Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

So....someone should receive a higher pay for the same work because of their age?

Yes, because age can be an asset.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm not so sure this is that easy to establish.

It's inherently subjective, but it isn't hard, if you get the distinction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
So....someone should receive a higher pay for the same work because of their age?

There was a concern expressed that teenagers will be getting a minimum wage that's meant to be a living wage for adults, at which point I suggested a system in place elsewhere in the world, where there is a lower rate for younger people.

It's reasonable to reject that system, in the belief that anyone who can do a given job should get the same pay, as you appear to. But if that's the case then the argument teenagers don't need to be paid as much as someone who needs to support a family goes away. You can only pick one of those two things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
We are multi-decades way from that kind of impact in healthcare...

Frankly, I'm not in the camp that believes robots would wholesale change an industry like that.

I think we're probably multiple decades away as well. Not just the technology but the cultural acceptance of taking even a first diagnosis from a machine*.

But I think, and I think others as well, were talking about multiple generations from now.


*That said, one of the big things about technology is that things are always decades away, until all of a sudden they've just happened. We talked about automation replacing jobs as a few decades away, until all of a sudden there were more robots than people on earth, and whole industries were making more than they ever did while employing a tenth of the labour.

Or companies could simply pay people based on what the work is worth.

I think it would be interesting if we snowballed what should be covered by a "living wage" because it is, as you said, so very subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

So....someone should receive a higher pay for the same work because of their age?

Yes, because age can be an asset.

Please provide an example where a younger person should get paid more than an older person (or vice versa) simply based on age.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
How is that remotely relevant

Based on this I'll assume I misunderstood your previous comment.

I agree get rid of those government invasive rules to protect the worker! go back to the good old days of 6 day work week, 12 hours a day getting paid in company credits only and living in company housing, we don't need no stinking minimum wage.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I agree get rid of those government invasive rules to protect the worker!

I must have missed where anyone proposed that. Mind pointing it out for me?

 Psienesis wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
And in the mean time, everyone else who was already making that level of pay gets shafted.

Anecdotal example. A relative of mine is taking a job where she is managing a pet kennel. A large one, capable of holding a couple hundred animals. Her pay (not including other benefits) will be starting at $15 an hour. She will be running a 1.5 million dollar business at that pay. This type of minimum wage hike? She'd have to pay the folks who do nothing more then clean the poop out of the stalls and wash towels the exact same.

So, someone whose responsible for managing payroll, scheduling, handling advertising, etc, will be drawing in the same dollar per hour that sprays gak out of a stall for 4 hours a day.

I fail to see what the problem is in this situation. The conservative ideology that dominates opposition to minimum wage laws is that the free market is always correct, and concepts like what people "deserve" to make are irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I think 10$ is perfect for what min wage is meant for. Teenagers and college students working for spending money.
It is not meant to support a 40 yr.
You want a job, go train for one. a guard card is 200 in california, and depending on the establishment, you could get 600 a night

It must be nice living in a fantasy world where everyone can get a job that pays better than minimum wage with a trivial amount of effort. Too bad that isn't the one we actually live in, where a lot of people don't have the same lives as middle-class college students.

You don't need to be a middle-class college student to get a restaurant job that pays more than minimum wage.

Considering that wait-staff is allowed, by law, to be paid less than minimum wage (the difference to be made up by tips) and that chefs in this area are often paid $12\hr (for having 5 years of culinary arts school and 10 years experience)... yeah, actually, that's pretty damned difficult.

Good servers make way more than minimum wage. Good bartenders can make even more. And there are restaurants that hire cooks off the street (not chefs, mind you) for more than minimum wage.

For food services it really varies. My brother currently works full time as a helper in the kitchens of a relatively high-end place, Diamond Mills to be specific, and he gets paid a good wage, but I have friends who work and wait staff, and they don't always make enough in tips to fill that gap. Which is why there have been laws proposed to make the employers fill that gap.

Really, I have never liked the idea that tipped workers get to be paid less because of tips. Tips should be used to show appreciation for good service, not a an excuse to pay them less.

Finding a job that pays more then minimum wage is not that difficult. Even if you find one that does, growing beyond it won't take long if you exhibit something like drive.

Granted, I'm drawing from 15 years ago, but when I worked fast food, I started out $1.50 above minimum wage. WIthin 6 months, I had received about a dollar an hour in raises. Why? Because I was a worker who could be relied on. Even though all I was doing was making Taco's, I did it well. I showed up on time, I volunteered to fill gakky shifts, I acted like I cared about my job. I was rewarded for it.

Managers don't like minimum wage workers. Because they aren't workers worth keeping. They'd rather pay more to an employee who is going to be worth 2 crappy employees. So don't be a crappy employee.

 djones520 wrote:
Finding a job that pays more then minimum wage is not that difficult. Even if you find one that does, growing beyond it won't take long if you exhibit something like drive.

Granted, I'm drawing from 15 years ago, but when I worked fast food, I started out $1.50 above minimum wage. WIthin 6 months, I had received about a dollar an hour in raises. Why? Because I was a worker who could be relied on. Even though all I was doing was making Taco's, I did it well. I showed up on time, I volunteered to fill gakky shifts, I acted like I cared about my job. I was rewarded for it.

Managers don't like minimum wage workers. Because they aren't workers worth keeping. They'd rather pay more to an employee who is going to be worth 2 crappy employees. So don't be a crappy employee.

IME, it depends on the establishment. Corporate and change stores are less likely to give a raise you less you get a promotion.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Finding a job that pays more then minimum wage is not that difficult. Even if you find one that does, growing beyond it won't take long if you exhibit something like drive.

Granted, I'm drawing from 15 years ago, but when I worked fast food, I started out $1.50 above minimum wage. WIthin 6 months, I had received about a dollar an hour in raises. Why? Because I was a worker who could be relied on. Even though all I was doing was making Taco's, I did it well. I showed up on time, I volunteered to fill gakky shifts, I acted like I cared about my job. I was rewarded for it.

Managers don't like minimum wage workers. Because they aren't workers worth keeping. They'd rather pay more to an employee who is going to be worth 2 crappy employees. So don't be a crappy employee.

IME, it depends on the establishment. Corporate and change stores are less likely to give a raise you less you get a promotion.

I worked for Taco Bell. I see many corporate stores today that are only promoting from within. They aren't hiring managers off the street, and the sorts.

As I said, that boss is going to want a hard worker more then a gakky worker. They will pay you more to keep you, because you are a proven asset. Most pay decisions are not made at corporate level. They are made at the franchise level, or even the store level.

 cincydooley wrote:

Please provide an example where a younger person should get paid more than an older person (or vice versa) simply based on age.

In door-to-door anything middle age women tend to have higher starting compensation as their activity usually leads to greater revenue.

At any rate "...simply based on age..." is lazy criticism. If you, as a bar owner, cannot acknowledge that there are characteristics associated with age that are common, and dictate who you hire, then you probably need to think a bit.

 dogma wrote:
as their activity usually leads to greater revenue.

So these middle-aged women aren't producing the same number of widgets, as it were, as other people. They're producing more. So it would follow that they should be paid more if that holds true.

At any rate "...simply based on age..." is lazy criticism. If you, as a bar owner, cannot acknowledge that there are characteristics associated with age that are common, and dictate who you hire, then you probably need to think a bit.

We're not talking about hiring rates. We're talking about wages.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I agree get rid of those government invasive rules to protect the worker!

I must have missed where anyone proposed that. Mind pointing it out for me?

Then why are you against minimum wage? you say no one will take a low paying job, strange people already doing that, you know when you have no money and are hungry.
No minimum wage gives the power to the companies, minimum wage gives the power to the worker.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:


Then why are you against minimum wage? you say no one will take a low paying job, strange people already doing that, you know when you have no money and are hungry.
No minimum wage gives the power to the companies, minimum wage gives the power to the worker.

Are you concerned about power or protection here? Because your previous post indicated protection.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
No minimum wage gives the power to the companies, minimum wage gives the power to the worker.

Minimum wage gives no power to anybody. It causes inflation and lets politicians claim they're doing something about the economy and get votes without having to actually help anyone.

 cincydooley wrote:
Or companies could simply pay people based on what the work is worth.

I think it would be interesting if we snowballed what should be covered by a "living wage" because it is, as you said, so very subjective.

 cincydooley wrote:

So these middle-aged women aren't producing the same number of widgets, as it were, as other people. They're producing more. So it would follow that they should be paid more if that holds true.

Under your model they wouldn't be, as your model seems to operate irrespective of age and the associated characteristics.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
No minimum wage gives the power to the companies, minimum wage gives the power to the worker.

Minimum wage gives no power to anybody. It causes inflation and lets politicians claim they're doing something about the economy and get votes without having to actually help anyone.

So lots of people living on the street and below the poverty line surely shows the success of the current system, keep them rich rich!
http://rt.com/usa/us-food-percent-emergency-612/

 sebster wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
The problem is that economics isn't a science, it's a collection of cults, of ideologies.

Not really. There are strong political interests and cliques in economics, but these are limited almost entirely to macro. The issue is that macro is by far the most discussed element of economics in the public sphere, and when you add in the tendency of the media to focus on the most political, most controversial speakers, well that tends to lead people to form an impression like yours above.

Most economics is actually very technical, entirely non-political and in most cases extremely boring. Go read some stuff about international trade or institutional economics, if you doubt me.

I don't agree, the issue is not that macro is discussed more in the public sphere, it's that economists themselves filter "technical, non-political" aspects of the work through those macro ideological filters. You mention international trade, which is a perfect example - when you consider the body of academic work on that subject, vast amounts of it rest on assumptions based in neoliberal macro ideology. Even when research is done from a heterodox perspective it rarely makes it to the point of being considered for policy or even just being part of the public discourse, since the economists advising governments, banks, and media all subscribe to a very narrow band of macro ideologies and they act as gatekeepers.

By the same token, replacing most existing forms of taxation with a system like Land Value Rating would achieve a lot of the more agreeable principles espoused by traditionally right-wing economic ideologies(you should keep what you earn, businesses shouldn't have their growth limited by essentially arbitrary tax rates etc) while also reducing inequality and eliminating any real possibility of avoidance and evasion, but because it's not progressive income tax combined with punitive corporation tax and because we're conditioned to see politics and economics as a zero-sum game a lot of folk on the left won't even consider it.

Tax on wealth rather than income is a terrible idea.

Since you don't bother to elaborate beyond this assertion, I'll have to disagree again. I tried to put together a succinct argument as to exactly why your assertion is incorrect, but frankly it's too big a topic for a couple of paragraphs on a forum, so I'll just have to link to this more thorough explanation, which is probably much better written than I could manage anyway.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I don't agree, the issue is not that macro is discussed more in the public sphere, it's that economists themselves filter "technical, non-political" aspects of the work through those macro ideological filters. You mention international trade, which is a perfect example - when you consider the body of academic work on that subject, vast amounts of it rest on assumptions based in neoliberal macro ideology. Even when research is done from a heterodox perspective it rarely makes it to the point of being considered for policy or even just being part of the public discourse, since the economists advising governments, banks, and media all subscribe to a very narrow band of macro ideologies and they act as gatekeepers.

You know what they call heterodox economics that's well founded, well reasoned, and substantiated in economic models? Orthodox economics. Thankyou, I'll be hear all week.

Anyhow, I have no idea how New Trade Theory can be called neo-liberal in any sensible way. It puts front and square an economic argument for protectionism - the development of economies of scale and network effects in infant industries. That runs directly counter to the neo-liberal take on trade.

Since you don't bother to elaborate beyond this assertion, I'll have to disagree again. I tried to put together a succinct argument as to exactly why your assertion is incorrect, but frankly it's too big a topic for a couple of paragraphs on a forum, so I'll just have to link to this more thorough explanation, which is probably much better written than I could manage anyway.

I honestly thought about writing up a list, but then I didn't know if you were going to respond, or were even interested, so I just thought I start with one sentence and see what happens.

Anyway, here's a quick list, if you got any questions about any of them feel free;

1) There'll be a considerable deadweight loss. Property development is risky and so demands high rates of return, if the developer can expect newly developed land to start attracting very high taxes then he is likely to forgo development. When housing availability is such a problem because of the risks associated with new development, the deadweight loss would likely be a disaster.

2) Land value is subjective. I've worked in local government, the valuations are part formula, part bs, wrapped in enough clever government legalism to avoid constant law suits. This works because its just council rates, but if you ramp the tax up to cover current income taxes you'd have a farce of massive litigation.

3) We can't pay for lunch with wealth. A house rises and falls in value independent of our pay... but our tax will come out of income and our living standard will remain our net income. This means that a person can earn $50k and pay lets say $15k on their home in land tax. Then next year as a property boom comes through the area and while his income remains 50k, taxes might increase on the now more valuable home to 25k. All of a sudden net income has been slashed, without changing anything myself. Now consider the same thing happening to someone on a very low wage - if housing grows enough in an area over two or three years, it can actually exceed annual income.

4) Most wealth is outside of land. A person with large investments in stocks will not pay anything by this system (other than that paid by the company, which can potentially be very little), but a person who owns several homes that he rents will pay a massive portion of the overall tax burden. This seems a very weird way to prioritise tax - people who build and developing housing for rent are expected to pay most of the tax burden of the country, people who invest in stocks pay nothing.

 sebster wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I don't agree, the issue is not that macro is discussed more in the public sphere, it's that economists themselves filter "technical, non-political" aspects of the work through those macro ideological filters. You mention international trade, which is a perfect example - when you consider the body of academic work on that subject, vast amounts of it rest on assumptions based in neoliberal macro ideology. Even when research is done from a heterodox perspective it rarely makes it to the point of being considered for policy or even just being part of the public discourse, since the economists advising governments, banks, and media all subscribe to a very narrow band of macro ideologies and they act as gatekeepers.

You know what they call heterodox economics that's well founded, well reasoned, and substantiated in economic models? Orthodox economics. Thankyou, I'll be hear all week.

Rubbish. Orthodox economics is essentially the various forms of neoclassical and neoclassical-adjacent models, the moment you step outside those limits it doesn't matter how extensive and well-founded your research is, you will be dismissed on the basis you are not adhering to dogma.

Anyhow, I have no idea how New Trade Theory can be called neo-liberal in any sensible way. It puts front and square an economic argument for protectionism - the development of economies of scale and network effects in infant industries. That runs directly counter to the neo-liberal take on trade.

And this is mainstream economics is it? Discussed in the media, understood in abstract terms by the populace, used to inform policy, and widely accepted among academic economists? No. NTT is dismissed by orthodox academic economists as using cherry-picked datasets to prove a point based on assumptions, and back in the real world we're all staring down the barrel of TTIP.

Since you don't bother to elaborate beyond this assertion, I'll have to disagree again. I tried to put together a succinct argument as to exactly why your assertion is incorrect, but frankly it's too big a topic for a couple of paragraphs on a forum, so I'll just have to link to this more thorough explanation, which is probably much better written than I could manage anyway.

I honestly thought about writing up a list, but then I didn't know if you were going to respond, or were even interested, so I just thought I start with one sentence and see what happens.

Anyway, here's a quick list, if you got any questions about any of them feel free;

1) There'll be a considerable deadweight loss. Property development is risky and so demands high rates of return, if the developer can expect newly developed land to start attracting very high taxes then he is likely to forgo development. When housing availability is such a problem because of the risks associated with new development, the deadweight loss would likely be a disaster.

You'll have to explain how deriving revenue from land value, ie the unimproved value of land, ie the value of land absent any capital development, will generate a large deadweight loss for developers, given that it would drive the initial cost of acquiring land down and allow the developer to collect all of the increase in value they would generate by their efforts.

2) Land value is subjective. I've worked in local government, the valuations are part formula, part bs, wrapped in enough clever government legalism to avoid constant law suits. This works because its just council rates, but if you ramp the tax up to cover current income taxes you'd have a farce of massive litigation.

Addressed in the link. Land value is a function of market value, not a subjective assessment. A property is worth X, the value of the buildings and other capital improvements of that land are worth Y, subtract Y from X and you determine the market land value.

3) We can't pay for lunch with wealth. A house rises and falls in value independent of our pay... but our tax will come out of income and our living standard will remain our net income. This means that a person can earn $50k and pay lets say $15k on their home in land tax. Then next year as a property boom comes through the area and while his income remains 50k, taxes might increase on the now more valuable home to 25k. All of a sudden net income has been slashed, without changing anything myself. Now consider the same thing happening to someone on a very low wage - if housing grows enough in an area over two or three years, it can actually exceed annual income.

Addressed in the link. One of the primary benefits of LVR is that as it approaches 100% of potential rents speculative land ownership is reduced accordingly - no more "property booms". The purpose of LVR is to make ownership of land for productive purposes appealing, and ownership of land for speculation or passive accrual of rents unappealing. In your example changes to the local housing market would have very little impact on the rate of LVR being paid since a home already exists on the land so it is already being put to it's highest and best use(HABU) and the HABU is what determines the rate paid.

4) Most wealth is outside of land. A person with large investments in stocks will not pay anything by this system (other than that paid by the company, which can potentially be very little), but a person who owns several homes that he rents will pay a massive portion of the overall tax burden. This seems a very weird way to prioritise tax - people who build and developing housing for rent are expected to pay most of the tax burden of the country, people who invest in stocks pay nothing.

You will note that I said "replacing most existing forms of taxation"(emphasis added). As the paper I linked to outlines, the most rational way to implement LVR is to begin by using it a straight replacement for Council Tax or equivalent forms of local government taxation, and increase it over time with a proportionate decrease in income, corporation, and sales taxes, ie earned income. Capital Gains is a tax on unearned income, as is LVR, there's no reason they shouldn't coexist. If people want to earn money by renting housing, they would have to do so by making material improvements to the quality of the housing on the land, just like everyone else who wanted to make money from land, which is a natural resource that derives its value from the presence and efforts of everyone not merely its owner.

I really do suggest you read the linked PDF.

If we're genuinely considering a system in which automation has allowed us to surpass scarcity, there is no reason for anyone to own Robby - .

No reason except of course that is how economics works. Robby gets built by the guy that owns Robby, not the local faerie dust princess do gooder society.

As long as humans exist the concept of a post scarcity society is just funny.

 Frazzled wrote:

If we're genuinely considering a system in which automation has allowed us to surpass scarcity, there is no reason for anyone to own Robby - .

No reason except of course that is how economics works. Robby gets built by the guy that owns Robby, not the local faerie dust princess do gooder society.

As long as humans exist the concept of a post scarcity society is just funny.

It's easy to respond to an argument when you cut out all the parts which address your objections.

1. Realistically, how likely is the owner of Robby to be such an irrational and selfish tosser that they would impose scarcity on everyone else when it would have no material benefit for them and serve no practical purpose? I'm a cynical bugger, and even I don't think most humans are quite that sociopathic.

2. Realistically, even if we assume Robby's owner is just such a petty nutjob, how does he prevent someone else or multiple someone elses building Randy the robot and Ralph the robot etc etc and then giving away their versions of scarcity-ending automation technology for free, making Robby worthless and his owner's apparent desire to make everyone else's life crap just because he can utterly futile?

3. Realistically, even if we assume aforementioned sociopathy, as well as aforementioned imaginary ability to somehow prevent anyone with a different inclination from ever developing similar technology, and Robby's owner manages to impose artificial scarcity on everyone else; how is Robby's owner supposed to prevent the other 6.999.999,999 people on earth dragging him out of his home in the middle of the night and stringing him up like a French noble or Russian Tsar? Historically, when the wealthy and powerful go full-on "let them eat cake", people don't react well.

Even if at some point in the future technological advances allow for the total automation of all manufacturing, that still wouldn't cause the end of commerce. As long as there is commerce there will be scarcity. Goods and services, whether provided by people or robots will still have value and be desirable, therefore people will engage in commerce to obtain them. A certain level of scarcity is inherent in commerce.

1. Realistically, how likely is the owner of Robby to be such an irrational and selfish tosser that they would impose scarcity on everyone else when it would have no material benefit for them and serve no practical purpose? I'm a cynical bugger, and even I don't think most humans are quite that sociopathic.

Its like you took every history book ever written and just chucked it into the Tiber River and in one sentence tried to impose communism. Someone owns everything, even if its the govenrment that owns it.

2. Realistically, even if we assume Robby's owner is just such a petty nutjob, how does he prevent someone else or multiple someone elses building Randy the robot and Ralph the robot etc etc and then giving away their versions of scarcity-ending automation technology for free, making Robby worthless and his owner's apparent desire to make everyone else's life crap just because he can utterly futile?

Why is he a nutjob. I assume you have possessions correct? Are you a nutjob too?
Scarcity ending technology requires power and assets to build it. Guess what, those are owned to.
You could end "scarcity now" if everyone just had a box, and one change of clothing. AS the immortal bard said: thats now how it works. Thats not how any of this works!

3. Realistically, even if we assume aforementioned sociopathy, as well as aforementioned imaginary ability to somehow prevent anyone with a different inclination from ever developing similar technology, and Robby's owner manages to impose artificial scarcity on everyone else; how is Robby's owner supposed to prevent the other 6.999.999,999 people on earth dragging him out of his home in the middle of the night and stringing him up like a French noble or Russian Tsar? Historically, when the wealthy and powerful go full-on "let them eat cake", people don't react well.

Again its not about "developing technology" its about ownership of the assets required to make and power everything. I can invent an STC tomorrow but it don't mean gak because I still have to buy the stuff to make the STC and the stuff to make the goods. The only thing thats change is that you've cut out the machine tool industry and thrown some employees off the job.
WHICH IS WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Im sure at some point someone will drag up the FDR quote where he fairly explicitly states what his intention in a "minimum wage" is, (and it's supposed to be a living wage), however I somewhat agree with you in saying that High Schoolers, and those living in a situation where they are no supporting themselves don't really "need" a living wage.

If this was a real concern, you could easily introduce reduced minimum wages for people under 18, ie up to 16 the minimum is $8 an hour, 16-17 the minimum is $10 an hour, 17-18 the minimum is $12 an hour, and then once you're 18 it goes up to $15. You can even bring in allowances for college students, or industry specific lower minimums, so industries that employ college kids and others that don't need a living wage can pay less.

None of that happens, or is even suggested by conservatives who so like to talk about what the minimum wage is meant to be for.

The answer to this is simple - they think they "deserve" to make more than other people. As if wages are determined by how much something is deserved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point I was trying to make about automation is that debates about minimum wage are eventually going to turn into debates about what to do with the 50% of unemployable population. The only reasonable and logical thing to do at that point is to start giving "living wages" away to everyone. Got a better idea? suggest it! We can't all be advanced robot designers and programmers - which will eventually be the only jobs left for human beings.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Im sure at some point someone will drag up the FDR quote where he fairly explicitly states what his intention in a "minimum wage" is, (and it's supposed to be a living wage), however I somewhat agree with you in saying that High Schoolers, and those living in a situation where they are no supporting themselves don't really "need" a living wage.

If this was a real concern, you could easily introduce reduced minimum wages for people under 18, ie up to 16 the minimum is $8 an hour, 16-17 the minimum is $10 an hour, 17-18 the minimum is $12 an hour, and then once you're 18 it goes up to $15. You can even bring in allowances for college students, or industry specific lower minimums, so industries that employ college kids and others that don't need a living wage can pay less.

None of that happens, or is even suggested by conservatives who so like to talk about what the minimum wage is meant to be for.

The answer to this is simple - they think they "deserve" to make more than other people. As if wages are determined by how much something is deserved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point I was trying to make about automation is that debates about minimum wage are eventually going to turn into debates about what to do with the 50% of unemployable population. The only reasonable and logical thing to do at that point is to start giving "living wages" away to everyone. Got a better idea? suggest it! We can't all be advanced robot designers and programmers - which will eventually be the only jobs left for human beings.

In that situation you couldn't call it a living "wage" since they wouldn't be working. It would be an existence subsidy or danegeld to allieve resentment/anger.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Im sure at some point someone will drag up the FDR quote where he fairly explicitly states what his intention in a "minimum wage" is, (and it's supposed to be a living wage), however I somewhat agree with you in saying that High Schoolers, and those living in a situation where they are no supporting themselves don't really "need" a living wage.

If this was a real concern, you could easily introduce reduced minimum wages for people under 18, ie up to 16 the minimum is $8 an hour, 16-17 the minimum is $10 an hour, 17-18 the minimum is $12 an hour, and then once you're 18 it goes up to $15. You can even bring in allowances for college students, or industry specific lower minimums, so industries that employ college kids and others that don't need a living wage can pay less.

None of that happens, or is even suggested by conservatives who so like to talk about what the minimum wage is meant to be for.

The answer to this is simple - they think they "deserve" to make more than other people. As if wages are determined by how much something is deserved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point I was trying to make about automation is that debates about minimum wage are eventually going to turn into debates about what to do with the 50% of unemployable population. The only reasonable and logical thing to do at that point is to start giving "living wages" away to everyone. Got a better idea? suggest it! We can't all be advanced robot designers and programmers - which will eventually be the only jobs left for human beings.

In that situation you couldn't call it a living "wage" since they wouldn't be working. It would be an existence subsidy or danegeld to allieve resentment/anger.

No it's the wage you get for "living." LOL I know what you are saying but you also know what I'm saying. We can call it an existence subsidy.

 sebster wrote:


"Worth" is, of course, highly also subjective. There was an idea, from way back in the early days of economics, that wages for a job will move to it's natural marginal value, that it's value can be determined naturally by economic forces. That idea is about three or four generations dead by now, as we've learned that's a nice theory and it helps explain very broad concepts, but in terms of any specifics it's absolutely dwarfed by relative bargaining power and cultural values. Remove the minimum wage and you add the potential for exploitation in to that, and then there's real trouble.

I mean, people are already declining to take jobs they believe are 'beneath' them. We see it all the time. I completely agree that "worth" is subjective, and on two fronts:

1. How much does a business decide a particular job is "worth."
2. Are there individuals willing to accept that job at that "worth."

HSM proposed that, without a minimum wage, people would be working for pennies a day. I think that's a ridiculous notion.

A business is going to pay as little as possible for the job they need done. People that need employment are going to weigh whether what said business is offering is worth their time. No one, in 2015 America, is going to work for pennies a day. As such, businesses cannot pay pennies a day, because there would be no demand for a job that paid pennies day. From there, businesses will continue to raise that wage until someone is willing to take that job. At that point is the correct wage for said job. It doesn't need a minimum wage to artificially drive it.

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:



HSM proposed that, without a minimum wage, people would be working for pennies a day. I think that's a ridiculous notion.

Yes, this would never happen!

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its-legal

Woops. It is even in America. Imagine if we went to the third-world!