Why min wage laws should not be repealed

Honestly if they did repeal the min wage, it'd just make welfare a better alternative to work - why would a person work 40 hours a week for, say, $5 per hour ($800 a month) when they could just quit their job, and apply for welfare, food stamps, public housing, etc - what with all the welfare they'd probably "earn" more just living off the govt, minus the actual work - there'd be no reason to even get a job unless someone just 'enjoys' flipping burgers as a hobby.

Even with the current min wage laws we already have this problem - many people just choosing not to work because they're able to live nearly the same just on welfare as they would working the graveyard shift at McDonald's.

 

Elimination of the minimum wage should go hand in hand with elimination of government benefits to people who don't work. At that moment, people would be motivated to get off their couch and get a job.

 

Or fake disability

Or just panhandle - there was a John Stossel documentary where it found that some panhandlers make the equivalent of $8 an hour year round, tax free, just sitting on a bench begging for change. If you can earn more as a bum then you could working a cash register, or at a fast food joint, then that further destroys the incentive to work.

 

The minimum wage wiped out many jobs that blacks used to do, like nanny, maid, cook, gardener, chauffer, etc. Now these people get money from the government to do nothing. This is just one more example of how liberal policies have harmed blacks, and made them poorer and less self-reliant.

 

I used to say ban minimum wage alll together, now I think he should have a lower minimum wage for teenagers their UE is out of this world high say like around $6 bucks an hour for the 16 to 19 year olds. I would rather have them to be able to get a job and build experience they sit around and get in trouble.

 

Why would lowering the min wage just about $1-2 suddenly allow them to get a job?

I haven't totally understood the arguments for lowering/repealing the min wage - other than so that Americans can compete with illegals who work under the table for lower-than-min wage. And if that's the rationale, then that's stupid - lowering American citizens' income just so they can compete with illegals? Bah

Better idea, build a border wall to keep the illegals out, and crack down on outsourcing.

 

The higher the minimum wage is, the more employers will discriminate against blacks and teenagers, and hire older, more experienced (and white) people.

 

Setting a lower min wage for teens younger than 18 so they can get some job experience might be a good idea.

 

That's not a good idea because that will lead to discrimination against older people. The best option is to get government out of the business of setting prices and wages and let the free market decide.

 

I just pulled that number out of thin air, right now the teens are competing with adults for burger flipping jobs. I tink a lower minimum wage for the teens would give them a better shot at a job and they are living with at home. I think someone told me Canada is expermenting with it... and you make me laugh I used to say the same thing eliminate minimum wage and illegals would just go back to their own country... nah I was wrong on that..

 

Do you feel as strongly about welfare for fat cats (like big oil subsidies)? Why should people "get off the couch" when fat cats (who don't need welfare at all) get it for free? Can't we have bailouts too?

 

The government needs to stop giving handouts to the people. They are doing more harm than good to the country with entitlement programs. There is no incentive for these people to actually get a job when they know Uncle Sam will help them out. I don't think minimum wage is the issue; I think us babying the people who exploit the programs are the issue.

 

I bet workers under 18 are paid at a lower rate than those over 18, I know they are in Australia. Also a 16 year old apprentice in Australia is paid at a higher rate that a 16 year old worker. I wonder why that is?

 

They aren't, federal min wage applies equally to all.

 

Even minors?

 

Maybe you don't read my posts. I oppose all of the bail-outs, I oppose all government subsidies, I oppose all interference in the private sector with price and wage controls.

 

Why not repeal the laws so the government needs fewer people going around finding out who is breaking minimum wage laws? Why not repeal them so I can go to work washing windows for 45 cents an hour, or even hire other window washers to help me for 39 cents an hour, if that's what I feel like doing? I'm allowed to do things for free, but as soon as I get paid a penny, it's illegal?

 

Realistically no one would want to do that, or even could and still afford basic necessities.

If a person earned $0.45 per hour washing windows, but could earn the equivalent of $8 an hour panhandling, then pan handling would be the better 'job' prospect. It wouldn't even be a matter of 'laziness' or 'responsibility' at that point. If a person's just trying to pay the rent and put food on the table, and could make a good deal more just sitting around begging for change, then bumming would be the practical choice, as sad as that might be. At some point it'd no longer be about 'responsibility' or 'work ethic', it's just be about the bottom line.

If you were washing someone's windows on a personal basis then that'd make you an IC (independent contractor) and min wage laws don't apply to ICs, as far as I know.

 

Minimum wage artificially raises the actual worth of certain kinds of work - there is a reason so many businesses hire illegals.

I doesn't matter if you don't think it's fair - people value things at different rates, that's how prices (wages are effectively a kind price) work, so we should be able to set them based on how much we value something. Gold, for example, would be a far more useful metal for conductors and wire if it wasn't so damn expensive because people value it so much aesthetically - by the same argument used to enforce the minimum wage, we should set a maximum price for gold so it is economical to use en masse, right?

Except in such a case, as with minimum wage, you're telling everyone else how much you think something should be worth, even if they don't value it the same way. Differences in perceived value are what drive people to trade goods and services, hell, to have an economy in the first place so as to obtain that which they value. Setting limits defeats the whole point.

 

I'd say the solution then would be to crack down on illegals and round them up. If someone on a TV interview for example even admits to having come to this country illegally, that should be instant grounds for the FBI to enter their home and bring them in for deportation. We should also revoke citizenship rights for children born on American soil if their parents are not citizens, and should require a person to provide their birth certificate before being allowed access to food, housing, welfare, or medical care. And finally we should build a concrete wall 10-foot thick, and 50 feet high, covered in barbed wire around the border. And all vehicles passing through the border must be emptied and inspected, no exception.

We should also crack down on outsourcing. This is a way better solution than lowering Americans' standard of living just so they can compete with illegals.

I don't understand that train of thought.

There's a point where it just becomes an issue of common sense, and all the philosophical arguments need to be ignored in favor of what actually works in the real world.

 

Yeah, I get that. You're missing my point. I realize you want to appeal to economic consequences to make an argument, but those ignore the cultural consequences set by precedent, and the emotional consequences to people who don't like that precedent.

See, SpaceCricket, we live in a world where other people perpetually tell us what we can and cannot do, without any clear consequentialist argument to back up their position. The sale and use of recreational drugs is a classic case in point - there is no rational justification for treating marijuana differently from alcohol or cigarettes, but people made it illegal, because they could. Now we have a sprawling bureaucratic monolith, running around enforcing all sorts of "you can't, you can't" that people say we need. Yes, we do need a government, but there's no way it needs to do even half of what it does.

Arguing from consequences, it is not clear that various issues related to liberty can be treated independently. As soon as the government assumes responsibilities over our lives, it becomes culturally normative for that government to control people's lives. Thus, it is reasonable to accept that people have the option to work for X cents an hour, or to go panhandle, if they want, because then everyone will have the option to do things that they want. The alternative is what we have today. Many people do like it, and it is probably appropriate for governing a people with an authoritarian mindset. But there is no place for people like myself even to go in this union.

I'm writing all of this from a utilitarian standpoint, because that's what you seem to prefer. So my question is this: From a utilitarian standpoint, do you not agree that having unhappy dissidents in a country is clearly less good than having fewer unhappy dissidents in a country?

 

In a way yeah, on the flip side if wages reached the level of what they are in red China due to having to compete with illegals and outsourcing, people on the whole would be far more unhappy and have a poorer quality of life - maybe some extreme libertarians would rather have the 'freedom' to work as a slave than a functioning modernized society which tells them they "can't do it", but on the whole it'd be worse for everyone.

I'd say that people who are 'freedom fundamentalists' to the point that they're virtually anarchist'd need to find a way to get where they want on their own (ex. get rich, start a business), rather than demanding that the govt subsidize their freedom for them by doing away with laws.

 

All right! Now you have me on board. Fine; if things get to the point where children are sent to work in the mines for 12 hours a day so that they can earn three loaves of bread, you go ahead and institute A Spiffy Law. Define the problem, set a clear plan for resolving it, and put limits on how long the solution remains in effect. Right now, we have laws that didn't make sense fifty years ago, and they're still going to be on the books in a hundred and fifty years.

Perhaps you only say this because you're a happiness fundamentalist, who doesn't realize that Utilitarianism leads to murdering millions of people on the grounds that it's cheaper to euthanize them than it is to make them stop being sad.

 

Oh.

Is that your problem? That more of the slobs would suck down welfare dollars?

End welfare at the same time the socialistic minimum wage laws are erased.

Americans do not owe their lice a living.

 

First, I'll explain more:

Monetary value is simply a representation of the worth we give to everything relative to everything else. It shows you what we value more (like gold, oil and giant companies) and less (like cheap trinkets and the guy who delivers pizzas). So really, the government shouldn't be setting prices on anything because basically that is them telling you what something you are selling/buying is worth, regardless of whether you actually value it the same way.

Wages are like a price - the money you pay per hour in exchange for useful actions. The wage the worker receives depends entirely on how much you value their work - except when it gets too low. Then the government says "you can't value work any less than this" - that's the minimum wage. So now you say to yourself "Hm. Well, I don't value this work that much, so either I pay them more than I think it's worth, or I don't give them the job and have someone else I already employ do it instead." Basically, you end up with situations where many low-level tasks that were normally performed by a person for a very low wage (the kind kids used to take - washing the dishes at a restaurant or something similar) are simply assigned to other employees, eliminating those jobs. Now, you could say that doesn't matter because the job would pay barely anything anyway, but I have two reason why those kinds of low-skill, low-wage jobs are important:

1. In hard times, people take whatever they can get. Any bit of extra money they can get helps. Those low-wage jobs at least give people some kind of income if they cannot find other work. As it is, the minimum wage limits the number of employees because of the guaranteed minimum expense the employer must incur for hiring them.

2. Personal experience helps this example. In high school, I made money by doing odd jobs for people. It wasn't minimum wage, but since it wasn't any kind of official business, it didn't matter. And money was money, and I got whatever I could get. I tried to get a "real" job, but I wasn't worth the money. I tried to find my first job, but since I had no prior job experience, and there were many many other people who wanted jobs too who already had experience, I always got passed over for someone else. Am I saying if there was no minimum wage I might have gotten a job? Not necessarily. But it opens up possibilities. I could have done those low-paying odd jobs for actual businesses, as official income, that would count for experience, that would give me some credibility for a "real" job; or I could have done a job the employer deemed worthy of a low wage to fit my lack of experience. In any case, it could have made me more money, which is always a good thing.

That said, this is mostly a philosophical issue for me. I have far bigger priorities than eliminating the minimum wage. I disagree with it in principle but it's not a fight worth fighting right now.