The Reality of Minimum Wages.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Because they're deluded into thinking that people working for a dollar is better than people collecting welfare for a dollar. It makes no sense, but that's the logical fallacy of Right Wing politics.

The thing is, the removal of the minimum wage doesn't suddenly make people not on poverty. It makes MORE people on more intense and higher levels of poverty. People on minimum wage already collect welfare. Eliminating the minimum wage would just make it so that they would need more.

So if they get their wish and have people not only working for next to nothing, but remove welfare as well, we suddenly have people barely able to put food on the table. We'd have good old fashioned ghettos with 20 people living to one apartment, a rise in crime and disease, and something more akin to a third world country than America the great.

[Captain N]

The thing is, the removal of the minimum wage doesn't suddenly make people not on poverty. It makes MORE people on more intense and higher levels of poverty. People on minimum wage already collect welfare. Eliminating the minimum wage would just make it so that they would need more.

So if they get their wish and have people not only working for next to nothing, but remove welfare as well, we suddenly have people barely able to put food on the table. We'd have good old fashioned ghettos with 20 people living to one apartment, a rise in crime and disease, and something more akin to a third world country than America the great.

But that seems to be what the rich want...A giant separation between them and everyone else. It's akin to that movie Elysium where all the super wealthy have their own private paradise where every thing is roses and perfect. Everyone else lives on Earth...Which has become one giant ghetto.

It just amazes me as to how people can continue to vote people into office who are doing so much harm to them as working class citizens just so the Waltons can add another few million to their shareholders pockets.

[Felya]

I still don't get how people can justify removal of the minimum wage. I guess they believe that their ultimate goal is to reduce the "unemployment" statistic by filling jobs that pay almost nothing? Egregious underemployment is worse than unemployment.

I think it's the crux of the divide you mentioned earlier. What dictates health of a country? I think the argument is there, not in anything specific about the minimum wage. I think those who argue in favor of removing it, would call business success as a measure of country success. It's where I think the concept of many being under paid, is worth it due to business's larger employment.

Like the miners who are minors (Ha!) picture posted... You might think it's cruel or wrong, but they would point to industry employing them. It's why moochers vs job creators works... Those kids were not moochers, like bastards on their cellphones, with their xstations and playboxes...

[Randec]

The reality of the situation is an increase in the minimum wage would keep it the same as it's always been by adjusting for inflation. To not adjust it up to keep pace with inflation effectively lowers it.

[Deleted]

That realization happened during the 19th Century (if not before, but that's what's relevant here, and resulted in living conditions like this for the working poor.


That's 1936.

Wages were so low that a shift at the coal mine could look like this;



Yes, those are children. Coal miners. They were working, because if they didn't, their parents couldn't afford to feed them.

These conditions are why laws banning child labor and instituting minimum wages and standardized workweeks and so on were put in place; because these practices were abusive and heinous and harmful to the economy and the nation.


In short, your concept of how things played out is pretty much entirely backwards.

Oh please, what do you want to achieve with that?
Work was hard back then and productivity was so low that children HAD to work. In Europe, with strong Labour Unions as well as in the US.
Wonder what Left-Wing Wunderkind economist Paul Krugman has to say on the whole issue of child labour, low wages, and harsh working conditions? http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html#
These children had to work prior to the industrialization at their families farms. It's not like an army of Scrooge McDucks kidnapped all the children to force them to work in their factories, instead of singing and dancing in the woods all day.
Western people are so hyper-sensitive and delusional. I mean, did people in the 19th and 20th century really move from rural areas to the cities to be exploited? And, if times were so bad back than and people were starving before unions and the government saved us, how come population grew and grew? Not the symptoms one might suspect if the working class is starving to death.

[Endus]

Oh please, what do you want to achieve with that?
Work was hard back then and productivity was so low that children HAD to work. In Europe, with strong Labour Unions as well as in the US.

Which is why things managed to get almost immediately better with the introduction of minimum wage laws and standardized hours and bans on child labour?

No. You're wrong. Things were hard because wages were set incredibly low and there were few worker protections. And the economy boomed when those strictures were put in place.

Wonder what Left-Wing Wunderkind economist Paul Krugman has to say on the whole issue of child labour, low wages, and harsh working conditions? http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html#

You seem to have this weird-ass idea that because I am left-wing, and Krugman describes himself as a Liberal, that therefore I must agree with Krugman on things.

I don't.

His argument there is that, as shitty as low wages in developing nations are, it's better than no wages. Which is true. And then he hand-waves away the fact that we in the West benefit from the arrangement, because there's some benefit to those developing nations. Which is kind of like saying that buying a 12 year old girl as a sex slave is "okay" because you'll feed her better than her family could, and the money you paid them is more than they'd see in 5 years time.

Enslaving children for sex is still morally repugnant, and shouldn't be allowed. Regardless of the conditions they'd face otherwise. That's where Krugman's theory falls apart. A better solution isn't simple, but it isn't to say "they're better off being sold as sex slaves, so let's applaud the practice". That just makes you an apologist.

And before you come back with the "we're not talking about sex slavery of children" line, the central issue is that we're exploiting foreign citizens, and saying that's okay because the exploitation leaves them somewhat better off financially than not exploiting them. Selling children for sex is a thing that actually happens, for the same reasons. So if your argument is that the exploitation is acceptable because of the financial benefits to those being exploited, then that argument must apply the child sex slavery, too.

Otherwise, you're stating that the nature of the exploitation itself is reprehensible and should be a factor.

In which case, you've dropped your argument and you're agreeing with me.

[Captain N]

Which is why things managed to get almost immediately better with the introduction of minimum wage laws and standardized hours and bans on child labour?

No. You're wrong. Things were hard because wages were set incredibly low and there were few worker protections. And the economy boomed when those strictures were put in place.

Just to further elaborate on this...In this era wages were low and most coal miners could only purchase goods out of the Company Store. These items were purchased for money or for more time spent down in the mine. Minor Miners and their parents were always behind because the Store kept its prices just out reach that they could never catch up financially. Does this sound familiar? It should...It's the same concept that Modern Corporations are applying by giving their employees just enough hours so they can apply for welfare. They will never catch up at the rate they're being paid....and they'll always end up owing either their time to work more hours..or their money to shop in the store because it's all they can afford.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Children who work are also otherwise not educated properly. As much as someone might believe that paying children pennies an hour to work is a good thing, the lack of educational background makes them uneducated proletariat, which tends to be easily manipulated by right wing rhetoric.

[petej0]

Because they're deluded into thinking that people working for a dollar is better than people collecting welfare for a dollar. It makes no sense, but that's the logical fallacy of Right Wing politics.

Let me first preface this by saying I am not at all for doing away with the minimum wage.

Having said that...someone working for a dollar IS better then someone collecting welfare for a dollar. Simply for the fact that if they are working they are contributing to their very own skill set. They have hands on experience doing something that can help them in their next job. So when it comes time to fill a management position they are in position to move into it.

So...yes I would rather see someone working at $7.25 an hour then someone collecting welfare at $7.25 an hour. Because that work comes with needed experience to move up the income ladder (if they so desire).

The fact is raising the minimum wage does hurt employers and consumers. If it didnt we could raise it to $50 an hour and end poverty. The very fact that you just laughed at that last sentence as an absurd statement proves my point. Raising minimum wage to $50 an hour will have a negative effect we all know what these effects would be. On a much smaller scale those same effects will occur when you raise the minimum wage to $10 or $15 an hour.

[Masark]

The fact is raising the minimum wage does hurt employers and consumers. If it didnt we could raise it to $50 an hour and end poverty. The very fact that you just laughed at that last sentence as an absurd statement proves my point. Raising minimum wage to $50 an hour will have a negative effect we all know what these effects would be. On a much smaller scale those same effects will occur when you raise the minimum wage to $10 or $15 an hour.

Your logic rests entirely on the assumption that there isn't a threshold for the negative effects.

[Elegiac]

The fact is raising the minimum wage does hurt employers and consumers. If it didnt we could raise it to $50 an hour and end poverty. The very fact that you just laughed at that last sentence as an absurd statement proves my point. Raising minimum wage to $50 an hour will have a negative effect we all know what these effects would be. On a much smaller scale those same effects will occur when you raise the minimum wage to $10 or $15 an hour.

Maybe if it had been risen proportionately to inflation and cost of living, such a drastic upwards shift would not be necessary.

I still believe the best course of action is removing minimum wage determination from Congress and giving it to an independent commission, like the Federal Reserve does with monetary policy.

[Sunseeker]

The fact is raising the minimum wage does hurt employers and consumers. If it didnt we could raise it to $50 an hour and end poverty. The very fact that you just laughed at that last sentence as an absurd statement proves my point. Raising minimum wage to $50 an hour will have a negative effect we all know what these effects would be. On a much smaller scale those same effects will occur when you raise the minimum wage to $10 or $15 an hour.

The thing is, which you and everyone who makes this argument keeps ignoring is that the effects are non-linear. Further, historical data will show that a decrease in wages ALSO hurts employers and consumers, as can be seen by the decrease in purchasing power and standard of living of Americans over the last 50 years as wages have failed to increase along with prices.

[Deianeira]

If I was paying a lawn service company to do my lawn and then all of a sudden they came to me and said " I gotta pay my guys a 'living wage' so I need to raise the price". I might just say no thank you and go buy a little lawn mower (probably made in china) and do it myself.

Well some ppl will do just that, but others will keep on buying the service since they DONT have the time to do it themselves since that is most often the reason them doing it in the first place? Or do you mean to say that they do it becuase they are lazy?

[Charge me Doctor]

If I was paying a lawn service company to do my lawn and then all of a sudden they came to me and said " I gotta pay my guys a 'living wage' so I need to raise the price". I might just say no thank you and go buy a little lawn mower (probably made in china) and do it myself.

Knowing how much your "hour" costs will help you to determine if it is good idea to buy your own mower and spend your time on doing that.

For example, service delivery, you can order shit and it will be delivered to you for extra payment. Or you can drive here by yourself (spend gasoline and probably traffic problems), buy shit, and drive back to your place (again, spend gasoline and stuck in traffic). While you could spend this time on doing something else. If you get 80$ per hour at your work, why don't you spend 10 bucks on delivery than wasting a hour of your work-free time on doing this routine? Same goes with mowing, why do you want to spend your health and time on mowing while you can pay people to do it.