Why Increasing Minimum Wage is Meaningless

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly.

so we just let them slowly starve then. how humane.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying tax the rich and subsidize the poor rather than this kludge of mandating an unrealistic wage floor, with all of its attendant knock on issues.

Enough to live off of based on the cost of renting.

It's commensurate with where you rent. Most work is closer to the business districts where rental is highest and it's easier to slide into loan default or cashflow debit,

That doesn't work though, as it does not factor in the value of the labor to the employer. Why should an employer be forced to pay you more than you're worth to them?

I would say it's quite meaningful to those who actually have to live on that wage. It may not be to teenagers and others who don't depend on their part-time job to pay the bills, but it is to those who need that money to support themselves. In fact, it should be illegal to pay people less than they can live off of. However, it makes sense why it isn't. Companies can't always afford to pay all their workers that much.

That, more than anything, is proof to me that capitalism is getting on in its lifecycle. Marx is right that it will crash and burn one day. That may not necessarily happen in our lifetimes (though COVID seems to be somewhat accelerating the process). However, Marx is correct that, in a system where more capital needs to be brought in every year than the year before, there will eventually come a point when that is no longer possible. He greatly underestimated capitalism's longevity, sure, and failed to consider all the loopholes that would be exploited to preserve it (such as foreign labour), but he was correct about how it functions and that it has always had a limited lifespan.

Returning to the workforce though, while I am not in support of advocating for something as extreme as communism, I do think workers are more than justified in demanding their right to a fair wage. If companies cannot afford to pay them such, perhaps they cannot afford workers. Well, they can afford workers so long as said workers don't know/care about their rights, I suppose. All this obsession over the economy merely enables the capitalist elite and maintains the status quo, so if people receiving minimum wage are ok with being exploited, then I guess that's up to them. I thankfully have moved a little past that wage bracket, so it's not my battle anymore.

Businesses should be obliged to pay their employees a living wage, rather than paying them peanuts so the State has to keep on picking up the tab for the resulting income gap, and its accompanying health issues, crime, addiction etc. That's effectively a way of subsidising private profit margins, exec pay and shareholder dividends by the backdoor.

There are a few exceptions, for example employees with newborns, or employees who cannot work full time due to serious health issues. It's not going to be feasible to pay everyone working <20 hrs a week an income that'll support them without assistance. But for staff doing 5 days a week there's no excuse.

If you can't run your business without chronically underpaying people - shouldn't be in business.

To a certain extent I agree with the OP that increased wages can = increased demand, which with finite supply can push prices up. But don't forget we're talking about those who are borderline destitute here. They're not likely to rush out and buy things that are scarce. It's more likely they'll prioritise not being in debt, and buying necessities like food, shoes, school uniforms etc. They're not scarce items. The biggest limited supply weakness is probably the housing market, and that's why Government needs to be involved in providing cheap housing and regulating private landlords. Yeah I know Americans hate that, but the free market capitalism you worship doesn't do a cost-effective job of providing affordable housing of reasonable quality. Why would it, when there's far more money to be made elsewhere?

The biggest win from giving more money to the poor is that they'll almost certainly spend it on all the everyday stuff they should have had in the first place. Furniture that isn't second hand and falling to bits, for instance. That does give a boost to the economy but it's so scattershot I don't think it would drive prices up in the same way that giving middle class families an extra $20k a year would (as that would all be "disposable"). We're also talking about relatively small amounts per household, though it's enough to make a difference for them.

So while there are benefits for those on the poverty line, there are also benefits in terms of employment and sales for businesses catering to the working classes, though I think they'd come in the shape of extra sales volume rather than rising prices. And there are savings for Government in not having to pick up the broken bits of a system that isn't working, all the time. The big losers are banks, loan sharks, exploitative bosses, slum landlords and criminal gangs. And to a lesser extent shareholders, but they currently extract good returns for doing nothing most of the time, and of course they could ride the situation out by investing in firms who supply good products cheaply to those keenest to buy. Instead of relying on monopolistic wage slavery as they do at present.

life for the working class would certainly be a lot less stressful with a regime of UBI and universal health care. problem is there are too many working class that think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed middle-classers.

Simple issue raise prices raise taxes, then act generous and increase the minimum wage to a less than minimum living wage . Increase crime rate justify more police and jails and lawyers and prosecuetors, And more security guards which , here are all taken by ex cops , see all the ways this works and increases the economy . And so on and so on. Then add Covid and expect it all to work out. There might be a few discrepancies here.

I already pay a third of what I earn in taxes. Easy for those who make less and get barely taxed to say. What more can I pay without being a slave to the state?

Security guards aren't needed where I live. Grass is green and crime is low.

Tell me why people back then working labor were able to make enough to live off of and they no longer can? It worked back then.

Also think of it like this, less moochers on welfare so it's a win win or else stopping whining about welfare queens or the homeless issue.

Or another solution is to end landlord greed. They will jack up rent prices and not care about the lower income and boom, we have so much homeless people in the streets now.

None of this changes the fact that you can't stay in business paying someone $15/hr for $10/hr worth of work, it's like trying moralize your way out of gravity.

I think that more often than not its a distorted equation. Human beings are inherently self-centered, and the employer is instinctively going to undervalue the employee and overvalue his own efforts. As a boss I'm ridiculously picky, which leads me to a strong sense of feeling superior and essential, but reality is businesses thrive just fine before me and after me (since I currently work as an employee, let's not tell anyone that, though; the owner thinks I'm essential and I like it that way). To me, what comes before and after me is not as good, but usually no one else seems to care, so was that premium I gave myself credit for adding really worth what my ego tells me it was? I see businesses that clearly and obviously undervalue and underpay their employees while raking the money in at the top for themselves. They always believe they've earned it, but from the outside looking in I can see how much of that premium really comes from the underpaid efforts of staff.

People shouldn't need two full time jobs to eat. If full time work is supposed to be 40 hours a week, working 40 hours a week so be enough to live and have medical care.

Of course, those who oppose a higher minimum wage aren't using the successful businesses giving executives million dollar bonuses in their arguments. It's the small businesses that are barely holding it together that always great brought into the debate. I have a lot of emotional sympathy for that argument, but the harsh reality is that a business that isn't able to pay its employees a living wage isn't one worth keeping in the economy. I hate saying that when I know how much heart, soul, money, dreams, lost nights of sleep and delayed income owners put into their businesses; but 40 years of working with small businesses tells me that protecting them isn't the place for my bleeding heart. We can try to help every business figure out how to succeed sufficiently to make good money for the owner and the employees, we can offer loans for the start up period, but allowing sub-par pay isn't the right step. Big risk is inherent to being an entrepreneur and it's isn't the job of either the employees or the government to cushion a fall.

Interestingly enough, the pandemic may have forced an increase in wages at the lower tiers of the economy without putting it into the law. Workers have left the low wage service sector in droves, and unemployment is extremely low. Things do self-correct eventually, but using a living minimum wage that is appropriately adjusted annually seems like it would be a lot less disrupting than the natural process kicked into gear following the pandemic shut downs and closures. The minimum wage was neglected for too many decades. Something was going to give.

JHMO

hopefully this time a critical mass of working class [rhymes ] have had enough of being treated like crap by The Man and have voted with their feet.

People also need to remember that employees who feel they are properly valued are better employees. Treat people like they matter and they get inspired to give you their best.