• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should minimum wage be a liveable wage?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The UK's is the equivalent of $9.50/hr.
That is a living wage? Criminy!

They would lose their jobs. But if a job is not productive to do at minimum wage, it is not productive to do at all.
No, it would be productive to hire the workers who are worth min wage, but not the ones worth less than min wage.

This could cause further problems, and so it is more likely that the employer raises their prices than discounts the employee.
Not all prices offer that flexibility. If one's competitors are outside the US economy, to raise prices might not work cuz the playing fields differ.

For instance, imagine that our hypothetical zero-skill worker is a gas station attendant. Our new legislation comes in, and the owner declares "You are too expensive! Out with you!" However, the owner now faces a bit of a problem: by definition, the worker he has just fired cannot be replaced by anyone cheaper. (Ignoring, for the sake of simplicity, illegal arrangements.) This means that he cannot find someone to attend his gas station, which in turn means that he has no business.
That is one possible scenario.
Another is that the employer would fire the unproductive min wage worker to hire a more productive one at the same rate.

He therefore cannot afford to fire the minimum-wage worker.
He certainly can...he'd just hire a better worker for the same price.

Thus, the employer raises his prices somewhat (how much he should raise his prices by obviously depends on details not provided here) but the employee suddenly has a lot more money to spend, and is better off for it.
The fired worker would be worse off.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have yet to hear anyone actually propose $20/hr. Some of us have put out numbers that are about half of that though.
That would be a living wage in many places, but not in others.
Fast food workers in NYC are in the news clamoring for a $15/hour min wage.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Since no one will step forward to quantify the "liveable wage", we really don't know.
Never mind that I and others already did that way back in the thread

The overall goal should be that a person should be able to sustain themselves and their dependents out of poverty while working full time at minimum wage.

There are different measures of poverty, and the income threshold will vary somewhat depending what source you use, but from what I gather $22-23,000 a year is in the ballpark of most estimates for a family of four. At 40 hours a week, $23,000 a year works out to $11.06 an hour.

So... about eleven bucks an hour. This will vary based on local cost of living, but as a ballpark figure, it's probably close enough for discussion of economic impacts in the broad strokes.
 

NIX

Daughter of Chaos
How about the "uphill both ways" fallacy? It attempts to illustrate that the younger generations are spoiled and lazy by means of personal anecdotes about the elder's foggily recalled tough life. Example: "when I was your age I had to walk five miles to school in the snow - uphill both ways."


LOL! That's hysterical! I'll use it.:D
 

Alceste

Vagabond
The UK's is the equivalent of $9.50/hr.


They would lose their jobs. But if a job is not productive to do at minimum wage, it is not productive to do at all. This could cause further problems, and so it is more likely that the employer raises their prices than discounts the employee.

For instance, imagine that our hypothetical zero-skill worker is a gas station attendant. Our new legislation comes in, and the owner declares "You are too expensive! Out with you!" However, the owner now faces a bit of a problem: by definition, the worker he has just fired cannot be replaced by anyone cheaper. (Ignoring, for the sake of simplicity, illegal arrangements.) This means that he cannot find someone to attend his gas station, which in turn means that he has no business.

He therefore cannot afford to fire the minimum-wage worker. Thus, the employer raises his prices somewhat (how much he should raise his prices by obviously depends on details not provided here) but the employee suddenly has a lot more money to spend, and is better off for it.
Yes, and he is going to spend a lot of that money on gas, so the employer is also better off.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That would be a living wage in many places, but not in others.
Fast food workers in NYC are in the news clamoring for a $15/hour min wage.[/QUOTE]
Of course the cost of living varies from place to place, but if NYC fast food workers are asking for $15/hr then I really don't see how $20/hr can be thrown around for a livable wage if workers in a very expensive city can do it on less.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That would be a living wage in many places, but not in others.
Fast food workers in NYC are in the news clamoring for a $15/hour min wage.[/QUOTE]
Of course the cost of living varies from place to place, but if NYC fast food workers are asking for $15/hr then I really don't see how $20/hr can be thrown around for a livable wage if workers in a very expensive city can do it on less.
Perhaps $15 isn't a living wage in NYC, but it's just what they consider an achievable target.
Even here (much less expensive than NYC), $15/hr wouldn't allow an ordinary person to rent an apt & support a family without outside assistance.
It would require extraordinary measures, eg, both spouses working, more than one job, not owning a car, no kids, no pets.
 
Last edited:

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Never mind that I and others already did that way back in the thread

The overall goal should be that a person should be able to sustain themselves and their dependents out of poverty while working full time at minimum wage.

There are different measures of poverty, and the income threshold will vary somewhat depending what source you use, but from what I gather $22-23,000 a year is in the ballpark of most estimates for a family of four. At 40 hours a week, $23,000 a year works out to $11.06 an hour.

So... about eleven bucks an hour. This will vary based on local cost of living, but as a ballpark figure, it's probably close enough for discussion of economic impacts in the broad strokes.
It seems to me I read that Walmart pays the average employee around that amount. It is the average retail wage today.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
It seems to me I read that Walmart pays the average employee around that amount. It is the average retail wage today.
I don't think it is quite that high. 15k-16k is more likely for your average worker (cashier, cart pusher, floor person).
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It seems to me I read that Walmart pays the average employee around that amount. It is the average retail wage today.

"Average" is not "minimum", but if you're arguing that what I'm proposing is what employers are already doing, then you're knocking the legs out from under your argument that raising the minimum wage would cost jobs.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Average" is not "minimum", but if you're arguing that what I'm proposing is what employers are already doing, then you're knocking the legs out from under your argument that raising the minimum wage would cost jobs.
Isnt' the issue about raising the min wage to a "liveable wage"?
So far, we've seen no consensus on what level this is....quotes ranging from about $9/hour to $26/hour.
Just raising it a little to below what the market is already paying would do neither harm nor good.
But raising it above market levels would have some deleterious effects on poor performers.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Isnt' the issue about raising the min wage to a "liveable wage"?
So far, we've seen no consensus on what level this is....quotes ranging from about $9/hour to $26/hour.
AFAIK, the only person who's suggested $26 per hour was you, and only to reject it as unreasonable. I smell a straw man.

Just raising it a little to below what the market is already paying would do neither harm nor good.
But raising it above market levels would have some deleterious effects on poor performers.
You've repeated this assertion several times, but you still haven't given an explanation for it. If you want me to take it seriously, you'll have to provide some actual support.

... especially since when we unpack it, there's a decent package of assumptions in it.

Implicit in your assertion is the idea that there is a cadre of workers who would have a job under the status quo but who wouldn't have a job if minimum wage was raised. But just which workers would these be?

It wouldn't be the workers doing jobs like Rick touched on earlier in the thread, installing light fixtures in homes or whatnot. If a marginal employee can only install 10 fixtures in a day for minimum wage, he's going to be out on his butt when an employee comes along who can install 15 in a day. In that case, this worker's job is doomed regardless of what happens with the minimum wage: no matter how much you pay your employees, an employee who can generate more profit to you for the same expenditure in wages is going to be preferable. The only protection the worker could hope for is if there isn't anyone else who could step in and do his job better: either unemployment is so low that decent workers are scarce (which sure as hell wouldn't be the status quo these days) or the employee is already maximally good at his job, so nobody else could do it better anyhow... IOW, the limitation is one of the job, not the worker.

So... the job of a marginal employee in this sort of case is a sunk cost: regardless of what happens with minimum wage, his job is gone. It's not a rational basis to use to judge between raising the minimum wage or not, because the same outcome is common to both scenarios.

So what kind of job could be susceptible to these effects you describe? It would have to be one where the intrinsic qualities of the job limit its worth to the employer: if you're a worker on an assembly line, there's a ceiling to how much you can be worth to the company: once your work quality is good enough that your work products aren't being rejected by Quality Control, then you can't make yourself worth more to your employer: you can't make the line go any faster, and you can't decrease the raw material cost or increase the price that gets charged for the finished product.

IOW, in the cases where people could lose their jobs because the minimum wage went up, it wouldn't be because these were marginal employees that just weren't very good at their jobs who got replaced with people of higher worth; it would be cases where the employer decided that it would be better to eliminate the job altogether if the minimum wage was raised.

So... in these cases:

- the business would have to be generating an acceptable return sustainably under the status quo (because if it isn't, the job is gone anyway).

- the business would have to not be able to generate an acceptable return with the minimum wage raised (because if it can, then the job is safe).

- the business would have to generate more or better jobs than some other business would be able to generate with the same capital (since you've argued that businesses' growth is being constrained by availability of capital and financing) - since if it isn't, then that business shutting its doors would actually be good for job availability overall, because it would allow some other business to offer more jobs than the original company could have.

Do any such companies exist?

You've gone from arguing that there's a possibility that some workers might lose their jobs to arguing as a fact that some workers will be disadvantaged. Since you've gone from "what ifs" to declarative statements, presumably you have some concrete examples in mind. Please provide them.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
AFAIK, the only person who's suggested $26 per hour was you, and only to reject it as unreasonable. I smell a straw man.
First, I'll let you check your assertion to see from whence that straw smell comes.
(Post #4 would be a good one to read.)
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
First, I'll let you check your assertion to see from whence that straw smell comes.
(Post #4 would be a good one to read.)

Ah... so it was brought up by someone else to dismiss it as unreasonable. It seems I messed up the "who", but not the intent behind it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You face your error by saying you're still right?
Now who is building a straw man?

My point was that the $26/hour figure wasn't brought up as a serious suggestion of a minimum wage. Now... do you have any responses to my points on your argument (or lack thereof)? I find it interesting that so far you've disregarded me pointing out that you've repeatedly disregarded my requests for you to back up your assertion. Do you care to actually back up what you're saying yet?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
My point was that the $26/hour figure wasn't brought up as a serious suggestion of a minimum wage. Now... do you have any responses to my points on your argument (or lack thereof)? I find it interesting that so far you've disregarded me pointing out that you've repeatedly disregarded my requests for you to back up your assertion. Do you care to actually back up what you're saying yet?
I disregarded the rest of your post because of your reckless claim about my prior posts.
It also seems that you want me to just reiterate points I've already made, & that you believe I intend
only straw man arguments. With discussion somewhat lacking, I'm unmotivated to put much effort
into a response...especially with some new Walking Dead, Homeland & Dexter episodes looming.
Ya gotta work on being more interesting than TV.
 
Last edited:
Top