodge

Here's how it works: It's your life, and you are supposed to support it and provide the means to sustain it.

So...every person must decide for himself when he feels he is ready to have children.

Is minimum wage a lot?

Assuming a 40 hour work week, is minimum wage a lot?

Yes, give your general geographic location

No, give your general geographic location

More options

MoSurveyor

Federalist

MoSurveyor

Federalist

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators

MoSurveyor

MoSurveyor

Hatuey

Rule of Two

MoSurveyor

Cephus

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators

Federalist

Hatuey

Rule of Two

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Federalist

vasuderatorrent

vasuderatorrent

vasuderatorrent

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Neomalthusian

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Neomalthusian

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Federalist