Living Wage Argument

[Skm1091]

This is one of the most common arguments I have heard from people for the minimum wage.

They ask, how will people survive off of a five or six dollar per hour wage?

Here are my responses.

1. It is better for people to work for five to six dollars an hour then not being able to find work at all.

2. Without all this government fiddling with the money supply and price fixing many goods. Things will become more affordable and that five dollars an hour would carry you a lot further than it does now.

Examples: Healthcare nowadays cost a small fortune, you can thank the gov co monopoly for that. Back during the early twentieth century you could have paid for a whole years worth of healthcare on a day's wage.

3. Without the government mucking around with prices, money value, and if we get the government out of education and market entirely there will be more options at rising on the economic ladder at your disposal. Education programs to help you get more productive skills will be more affordable thus making it easier to get better jobs.

Example: People during the 1960s and 1970s were able to pay their college tuition just by working as a waiter. Nowadays college is so expensive that parents have save from the moment that the child is born and even then the child could graduate with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt.

Feel free to add to this.

[AnCap Dave]

The thing is, these people already know that minimum wage is a bad idea.

Just ask them why stop at $20? Why not go up to $100? How about $1000?

They understand that this will lower employment but choose to ignore it because either their emotions won't let them look at it from a purely empirical point of view or they simply don't care about others and just want more money.

[Skm1091]

The thing is, these people already know that minimum wage is a bad idea.

Just ask them why stop at $20? Why not go up to $100? How about $1000?

They understand that this will lower employment but choose to ignore it because either their emotions won't let them look at it from a purely empirical point of view or they simply don't care about others and just want more money.

Oh yeah. If you look at the Racist White Unions during Apartheid Regime in South Africa, they were advocating for increases in minimum wage to keep unskilled blacks out of the labor force. Were they wanting to help the blacks? Hell naw! They new that raising the minimum wage raises the bars for the blacks to find work.

[Dallas Wildman]

The thing is, these people already know that minimum wage is a bad idea.

Just ask them why stop at $20? Why not go up to $100? How about $1000?

They understand that this will lower employment but choose to ignore it because either their emotions won't let them look at it from a purely empirical point of view or they simply don't care about others and just want more money.

Or they'll just make the "any further would just be unreasonable" hand wave.

[Travis Retriever]

Or they'll just make the "any further would just be unreasonable" hand wave.

I know, right?  Talk about missing the damn point...

[dallen68]

Also, in the 19th and early 20th century, it wasn't all that uncommon to trade services. You could, for instance, pay the doctor with plumbing.

If we made the minimum wage $100, it would exceed the desired amount of employability exclusion.

If we let the market set the price of college, and not have the govt fiddle with things, the costs would fall below the desired level of educatability exclusion.

See a pattern here?

[Skm1091]

There is also the indirect effect of a minimum wage increase of increasing prices due to costs going up. Making goods less affordable.

[Ibrahim90]

well, you could argue that people in Africa live off a dollar or two a day. that's a living wage, no?

[Skm1091]

well, you could argue that people in Africa live off a dollar or two a day. that's a living wage, no?

The problem with a lot of these people who are against sweatshops is that they compare it to their standards and not to a previous standard that the people in the sweatshops were living under.

[Ibrahim90]

The problem with a lot of these people who are against sweatshops is that they compare it to their standards and not to a previous standard that the people in the sweatshops were living under.

again, these sweatshop workers are clearly living--certainly they're able to afford basic accommodations: they can't work if they're dead. Therefore, by their own logic, the minimum wage (this mythical "living wage") should be much lower than what we see in the US (for a sweatshop, this would be $3-10 a day).

that's why the whole argument for a "living wage" by these people who wish to raise the minimum wage (or abolish sweatshops in the developing countries) is a load of bullshit: where do you draw the line? certainly the minimum to live a healthy life is not $7.50 an hour, or $9.00 an hour--what these idiots argue is a "living wage". it's clearly somewhere lower than that. And if it were this much, one can always group up, and split expenses.

[dallen68]

again, these sweatshop workers are clearly living--certainly they're able to afford basic accommodations: they can't work if they're dead. Therefore, by their own logic, the minimum wage (this mythical "living wage") should be much lower than what we see in the US (for a sweatshop, this would be $3-10 a day).

that's why the whole argument for a "living wage" by these people who wish to raise the minimum wage (or abolish sweatshops in the developing countries) is a load of bullshit: where do you draw the line? certainly the minimum to live a healthy life is not $7.50 an hour, or $9.00 an hour--what these idiots argue is a "living wage". it's clearly somewhere lower than that. And if it were this much, one can always group up, and split expenses.

You seem to be misunderstanding what they mean by "living wage". By "living wage" they mean "wages high enough to make the employer's income approximately what someone working in the sweatshop is."

[Skm1091]

You seem to be misunderstanding what they mean by "living wage". By "living wage" they mean "wages high enough to make the employer's income approximately what someone working in the sweatshop is."

And like I said before that leads to another problem. increased price in goods like food.

[Ibrahim90]

You seem to be misunderstanding what they mean by "living wage". By "living wage" they mean "wages high enough to make the employer's income approximately what someone working in the sweatshop is."

wait, you really mean employer, or actually employee?

if former:

if latter: see previous post

[dallen68]

wait, you really mean employer, or actually employee?

if former:

if latter: see previous post

I mean the guy who owns the business.