Minimum wage

Do you think that the minimum wage in the US should be higher, lower, etc.

  • Higher

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • Lower

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Keep it as it is

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 21.1%

  • Total voters
    19

Ryan Miller

Active member
A hot topic we have here in the US. This time, it's about minimum wage laws. Most Democrats want it higher, most Republicans want it lower (or sometimes let the companies decide). What do you think?

 
From what I've seen serious economists seem to be split about 50/50 on minimum wage - it's not a question with an easy simple answer. I'm going to take the useless cop out - choosing "other" and saying that some a different system like a negative income tax would be more efficient than any minimum.

 
its not a substitute for broad changes in how wealth and power are distributed amongst the populace, but if we're going to keep going with this dopey system then a higher minimum wage is the way to go

 
Let the free market decide.

Of course there are merits to both arguments, but if there is a mutual agreement by both sides (employer, employee) to be paid a lower wage than minimum wage then sure, I don't see why that should be a problem (ex. a part time student looking for work). With more government regulation, it'd just be harder for businesses to higher more people, simple as. 

 
US wages aren't competitive because the government subsidizes large businesses with tax breaks, breaks unions, and there's no legitimate/strong monopoly laws to create more competitive wages. As a result, wages are increasingly pushed down and the quality of work is decreased. This is further amplified by a working set-up where regular workers aren't given fair vacation or paternity leave, healthcare laws that limit work hours and push entry jobs into part-time jobs, etc.

It's surely a complicated issue, but the solution is general labor reform, an issue that isn't about big scary regulation to screw small business like the kind we've been getting. It's actually regulation that goes after the people who drove wages down and spent the last thirty years creating favorable red tape for the people with the most resources. If you don't know what I mean, consider looking at media companies, ISP's, and banks. You can see it most clearly in these areas, because they get a lot of attention, but even grocery stores, service industries and general merchandise stores have worked their way to the bottom in order to turn bigger returns as well.

 
I would like to propose a complete overhaul to the system to prepare us for the 21st century. Note: Current minimum wage at 40 hour work weeks for 52 weeks results in: 15k, 100% FPL for a single is 12k.

1st. Removal of any subsidies/tax breaks/ pro-monopoly laws, unless the companies happen to be producing something with a positive externality.

2nd. Provide a Universal income that evaluates to basically the minimum necessary to survive (100% FPL)

3rd. To save the environment, and not fuck over the next generation, create a graduated carbon tax, this would punish companies that do more polluting more severely.

4th. To promote education, provide an income for people staying in school(400% FPL?), and make college payments on an affordability basis(something like a graduated tax system)

5th. Creation of anti-monopoly laws, worker's unions, universal health care, requirements for vacation(Something like a minimum of x days off), paternity leave, gender equality law enforcement(80% earnings nation-wide, which can't be explained away by occupation, education, career decisions, etc.), Racial equality policies.

6th. Leave wages to the market, as we've ensured that those who do work will exceed the poverty line, and have policies to remove discrimination, which could break markets.

 
breaks unions, and there's no legitimate/strong monopoly laws


Creation of anti-monopoly laws, worker's unions


Does nobody see the irony that big unions are some of the strongest monopolies that exist in this country? Just because a cartel is controlling labor instead of oil or internet service doesn't make it a great idea for an efficient economy. Anything a union can do can be done better through law, so if we're dreaming up a perfect system then what's with the unions?

 
Does nobody see the irony that big unions are some of the strongest monopolies that exist in this country? Just because a cartel is controlling labor instead of oil or internet service doesn't make it a great idea for an efficient economy. Anything a union can do can be done better through law, so if we're dreaming up a perfect system then what's with the unions?
You're dreaming if you think big unions are some of the strongest monopolies in the country. Unions have lost so much of their power in the past 30 years that it's not even funny. And it's not some utopia-esque fairy tale to believe unions help workers. Look at the majority of western countries that have better buying power and less bullshit to deal with.

 
Does nobody see the irony that big unions are some of the strongest monopolies that exist in this country? Just because a cartel is controlling labor instead of oil or internet service doesn't make it a great idea for an efficient economy. Anything a union can do can be done better through law, so if we're dreaming up a perfect system then what's with the unions?
Union is strong monopoly...Only in Massachusetts. Seriously, union power throughout the country has declined massively since the 1960s, and participation in unions is either at or below 10%. There are like 5 states without right to work laws, and to top it off, most people refuse to join unions because it requires them to pay dues. This creates a free-rider problem, and as such, without laws to promote the presence/power of union, we would have coordination failures regarding trying to get companies to have reasonable worker standards or wages. Unless you're trying to argue that the presence of a union is a negative externality to the labor market, which I have trouble buying because minimum wage at 40 hours a week is barely enough for 1 person to be above the poverty line, and without Unions, companies don't have a major incentive to pay some workers above minimum wage.

 
Let the free market decide.

Of course there are merits to both arguments, but if there is a mutual agreement by both sides (employer, employee) to be paid a lower wage than minimum wage then sure, I don't see why that should be a problem (ex. a part time student looking for work). With more government regulation, it'd just be harder for businesses to higher more people, simple as. 


Things like welfare keep wages down. Someone can essentially work on less than it takes to live. This isn't just government welfare; something like cultures where people give money to their wives or parents means that some people are willing to work for a lower salary. In some of these countries, female majority jobs like nurses, babysitters and office workers are underpaid because they have to compete with the married women who are willing to take almost no pay and just want to fill up their time. Or something like the US where tipping culture means servers get a lower salary on average.

Free market is really bad with this and this is exactly why we need minimum wages.

Where I live, we don't really have unions. But if people are unhappy with their jobs, they just don't show up or do work really slowly as a protest.

 
Back
Top