Minimum wage

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 157
#151
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
It is silly to think that employers would employ fewer workers if minimum wage increases.
No, it's not. The minimum wage necessarily creates unemployment.

There is already no incentive to have more workers than absolutely necessary.
Which is determined by the firm which employs, not secularmerlin.

If you are worried about people with redundant jobs will become unemployed then you need not worry about minimum wage as this has already happened and continues to happen. 
All the more reason the minimum wage may lead to disemployment because the minimum wage makes it more expensive to hire people to do redundant jobs.

It is silly to say that inflation will take away everyone's buying power if we raise minimum wage since inflation continues despite the stagnation of minimum wage. If you are worried about inflation then you need not worry about minimum wage as this has already happened and continues to happen. 
Much of inflation has to do with a nation's monetary policy. While the minimum wage can increase inflation, the lion's share is due to printing money.

It is silly to say that small businesses will be unable to compete if we raise minimum wage
No it's not. An increase in the minimum wage affects small businesses the most because they hire the most low-skilled/unskilled labor.

since capitalism already tends towards monopolies.
No it doesn't.

If you are worried that most of the world's wealth will he concentrated into the hands of just a few companies giving them an unfair advantage over small businesses then you need not worry about minimum wage as this has already happened and continues to happen. 
Yes, but not because of Capitalism. It's in part a manifestation of the partnership between crony corporations and the State.


#152
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
No, it's not. The minimum wage necessarily creates unemployment.
All businesses are already on the lookout for any possible ways of trimming the fat. No buisness purposefully employs workers that are not essential for a company to function. It can therefore be assumed that all businesses have already eliminated any unnecessary workers they know of and would promptly eliminate a y that they discovered were unnecessary. This is a truism regardless of the minimum wage a d therefore any argument to the contrary doesn't hold water.
 Much of inflation has to do with a nation's monetary policy. While the minimum wage can increase inflation, the lion's share is due to printing money.
Well stated. Therefore a y argument to the contrary doesn't hold water.
An increase in the minimum wage affects small businesses the most because they hire the most low-skilled/unskilled labor.
Every business has expences.if your profit doesn't exceed your expenses then in the capitalist model you should fail. This is the essence of competitive economy. Paying for labor is one of the primary expenses. If you cannot afford to pay your workforce a minimum wage perhaps you shouldn't be in business. Also I have never heard this argument used to support lowering lot rents, utility costs, cleaning supplies or shipping fees. Are only those least able to afford to support someone else's small business (those who work at minimum wage) expected to sacrifice to give small business a chance? No this argument doesn't hold water either. 
It's in part a manifestation of the partnership between crony corporations and the State.

You just described a capitalist state. This is the best case scenario for capitalism. Capitalism cannot be supported without the state's support. How else would they secure the means of production besides the threat of police violence?

#153
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
All businesses are already on the lookout for any possible ways of trimming the fat. No buisness purposefully employs workers that are not essential for a company to function. It can therefore be assumed that all businesses have already eliminated any unnecessary workers they know of and would promptly eliminate a y that they discovered were unnecessary.
The problem with this argument, secularmerlin, is that according to your rationale, business wouldn't have even employed workers that were unnecessary. So who would they eliminate? And how would they "discover" they were unnecessary?

This is a truism regardless of the minimum wage a d therefore any argument to the contrary doesn't hold water.
No, it's not.

Every business has expences.if your profit doesn't exceed your expenses then in the capitalist model you should fail.
No, in a Capitalist model, one's profits should be 0, i.e. "perfect competition."

Paying for labor is one of the primary expenses. If you cannot afford to pay your workforce a minimum wage perhaps you shouldn't be in business.
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the byproduct of minimum-wage. This is just your shoehorning in an unsubstantiated necessity of the minimum wage.

You just described a capitalist state. This is the best case scenario for capitalism. Capitalism cannot be supported without the state's support.
There can never a be Capitalist State. Capitalism by definition excludes the State.

How else would they secure the means of production besides the threat of police violence?
Karl Marx said the same thing, and it hasn't "held any water." The procurement of resources can be secured by voluntary agreement.


#154
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
The problem with this argument, secularmerlin, is that according to your rationale, business wouldn't have even employed workers that were unnecessary. So who would they eliminate? And how would they "discover" they were unnecessary?
That is in fact my point. Assuming no business would knowingly employ unnecessary workers (and you have given me no reason to believe otherwise) there is no one else to eliminate. A minimum wage increase is therefore immaterial to who is necessarily employed. 
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the byproduct of minimum-wage. This is just your shoehorning in an unsubstantiated necessity of the minimum wage.
I maintain that if a business cannot afford to pay their workforce a living wage then they cannot afford to be in business. If the only thing keeping you in business is that you get to exploit people more then you do not have my sympathy. 
There can never a be Capitalist State. Capitalism by definition excludes the State.

Nonsense. You just pointed out the cronyism that makes our current state a capitalist state. Also without the implicit threat of state enforced violence no one would acknowledge the right of corperations to own the means of production at the expense of their own starvation. Capitalism cannot exist without the state.
The procurement of resources can be secured by voluntary agreement.

It could but under our current capitalist state resources are used to coerce the cooperation of the proletariat. Resources are never voluntarily given under capitalism. Giving anything away voluntarily is anathema to capitalism. Things are only given in exchange for payment. 
#155
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
 Socialism is taxing everyone 100% so everyone can have the same stuff
Not anywhere near what socialism is.
#156
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
That is in fact my point. Assuming no business would knowingly employ unnecessary workers (and you have given me no reason to believe otherwise) there is no one else to eliminate. A minimum wage increase is therefore immaterial to who is necessarily employed. 
Except "necessity" is not determined by your concept unnecessary. It's determined by a worker's marginal productivity. So yes, an increase in a minimum wage is material because increases makes it illegal to employ those whose marginal productivity doesn't generate the minimum wage.

I maintain that if a business cannot afford to pay their workforce a living wage then they cannot afford to be in business.
The minimum-wage is NOT a "living wage." It's a politically contrived interference in the labor market.

If the only thing keeping you in business is that you get to exploit people more then you do not have my sympathy. 
Your sympathy is irrelevant.

Nonsense. You just pointed out the cronyism that makes our current state a capitalist state. Also without the implicit threat of state enforced violence no one would acknowledge the right of corperations to own the means of production at the expense of their own starvation. Capitalism cannot exist without the state.
It matters neither what you state, nor how you feel: a State CANNOT be Capitalistic. Capitalism is the dissemination of goods and services by private individuals who do not function as extensions of the government or State. This is tautologically true, your Marxist education notwithstanding. My reference to cronyism is in light of state-sanction corporations, not Corporations in general. Corporation =/= Capitalism.

It could but under our current capitalist state resources are used to coerce the cooperation of the proletariat.
Our current State is not Capitalist; our current State is quasi-communist.

Resources are never voluntarily given under capitalism.
This isn't even a little bit true.

Giving anything away voluntarily is anathema to capitalism. Things are only given in exchange for payment. 
Voluntary =/= free. Voluntary is not mutually exclusive from paid exchange.
#157
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Except "necessity" is not determined by your concept 
It is not. It is determined by the minimum necessary functions needed to operate the buisness and the physical limits of the human body.
The minimum-wage is NOT a "living wage." It's a politically contrived interference in the labor market.
Well the least an employer should pay is a living wage and if employers could be counted upon to do so then there would be no need for a minimum wage.
a State CANNOT be Capitalistic
A state in which profit dictates executive policy is a capitalist state. That is definitionally true. I observe such a state in the united states.
Our current State is not Capitalist; our current State is quasi-communist.
Our state is violently opposed to communism and socialism. Think the McCarthy trials and our interference in south America. In fact our state gas a huge vested interest in falsely conflating communism and socialism with totalitarianism and fascism. 
Resources are never voluntarily given under capitalism.
This isn't even a little bit true.
Giving things freely to the community is socialist by definition. Selling things to the community is capitalist.
Voluntary is not mutually exclusive from paid exchange.
It most certainly is. If you are only doing something for payment then it is not volunteer work it is wage work. The same goes for the exchange of goods. You can give someone a gift voluntarily or you can sell someone something for a profit. If you are getting caught up on the semantics the word voluntary then just remember that a volunteer worker is one who is not being paid. Perhaps you actually meant uncoerced. If so I'm not actually sure I agree with that either. The money is the form the coercion takes.