Question for Minimum Wagers

[keith123]

1. most companies don't fire all their minimum wage workers when there is a marginal minimum wage hike.

2. there are an excess of minimum wage jobs, so there aren't a lot of people hanging around waiting to get hired at that wage.

3. they don't strike because they would lose their homes in the meantime and the difference between the rubber band companies screwing the consumer and minimum wage employers screwing people out of their livelihoods is too obvious to discuss here.

4. i wouldn't be determining their worth. companies that employ them would be. however they would be determining worth by looking at the marginal profit of hiring an extra person.

5. you and your co-workers left your company. would you have left that job if the only job you could get was also at a 15% salary decrease, and even if you did, what would be the point? this is what minimum wage workers face.

6. sure some would do one thing, others other things. but the vast majority would keep their jobs because the alternative is losing their homes (apartments more likely) if they quit their jobs. and you are right, at some point they would lower the minimum wage to a point where not enough people were willing to work at all, because it wouldn't make a difference what those people chose to do. they would lose their homes either way.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
1. most companies don't fire all their minimum wage workers when there is a marginal minimum wage hike.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

Like I said, I'm not going to stop buying rubber bands if the government suddenly makes me pay twice as much. I'm not going to stop drinking water, either.

Does this justify mandatory price floors for those products?

[ QUOTE ]
2. there are an excess of minimum wage jobs, so there aren't a lot of people hanging around waiting to get hired at that wage.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why is a minimum wage increase needed? If there are no workers available to fill jobs at the current minimum wage, won't employers have to bid higher for labor?

[ QUOTE ]
3. they don't strike because they would lose their homes in the meantime

[/ QUOTE ]

So they decide they're happy working for whatever their current wage is. I'm not quite sure what the point you're making here is.

[ QUOTE ]
and the difference between the rubber band companies screwing the consumer and minimum wage employers screwing people out of their livelihoods is too obvious to discuss here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point here. In my example the rubber band company is selling rubber bands and gets government to increase the minimum rubber band price. In the other example workers are selling labor and getting government to increase the minimum labor price. It's not about employers screwing people, it's about people screwing employers. Employers are the customers.

[ QUOTE ]
i wouldn't be determining their worth. companies that employ them would be. however they would be determining worth by looking at the marginal profit of hiring an extra person.

[/ QUOTE ]

And they don't do that now? Why are you proposing meddling in this process if you don't feel like determining the worth? Imposing a minimum wage isn't an attempt to determine worth?

[ QUOTE ]
5. you and your co-workers left your company. would you have left that job if the only job you could get was also at a 15% salary decrease, and even if you did, what would be the point? this is what minimum wage workers face.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how were they making 15% extra before? You're in favor of letting the companies that employ them determine what the labor is worth, I thought. Which is it?

[ QUOTE ]
6. sure some would do one thing, others other things. but the vast majority would keep their jobs because the alternative is losing their homes (apartments more likely) if they quit their jobs. and you are right, at some point they would lower the minimum wage to a point where not enough people were willing to work at all, because it wouldn't make a difference what those people chose to do. they would lose their homes either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. There is, according to you, a current excess of jobs at the current minimum wage. However, if the minimum wage is lowered, you think employers will be able to lower their wages and keep all of their employees because they have "no choice"? Something is not adding up here.

And regardless... the employer is not the one who put the employee into the position he is in, so why should the employer be punished for that situation?

[keith123]

1. the labor market is very very different from the water market. you can quote this one and ask me to explain this to you, but i think it would take me a while to explain it to someone who actually wanted to learn, and it would take forever to explain it to someone who just wants to get the last word in. so by all means go ahead and respond to this one, and consider yourself the victor when i do not respond.

2. they should have to compete, but they do not. if they did compete, then the minimum wage laws would hurt the economy.

3. you really aren't sure what point i am making? you think that the fear of worse consequences = being happy with one's life.

4. companies DO determine what their employees are worth. no one else. the minimum wage increase forces companies to pay their employees MORE or fire them. only companies that think their employees are not worth the minimum wage will fire them. if too many companies fire their minimum wage employees, and unemployment rises significantly, then the minimum wage is too high.

5. the employer isn't punished. he is still able to make decisions about whether or not to hire someone at a particular salary. it is poor people who are punished if anyone, and until they start losing their jobs, which modest minimum wage hikes do not do, they will gladly accept that punishment.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
1. the labor market is very very different from the water market. you can quote this one and ask me to explain this to you, but i think it would take me a while to explain it to someone who actually wanted to learn, and it would take forever to explain it to someone who just wants to get the last word in. so by all means go ahead and respond to this one, and consider yourself the victor when i do not respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not here to "win". I'm here to examine and question (and maybe learn a little). If you're here to just state an opinion and leave it at that, that's fine too.

[ QUOTE ]
2. they should have to compete, but they do not. if they did compete, then the minimum wage laws would hurt the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are they *not* competing? You said there are more jobs than workers. To fill the spots, employers will *have* to compete. If they don't, they won't fill the job.

[ QUOTE ]
3. you really aren't sure what point i am making? you think that the fear of worse consequences = being happy with one's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between "being satisfied with a particular arrangement" and "being happy with one's life". And the fact that one might prefer something even better doesn't negate this, either. I'd prefer to make $2000/hr to what I'm making now. But I'm happy with my current pay rate; I agreed to it, after all. Does the fact that'd I'd like *more* mean I'm "not happy with my life"? If I don't pay my taxes, I'll be sent to jail. Does my fear of that consequence mean I'm not happy with my life?

[ QUOTE ]
4. companies DO determine what their employees are worth. no one else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the workers also "determine" that (sort of - worth is relative, so it isn't really "determined"). If they agree, then they exchange labor for money. If they don't agree then either the employer doesn't offer the job or the employee doesn't accept it.

[ QUOTE ]
the minimum wage increase forces companies to pay their employees MORE or fire them. only companies that think their employees are not worth the minimum wage will fire them. if too many companies fire their minimum wage employees, and unemployment rises significantly, then the minimum wage is too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK in your book as long as it only affects some arbitrary number of people. How many is "too many"?

What gives anyone the legitimate right to force (and I'm glad you at least
acknowledge that *force* is what is being used here) other people to jump through an arbitrary hoop or else refrain from participating in a certain activity? What gives one the right to forcibly prevent workers from selling their labor for less than an arbitrary amount? Of course, the workers would *prefer* to sell their labor for more, but some might prefer to sell it for less than whatever arbitrary amount is set *rather than* be prevented from selling it at all.

[ QUOTE ]
5. the employer isn't punished. he is still able to make decisions about whether or not to hire someone at a particular salary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if that salary is "acceptable" to some third party who isn't even involved in the transaction.

[ QUOTE ]
it is poor people who are punished if anyone, and until they start losing their jobs, which modest minimum wage hikes do not do, they will gladly accept that punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why do you hate poor people? You openly advocate a policy that you admit only punishes poor people?

Seriously, though, not only does this analysis basically trivialize the plight of those who get trampled by your bureaucracy (whoops, sorry, sucks for you!) but it totally ignores secondary effects (even if jobs aren't lost, prices may well be increased, which punishes *everyone* but affects poor people more strongly than others).

Of course, these economic effects, utlimately, are not of much concern to me. I don't really care if a given policy is "good" or "bad" for "the economy" if it's immoral.

If earth got sucked into an alternate universe where "the economy" was sustained at booming levels by throwing 80-year-old grandmothers into a volcano, would you support the sacrifice?