Minimum wage

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 71
#31
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
not all employers only pay the minimum. but many do. look at every decade where there's a different minimum wage, and you will find many paying only what they have to. 

you commit a logical fallacy. you say businesses have to pay the wage so the economy suffers. what actually happens, is if you don't have a minimum, yes the rich might be richer, but having people paid only two dollars instead of seven will hurt the economy. we live in a demand economy. things are stimulated mostly by consumer spending. there may be some jobs that are cut by having a minimum wage, but overall more jobs are stimulated to be created. of course, i'm not saying the wage should be fifteen dollars or high. there is a breaking point where there is more harm than good. 

my main point is that there should be a minimum. but if i were to pick a wage, i'd go for twelve dollars. that's because the wage in 1974 was two dollars, and if it kept up with inflation, it'd be twelve today. those were the beginnings of some great economic times, and i'd say if it was good for back then, it's good now. also when someone makes mid twenty some thousand a year, they are closer the middle class, the class which stimulates the economy the most. 
#32
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i may be wrong about picking twelve but at the very least it should be five or seven ish as it is now. the point is that there should be a minimum that matches the sweet spot of optimum economic stimulation. 
#33
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
so you think having millions making a dollar an hour is economically superior to stimulation than if they made seven? are you one of those supply side freaks? 

the wage protects not just those making the minimum but anyone who makes in range to it, so it is millions would be be affected. 
#34
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
if joe makes a dollar an hour, he can't go to movies, or buy shoes or lots of other things that stimulate the economy. business would slow. if he makes seven, he can afford some shoes, or maybe he'll splurge and buy deli meat where they slice it for you. without his demographic presence at a minimum wage, business in general wouldn't be as profitable. 
#35
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
Well, here is how economics works with employment, rent control, etc. There is a supply and a demand line. If the rate forced by the government is higher than the equilibrium rate, then there will be unemployment (for rent control it is opposite). If it is below the equilibrium rate, then it will have no effect whatsoever.

Supply-side economics is the actual correct version of economics. Let's use wealth redistribution as an example. The government has two choices: it can take one million dollars from Bill Gates (Or any other millionaire/billionaire) or it can give two dollars to 500,000 poor people. Tell me, what is better for the economy: 500,000 people buying hamburgers for McDonalds or letting a rich entrepreneur create a new, innovative product that will improve our lives. He could also just wisely invest it in companies that can create jobs with that. Poor people spend their money frivolously. Wealth redistribution is generally a bad idea. Remember, rich investors are the reason that you can afford a cell phone, computer, microwave, or any other item that used to only be a luxury item.

You will have to show me proof that people would be paid one or two dollars and hour. Especially considering that companies like Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc often offer starting wages that are well over the limit. Heck, I am 19 years old and got $16/hour in my internship. Is that because we had a $7.25 minimum wage?

*Guess I am one of those supply-side freaks*

You do need everyone to have money. However, poor people might buy lavish deli meats, Air Jordan shoes, or other things that aren't good for our economy. I'd rather that money get spent investing in a tech company or something useful. Obviously you need consumers, but you'll have to prove that slave wages will occur, when I have proven that they aren't really the case. Most if not all jobs that pay the minimum are geared towards teenagers (who haven't worked before, and therefore their labor isn't worth much). If you don't want minimum wage, don't do minimum wage work. 
#36
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
It's a simple economic virtue: the minimum wage creates unemployment. And the extent of disemployment usually correlates with the price elasticity of the final product. Many employers pay the minimum because they're legally bound--and they shouldn't be. Labor contracts ought to be negotiated and entered willfully by the involved parties. When you apply the reasoning of sustaining or increasing the minimum wage in any other context, one will find that the logic is quite inconsistent.
#37
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
If you force employers to raise their salaries, they will raise their prices to keep even, and that will result in inflation.
#38
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheAtheist
If you force employers to raise their salaries, they will raise their prices to keep even, and that will result in inflation.
That depends on the sector. It's all contingent on the elasticity of the goods being distributed and disseminated. If your argument concerns food, gas, medicine, etc. then producers can extend the increase cost of labor to their products without worrying much about a drop in consumption, but if it's for example cars, or a television subscription, furniture or a brand of water, then employers would sooner disemploy before alienating their consumer base by raising prices. Because those items can easily be substituted. It's not an immediate consequence that raising the minimum wage would result in inflation. The only monetary policy that immediately results in inflation is printing fiat. The more i.o.u.'s printed which have a diminishing redeemable value in gold, the less the fiat is worth, decreasing the purchasing power of currency; hence everything becomes more expensive, sector notwithstanding.
#39
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Athias
Artificially raising people's salaries only results in two things:

Companies increasing their prices, which will cause inflation (i.e. decrease the value of currency). So the people who the minimum wage was trying to help will now have a higher salary, but all the products they consume will cost more as well. Anyone who proposes a minimum wage lacks even a basic understanding of economics and inflation.
OR
Companies losing money, which will cause them to fire employees and which will improve unemployment. This would be terrible for the economy, since less job positions = worse economy.

So, a minimum wage will either not do anything or make people lose their jobs. Anybody who tries to promote a minimum wage lacks even a basic understanding of economics.

#40
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheAtheist
Artificially raising people's salaries only results in two things:

Companies increasing their prices, which will cause inflation (i.e. decrease the value of currency). So the people who the minimum wage was trying to help will now have a higher salary, but all the products they consume will cost more as well. Anyone who proposes a minimum wage lacks even a basic understanding of economics and inflation.
OR
Companies losing money, which will cause them to fire employees and which will improve unemployment. This would be terrible for the economy, since less job positions = worse economy.

So, a minimum wage will either not do anything or make people lose their jobs. Anybody who tries to promote a minimum wage lacks even a basic understanding of economics.

It's fortunate you edited the comment before I responded. I am in no way arguing in favor of a minimum wage. Minimum wage automatically creates unemployment, but does not automatically create inflation. When there's a minimum wage, the law in effect is prohibiting the legal employment of all those whose marginal productivity falls below the price floor. Therefore unemployment is an inherent result. Inflation occurs only if the producer extends the increased cost of labor to the final product, and that depends on the sector and the product's elasticity. Depending on how the price floor is arbitrated, the employer can reduce costs of labor by disemploying (firing) or underemploying (reducing hours.) My point is that inflation is neither an immediate nor automatic result of the minimum wage. If you want to know that which results in inflation inherently, it's monetary policy particularly the printing of money without a (precious metal) standard.
#41
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Athias
"If you want to know that which results in inflation inherently, it's monetary policy particularly the printing of money without a (precious metal) standard."
Inflation is not a result of printing money without a standard per se, it's just the increase of whatever society uses as currency. When that increase in the amount of currency happens, the amount of goods for sale does not increase, and so the price increases instead. In Renaissance Spain, for example, the price of gold dropped significantly after more gold was brought from the Americas, and so gold-based prices increased. But Renaissance Spain did not use paper money not backed up by precious metals, it used actual precious metals as currency. Blaming paper money for inflation is incorrect and irrational.
#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheAtheist
Profit V Society.

If a profit is going to be made from selling stuff and services that are essentially unnecessary, then you've got give the masses  the ability to invest in all that unnecessary stuff. 

Otherwise how's the greater system going to work if all that the masses can afford is a basic living.

And if the masses can't afford a basic living, then it's tax hikes for the rich to support the masses.

Unsustainable capitalism leads to austerity and State Control of everything etc. 

And you don't want that.

Far better to have a healthy economy full of happy people. So give the masses enough money to spend.
#43
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Someone who says those things knows very little about the economy. Higher taxes and minimum wages may give "the masses" more money in the beginning, but eventually, there will be no more money left to give to them. If your taxes are too high, businesses will close down or leave to other countries, which results in higher unemployment, which will make "the masses" even worse off. Same thing with deciding how much companies should pay their employees: in the long run, this will result in an economic disaster.



#44
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheAtheist

Inflation is not a result of printing money without a standard per se, it's just the increase of whatever society uses as currency. When that increase in the amount of currency happens, the amount of goods for sale does not increase, and so the price increases instead. In Renaissance Spain, for example, the price of gold dropped significantly after more gold was brought from the Americas, and so gold-based prices increased. But Renaissance Spain did not use paper money not backed up by precious metals, it used actual precious metals as currency. Blaming paper money for inflation is incorrect and irrational.
Fiat money is nothing more than an i.o.u. And with the abundance of paper and the ease in which it can be printed, there's really no difference between a five dollar note and a 100 dollar note because the scarcity in procurement is no longer there. Gold and silver are precious metals and scarce resources so even if there is an abundance of gold entering Europe for example during the 16th century, the upward trending prices would regulate themselves, whereas printing paper without any standard does not. Blaming the printing of paper for inflation is in fact quite correct and rational. Because if we were to take all the paper notes and attempt to redeem them at the value at which they were produced, would the purchasing power of money increase or decrease?

And don't misunderstand my argument: I'm not stating that inflation can only result from the printing of paper. I'm saying that once paper is printed (without a precious metal standard) inflation is an inherent result. And when currency is digital, the effects of inflation will be just as inherent but more pronounced.
#45
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheAtheist
That's exactly the what I said.

The simple point I was trying to get across was that a healthy economy and ultimately a healthy society are reliant on the mass ability to spend. 

Therefore the masses have to be given the ability to reinvest in all the unnecessary stuff that keeps capitalism afloat.

You can't separate economy and society. Which is what you seem to be doing.
Topic's author
#46
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
What is wrong with a poor person getting a better job that doesn’t require a college degree?
#47
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
What is wrong with a poor person getting a better job that doesn’t require a college degree?
Nothing. It's just not a valid justification for setting the minimum wage to 0. You could make the exact same argument for keeping the minimum where it's at

#48
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheAtheist
you dont understand how inflation works, or economics 
#49
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
Wow, you have destroyed my entire argument. "You dont understand how inflation works, or economics"... you have obliterated me! Please, oh great one, teach me these economics you speak of! Enlighten me!

On a serious note, your post is akin to a five-year-old saying "no u" after someone insults them. Could you bring some arguments to the table instead of using ad hominems such as "you don't understand insert topic here"?
#50
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheAtheist
i just responded similar to how you did. without substance, and then setting aside anyone who disagrees with you. 

i stated, if you increase everyone's wages, then inflation will be an equal opportunity offender, and the poorest will be back to where they started. if you only increase the wage of the bottom, inflation still occurs, but it isn't happening in totality, such that the bottom still has a higher proportion than they started with.

after i made this argument, you didn't get into any of this nitty gritty, and just decided to repeat your original claim, that increasing the minimum increases inflation and puts the bottom back to where they started. just ignoring the logic that refutes your argument. 
#51
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheAtheist
you also ignore that demand economics drive our economy and choose to only focus on one side of the equation. if you have the bottom making beans, then people close to the bottom also make beans plus one, such that they won't spend money on an array of goods and services, driving the economy. 
#52
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Christen
That PragerU link you gave. Had a source from 1984. Do I need to say more? 
#53
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
A minimum wage of 0.00 is worse than having more than that. You are basically stripping out the advantages of the minimum wage for a 0.00 enforced minimum wage. A better position would be you want to abolish the minimum wage not have it at 0.00. There is a difference. One is a law enforcing the minimum wage and another isn't. 
#54
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
"i stated, if you increase everyone's wages, then inflation will be an equal opportunity offender, and the poorest will be back to where they started. if you only increase the wage of the bottom, inflation still occurs, but it isn't happening in totality, such that the bottom still has a higher proportion than they started with."
What happens after a company is forced to raise their salaries? They raise their prices. And after they raise their prices, other people who do not work for them will start wanting higher salaries, since all the products now cost more. In order not to lose employees, companies will up their salaries, and then we will end up with higher salaries and higher prices. Increasing the wage of the bottom results in an increase of the wage at the top, since you are not actually giving people more wealth, you are just giving them more currency which is now worth less.



#55
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"A minimum wage of 0.00 is worse than having more than that. You are basically stripping out the advantages of the minimum wage for a 0.00 enforced minimum wage. A better position would be you want to abolish the minimum wage not have it at 0.00. There is a difference. One is a law enforcing the minimum wage and another isn't."
What's the difference between earning $0.00 and earning no money at all? There isn't a single job in the world where you earn less than 0.00

#56
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
"if you have the bottom making beans, then people close to the bottom also make beans plus one, such that they won't spend money on an array of goods and services, driving the economy. "
I agree. In order for companies to get their products purchased, the population must have enough wealth to purchase it. And I never said that wasn't the case.
#57
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@TheAtheist
What's the difference between earning $0.00 and earning no money at all? There isn't a single job in the world where you earn less than 0.00
Enforcing that rule is wasting money. Working a job with no money with no minimum wage is not enforced by the government. 

#58
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I agree. 

#59
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@TheAtheist
I meant enforcing a 0.00 minimum wage. 
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheAtheist
There is most certainly a job that earns less than 0$ an hour.

It's called College...you know...the official state-sanctioned job training program.   

Cause training jobs below the minimum wage are illegal.