[Devil's advocate] Minimum wage....hyah!

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Vociferous, Feb 5, 2018.

  1. Vociferous Registered Senior Member


    Series of devil's advocate posts from suggestions here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/devils-advocate.160526/

    We need a minimum wage, and it should be increased.

    Why do we need a minimum wage?
    • Some parts of the country have a much higher cost of living than others. This means that the minimum wage in these areas is effectively and relatively much lower than in lower cost of living areas.
    • Without it, employers could take advantage of desperation, much as pawnshops and payday loans currently do.
    • A minimum wage helps young people become independent adults.
    So how do we go about increasing it?

    Perhaps minimum wage should be tied to a regional metric, like property values and taxes. This could be implemented nationally, just not as a one-size-fits-all number for the whole country, with widely different local economies. Since the minimum wage doesn't cost the federal taxpayer anything, there's no argument about government cost.

    With a variable minimum wage, the rise in prices due to employer costs will be balanced against the strength of the local economy.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    No it should not I had to take the minimum wage once but after my inheritance came through I became s self made man...so why should we hand out money to folk who are less fortunate.

    I think you won so I conceed to your proposition.

    Lets see now to back up my reasonable view.

    The market should be free because only the market can resolve these matters.
    If someone must work why dictate that they are bound to a minimum wage and prevent them demanding more from the employer.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    A voluntary exchange for labor is not a handout.
    Just because the government sets the minimum doesn't mean that employers are any less capable of deciding whether it makes business sense.
    The market is better served with earners who contribute to the demand of more than necessities.
    Minimum wage doesn't prevent higher wages or even collective bargaining.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    That is mere opinion and will remain so unless you provide meaningful evidence.
    If employers are capable there is no need to bring in the Government.
    That is mere opinion do you offer any statistics that may support your claim.
    Why would you say that when the evidence is not in.

    To place people in a box and lable them as in reciept of minimum wage will clearly take away their self esteem one could think.
    Do you have anything that reports upon how setting of a minimum wage may errode self esteem.
  8. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    something given free to a needy person or organization.

    An exchange for labor is not something given free.
    Capable does not mean willing.
    Demand of necessities only raises the value/cost of necessities, which helps no one.
    Demand of other things creates new jobs and stimulates the economy.

    I'll try to offer statistics when you quit ignoring simple definitions.
    Not in? From multiple previous minimum wage hikes?

    Even if there were some sort of stigma on minimum wage, raising it can only raise any estimated self-value.
    Especially since it would mean people on welfare could make enough at jobs. Welfare being far more stigmatized than minimum wage.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    More opinion and still nothing to support your claim.
    Still you make no point.
    Again an unsupported claim.
    Even unsupported I fail to grasp the point you think that you have made.
    The word try is a pre warning to expected failure.
    You say you use simple definitions I suggest the first step in arguement is to make clear, define, the meaning of the most simple of terms.
    I have yet to read even your definition of a minimum wage.
    A flowery reply devoid of meaning.
    If you can answer my questions directly that would be helpful.
    The term minimum wage stands and presumably so would the erosion of self esteem of those in the catagory.
    Raising the minimum wage does not address the problem in the least and you nevertheless fail to provide any reports where this aspect may have been addressed.
    Would you be proud to tell yoir friends that you are receiving the mimimum wage or that the only way you can expect a raise is if the Government must intervene on your behalf.
    Clearly you avoid concern about peoples feelings.
    I thought if one is on welfare they were not in the work force and therefore a minimum wage would not help them.
    I suggest your general confusion leave your arguements without credibility.
    You have yet to show the relevance of welfare in this discussion let alone that any relationship between a case for a minimum wage and those on welfare should be drawn.
    Perhaps you should show that interferring in negotiations between two parties, in what clearly is a private matter between them, has any benifit to those parties or indeed to the community as a whole.
    Should privacy not be respected above a political agenda to force employers let outside influence invade their business.

  10. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    None of that is an argument against minimum wage.
    It's lazy or trolling, at best.
    Are you saying people should be paid less to avoid stigma, even if that means they live in poverty?
    I care much more for their health and survival than I do their feelings.
    People are on welfare because minimum wage isn't enough to support them.
    Maybe you should get around to making the case against minimum wage, instead of coaching me on how to make my case.

    Seriously, if this is the best you can do, it's sad and boring.
    One more chance. If you can't do any better, I have to assume you're just trolling and have no interest in actually arguing against the minimum wage.
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    You fail to define the concept of a minimum wage so at this point all I can do is wonder what it is that I am to argue against.
    Make a point, provide a definition so we can get started.
    Are you always so evasive?
    You are devestating with your compeling arguement.

    I suppose given your inabiloty to make any valid points I should point out that I make a joke because really you still have to make any point to carry your unsupported proposition forward.

    Why this preoccupation with trolls such that you confuse my solid questions with laziness.. By offering no replies to my questions that suggests that it is you that is afflicted with being lazy as you have yet to make a point on an undefined presumably invasive Government intervention in what should by private between employers and employees.
    No certainly not.. I would rather that you present a report where such a proposition has been researched by researchers who can guide us in this area.
    Your personal opinion is not relevant here but if you wish to impose your personal beliefs you are reasonably required to offer evidence which you as yet have not done.
    This is yet another unsupported claim.
    However if what you say is a fact I expect you are able to point to why you consider your claim should be taken as a fact.
    Do people on welfare recieve a minimum wage, a term you have yet to define, as well as Government help?
    I like to help folk who are clearly floundering but if you can define the term minimum wage together with evidence in support of your claim I will redirect my efforts to help to the issues you raise..if any.
    Oh I can do better but there is no need whilst you cant even define the concept of minimum wage.
    Yes but I am prepared to wait until you can get it together.
    Take as many as you need.
    You need to stop relying on your assumptions and address whatever it is you wish to address.
    Your frustration is not with me I suggest but with your inability to make any point.

    You really need to do better.
    Jan would eat you alive.

    Lets start at the begining...what is a minimum wage and how will Government intervention in the market place not possibly erode the self esteem of employees given you have no reports on this aspect of the matter.

    The economy is described as a market economy and so far you seem to suggest that tampering with the market by interferring with private negotiations between employers and employees is somehow beneficial to them and the community at large but so far you offer nothing other than your feelings.
    I think we need more than unsupported feeling before you ignore privacy of negotiation and impose a buracrates notion of what may or may not erode employees self esteem.

  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    If we deleted "minimum wage" from our thinking, and replaced it with "equable wage" regulated via the tax code, we would end the disparity between the 1% ers and the 99%ers.

    eg: If the highest paid(including all remuneration) made over 10 times the lowest paid employee, the tax rate for that business would go up.
    Rising to a maximum of 75% if the highest earners made over 100 times the lowest.
    $ seems to be a usable incentive?

    Before long, we could eliminate the growing disparity, which may be destabilizing to our polity, between the richest and the poorest.

    Curiously: the highest paid California state employee is a football coach.
    This seems to be beyond the bounds of sanity from my perspective.
  13. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    I'm done feeding the troll Xelasnave. Waste of time.
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I like the idea in theory; in practice, it would be too easy to game.

    Company X has a CEO that makes $10 million a year and janitors that make $8 an hour. So their tax rates go up. To bring their taxes back down, they spin off a new company - WorkX - where regular employees and janitors work for low wages. The original company, ExecX, provides management services via an ironclad contract to WorkX. It consists of 20 people who each make between $1 and $10 million a year.

    If they want to give the CEO a raise, then they create another new company, ceoX, that just provides CEO services.

    Why? A good football team may bring in tens of millions (in ad revenue, ticket sales, alumni donations etc) to a school. Spending $3.5 million a year to generate $35 million in income may be a very smart move in terms of funding California schools.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not just California.
    It's a consequence of the highest paid employee of most large universities being a coach.
    In some situations it would be an incentive to pay the executives higher salaries and provide them more luxurious benefits rather than compensate them via a share of the profits.
    In some situations it would discourage profit sharing as a compensation for low wage employees.
    In all situations it would encourage even inefficient automation (deducts from the tax-vulnerable profits and gets rid of the lower pay scale people at the same time).
    In all situations it would encourage overtime and longer hours from low wage employees, rather than more hiring.

    But it would probably be a net improvement - like many other changes that would involve levying higher taxes on rich people.
  16. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Nothing to keep businesses from structuring themselves so they can pay even less than the current minimum wage.
    Redistribution and inequality are the wrong way to argue minimum wage.
    It's a stop-gap, like disability. It keeps the disadvantaged from fall through the cracks.
    No one argues against disability, but many arguments could be made against the perceived politics of envy.
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I sincerely am sorry you feel that way.

    I tried to play the game I thought you had suggested.

    Your request to argue in opposition to ones personally held position seemed a rather strange idea but in an effort to make you happy I was obliging and played.

    So calling me a troll I think is unreasonable and frankly I think uncalled for but certainly demonstrates that name calling is your prime tool of arguement.
  18. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Envy is irrelevant. Perception of unequal rules for rich and poor is key. Income inequality is a danger to social stability and needs to be addressed.
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  19. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    You're absolutely right, but the perception of envy can't be swayed by saying it's irrelevant.
    But the rich, with their high-price lawyers and accountants, are effectively above the law, relative to the average person.
    If nothing else, that nurtures a sense of resentment that does real harm to the social cohesion of a country.
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    It's a justice issue, not a jealousy issue. And you acknowledge this when you admit that justice for the rich is different than for the poor. Bringing injustice up as a social ill is not the social ill.
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Awesome reference in title and opening post. One of my faves.
    Vociferous likes this.
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    It went wrong because I tried to use my ability for evil...And used sneeky methods...but all I had to do was argue like a conservative.
  23. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    It is a huge injustice, that those taken advantage of have zero power to address.
    It's not about envy, but greed. I was just saying that envy is a losing argument for anything but preaching to the choir.

Share This Page