I'm curious as to what they would increase the minimum wage to, seeing how the cost of living varies from place to place. I believe the states can set the minimum wage to be higher than the federal minumum wage, but they could lose businesses that could move over a state in order to keep payroll down.
As to abolishing the minimum wage, I would think this isn't a wise idea right now due to the amount of time it would take before some informal minimum wage was set. Let's say the companies all decide they would rather pay around $4 an hour. Would people still take these jobs? If not, how long would it take for the companies to raise the wage until enough people take them? Would the states have to set a minimum wage?
That time to adjust would be a fairly painful adjustment for fokls currently working at or near the minimum wage.
This might be a bad tangent here. What about people who find out (after they abolish minimum wages) that they are now getting paid less? Or what about unemployment? If the person technically quit and their contract or hiring agreement didn't cover something like this, could they even try to get unemployment from the company?
I'm curious as to what they would increase the minimum wage to, seeing how the cost of living varies from place to place. I believe the states can set the minimum wage to be higher than the federal minumum wage, but they could lose businesses that could move over a state in order to keep payroll down.
I'm curious as to what they would increase the minimum wage to, seeing how the cost of living varies from place to place. I believe the states can set the minimum wage to be higher than the federal minumum wage, but they could lose businesses that could move over a state in order to keep payroll down.
As to abolishing the minimum wage, I would think this isn't a wise idea right now due to the amount of time it would take before some informal minimum wage was set. Let's say the companies all decide they would rather pay around $4 an hour. Would people still take these jobs? If not, how long would it take for the companies to raise the wage until enough people take them? Would the states have to set a minimum wage?
That time to adjust would be a fairly painful adjustment for fokls currently working at or near the minimum wage.
This might be a bad tangent here. What about people who find out (after they abolish minimum wages) that they are now getting paid less? Or what about unemployment? If the person technically quit and their contract or hiring agreement didn't cover something like this, could they even try to get unemployment from the company?
The States with a high minimum wage are mostly states that have large draws for business. Thus, they don't suffer too terribly from businesses leaving when they raise the minimum wage.
The minimum wage is a great example of government regulation stepping in where the free market creates a collective action problem. Once you get rid of it, a McDonalds or Taco Bell is going to discover that they can get away with paying their employees far less than minimum wage. When they do that, their competitors are going to realize that they can do the same. It's going to create downward pressure on all those minimum wages.
And, as has been pointed out, that'll lead to your economic thunderdome, with disease, poverty, crime, etc. Even assuming that doesn't occur, it's bad for the companies, because minimum wage earners tend to spend the vast, vast majority of what they take in. They're putting money back into the economy, into the hands of the very businesses they work for. So, while it is inarguably good for Taco Bell if Taco Bell can pay $2 an hour to its employees, it's really, really bad for Taco Bell if every other company pays $2 an hour to their low-end employees, too, because that's going to do severe damage to their customer base, who can no longer afford to eat Taco Bell (or, at the very least, not nearly as often). Most businesses that pay minimum wage rely on the money of minimum-wage workers to keep them in business. So, in reality, the minimum wage is good for these companies.
I'm curious as to what they would increase the minimum wage to, seeing how the cost of living varies from place to place. I believe the states can set the minimum wage to be higher than the federal minumum wage, but they could lose businesses that could move over a state in order to keep payroll down.
As to abolishing the minimum wage, I would think this isn't a wise idea right now due to the amount of time it would take before some informal minimum wage was set. Let's say the companies all decide they would rather pay around $4 an hour. Would people still take these jobs? If not, how long would it take for the companies to raise the wage until enough people take them? Would the states have to set a minimum wage?
That time to adjust would be a fairly painful adjustment for fokls currently working at or near the minimum wage.
This might be a bad tangent here. What about people who find out (after they abolish minimum wages) that they are now getting paid less? Or what about unemployment? If the person technically quit and their contract or hiring agreement didn't cover something like this, could they even try to get unemployment from the company?
The States with a high minimum wage are mostly states that have large draws for business. Thus, they don't suffer too terribly from businesses leaving when they raise the minimum wage.
I suppose I should've mentioned that businesses that are likely to be hurt more by a higher minimum wage would be smaller businesses. However, with the above information, there's really only 6 states that have a minumum wage set below the federal or have none at all. I assumed incorrectly that there would be more in that group.
A question if someone knows more about it, if the federal minimum wage gets bumped to $7.25, is there some requirement where other states must raise their minimum wages? Kansas is the only state according to Doc's link that has a wage set below the current federal minimum.
If they aren't required to increase, would the increase in federal minimum wage do much more than give the government some much needed PR or to entice more protests against companies like Wal-Mart for their low wages and negligable benefits?
I'm curious as to what they would increase the minimum wage to, seeing how the cost of living varies from place to place. I believe the states can set the minimum wage to be higher than the federal minumum wage, but they could lose businesses that could move over a state in order to keep payroll down.
As to abolishing the minimum wage, I would think this isn't a wise idea right now due to the amount of time it would take before some informal minimum wage was set. Let's say the companies all decide they would rather pay around $4 an hour. Would people still take these jobs? If not, how long would it take for the companies to raise the wage until enough people take them? Would the states have to set a minimum wage?
That time to adjust would be a fairly painful adjustment for fokls currently working at or near the minimum wage.
This might be a bad tangent here. What about people who find out (after they abolish minimum wages) that they are now getting paid less? Or what about unemployment? If the person technically quit and their contract or hiring agreement didn't cover something like this, could they even try to get unemployment from the company?
The States with a high minimum wage are mostly states that have large draws for business. Thus, they don't suffer too terribly from businesses leaving when they raise the minimum wage.
I suppose I should've mentioned that businesses that are likely to be hurt more by a higher minimum wage would be smaller businesses. However, with the above information, there's really only 6 states that have a minumum wage set below the federal or have none at all. I assumed incorrectly that there would be more in that group.
A question if someone knows more about it, if the federal minimum wage gets bumped to $7.25, is there some requirement where other states must raise their minimum wages? Kansas is the only state according to Doc's link that has a wage set below the current federal minimum.
If they aren't required to increase, would the increase in federal minimum wage do much more than give the government some much needed PR or to entice more protests against companies like Wal-Mart for their low wages and negligable benefits?
Federal minimum wage is the minimum wage. Kansas might have theirs set below minimum by state law, but they have to abide by federal law.
I got a letter from a prisoner making two points, and I want to know your guy's opinions.
Point the First: Prisoners don't make minimum wage. They are usually paid a matter of cents, sometimes a dollar or two, an hour, for doing stuff ranging from making the harnesses in NASA shuttle straps, to cleaning the toilets.
Should they be making minimum wage? On the one hand - they're in prison for doing crimes. On the other hand - letting them accumulate money helps lower the rate of recidivicism (the % of released prisoners who re-enter prison again), and besides, they're still human beings.
Point the second: Does higher minimum wage really lead to outsourcing jobs and massive layoffs?
I would never give fair wages to people in prison, simply because it would be a damn good reason to end up there in the first place if you're already living in lower class.
I got a letter from a prisoner making two points, and I want to know your guy's opinions.
Point the First: Prisoners don't make minimum wage. They are usually paid a matter of cents, sometimes a dollar or two, an hour, for doing stuff ranging from making the harnesses in NASA shuttle straps, to cleaning the toilets.
Should they be making minimum wage? On the one hand - they're in prison for doing crimes. On the other hand - letting them accumulate money helps lower the rate of recidivicism (the % of released prisoners who re-enter prison again), and besides, they're still human beings.
Point the second: Does higher minimum wage really lead to outsourcing jobs and massive layoffs?
I would never give fair wages to people in prison, simply because it would be a damn good reason to end up there in the first place if you're already living in lower class.
Well, with our current prison system I'd say the risk of forcible sodomy would far outweigh the benefits of a fair wage.
I got a letter from a prisoner making two points, and I want to know your guy's opinions.
Point the First: Prisoners don't make minimum wage. They are usually paid a matter of cents, sometimes a dollar or two, an hour, for doing stuff ranging from making the harnesses in NASA shuttle straps, to cleaning the toilets.
Should they be making minimum wage? On the one hand - they're in prison for doing crimes. On the other hand - letting them accumulate money helps lower the rate of recidivicism (the % of released prisoners who re-enter prison again), and besides, they're still human beings.
Point the second: Does higher minimum wage really lead to outsourcing jobs and massive layoffs?
I would never give fair wages to people in prison, simply because it would be a damn good reason to end up there in the first place if you're already living in lower class.
George Will has written an excellent column that sums up why the minimum way should be abolished, here's a link the column at WaPo.
I just read that. It's a condescending piece of tripe from a giant douchebag.
Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers and raises the dropout rate.
Is this as fucking retarded as it seemed when I read it?? Or does it actually have some credence?
It's really pretty stupid. He's clearly a laissez-faire capitalist, and he just assumes that's a good enough answer to the question, as opposed to actually providing any real information or reasoning. It falls more under the realm of "liberals bad + market forces good", which is right next door to "a wizard did it" as far as argument quality goes.
The reasoning being something along the lines of: No matter what system is in place, there will always be some number of people who fall as far as society lets them. Since there will always be X number of people at the bottom rung of society, it's is in everyone's best interests to accept a financial burden to make the bottom rung survivable. If not, the inevitable result is disease, crime, and social instability and that's ultimately more expensive than maintaining the bottom rung of society at a higher standard of living than it might ultimately settle at without intervention.
I'm ok with that to some extent, but why do we force this burden upon business owners? Why not just raise taxes and write checks to everyone? I don't get why we force business to establish this safety net for us instead of relying on everyone to pay their share of the responsibility.
And what are everyones' thought on setting minimum prices for things, too?
I got a letter from a prisoner making two points, and I want to know your guy's opinions.
Point the First: Prisoners don't make minimum wage. They are usually paid a matter of cents, sometimes a dollar or two, an hour, for doing stuff ranging from making the harnesses in NASA shuttle straps, to cleaning the toilets.
Should they be making minimum wage? On the one hand - they're in prison for doing crimes. On the other hand - letting them accumulate money helps lower the rate of recidivicism (the % of released prisoners who re-enter prison again), and besides, they're still human beings.
Point the second: Does higher minimum wage really lead to outsourcing jobs and massive layoffs?
I would never give fair wages to people in prison, simply because it would be a damn good reason to end up there in the first place if you're already living in lower class.
Have you ever been inside a working prison?
You going to make a point or ask rhetorical questions all day?
The reasoning being something along the lines of: No matter what system is in place, there will always be some number of people who fall as far as society lets them. Since there will always be X number of people at the bottom rung of society, it's is in everyone's best interests to accept a financial burden to make the bottom rung survivable. If not, the inevitable result is disease, crime, and social instability and that's ultimately more expensive than maintaining the bottom rung of society at a higher standard of living than it might ultimately settle at without intervention.
I'm ok with that to some extent, but why do we force this burden upon business owners? Why not just raise taxes and write checks to everyone? I don't get why we force business to establish this safety net for us instead of relying on everyone to pay their share of the responsibility.
They recoup their expenses through charging more for products/services. The public in general does pay their share through this system.
And what are everyones' thought on setting minimum prices for things, too?
I know there are people for whom dropping out and getting minimum wage or near-minimum wage jobs seems like a good idea, because some people are dumb. But yeah, I'm skeptical that the number is large enough to be significant.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The reasoning being something along the lines of: No matter what system is in place, there will always be some number of people who fall as far as society lets them. Since there will always be X number of people at the bottom rung of society, it's is in everyone's best interests to accept a financial burden to make the bottom rung survivable. If not, the inevitable result is disease, crime, and social instability and that's ultimately more expensive than maintaining the bottom rung of society at a higher standard of living than it might ultimately settle at without intervention.
I'm ok with that to some extent, but why do we force this burden upon business owners? Why not just raise taxes and write checks to everyone? I don't get why we force business to establish this safety net for us instead of relying on everyone to pay their share of the responsibility.
And what are everyones' thought on setting minimum prices for things, too?
It falls onto business because that's simply the way economic regulation works. You might as well argue we unfairly punish businesses by not allowing them to create price controlling monopolies, when the government coudl just send everyone that buys the product a refund check.
The minimum price thing fails, because while everyone needs to work, not every business needs to exist and produce goods. If a business can't compete in the current market, it's in everyone's best interests for the business to dissolve and for a competitive one to take it's place. Workers have no such luxury.
Not to mention the market control of agricultural products through tariffs and subsidies.
I didn't think of that.
While the agriculture point is a valid one, I'm not sure I agree with the cigarettes example. The regulation on cigarettes isn't a minimum price the producer can sell at, it's an end consumer vice tax designed to offset the cost of later healthcare incurred by smokers.
The reasoning being something along the lines of: No matter what system is in place, there will always be some number of people who fall as far as society lets them. Since there will always be X number of people at the bottom rung of society, it's is in everyone's best interests to accept a financial burden to make the bottom rung survivable. If not, the inevitable result is disease, crime, and social instability and that's ultimately more expensive than maintaining the bottom rung of society at a higher standard of living than it might ultimately settle at without intervention.
I'm ok with that to some extent, but why do we force this burden upon business owners? Why not just raise taxes and write checks to everyone? I don't get why we force business to establish this safety net for us instead of relying on everyone to pay their share of the responsibility.
Because paying people to sit at home on their asses is counter-productive. Not to mention that writing checks to a lot of minimum-wage earners wouldn't have the same effect as them going out and working, since, I'm sure, in a lot of cases the parents would just keep the money, whereas the kids who work for it get to spend it. There is also, debatably, societal value to having kids work part-time jobs, plus the minimum wage may help create an upward pressure on everyone else's wages. I mean, really, lots of reasons.
And what are everyones' thought on setting minimum prices for things, too?
Comparing the two is like trying to argue that allowing gays to marry is like allowing bestial polygamy.
No, I'm talking about setting a minimum price for goods sold to ensure a certain standard of living for struggling small business owners. Small business owners are punished doubly by minimum wage, not only because it hurts their bottom line a lot more than a large company, but also because there is no comparable minimum price law to ensure a safety net for them (since they aren't wage workers).
Wow, is it cold in here or is it just me? The overall vibe of this thread (more or less) is "fuck everyone else as long as I make more cash."
There's this little thing called compassion, it's that thing that makes you feel bad when you see someone else suffering. Some people here are saying "Yeah get rid of min.wage and make those idiots either smarten up or die in the streets."
I hope people who agree with such harsh beliefs grow up some day.
Not to mention the market control of agricultural products through tariffs and subsidies.
I didn't think of that.
While the agriculture point is a valid one, I'm not sure I agree with the cigarettes example. The regulation on cigarettes isn't a minimum price the producer can sell at, it's an end consumer vice tax designed to offset the cost of later healthcare incurred by smokers.
Actually, there is a minimum price for cigarettes in a lot of states.
The reasoning being something along the lines of: No matter what system is in place, there will always be some number of people who fall as far as society lets them. Since there will always be X number of people at the bottom rung of society, it's is in everyone's best interests to accept a financial burden to make the bottom rung survivable. If not, the inevitable result is disease, crime, and social instability and that's ultimately more expensive than maintaining the bottom rung of society at a higher standard of living than it might ultimately settle at without intervention.
I'm ok with that to some extent, but why do we force this burden upon business owners? Why not just raise taxes and write checks to everyone? I don't get why we force business to establish this safety net for us instead of relying on everyone to pay their share of the responsibility.
And what are everyones' thought on setting minimum prices for things, too?
minimum prices for things other than labor makes less sense than a minimum wage because labor is a substitutive good in most instances.
We have minimum wages because its an off budget answer the the problem. Also, too many people bitch and whine about the lower class not paying their way with taxes already[which they do, and in spades], so that lowering taxes on them is entirely politically unfeasable.
The reasoning being something along the lines of: No matter what system is in place, there will always be some number of people who fall as far as society lets them. Since there will always be X number of people at the bottom rung of society, it's is in everyone's best interests to accept a financial burden to make the bottom rung survivable. If not, the inevitable result is disease, crime, and social instability and that's ultimately more expensive than maintaining the bottom rung of society at a higher standard of living than it might ultimately settle at without intervention.
If that's the reasoning, then it's faulty. It's not just that there will always be people who fall as far as society lets them. It's that there will always be people who fall to the very, very bottom, no matter how much society wants to save them. It's impossible to literally save every last person. Even if we go to the extremes of Soviet-style communism, with the government running everything and issuing everyone what they "need", you'll have people falling through the cracks. And as you try to do more and more, you hit a point where you start doing more harm than good.
This is a point that too few people grasp: You can't save everyone. When you realize this, you realize that it becomes a balancing act. You need to decide how many people you're willing to just let fail. What's the maximum number of people that we can wash our hands of and still live with ourselves as a people? Once you set this number, you can figure out how best to save the rest.
Note that this isn't to say you point to a specific group of people and say, "Hey, fuck off," and deliberately ignore them. Rather, you set up the system in such a way that any given person can, in theory, take advantage of it, and then resign yourself to the fact that many people won't, for whatever reason.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Wow, is it cold in here or is it just me? The overall vibe of this thread (more or less) is "fuck everyone else as long as I make more cash."
There's this little thing called compassion, it's that thing that makes you feel bad when you see someone else suffering. Some people here are saying "Yeah get rid of min.wage and make those idiots either smarten up or die in the streets."
I hope people who agree with such harsh beliefs grow up some day.
Go fuck a cow, seriously.
There's this little thing called compassion. It makes me want to pass laws forcing other people to give money to yet other people. Gosh I'm so compassionate!
No, I'm talking about setting a minimum price for goods sold to ensure a certain standard of living for struggling small business owners. Small business owners are punished doubly by minimum wage, not only because it hurts their bottom line a lot more than a large company, but also because there is no comparable minimum price law to ensure a safety net for them (since they aren't wage workers).
Not to mention the market control of agricultural products through tariffs and subsidies.
I didn't think of that.
While the agriculture point is a valid one, I'm not sure I agree with the cigarettes example. The regulation on cigarettes isn't a minimum price the producer can sell at, it's an end consumer vice tax designed to offset the cost of later healthcare incurred by smokers.
Actually, there is a minimum price for cigarettes in a lot of states.
Which usually larger retailers "avoid" by offering 2 for 1 deals as some kind of promotional program.
Not to mention the market control of agricultural products through tariffs and subsidies.
I didn't think of that.
While the agriculture point is a valid one, I'm not sure I agree with the cigarettes example. The regulation on cigarettes isn't a minimum price the producer can sell at, it's an end consumer vice tax designed to offset the cost of later healthcare incurred by smokers.
It is a head tax[singular tax on units] so it really is a minimum price the producer can sell at.
The only difference between a vice tax instituted as a constant value per unit and a minimum price is that the producer doesnt get to keep the money.
Wow, is it cold in here or is it just me? The overall vibe of this thread (more or less) is "fuck everyone else as long as I make more cash."
There's this little thing called compassion, it's that thing that makes you feel bad when you see someone else suffering. Some people here are saying "Yeah get rid of min.wage and make those idiots either smarten up or die in the streets."
I hope people who agree with such harsh beliefs grow up some day.
Two points: First, while social darwinism tends not to be widely regarded, it isn't an entirely disregarded school of thought. At the most clinical, objective lever, there is some merit to the idea that the social safety net ultimately hurts humanity. I'm not an advocate of the idea, but it does raise some valid concerns, as unaddressable as they may be.
Second, it's best to deal with this in colder, more objective terms. No everyone agrees on what is ethically or morally imperative in any given situation, but objective debate provides a common ground for discussion and decision. If you can prove the minimum wage is a good idea on purely a purely objective, factual basis, there's no need to resort to the emotional and ethical arguments.
While the agriculture point is a valid one, I'm not sure I agree with the cigarettes example. The regulation on cigarettes isn't a minimum price the producer can sell at, it's an end consumer vice tax designed to offset the cost of later healthcare incurred by smokers.
Hahaha no.
The end consumer vice tax is there for two reasons:
- Because everyone loves sticking it to smokers, so it's an easy and uncontroversial revenue source, and
- Because increase the cost of smoking creates fewer smokers.
Nobody really cares about offsetting the cost of healthcare, that's just how they sell it to the public.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
No, I'm talking about setting a minimum price for goods sold to ensure a certain standard of living for struggling small business owners. Small business owners are punished doubly by minimum wage, not only because it hurts their bottom line a lot more than a large company, but also because there is no comparable minimum price law to ensure a safety net for them (since they aren't wage workers).
I'm curious how much you think this would help small business owners. If they could now charge more for products and/or services, what's to say their suppliers and/or manufacturers wouldn't also increase their prices to take advantage of the profit margins that the small companies are now able to secure?
Posts
As to abolishing the minimum wage, I would think this isn't a wise idea right now due to the amount of time it would take before some informal minimum wage was set. Let's say the companies all decide they would rather pay around $4 an hour. Would people still take these jobs? If not, how long would it take for the companies to raise the wage until enough people take them? Would the states have to set a minimum wage?
That time to adjust would be a fairly painful adjustment for fokls currently working at or near the minimum wage.
This might be a bad tangent here. What about people who find out (after they abolish minimum wages) that they are now getting paid less? Or what about unemployment? If the person technically quit and their contract or hiring agreement didn't cover something like this, could they even try to get unemployment from the company?
That hasn't stopped a number of states.
I believe that are planning to raise it to $7.25.
The States with a high minimum wage are mostly states that have large draws for business. Thus, they don't suffer too terribly from businesses leaving when they raise the minimum wage.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
And, as has been pointed out, that'll lead to your economic thunderdome, with disease, poverty, crime, etc. Even assuming that doesn't occur, it's bad for the companies, because minimum wage earners tend to spend the vast, vast majority of what they take in. They're putting money back into the economy, into the hands of the very businesses they work for. So, while it is inarguably good for Taco Bell if Taco Bell can pay $2 an hour to its employees, it's really, really bad for Taco Bell if every other company pays $2 an hour to their low-end employees, too, because that's going to do severe damage to their customer base, who can no longer afford to eat Taco Bell (or, at the very least, not nearly as often). Most businesses that pay minimum wage rely on the money of minimum-wage workers to keep them in business. So, in reality, the minimum wage is good for these companies.
Thanks for the information, both you and Shinto.
I suppose I should've mentioned that businesses that are likely to be hurt more by a higher minimum wage would be smaller businesses. However, with the above information, there's really only 6 states that have a minumum wage set below the federal or have none at all. I assumed incorrectly that there would be more in that group.
A question if someone knows more about it, if the federal minimum wage gets bumped to $7.25, is there some requirement where other states must raise their minimum wages? Kansas is the only state according to Doc's link that has a wage set below the current federal minimum.
If they aren't required to increase, would the increase in federal minimum wage do much more than give the government some much needed PR or to entice more protests against companies like Wal-Mart for their low wages and negligable benefits?
Nullification went down with the Civil War.
I would never give fair wages to people in prison, simply because it would be a damn good reason to end up there in the first place if you're already living in lower class.
Well, with our current prison system I'd say the risk of forcible sodomy would far outweigh the benefits of a fair wage.
I'll try to contribute later when I have some time to research the topic, provided the discussion is something people feel should continue.
The FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) is a good place to start; it's pretty much the foundation for labor law in the U.S.
Have you ever been inside a working prison?
Is this as fucking retarded as it seemed when I read it?? Or does it actually have some credence?
It's really pretty stupid. He's clearly a laissez-faire capitalist, and he just assumes that's a good enough answer to the question, as opposed to actually providing any real information or reasoning. It falls more under the realm of "liberals bad + market forces good", which is right next door to "a wizard did it" as far as argument quality goes.
And what are everyones' thought on setting minimum prices for things, too?
Scanning through, I don't see any correlation between minimum wage and drop out rate.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo_t1.htm
You going to make a point or ask rhetorical questions all day?
Not all day, just this one.
You say prison would be attractive if prisoners were paid the minimum wage. I want to know if you have ever been in a prison.
They recoup their expenses through charging more for products/services. The public in general does pay their share through this system.
They already do it for cigarettes.
I know there are people for whom dropping out and getting minimum wage or near-minimum wage jobs seems like a good idea, because some people are dumb. But yeah, I'm skeptical that the number is large enough to be significant.
It falls onto business because that's simply the way economic regulation works. You might as well argue we unfairly punish businesses by not allowing them to create price controlling monopolies, when the government coudl just send everyone that buys the product a refund check.
The minimum price thing fails, because while everyone needs to work, not every business needs to exist and produce goods. If a business can't compete in the current market, it's in everyone's best interests for the business to dissolve and for a competitive one to take it's place. Workers have no such luxury.
Not to mention the market control of agricultural products through tariffs and subsidies.
I didn't think of that.
While the agriculture point is a valid one, I'm not sure I agree with the cigarettes example. The regulation on cigarettes isn't a minimum price the producer can sell at, it's an end consumer vice tax designed to offset the cost of later healthcare incurred by smokers.
Comparing the two is like trying to argue that allowing gays to marry is like allowing bestial polygamy.
There's this little thing called compassion, it's that thing that makes you feel bad when you see someone else suffering. Some people here are saying "Yeah get rid of min.wage and make those idiots either smarten up or die in the streets."
I hope people who agree with such harsh beliefs grow up some day.
minimum prices for things other than labor makes less sense than a minimum wage because labor is a substitutive good in most instances.
We have minimum wages because its an off budget answer the the problem. Also, too many people bitch and whine about the lower class not paying their way with taxes already[which they do, and in spades], so that lowering taxes on them is entirely politically unfeasable.
If that's the reasoning, then it's faulty. It's not just that there will always be people who fall as far as society lets them. It's that there will always be people who fall to the very, very bottom, no matter how much society wants to save them. It's impossible to literally save every last person. Even if we go to the extremes of Soviet-style communism, with the government running everything and issuing everyone what they "need", you'll have people falling through the cracks. And as you try to do more and more, you hit a point where you start doing more harm than good.
This is a point that too few people grasp: You can't save everyone. When you realize this, you realize that it becomes a balancing act. You need to decide how many people you're willing to just let fail. What's the maximum number of people that we can wash our hands of and still live with ourselves as a people? Once you set this number, you can figure out how best to save the rest.
Note that this isn't to say you point to a specific group of people and say, "Hey, fuck off," and deliberately ignore them. Rather, you set up the system in such a way that any given person can, in theory, take advantage of it, and then resign yourself to the fact that many people won't, for whatever reason.
There's this little thing called compassion. It makes me want to pass laws forcing other people to give money to yet other people. Gosh I'm so compassionate!
Which usually larger retailers "avoid" by offering 2 for 1 deals as some kind of promotional program.
It is a head tax[singular tax on units] so it really is a minimum price the producer can sell at.
The only difference between a vice tax instituted as a constant value per unit and a minimum price is that the producer doesnt get to keep the money.
Two points: First, while social darwinism tends not to be widely regarded, it isn't an entirely disregarded school of thought. At the most clinical, objective lever, there is some merit to the idea that the social safety net ultimately hurts humanity. I'm not an advocate of the idea, but it does raise some valid concerns, as unaddressable as they may be.
Second, it's best to deal with this in colder, more objective terms. No everyone agrees on what is ethically or morally imperative in any given situation, but objective debate provides a common ground for discussion and decision. If you can prove the minimum wage is a good idea on purely a purely objective, factual basis, there's no need to resort to the emotional and ethical arguments.
Hahaha no.
The end consumer vice tax is there for two reasons:
- Because everyone loves sticking it to smokers, so it's an easy and uncontroversial revenue source, and
- Because increase the cost of smoking creates fewer smokers.
Nobody really cares about offsetting the cost of healthcare, that's just how they sell it to the public.
I'm curious how much you think this would help small business owners. If they could now charge more for products and/or services, what's to say their suppliers and/or manufacturers wouldn't also increase their prices to take advantage of the profit margins that the small companies are now able to secure?