What is a PROPER wage? Based on your output being worth 100$ per hour.

I do have a problem with that, it's just that it isn't the employer's "fault". We tuned our system to be the way it is through tax law, minimum wage law, etc., etc.

I don't have a problem with people following the law!

 

The employer is the good guy. He's the only one giving the job. If others would like to offer a higher salary, they are welcome to do so, but I don't see anyone stepping up.

 

Why haven't you actually referred to any aspect of segmentation theory? Why haven't you realised its irrelevance to what I've said? Why are you really just referring to traditional monopsony and pretending otherwise?

There you go! You've destroyed your own argument and admitted irrelevance. Given job search frictions exist in all industries (and certainly in the secondary sector), wage making power exists in all industries (even if there are conditions that seemingly approximate perfect competition).

Feeble on two levels. First, you haven't cited anything (indeed, you haven't even referred to any economics with coherency). Second, this isn't opinion. If segmentation exists then the primary sector has wage making power, by definition. You're essentially suggesting that segmentation may not be relevant, making your confusion even worse.

The dissonance is strong!

Again feeble on two levels. First, it is ludicrous to argue that segmentation is the building block. Its just one of many approaches. For example, internal labour market analysis may provide an alternative perspective to efficiency wage analysis. However, it would be quite silly to suggest that efficiency wage analysis can therefore be dismissed. Segmentation is in reality focused on a simple issue: the extent that we can rely on supply and demand. Its relevance (as shown by examples such as discrimination of wage profiles) is essentially about understanding the technical analysis used in inanimate product markets cannot be used to understand human beings. Second, you brought it up for no good reason. There is nothing in segmentation analysis that concludes job search analysis is irrelevant to the secondary sector. We therefore cannot use it to deny that all firms have wage making power.

Round and round you dodge! Perhaps you've just confused yourself. You stated that "[employers are not wage takers is] not necessarily accurate. You made the ludicrous claim that it depends on segmentation. We know that it is ludicrous as both the primary sector and secondary sector have wage making power.

I'm not particularly interested in your opinion. I'm interested in relevant comment. You haven't achieved it.

You could just answer the question. It is simply the case that neoliberalism has intensified economic rent seeking.

I have no need. My argument referred directly to supply and demand. Rambling about segmentation has achieved nothing. Hope you read up on it mind you. Learn from you errors, and all that jazz.

 

If I call you and ask you to help me move my couch out onto the front lawn, offering you a certain number of dollars that we agree to, is that not fair?

At what point did you decide that after it was on the front lawn, and I sold it, that the sales price should have some bearing on our agreement?

Wages are 100% determined by the labor market. A voluntary agreement between two people, just like any other transaction. Nobody is forced to agree to the terms.

What you are saying is that you prefer a method in which the terms of the agreement are forced? That, in the interest of society, we should force one of the two parties to accept terms they otherwise wouldn't, because it's better for everybody?

Really?

 

Maybe somewhere, but those aren't problems in Seattle today. Our problems have to do with affordability, transportation and education.

Seattle has seen a highly significant influx of high tech corporations, which brings with it many smaller companies that also have high paying jobs.

The result is that cost of living rises significantly.

Also, we don't have an income tax, so property owners are faced with the bill for needed expansion of basics that a city provides. Property tax is a regressive tax that hits renters, retirees, and other segments that include those who are NOT receiving the high incomes that caused prices to rise.

 

The baseline for worth is what the market is willing to pay for your work product. Worth can be adjusted based on the amount of supervision you require. No manager/ supervisor/ owner can pay more than the price people are willing to pay. Thus, virtually every increase in the minimum wage results in a spike in unemployment and recession. There has been one exception in recent decades ,,, that was during the dot-com bubble when, a bubble that was not about low skill workers.

 

Not sure what the answer to the equation is. But, wages are based on the overall jobs contribution to the success of the business, skill, education, supply of qualified workers and experience. And IMO, should be based on the cost of living in the City in which the Business is located.

As a small business owner for nearly 40 years, we pay our employees health premiums, best them in retirement plan and give them sick days when needed, no limit, and 1-2 weeks vacation pay. We need our employees and they have all been with us 20-35 years.

 

Cite please.

 

Given that product price has a significant position in competition, individual employers aren't able to offer more salary without giving up competitive advantage.

What we do needs to include having a level playing field for employers.

 

Cite what? I'm not citing anything. I'm stating a logical fact. If someone refuses an employment offer it's because it makes him happier to refuse than to accept. It's basic logic.

 

Yes, we do have a minimum wage here in Seattle which for large employers is now $16/hr. So, that IS one tool we have.

That's not the only approach to the problem of homelessness, etc.

You're free to look at Seattle GDP by year.

 

It should be $250.00 per hour. That would really help the poor.

 

The catch is that when this is the sole method used, wages go down.

There is NO reason to believe that removing the minimum wage will improve anything, as what you get is more people needing support for those things that keep someone alive - food, housing, clothing, medical attention, etc. We see what happens when Walmart helps it's employes by putting out donation bins to help them!

Quitting a job doesn't pay you. Working pays you. And, more people working means that the economy grows, because employees have money to spend. Having people with no money doesn't help the economy.

 

I understand that a lot of people aren't interested in this topic.

 

So why would you like to make it illegal to hire people who need jobs?

 

Yes. Many people are.

The minimum wage should be $250.00 per hour.

 

??? Let's just respond to what's in our posts.

 

You want to make it illegal to hire someone whose market price is below $15. That's what you're saying right. Minimum wage?

 

I believe that a minimum wage is one of the important tools that must be used.

When people work for less, we pay taxes to make up the difference. I don't see a justification for that method of subsidizing employers.

When employees have income beyond that absolute minimum for sustaining life, they spend it in ways that stimulate the economy.

When employers all face the same rules, adjustments become more possible because all are affected in the same way. Attempting to urge a single employer to raise their wages just isn't realistic given the realities of capitalist competition.

On a practical note, Seattle has seen economic success in raising minimum wage substantially over a fairly short period of time.

 

But you're in favor of making it illegal to hire low priced workers. That seems mean-spirited.

 

If you're referring the primary and secondary sector, then no part of labor market segmentation is irrelevant.

No one stated otherwise. The claim is WHO has wage making power; not the absence of wage making power.

Wrong. Try again.

See above.

No one is "using it" to for anything. As mentioned prior, it's merely a building block. As also mentioned matter different times that it is not an important part of the argument. It's beyond me that you're still mentioning this.

I've also already addressed and cited research which suggests how wage making power is always circumstantial so it's no point in repeating myself. Do you agree or not, and if not, explain.

You've failed to use the double quotation marks correctly, so I couldn't tell which part of that sentence was from a quote of mine. Do you mind detailing what parts I've stated for our references?

I have no interest in addressing points based on fallacious reasoning.

In other words, you can't defend/back-up your nonsense.

 

In Seattle, you can hire anyone you want as long as it conforms to equal opportunity etc.

 

But nobody who whose price is less than $15/hour will get hired. Very hurtful.

 

Actually, that's not what happens.

Employers don't simply stop hiring those they used to pay less than a living wage. It's not as if they suddenly don't need workers anymore.

For example, the number of restaurant workers in Seattle has been growing steadily over the last 4 years at a rate in excess of 1,000 per year - meaning we have a lot more restaurants than we used to have.

You can't really call that "hurtful".

 

What do you think would happen to Kia motors if the government said that the minimum price for a car was $75,000?