An Iron Age work ethic :idontknow: - - - Updated - - - There is no Appeal to Ignorance of our Commerce Clause, a federal Doctrine in American law or State laws regarding the concept of employment at will. - - - Updated - - - A practical minimum would simply reserve labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage and also function as a social safety net that doesn't increase any regulatory burden on the private sector.
Greater than 95% of jobs already pay in excess of the federal minimum wage. Of the less than 5% of workers that make minimum wage, over half are teenagers. People who are making minimum wage are not trying to support themselves, they're buying clothes for school and video games. This whole issue is just a division tactic to drive a wedge between left and right and distract from issues that are more important.
The "majority" who seem to prefer the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws over the moral goodness, of a moral of "goodwill toward men". A practical minimum would simply reserve labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage and also function as a social safety net that doesn't increase any regulatory burden on the private sector. It helps if you have a clue and a Cause.
The "majority" who seem to prefer the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws over the moral goodness, of a moral of "goodwill toward men". A practical minimum would simply reserve labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage and also function as a social safety net that doesn't increase any regulatory burden on the private sector. What Part of the above are you too incompetent to understand, grasshopper?
cool. glad you are all for policies public that have a clear goal and improve the efficiency of our economy while lowering our tax burden in the process. supply side economics supplying us with better governance at lower cost, at its finest.
i do, have a clue. you on the other hand; don't seem to have a clue or a Cause or you would either agree or disagree, instead of merely being less competent through any form of diversion.
This is why I genereally don't bother engaging with the mewling radically partisan denizens of PF like Danielpalos. They are incapable of critical thought. The result is that when you respond to their posts logically they either do not understand or begin realize that their position is on unstable ground. Even if on a rare occasion a few begin a path to enlightenment most react as Daniel does- dodge, deflect, obfuscate. It does not fit into their narrative so it is their default reaction, and is intellectually dishonest.
There isn't coercion in the selection of the profession but there is market coercion in the compensation that they will receive for their labor and they must work or starve to death so they must accept the "market wage" for the employment. The "market" always attempts to provide the "goods or services at the lowest possible expense" so it always applies downward pressure on compensation. The individual cannot overcome this downward pressure on compensation but in the past "organized labor" that attempts to provide the "most compensation related to the goods and services provided" was a counter-acting force. The two opposing forces of the "market" and "organized labor" achieved a balance based upon compromise but since 1954 the per capita membership in unions (i.e. organized labor) has been in a constant decline. Today the per capita membership in unions is at the lowest point in over 70 years. Organized labor (unions) provided 10%-30% more in compensation than non-union employment because it had the "power to negotiate" that the individual doesn't have. That increase in compensation spilled over into the non-union work force as employer had to compete for labor. The real problem has been laws that have gutted the "unions" in favor of the "market" so we no longer have "negotiated compensation" in our economy. I know a lot of people hate the unions but it was the unions that created the middle class predominately by raising the compensation for those living below the middle class. With the decline of the unions we've seen the middle class disappearing and that's really been going on since about 1970 according to most economists. Today the arguments for the higher minimum wage are really being drived because of the loss of "negotiations for compensation" that the unions provided. A person cannot logically be opposed to both unions and a mandated minimum wage so it's really a choice we must make as a society. Lacking both unions and a minimum wage then market capitalism will create an economy of the wealthy and the poor (i.e. a bar bell economy) without a middle class and we're seeing that happen today. If we have strong unions to negotiate compensation then the necessity for a minimum wage is dramatically diminished. The key word is "negotiate" and that's what I'd have people focus on. Capitalism needs to be based upon negotiation between the parties involved and that isn't happening today.
Coercion is an act performed by an individual. You still haven't revealed the person who is coercing this young man.
While not disputing the numbers even though no supporting evidence was provided this misses the point. It isn't necessarily the person earning minimum wage today that's the problem. It's the fact that those often earning over twice the minimum wage are adults and they still don't have enough income to live on. For example a husband supporting a wife and two young children requires a "minimum wage" of at least $20/hr plus employer provided health insurance just to pay the bills based upon the "Living Wage Calculator" (that grossly under-estimates the living wage).assuming full-time employment (2080 hrs/yr). Yes, you can state the wife should get a job but many estimate the cost of child care at up to $1,000/mo/child so the first $24,000 of her net (not gross) income is going exclusively to pay for a much higher cost of living driven by the additional expenditure of child care alone. http://livingwage.mit.edu/ So you can claim that 1/2 of those earning federal minimum wage are teenages that don't require a higher wage because they're not supporting a household but what about the 1/2 that are adults that are trying to support a household on minimum wage and what about those that can be earning twice the minimum wage or more that still can't support their household? You address a small exception while intentionally ignoring the must larger problem of under compensation for labor in our economy.
It could be Institutional and there not matter, who, but how, that alleged coercion is being effected.
2015 MINIMUM WAGE BY STATE The table below reflects current state minimum wages in effect as of Feb. 24, 2015, as well as future enacted increases.
I believe it would be simpler to simply reserve labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage; than to politicize this social dilemma.
Isn't the bigger issue, why an adult is competing with a teenager for anything? If you find yourself in your late 20s or later competing with teenagers you've failed at life, assuming medical issues are off the table.
Maybe minimum wage should only be calculated based on a single individual?Instead we have families of 6 picketing for more money working minimum wage jobs. Something has to bend and better family planning is at the heart. If you can't afford to feed yourself, what makes you think you can afford to feed a family?
The numbers I used came from the BLS in THIS REPORT. 95.6% of jobs pay greater than minimum wage. That's why I said that those supporting a token increase in the federal minimum are just using an emotional hotbutton to gain political advantage. Raising it a token amount will not help many people who are trying to support a household, and will similarly not hurt businesses very much. Government mandated minimum wages excepted, the value of labor is entirely dependent upon supply and demand, just like any other commodity. The people who cannot maintain their household on the wages they are able to command in the labor market have a problem, no question. But raising the government mandated minimums won't solve it. The solution is, in part, to do what can be done to shift the supply/demand dynamic in the labor market. This means to increase the supply of jobs, since decreasing the supply of labor is not possible. In a utopia, where there are more jobs than available labor to fill them, wages will skyrocket. One thing that will negatively affect the supply/demand dynamic in the labor market, and therefore further depress wages, is to import low wage workers from outside of the country. Another is to drive business to move their operations away through relatively oppressive regulation and taxation. To do both of these things at the same time is insanity.
Labor receiving unemployment compensation on an at-will basis, could "fire themselves" when they can command a prevailing, market based wage.
Min wage jobs isn't the issue, it's that 26% of all jobs pay 25k or less on the US. If a $15 minimum wage were instituted, any worker working full time would make a minimum of 32k, solving practically the whole problem. No one working full time would be in poverty,and no one would NEED welfare. It could be saved for disabled or elderly folks. Set an under 18 wage at 7.25 if you must. I'm not gonna argue McDonald's isn't a career. I've only worked fast food once in my life and it was simply because I found nothing else, but I don't think people realize how many jobs pay horrible wages, and they're not kid jobs. As far as families working minimum wage, lots of epple don't realize these people didn't just get a job at Burger King and decide to start a family, they probably lost their regular job.
Labor is a commodity that is no different than any other commodity. If you raise the price, you will decrease demand. This is the OPPOSITE of what you want to do to raise wages. You want to INCREASE demand for labor. The REAL minimum wage is $0/hr. You cannot believe that you can double the minimum wage and that it will have no detrimental effects on anything else.
