• 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
peepnklown said:
If you support minimum wage, then why not raise it to $100, $500, or even $1,000?
Click to expand...

This only proves the argument for a minimum wage does not apply in all cases. The topic at hand is, should the minimum wage be removed? The US has a relatively low minimum wage, especially when comparing it to an absurd amount of $100.
 
drz-400 said:
This only proves the argument for a minimum wage does not apply in all cases. The topic at hand is, should the minimum wage be removed? The US has a relatively low minimum wage, especially when comparing it to an absurd amount of $100.
Click to expand...

False statement since if the US has a relatively low minimum wage then jobs would not be going overseas. Face it, the minimum wage is much higher then in other parts of the world. In one of the provinces of India the minimum wage is 190 Rupees which equals 4.27 USD. In China the minimum wage is 2.69 Yuan or 39 cents USD an hour.
 
Last edited:
The_Patriot said:
False statement since if the US has a relatively low minimum wage then jobs would not be going overseas. Face it, the minimum wage is much higher then in other parts of the world. In one of the provinces of India the minimum wage is 190 Rupees which equals 4.27 USD. In China the minimum wage is 2.69 Yuan or 39 cents USD an hour.
Click to expand...

Why would you compare the minimum wage of the US, a first world nation, to that of China and India? A more relevant comparison would be between other 1st world nations such as Canada, Australia, Japan, countries in eastern Europe, or the Nordic countries. Even then, it would make more sense to judge the minimum wage based on its relation to the average wages paid in that particular country.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
Why would you compare the minimum wage of the US, a first world nation, to that of China and India? A more relevant comparison would be between other 1st world nations such as Canada, Australia, Japan, countries in eastern Europe, or the Nordic countries. Even then, it would make more sense to judge the minimum wage based on its relation to the average wages paid in that particular country.
Click to expand...

I compared the minimum wage of those two countries because they have lower regulations on labor, business, and every facet of their citizen's lives. By comparing the nations you suggested is cherry picking because they have just as much or more regulations the US has.
 
The_Patriot said:
I compared the minimum wage of those two countries because they have lower regulations on labor, business, and every facet of their citizen's lives. By comparing the nations you suggested is cherry picking because they have just as much or more regulations the US has.
Click to expand...

Well then why don't we compare the minimum wage laws in sub saharan africa to the US. Lets just start comparing wages of developing nations and third world countries to that of the US as if there is no reason why workers in the US are paid more.
 
drz-400 said:
Well then why don't we compare the minimum wage laws in sub saharan africa to the US. Lets just start comparing wages of developing nations and third world countries to that of the US as if there is no reason why workers in the US are paid more.
Click to expand...

The other reason why I also chose China and India was because almost all of our jobs in manufacturing, IT, and phone based customer service went there. Last I checked our jobs didn't go to any of the places you mentioned.
 
UtahBill said:
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....
Click to expand...

You should know it's not that simple. A $5 million robot might just be a little more expensive than a line worker, just maybe. Also, if the automation in this case was obviously cheaper, then why did it take minimum wage to initiate the change? Why wouldn't companies just do it themselves?
 
drz-400 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But there must be a good reason as to why they weren't doing it before. You can't just say risk, because people take huge risks all the time, otherwise we wouldn't have a stock market or people lending money.
 
drz-400 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but when I was in high school I had time for an education and a part-time job. But many are priced out of the market and so are denied very valuable work experience.

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.
Click to expand...

If you ignore the fact that in order to force wages higher that companies will necessarily have to curtail production, meaning less jobs.
 
phattonez said:
But there must be a good reason as to why they weren't doing it before. You can't just say risk, because people take huge risks all the time, otherwise we wouldn't have a stock market or people lending money.
Click to expand...

It is an incentive. It decreases the demand for low skilled labor and increases the demand for physical capital, to replace the now more expensive low skilled labor. I don't know how else to explain it, but it increases the amount companies will invest in physical capital compared to before. That is the effect. Companies would not do this as much before a minimum wage because the minimum wage was not in effect and the price of labor was lower.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
It is an incentive. It decreases the demand for low skilled labor and increases the demand for physical capital, to replace the now more expensive low skilled labor. I don't know how else to explain it, but it increases the amount companies will invest in physical capital compared to before. That is the effect. Companies would not do this as much before a minimum wage because the minimum wage was not in effect and the price of labor was lower.
Click to expand...

I understand that it is an incentive, but how can you claim it is better if the company wasn't voluntarily doing it before? Companies take risks all the time, so why were they not taking the risk before? Why does the risk need to be incentivized?
 
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...

Thanks, Korimyr. After years of posting many dozens of pro-big government remarks, you are beginning to see the light of free market enterprise.


The_Patriot said:
I said no because minimum wage puts a false bottom on goods and services, which prevents them from being cheaper. Also, the minimum wage doesn't help the people it is supposed to, the unskilled worker, because the prices of goods and services rises to the new floor on prices. The only people that the minimum wages help are union workers at the top of their pay scale. The only way that they will get a raise is when minimum wage increases. In my 41 years of life I have seen minimum wage go up three times and each time the cost of goods and services went up. The cost was roughly the same percentage of what it cost to purchase basic goods and services under the new minimum wage as it was under the old minimum wage. For example, back when minimum wage was $3.15 an hour a hamburger at McDonalds was 59 cents. With minimum wage at $7.50 an hour that same burger is now $1.09. Did minimum wage actually help the unskilled worker in order to afford a basic food product? No, because it costs roughly the same percentage as it did under the old minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Not quite right. The old (lower) minimum wage (lower regulation) had MORE buying power (See the following comment below).

megaprogman said:
@7.50/hr*40hr the burger (at 1.09) = .47% of wages
@3.15/hr*40hr the burget (at 0.59) = .36% of wages
Click to expand...
 
ronpaulvoter said:
Not quite right. The old (lower) minimum wage (lower regulation) had MORE buying power (See the following comment below).
Click to expand...

Actually I got those numbers backwards. (probably when I retyped them). Here is a copy and paste from excel. I also changed 3.15/hr to 3.25.hr which was another mistake noticed by The patriot.

(basically, I was having massive math brainfarts that day)

Wage... Weekly hrs... Price... Result
7.5........ 40............ 1.09...... 0.003633333
3.25....... 40............. 0.59...... 0.004538462
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Actually I got those numbers backwards. (probably when I retyped them). Here is a copy and paste from excel. I also changed 3.15/hr to 3.25.hr which was another mistake noticed by The patriot.

(basically, I was having massive math brainfarts that day)

Wage... Weekly hrs... Price... Result
7.5........ 40............ 1.09...... 0.003633333
3.25....... 40............. 0.59...... 0.004538462
Click to expand...

The whole concept is folly anyway. Where does the $1.09 come from? At my local Mcdonald's a person can get a DOUBLE Cheeseburger for $1. Without some realistic and concrete prices comparisons past and present, the numbers can be skewed either way.
Even with that, comparing the prices of 1 item also proves nothing because markets are so spotty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom