It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Minimum Wage Thought Experiment

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


I don't think it is feasible to live off of minimum wage as it is.

But what I want people to earn has no bearing on what they are worth.

If the point of minimum wage is to allow people a "living" wage - then why not set it at 100 a hour?

Someone will have to explain the rationale for not arguing for a 100 dollar an hour minimum wage.



edit on 21-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I like your train of thought on this one. All of our American jobs are getting under bid by foreign labor and when that happens along with so many immigrants rushing in we have high unemployment!
I know a few people that would love to get minumum wage or less but cant find either!



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well I'm no economist, but all that would do is induce hyper-inflation. Rather than impose that, you may as well just scrap the whole capitalism thing and switch to communism.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WEALLNEED2KNOW
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I like your train of thought on this one. All of our American jobs are getting under bid by foreign labor and when that happens along with so many immigrants rushing in we have high unemployment!
I know a few people that would love to get minumum wage or less but cant find either!


That's right.

It is better to have people working than not working.

As the economy improves and starts producing things, real wages will rise all on their own.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScepticalBeliever
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well I'm no economist, but all that would do is induce hyper-inflation. Rather than impose that, you may as well just scrap the whole capitalism thing and switch to communism.


How so?

Businesses can't print money

Only government can print money.

Therefore, business being forced to hire at 100 an hour would not produce hyper inflation.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You'll have to explain "passive violence" to me.


Just like I had to explain the concept of not buying what you can't afford?


Does that mean the employer threatens to shoot his employees family if he doesn't agree to work for below minimum wage?


That's hardly passive, is it? No, it's the exertion of power. If a potential employee is inquiring about a job that pays, I dunno, $2 a day (Welcome to Guam!) then they are doing so because they have no other options. The employer of course realizes this, and is thus in a position to lower the offered wages, increase hours with no overtime, and exploit the potential employee in any other way, because the employee has no option. When you say "Sign this contract or starve," that is exploitation, and is a form of violence.


The State is the only one engaging in violence here.


What, in your DOL swat assault fantasy?


Voluntary contracts are just that - voluntary.


But not all contracts are actually voluntary.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by monkofmimir
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



If its a choice between slave wages or starving to death it isn't a voluntary contract any more than a slave has a voluntery contract


Slavery involves violence.


And so does wage coersion. It's a passive violence, but it's still violence.



This caught my attention. Would you say that forcing the business owner to pay a certain wage is violence?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


So why not have a 100 dollar an hour minimum wage?

I guess government is just evil for not forcing business to pay us all a million dollars a year right?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blueracer
 


This is like arguing with 10 year olds.

They can't grasp even the most rudimentary economic arguments.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Because everyone would be buying so much of everything, as they had so much money to burn, demand would go through the roof, supply would fall, and as a result prices would sky-rocket. Billy at Burger King could have a few rolexes in a week. I'm talking if this was introduced now, today. The whole point of introducing capitalism seems to me to be to create a tiered system- in theory a meritocracy, but obviously not- if everyone was at the top of the tier, there would be no capitalism. They would have to print more money, anyway. There's only just over $10T in circulation, that wouldn't cover 150m workforce earning >$100 p/h.

Anyway, I don't see minimum wage as solely for the employee, it has benefits for the employee, too- almost like a compromise. Employees have to make money, in a capitalist society.

Adressing your original question, at the end of the day, if this florist can't afford to pay minimum wage, he shouldn't have gone into business in the first place and should sell up. He was aware of the rules, before he started up (hopefully).

ETA: oops, I forgot to add, companies would also need to increase their prices exponentially, in order to cover this massive expense rise.
edit on 21-1-2011 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


No buddy.

Everyone would not be buying everything - because NO FREAKING BUSINESS WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD HIRING ANYONE.

Businesses don't have printing presses in their basements that allow them to magically produce money out of thin air unless they are the Federal Reserve.


edit on 21-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


you do know you have to pay the union right?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Obviously we could move this discussion to a situation where the workers were slave to religious devotion. Then one might ask questions about the organizers who profited from the sale of the goods. For example are there hypocrites in management that see their flock as dead meat on the hoof? Its a deeper subject than we realize.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well there could be a legally sanctioned opt-out that people could sign or just signing the contract of employment Knowing it is below minimum wage would be fine. Of course there could well be a lot more movement as people choose to move up for better pay which is their perogative.

What is clear is that somethigradical must be done as we will shortly be going bust.
edit on 21-1-2011 by tiger5 because: reword



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You were the one who suggested it, and yes, I realise it was hypothetical and raised to "provoke thought". As I just clearly said, the minimum wage is a compromise between employer and employee- that was what I was trying to illustrate, whilst playing along with your game. I was talking in a completely hypothetical sense, if A and B both were multiplied by 14, or whatever your actual minimum wage: hypothetical minimum wage ratio inversed is- though I realise it wasn't that clear, and yes, I know it's an impossibility. But then again, didn't you just destroy your own "straw man", as people say. It was silly of me to entertain such a statement, in a seemingly literal way- for that much, I deserve to be talked down to.

You seem to be making out that employees are the guilty party, and they should cave to employers yearnings, so to speak- as if the employers are doing people a favour by employing them, and the employees are villains for demanding minimum wage. You even say that you don't believe people can live off minimum wage, then say to scrap minimum wage and that individuals should be allowed to work for less, if they "wanted" to. As I pointed out, want is a luxury word in todays society- not everyone has a choice, and this will lead to more people being exploited.

Just to re-iterate, I believe minimum wage is a compromise between the two parties- it is not necessarily solely for the employees benefits- there has to be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise there would be no companies offering jobs in the first place, as you say. However, you can't just totally disregard one side entirely. Wage caps would be a better idea, in my eyes- though I realise, that's a totally different subject.


edit on 21-1-2011 by ScepticalBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Paying below a minimum wage would not stop jobs going overseas. The USA cannot compete with cetain foreign countries.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neopan100
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Do you really want people that are handling your food at restaurants to be making under the current min. wage..(which most waitresses make 3.01/hr+tips)...but still...like people are going to take # customers under min wage.

I don't work for under 12.00/hr..sorry...I won't...I would quit and get on the dole before making less...fortunately, I do my own thing and make much more than that...but if something was to happen I would rather go on dole than make a BUCK a day.

YEP you said it NEOPAN!!!! I was thinking the same thing. I'm sorry but I like to eat and have a roof over my head and have electric so I don't freeze/sweat to death. What does the OP want another China?
No, I change my mind I would not go on the dole, instead I would move to the UK or Canada, legally. I have enough if I sell my residence so I could do it, and I could be sponsered since I am in IT.
RealIy it amazes me that people actually think that we should allow ourselves to basically become slaves. Working for 32 cents an hour is slavery IDGAF what spin you put on it! INSANITY!!!!
edit on 21-1-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling

edit on 21-1-2011 by ldyserenity because: ???WHAT THE SH**



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
It's worse then that, it's murder.

What we have here is a collusion of interests which keep housing, energy, food and medicine at certain levels, while driving wages far below what is required for even two people to meet these levels, on average.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkofmimir

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Because at this point my job skills were high enough that I could demand a higher salary.

There are no free lunches.


Maybe things are better where you are but round here no one recognises skills anymore only qualifications.

Unfortunatly qualifications cost money.

without a job you cant get enough money to get qualifications.

without qualifications you can't get a job

without a job you can't get money...

Oh stop complaining. Apparently you weren't smart enough to be born to wealthy parents.

Whose fault is that?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I say bring back the student wage - when I was a kid and first started working we got paid less than minimum wage. Having to pay HS kids the same wages as an adult for zero experience and restricted or limited hours cuts into the bottom line - this is why I hardly see HS kids working any more.

All my friends and I had jobs in school and for like a dollar or two less than minimum wage which was like 3.15 or something at the time.

I would like to open a movie theater in our town but it’s such a small town I don't see it succeeding on any model if I have to pay minimum wage at all.

If I could pay kids a little less - say 5.00 an hour instead I could see it working.

Also, I don’t think that kids under 18 should be taxed on their earnings – its taxation without representation; they can’t vote. So paying them a student wage and not taxing it would be fair.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join