Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2018 - 11:03pm PT
|
Perhaps somebody here can explain what the "correct" minimum wage is (not vaguely, but in a dollar amount) and what principle determines that dollar amount rather than some other dollar amount?
Following that burst of brilliance, perhaps that same person can define what a "living wage" is, as well as why it should be that dollar amount rather than some other dollar amount. (Perhaps "living wage" is correlated with the "ideal minimum wage" explicated above, but perhaps not. Why or why not?)
Then, being on such a roll, perhaps that person can tells us why a minimum-wage worker should not choose to have 3, 5, 10, or more kids that all need to be supported by this "living wage," which would help us understand the relation between life-choices and the "just right" minimum wage that clearly must be "at least a living wage" for some arbitrary number of dependents.
Next, since profit and wages are in tension, perhaps we could get some insight (in the context of the above, of course) into what the "correct" profit-margin (not vaguely, but an actual "correct" profit margin) should be, so that we can know exactly how much "margin" we have to extract from the "greedy capitalists" to "distribute" to the poor, downtrodden masses.
Finally, since the people pushing for higher and higher minimum wages are generally also globalists, perhaps we could get an explanation of how American labor is supposed to be competitive with labor in third-world nations, when globalism embraces the free flow of goods and services (and the labor that implies) across national borders. Are we advocating not just for American labor but for workers around the world? And, if so, how do you deal with the pesky fact that third-world labor would rather work for less than American workers (and thereby work for pay at all) than to stump for more and thus get nothing (what they had before US companies outsourced to them BECAUSE of the rising costs of labor in the US)?
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 07:04am PT
|
madbolter1, perhaps you can explain to us the benefits of extreme inequality of wealth?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 08:18am PT
|
Or maybe, "I got mine and I got yours!"
I sure wish someone could justify to me the "working poor." Why should it be correct that someone who works an honest 40 hour week should need food stamps and taxpayer subsidized housing to survive?
Perhaps our philosophical expert in morality can explain in a way my simple mind can understand.
|
|
Stewart Johnson
Mountain climber
lake forest
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 09:06am PT
|
2$ a minute for skilled tool user
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 10:36am PT
|
Min wage = $40,000 per year, with avg of 5 hours over time per week for full time employment, with decent health care benefits.... Justification - no more indentured servant class, no more soul robbing sub-min wage standards.
The "justification" is a noble thought, but it's not really a justification of why $40k and not $30k or $60k. Heck, while we're at it, why not $100k? You're merely expressing a sentiment, but what I'm asking for is the explanation of why $30k would be "soul robbing" while $40k would not be.
Living wage = +/- % + 40,000 to adjust for local market cost of living / rent etc. See additional justification above.
So, even $40k isn't a magic number, because it would have to take all sorts of other factors into consideration. You seem to be after something like a "$40k base." But, again, I see no justification for why it shouldn't be $30k or $100k.
You're quick to say, "If your business can't afford that, then up your game." But that's the real question: EXACTLY how much should a particular business need to afford to be "makin' it." But that just is the question: Why not $30k or $100k?
Oh yeah kids... they don't factor into my equation.
But that's a glaring hole in your equation. If all we were talking about was pure entry-level individuals, not families, that would pretty dramatically skew the "levels" of income. What a family of five needs is vastly different from what an individual needs. But by "living wage," most of the advocates for dramatically increasing the minimum wage say things like, "Nobody can support a family on $8.50 per hour," or some such thing.
But minimum wage is an ENTRY-level wage, and nobody should imagine that they can have/support a family on that wage.
So, now it becomes even more pressing to answer the question: Why not $20k or $200k? Why is a business not makin' it if $40k is too much? Why shouldn't the line be $50k? Why shouldn't the line be $20k?
If kids aren't a factor, then we're talking an individual wage, and an entry-level, entirely unskilled individual can certainly make it on $20k per year. You're going to have a roommate. You're going to drive a beater. You're NOT going to start a family. And you're going to seek experience, skills, and/or education that will enable you to rise on the earnings ladder.
Your argument is that every company has a "moral" obligation to meet a minimum wage standard, or that company shouldn't be in business. So, it's a MORAL question of why that minimum standard SHOULDN'T be $20k or $100k. The MORAL line can't be entirely arbitrary, and preference doesn't come into play here. You're saying that businesses that can't afford to pay minimum wage workers, say, $200k per year SHOULD NOT (morally) even be in existence.
And if you say, "Noooo! I didn't say $200k," I AGAIN ask: Well, why $40k instead of $20k? Because it's "nicer" or "not as hard" for the entry-level worker? But that's not a MORAL argument. That's just an argument from convenience, and an ENTRY-level job is a STARTING point that is not supposed to last! It's not supposed to be where somebody ENDS UP while trying to support a family!
Ah, off-shore labor. Well now I sort of get that. A little above my pay grade but I am for some protections, not for others, it depends. I would tend to allow more competition for higher education jobs in science and tech sector for example, and less competition for min. wage jobs like sewing and assembly work.
Again, nice sentiments, but based upon no principle that I can see.
Your intuitions correctly recognize the distinction between skilled and unskilled labor. But already the fly is in the ointment, because your two examples of unskilled labor are actually very skilled! We're not talking about bending a burrito. You can't learn to sew a garment in five minutes, like you can learn to bend a burrito.
Minimum wage is for UNskilled workers, workers whose "skills" can be taught in minutes and replaced by countless other entry-level people that are also UNskilled.
Moreover, WHY should somebody in a country that has an average household income of $6k (which affects every detail of costs-of-living) suddenly be vaulted to $20k or $40k or even $100k just so that we can (globally) be "nice"?
You're NOT going to fix the fact that costs/standards/expectations of living vary WILDLY around the world! And you're not going to fix the fact that countless millions of unskilled workers would LOVE to work for $1 per hour rather than not work at all, and that that $1 per hour is a game-changer for them! Meanwhile, a company that is told, "You can't pay less than $15 per hour, even offshore," is thereby NOT going to offshore such jobs. And, thus, a huge labor market that would LOVE to benefit from the lower wage (because even that lower wage is a game-changer) finds that THEY can't be competitive.
Correct profit margin should account for at minimum 10% of gross profits folded back into the company for investment to grow / sustain the business. Don't have 10%? No net profits for you or investors, no dividends. Sorry, yall need to hone your games.
Same problem as the above: Arbitrary, unprincipled line. The typical McDonald's franchise exists on a 5% margin! The competition in the fast-food market is SO rigorous that there's just NO wiggle room to raise the price of a burger or burrito by 20% or more. And, as a business owner, I can tell you that a 5% margin is irresponsibly close to disaster.
Let me hasten to say that I have no personal skin in this game. My business does much better than 5%, we do reinvest it and keep a reserve, so as to provide job-security for our employees. And we have zero minimum-wage employees. So, for me, this discussion is about the principles of labor/profit rather than any personal ax to grind. But I can tell you that 5% margin is ridiculously thin, and it indicates a willingness to risk the job-security of the ENTRY-level workers BECAUSE they can be "swapped out" quickly as needed to adjust up and down.
So, you are flat-out "generous" in saying 10%! But for our business model, even 10% is ridiculously low and would be irresponsible, because we cannot just swap out our highly skilled people "as needed."
But that's the POINT! Not every business or business-niche SHOULD have the same line of what counts as a "moral" profit! Moreover, why SHOULD a business-owner NOT be allowed to take some profit? Why is it IMMORAL for a business-owner and/or investor to MAKE MONEY on the risks that they take?
Those jobs are not FREE. And there's a LOT more involved in creating/sustaining a job than just "tapping into profit!"
Sadly, this discussion invariably devolves into a false dichotomy between "greedy capitalists" (which companies represent the tiniest fraction of minimum-wage employers) and "downtrodden labor" (which people represent a tiny fraction of all employees). But the thinking around which this discussion revolves informs the intuitions that everybody has about "labor vs. greedy corporations," where the "greedy corporations" are writ large to include businesses large and small.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 10:40am PT
|
Labor creates capital, capital does not create labor.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 11:27am PT
|
I interpret Madbolter getting at a few fundamental questions:
1. Should "need" be a factor in wealth distribution at all?
2. If yes, what are fundamental "needs"?
#1
To the extent that we acknowledge some baseline level of human dignity as a right, and have the capacity to empathize and feel compassion for others in unfortunate situations not of their own making, yes. In some cultures, the responsibility for care of the ill or mentally unfit for self-management falls upon the families. America was designed from the beginning to select for people willing to seek their personal freedoms and life opportunities over the cohesiveness of their families. As such, we have historically reaped the reward of industrious and motivated people working for their personal benefit and as a nation we have all benefited from this. But the flip side is we have de-prioritized dependencies on the family structure to handle certain life scenarios, and so we as a society need to accommodate these in some way.
#2
Human needs: there should be a robust public conversation about where to draw the line in what constitutes a Need and what constitutes a Want. I think a reasonable solution to this takes a globalist view, looking for overall planetary sustainability and reality checks of what is globally attainable, rather than defining pockets of elitist demands for high quality life masquerading as basic needs.
For example, it is hard to justify owning an iPhone and a TV and a car and a dishwasher and a washing machine as fundamental needs when many people on the planet do not have access to clean water. In some cultures, women don't have time to be educated because they spend most of their time walking miles carrying buckets of water for their family to drink, eat, bathe, and to clean stuff. How can we reconcile that sort of life with what many Americans consider a Need as a basis for raising minimum wage?
I was on board with most of Bernie Sanders' policies but minimum wage was not one that I agreed with... at least not considering USA in isolation.
I think the most equitable and just path forward in the world would involve flattening the world with unified policies for human rights and working conditions and environmental protections, and then market-driven forces would shape companies to seek efficiencies that actually helped the world rather than increasing the divide between rich and poor. Global shipping of materials and distributed production will shrink when the spread of global labor costs shrink. Local jobs will be supported because given equal cost labor around the world, producing as close to consumption and available materials is what makes the most economic sense.
The problems we have are closely tied to global inequalities in what constitutes a "need" and human right. I would like to see national leadership that represented this viewpoint, rather than taking us in the complete opposite direction as is the populist movements sweeping through countries around the world, fueled by very rich people encouraging the masses to fall prey to their selfish ignorant instincts.
 https://www.worldvision.org/clean-water-news-stories/compare-walk-for-water-cheru-kamama
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 11:31am PT
|
Perhaps somebody here can explain what the "correct" minimum wage is (not vaguely, but in a dollar amount) and what principle determines that dollar amount rather than some other dollar amount?
Sure, I will do that.
Just as soon as you tell me what is the correct amount of tax that somebody should pay who makes one million dollars a year? Why isn't it higher or lower? What principle determines that dollar amount? As opposed to some other dollar amount?
And when you get done with that one. Tell me the correct amount of time in jail someone should get for a million dollar tax fraud? Why isn't it higher or lower? What principle determines that amount of time? As opposed to some other amount of time?
Please be specific.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 11:34am PT
|
Nut! "Just have some mercy on your gentle readers."
;-)
Jesus Sh#t on a Shingle...just stand over your pile of cash, son, and shoot all comers with your goll durn 6 gun.
Oh, come on, you can do better than that. And, for the record, mine is a 14-gun, not a 6-gun.
30k is 10k less than 40k.
Yeah, and $50k is $10k more than $40k. $80k is double $40k.
How much "should" a business MORALLY "have" to pay to be legitimate?
Is a McDonald's franchisee not legitimate to try to make it on 5%? And, after having invested hundreds of thousands to purchase the franchise, is the owner not entitle to SOME return on investment? So, is it really fair to the franchise owner to draw SOME actual profit as a return?
Or is your perspective that the franchise owner "should" invest hundreds of thousands FOR the sole purpose of creating minimum wage jobs?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 12:10pm PT
|
Just as soon as you tell me what is the correct amount of tax that somebody should pay who makes one million dollars a year? Why isn't it higher or lower? What principle determines that dollar amount? As opposed to some other dollar amount?
And when you get done with that one. Tell me the correct amount of time in jail someone should get for a million dollar tax fraud? Why isn't it higher or lower? What principle determines that amount of time? As opposed to some other amount of time?
See, whenever I try to tie somewhat related things together like that, like on a gun-control thread where I talk about the VAST number of other preventable killings that result from vices like smoking or alcohol that arouse no comparable outrage, I get told: "Diversionary tactics! Stay on topic."
So, there you go: "Diversionary tactics! Stay on topic."
And, for the record, I believe in no INCOME taxes at all. I'm for something like federal and state SALES taxes, so that consumption rather than income is taxed. And, of course, with exemptions for basic needs like food, clothing, and so forth. But that IS a huge other topic that really is a divergence from this thread.
Meanwhile, it IS possible (and productive) to talk about wages/profit without talking about taxation. So, let's stay on topic.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 04:15pm PT
|
^^^ So what number of minutes is "fair"?
Some of my employees drive 90 minutes each way, and some drive 9. Both by choice. Some live 6 hours away and live in a trailer park 4 days a week. Your argument is flawed.
"Labor creates capital, capital does not create labor. "
My capital funded my college education which made my labor more more valuable than an unskilled worker. Again, flawed argument.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 05:15pm PT
|
My capital funded my college education which made my labor more more valuable than an unskilled worker. Again, flawed argument.
You should have taken a logic course when you got that fancy sheepskin.
You say "my capital." Were you born with it? Did it pop out with the placenta?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 05:54pm PT
|
^^^ Probably, like me, Dave worked his azz off to save money which too many of the "downtrodden" spent on immediate gratification. (Believe me, I knew them personally by the dozens!)
You know, like booze, drugs, and having kids they never imagined how they could ever afford.
See, Gary, your argument amounts to one thing: It's "society's job to ensure equal outcome, regardless of values and the choices that emerge from them.
But there IS no "society." There's only 1/3 of a billion INDIVIDUALS, all of whom start in different places and make different choices with different values. And among those values are some shared basics that were enshrined in the constitution, which government exists to protect.
I started at the absolute bottom. Many others did as well. And I grew up in the age of radical affirmative action, which meant that I enjoyed ANTI "white privilege," as I had no access to the easy-money that was afforded to my friends of color.
Race doesn't explain the disparities. Starting point doesn't. The single most important factor to success is the willingness to discipline yourself to delay gratification, so that you can INVEST in the future rather than spend what you don't have now.
I could even agree with you that "labor creates capital." What I don't agree with is how you interpret that statement, because you believe that jobs by definition return capital to the laborer at a reduced rate. But EVERY success story like mine and like, I'm guessing, Dave's PROVES that that is incorrect. I got capital back at a good enough rate to be able to save some, build upon it, and make a far better life than where I started.
That opportunity is available to ALL in the USA.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 05:58pm PT
|
^^^ Precisely.
Many of the people who work from me are 20 years my senior and made the mistake in their youth of spending their money on drugs, booze, and ex-wives.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 06:01pm PT
|
Yeah ...Just look at Trump...Self made billionaire... from scratch...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 06:43pm PT
|
Yeah ...Just look at Trump...Self made billionaire
No, Trump started high and made it higher.
I started at the bottom and did well.
I don't envy Trump in the slightest! I'm content, and I'm not greedily expecting others to hand me stuff I didn't earn.
There's an economic reality that the "downtrodden" argument simply refuses to consider. The FACT is that a "job" is worth EXACTLY the amount that's paid. If it's worth less than paid, that job MUST go away. Period. If that job's worth more, then some laborer will "bid it up" to what it's worth. Period.
People that aren't businessmen and businesswomen are quite apparently clueless about what it costs to create that job. For example, if I pay an entry-level programmer $50k per year, with wage-related expenses, the health-care we provide, and minimal contributions to a 401K, my company is actually out over $80k per year.
I also have to ensure that there is job-security, which means ensuring that our company is reasonably well capitalized to cope with unforeseen downturns, unexpected expenses, etc. So, it's really more like $100k. My partners and I are not putting that into our pockets.
Now, the economic REALITY is that if that new employee is ONLY giving our company an additional $100k in productivity, we've created a job for NO REASON! Do you get that? NO REASON. If I can't DO MORE for more customers, then that job was WORTHLESS to my company. And my company does not exist TO create jobs. It exists to serve customers and MAKE money. Why would I and my partners risk OUR time and OUR money for literally nothing?
So, that employee MUST produce MORE than the about $100k s/he COSTS the company, because that is the only way it's worth the risks of having that additional employee.
Now, the "Garys" of this discussion act like profit is evil and amounts to NOTHING more than stripping the laborer of capital. But the POINT to a job is to BOTH capitalize the employee AND the company. And there is a necessary limit to how much an employee CAN be capitalized.
Finally, if the employee insists that s/he is actually worth EVERY DIME of the "possible" capital that his/her labor produces, then there will be no job for him/her. Period. NOBODY will take the risks inherent in producing the jobs in the first place if there is not enough capital to "go around."
Thus, when a typical McDonald's operates on a 5% profit margin, and you then insist that the minimum-wage worker "is worth" (not!) double what s/he was worth yesterday, well, that job is going away. Period.
Hence, kiosks. Or, hence, that business is moving or going out of business.
In the VAST majority of cases, the minimum-wage worker is not getting "ripped off" to "fill the pockets of the greedy capitalist." Instead, in the VAST majority of cases, minimum-wage jobs are in companies and industries in which the margins are razor thin.
Finally, the Garys talk like profit is flat-out EVIL. But profit is THE reason why people WILL risk their time/capital, investing it in the hope of making more. Eliminate the profit motive, and what you have are government-run economic systems that, without exception, have failed in our own lifetimes after VERY BRIEF experimental runs. And within those "utopias," black-markets and corruption ruled!
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2018 - 09:43pm PT
|
Profit is why everyone wants to come to Murrica! Well, ‘cept fer the odd Swede or Swiss.
But why would they want to come and look at fat girls?
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2018 - 10:23am PT
|
^^^
Lubrication for baby making? "drill, baby, drill"!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
See, Gary, your argument amounts to one thing: It's "society's job to ensure equal outcome, regardless of values and the choices that emerge from them.
I can see you are a real student of Friedrich Engels. Not. You need to really work on your reading comprehension. My argument amounts to this:
The worker gets what he produces and the capitalist produces what he gets. That's a subtle statement, but I'm sure your fancy book learnin' can figure it out!
A Republican president had something to say about it:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -- Abraham Lincoln
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Abe was well meaning but he wasn’t an economist.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!