EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

U.S. Minimum Wage

< Return to subforum
Page: 123Most Recent
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | May 2 2016 10:45 AM
There is good evidence that the minimum wage kills jobs.
So what we do then is try to figure out how much this period's minimum wage increases may have contributed to this overall decline in low-skilled workers' employment. Our estimates at the end of the day are that the low-skilled workers in the states in which the minimum wage went up by more saw larger declines in their employment rates.
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-28/ask-an-economist-will-a-minimum-wage-hike-help-or-hurt-workers

I think abolishing the minimum wage would benefit low skilled workers but at the same time overall wages would go down. This wouldn't be good considering that overall wages in the U.S. are lower than they should be(meaning we get paid too little) but it would allow employers to hire more low skilled workers that would otherwise be unemployed at a lower cost.
Whether we should raise the minimum wage or not depends on how you look at the economy.
If you believe employers are squeezing more and more output from their payrolls without fair compensation, then a minimum wage hike would be for you. But if you believe technological advances and low-skill, low-wage competition from overseas have limited the number of minimum wage jobs in the U.S. and prevented employers from doling out raises, then a minimum wage bump might not make sense and could ultimately hurt low-skill workers' employment opportunities.
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-03-28/ask-an-economist-will-a-minimum-wage-hike-help-or-hurt-workers

It may depend on whether capitalism favors the richer businesses/corporations or not. If it does, then a higher minimum wage would work well to make sure that the working class doesn't get paid as much unfair wages. If it doesn't, then maybe we should leave this to the free market and not interfere with workers wages.
admin
By admin | May 2 2016 3:40 PM
Krazy: So do you support the kind of sweatshops that have historically been common in places like China or Bangladesh or some of the west African countries, then? Isn't that employers deciding a wage?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | May 2 2016 3:43 PM
Bi0Hazard: Low skilled workers don't have much of a future working anyway, don't you think? As tech becomes cheaper, there's an ever-decreasing price of labour for those with low skills, and eventually it just becomes stupid to hire somebody. In my view this is why we need to equip people with skills for work.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | May 2 2016 3:44 PM
Bi0Hazard: But if you believe technological advances and low-skill, low-wage competition from overseas have limited the number of minimum wage jobs in the U.S. and prevented employers from doling out raises, then a minimum wage bump might not make sense and could ultimately hurt low-skill workers' employment opportunities.

Also I respectfully disagree with this economist lol
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | May 2 2016 3:53 PM
admin: Then this would mean you got to do something like making universities public with no tuition cost and have just about everyone attending after they graduate high school. Then attending a university becomes a normal part of life and there would be more high skilled workers. Do you want something like this?
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | May 2 2016 3:56 PM
admin: Capitalism does seem to have some similarities with slavery, does it?
admin
By admin | May 2 2016 4:00 PM
Bi0Hazard: I think it's inevitable that university etc will increasingly be required for work, that's just the nature of progress - there's more to learn now than before. If we accept that work is going to be necessary in the near term, making learning affordable strikes me as a good idea.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Krazy
By Krazy | May 3 2016 12:11 PM
admin: You completely ignored my point nor explained why it's illogical that the person giving the wage should decide them. It's only reasonable that the person giving the wages should decide what they are.

And it's interesting how you pick the absolute worst examples in the world today. It is a fact that countries with minimum wages almost always have higher unemployment rates than countries without them. And in the countries that do have them, have had lower unemployment rates in the past where they didn't have minimum-wage laws.

I'll pick one of the best examples. In Switzerland, a country with no minimum-wage, has been reported to have about 2% unemployment. And it's one of the richest nations in the world, and has a lower poverty rate than the USA.

As far as "sweatshops" go. And what do you mean by that? The U.S. government defines a sweatshop as a factory that violates more than one labor law. One of the most vague definitions of a buzzword. So please define what you're talking about.

The bargaining council of South Africa have set a new minimum wage because they didn't want South Africa to be like Bangladesh. They were then taken to court later because it put "sweatshops" out of business and put many workers out of a job. At first people were doing cheap labor, then they couldn't find labor and were worse off. And I'd rather work in a sweatshop than not have a job.
admin
By admin | May 3 2016 4:33 PM
Krazy: Your point, "it's only reasonable", is an assertion. It fundamentally assumes that giving wages is a gift, not an obligation. If wages are an obligation then there is no reason to assume the reasonableness of the person giving wages deciding what they are.

I've said several times in the past, I think unemployment can be desirable. Low unemployment can mean an unhealthy economy just as high unemployment can.

One of the labour laws is of course the minimum wage in the USA. I mean places where people are effectively paid an unliveable, or even negative amount, for their labour, often under harsh conditions and punitive contracts.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Krazy
By Krazy | May 3 2016 5:38 PM
admin: Your point, "it's only reasonable", is an assertion
Here is my full quote.
It's only reasonable that the person giving the wages should decide what they are.
And yes, it is an assertion. And it makes sense. Why would someone else determine the wage of somebody else's workers? Why doesn't he just determine the wage of his own workers, instead of somebody else's?

It fundamentally assumes that giving wages is a gift, not an obligation.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. That was not my point. If it's a wage, then by definition it's not a gift. Because a wage is something that you earn. And if you earn it, then it's not a gift. And just because it's not a gift, that doesn't mean it's an obligation. A worker deserves his wages. But his wages shouldn't be decided by somebody that he doesn't work for. That's stupid.

I've said several times in the past, I think unemployment can be desirable.
Under what circumstances, would not being able to provide food for your family, be a desirable thing?

One of the labour laws is of course the minimum wage in the USA. I mean places where people are effectively paid an unliveable, or even negative amount, for their labour, often under harsh conditions and punitive contracts.
How much money per hour, in your mind, is "unliveable" in the United States?
admin
By admin | May 3 2016 8:12 PM
Krazy: Calling other viewpoints "stupid" and your own as "making sense" is not an argument. The point of debating is to justify your opinions with logic or analysis, not so much emotive language.

Workers don't own their employees like slaves, meaning society as a whole has a stake in their welfare. Not merely employers. Gifts can be given in exchange for services rendered. What makes employment different, fundamentally, is a contract to provide payment. That imposes an obligation. Limiting legal obligations is what contract law, and employment law in particular, is all about. For example, a hitman contract is invalid as it cannot be executed (pun intended) without committing a crime. Likewise a contract with extremely low wages cannot be executed without performing what I would consider to be a social harm.

Unemployment need not mean not providing food for a family. Employment is merely, after all, a social construct. Whether society only provides food to those employed is a moral question for the society, and I think ultimately it is immoral to deny food to somebody because of their employment status. The value that links to this is human rights, as people generally deserve to live as a natural right.

It would be hard for me to guage an exact living wage for the whole of the USA. Policymakers tend to make approximations of this anyway. To that end I would support the estimates provided by @Bifurcations earlier via her living wage calculator.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Krazy
By Krazy | May 4 2016 5:33 AM
admin: Calling other viewpoints "stupid" and your own as "making sense" is not an argument.
I know, but it's true and it's still dumb. Why would someone else determine the wage of somebody else's workers? Why doesn't he just determine the wage of his own workers, instead of somebody else's? I've asked these same questions before but you haven't answered them as far as I'm aware of. A worker deserves his wages, but his wages shouldn't be decided by somebody that he doesn't work for. And I've made arguments, but you haven't talked about them nor rebutted them. I'll repost them here:

"And it's interesting how you pick the absolute worst examples in the world today. It is a fact that countries with minimum wages almost always have higher unemployment rates than countries without them. And in the countries that do have them, have had lower unemployment rates in the past where they didn't have minimum-wage laws.

I'll pick one of the best examples. In Switzerland, a country with no minimum-wage, has been reported to have about 2% unemployment. And it's one of the richest nations in the world, and has a lower poverty rate than the USA.

As far as "sweatshops" go. And what do you mean by that? The U.S. government defines a sweatshop as a factory that violates more than one labor law. One of the most vague definitions of a buzzword. So please define what you're talking about.

The bargaining council of South Africa have set a new minimum wage because they didn't want South Africa to be like Bangladesh. They were then taken to court later because it put "sweatshops" out of business and put many workers out of a job. At first people were doing cheap labor, then they couldn't find labor and were worse off. And I'd rather work in a sweatshop than not have a job."

The point of debating is to justify your opinions with logic or analysis,
True. And I have done just that. I have reposted my arguments here from a previous post. And so far, you haven't rebutted my arguments.

not so much emotive language.
Right after I said that the person giving the wages should decide what they are, you talked about sweatshops in China, Bangladesh, and some African countries, and then later on talked about slaves; giving off the impression that this is the scenario in all countries as a result of not having a minimum wage set by the government. I'm not using that much emotive language. And calling an idea stupid is not really "emotive language". The definition of stupid is "lacking normal intelligence". So it has little to do with emotion.

Workers don't own their employees like slaves,
Correct; they can always quit their job at any time, whereas a slave cannot just "quit his job".

...meaning society as a whole has a stake in their welfare. Not merely employers.
No, if you work, you deserve to eat. If you don't work, you don't eat.

Gifts can be given in exchange for services rendered.
If you give a worker money because of their hard work, then it's not a gift, it's a wage. A gift is always free, a wage has to be earned.

What makes employment different, fundamentally, is a contract to provide payment. That imposes an obligation. Limiting legal obligations is what contract law, and employment law in particular, is all about. For example, a hitman contract is invalid as it cannot be executed (pun intended) without committing a crime. Likewise a contract with extremely low wages cannot be executed without performing what I would consider to be a social harm
But why should someone decide the wages for somebody else's workers? That doesn't make any sense. Why can't he just decide the wages of his own workers, instead of somebody else's?

Unemployment need not mean not providing food for a family.
If you mean by stealing money to pay for food, then yes I guess that's partially correct.

Employment is merely, after all, a social construct. Whether society only provides food to those employed is a moral question for the society, and I think ultimately it is immoral to deny food to somebody because of their employment status.
No; if someone is not willing to work, he shouldn't eat.

The value that links to this is human rights, as people generally deserve to live as a natural right.
Says who? I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree, but says who?

It would be hard for me to guage an exact living wage for the whole of the USA. Policymakers tend to make approximations of this anyway. To that end I would support the estimates provided by @Bifurcations earlier via her living wage calculator.
The reason I asked you if you knew what an "unlivable" wage was in the U.S. was because people in the U.S. that are under the official government-set poverty line aren't really poor. You just referred to Bifurcations' living wage calculator. Well that's just based on the wage of the poverty line set by the government. So let's talk about people who live under the poverty line and are earning an "unlivable wage" as you asserted:

Most people who earn an "unlivable wage" own a car. They own a washer or dryer and a computer. About 80% of them have air-conditioning, a landline, and a cellphone (probably a smartphone; that's the most common type of cellphone). Over 95% have a TV, a refrigerator, and a stove. About 80% of people getting an "unlivable wage" and in "poverty" have a video-recording device on their TVs in case they miss their favorite television show, so they can watch it later. Over 90% have microwaves. You asserted that people in the US getting paid an unlivable wage are under "harsh conditions". That isn't true. Correct me if you meant something else by that.

Again, it just comes down to this. Someone should just worry about determining how much his own workers should be paid, instead of somebody else's. A worker's wages shouldn't be decided by somebody he doesn't work for.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | May 4 2016 7:29 AM
Krazy: Why would someone else determine the wage of somebody else's workers? Why doesn't he just determine the wage of his own workers, instead of somebody else's?
The minimum wage doesn't determine private sector wages, it is simply meant to protect the working class from poverty level wages. Most people do not earn a minimum wage, so its not a problem. If someone wants to pay a person below the minimum wage, they wouldn't be allowed to because the minimum wage exists to protect people from being paid too little.
Krazy
By Krazy | May 4 2016 8:14 AM
Bi0Hazard: The minimum wage doesn't determine private sector wages, it is simply meant to protect the working class from poverty level wages.
That's the same thing.

Consider this analogy.

It was somebody's birthday. His friend congratulated him and said "How much money do you want for your birthday?". He said "Oh, it doesn't matter. It's your money, you can do whatever you want with it. But it's your money.

But it has to be at least $50."

Do you see the problem? Determining the wage and setting a minimum is the same thing.

You're determining, to a degree, how much they get paid, even though they don't work for you.

This analogy was about gifts, not wages, but it illustrates the point. All analogies break down at some point.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | May 4 2016 8:45 AM
Krazy: At a point the minimum wage does determine how much you at least have to pay someone, but if you get paid a higher than the minimum then the employers determine the wage(and most workers do get paid more than minimum). Its not really a bad thing to have a minimum wage set by the government since its a help for the working class and businesses don't seem to have a huge issue with needing below minimum wages. A minimum wage is a starting point for many workers. I am not going to go on defending the minimum wage since I don't really favor it anyways. However, the only real reason to abolish the minimum wage is to allow more low skilled workers into the private sector. High skilled labor is definitely more preferable to low skilled labor.
admin
By admin | May 4 2016 2:43 PM
Krazy: Repeating a previous post, verbatim, doesn't lend credence to an point. I tend to rebut substantive material as general themes or assumptions, rather than specific lines. As far as "picking examples" goes, if you really want to know, Switzerland's unemployment is low (although taken as a % of the working age population their real unemployment rate is actually more like 20%) because the government literally makes jobs for young people through a massive youth apprenticeship programme, while having a huge migrant workforce they can bring in or remove to keep the unemployment rate artificially low. South Africa still has the lowest employment rate in the OECD. All this assumes that low unemployment is desirable however, and I attacked this assumption. I have no interest in discussing the specific examples further - if you want that, debate me sometime.

Its clear that you don't care for the welfare of those who don't work. Can I ask why? Why does not working disqualify you from eating?

The reason why employment contract restrictions make sense is that there's a class-action tort involved. Sure, a contract is usually specifically between a number of parties, and you don't see why anyone else should have a right to that contract. But tort law exists for precisely that reason, to protect third parties from the harms of a contract. Think of the hitman example. The reason why employment contracts are modulated by social policy is exactly the same.

You live in a world where extreme libertarian capitalism is the only option. The unemployed can be paid money, or given food, in any other framework, without resorting to theft.

Natural rights are not said, they're a class of rights that exist because of their own premise. Human rights are rights we have because we are human.

It's not surprising poor workers own cars because in the US you often need a car to get to work. You often need fridges, microwaves and/or stoves to put food on the table. I'm surprised the percentages are not higher to be honest. If you're suggesting the impoverished should be living in caveman-like conditions to be "truly poor", then I'd have to wonder how you expect them to be competitive workers.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Krazy
By Krazy | May 5 2016 8:09 AM
admin: Its clear that you don't care for the welfare of those who don't work. Can I ask why? Why does not working disqualify you from eating?
2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
And I do care for the poor. I just think they should be taken care of by charities and private organizations rather than government programs.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | May 5 2016 8:33 AM
Krazy: What makes private charities superior to government welfare?
Krazy
By Krazy | May 5 2016 9:16 AM
Bi0Hazard: If the people voluntarily give money or anything to the poor, that's compassion. If you are forced to do it by the government; that misses the point.
ColeTrain
By ColeTrain | May 5 2016 9:49 AM
admin: Why do you disagree with him? Do you also reject Withers?
"Man is not free unless government is limited" -- Ronald Reagan
Topics: http://tinyurl.com/oh9tm6u
Page: 123Most Recent