"The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
There is nothing in it that allows for manipulation of wages. I don't see the agreement between an employer and employees there at all.Just because this country's government has over step their authority for 150 years does not make it constitutional.
Well, since noone (that is for the increase to 9) is willing to answer why raising the minimum wage to 20 an hour is a bad idea then I am going to assume that it is because they know it would wreak havoc on the economy and that would show that the increase to 9 would also have a negative effect. If we all know that it couldn't be raised to 20, then why is 9 a "good" idea? Who decided that 9 is the amount that would work. I will consider this discussion concluded for me (and essentially my argument won).
Now, rivalarrival I know you have some other idea. Bu somehow you ended up on the end of arguing in favor of min wage. Not sure how that happened...
__________________
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
There is a big difference between $9 and $20. The marketplace should drive wages, not the government, and if anything local government can do a better job based on their own economic conditions. The minimum wage here in WA is already $9.19, and the effects have not been devastating to the economy here. In fact, it's been hardly noticeable because it was a small increase from
$9.04 last year.
Well, since noone (that is for the increase to 9) is willing to answer why raising the minimum wage to 20 an hour is a bad idea then I am going to assume that it is because they know it would wreak havoc on the economy and that would show that the increase to 9 would also have a negative effect. If we all know that it couldn't be raised to 20, then why is 9 a "good" idea? Who decided that 9 is the amount that would work. I will consider this discussion concluded for me (and essentially my argument won).
Now, rivalarrival I know you have some other idea. Bu somehow you ended up on the end of arguing in favor of min wage. Not sure how that happened...
I got on that side of the argument because I'm trying to solve the things that minimum wage is (poorly) designed to solve. Namely, the inherent inequality at the bargaining table each and every time someone is hired. An unemployed worker approaches the bargaining table like a drowning man. He's desperate and willing to concede damn near anything just for one more paycheck. The employer goes to his workforce and says "See this man? He's willing to work 8 hours a day for half a sandwich. Why am I paying you more than that?"
When's the last time you washed a rental car? How about your own car? To maximize his return-on-investment, a slave-OWNER would have to provide for his slaves well-being. But, there is no shortage of minimum-wage labor. Such workers are "rented", and the employer has no incentive or obligation to provide for their well-being.
The basic principal I subscribe to is that if a job requires a human being to perform it, a human performing that job "full-time" and motivated to acquire his own subsistence, should be able to fully subside on the compensation for that job. I would refer to "subsistence wages" as anything above the poverty line.
Of course, we can't feasibly legislate that principal directly. We can't say "This worker is trying to survive while this other worker doing the same job is just looking to get out of the house for awhile, so the first worker must be paid more." I am NOT trying to **dictate** wages like that.
I do tend to agree with you that minimum wage wreaks havoc throughout the economy with a primary effect of driving inflation. The value of money is constantly changing. What was a living wage 20 years ago is frequently a starvation wage today.
Clearly, the minimum wage system is not the proper method for dealing with the problems its proponents perceive. We agree on that. But, are you willing to say that problems like "bargaining inequality" simply don't exist?
My primary objective is to demonstrate the existence of business practices that are harmful to the economy. A major employer who pushes his workforce into poverty is not benefiting the economy; he's a detriment to the economy. It's frequently suggested that he's simply following the market, but this isn't quite true: He's actually driving the market.
A minimum wage price floor won't solve this problem as it just moves the price floor the employer can sink to. It doesn't remove the competitive effect of the "most-desperate, qualified worker" that drives every equally qualified worker's wages down to that point. You have suggested this. I agree with you.
The person who should be considered in determining market wages is not the "most desperate qualified worker". That man's desperation should have no impact on the market whatsoever. The market should be setting wages considering the needs of the average qualified worker, not the most desperate.
But, this is not something that can be defined directly. We can't legislate from on high and say "The average worker will earn $12/hour"
What we can do is require that the economic effect of a company's payroll must be positive. We can say "If you want to do business here, the poverty rate of your workforce must be equal to or less than the local poverty rate."
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I got on that side of the argument because I'm trying to solve the things that minimum wage is (poorly) designed to solve. Namely, the inherent inequality at the bargaining table each and every time someone is hired. An unemployed worker approaches the bargaining table like a drowning man. He's desperate and willing to concede damn near anything just for one more paycheck. The employer goes to his workforce and says "See this man? He's willing to work 8 hours a day for half a sandwich. Why am I paying you more than that?"
When's the last time you washed a rental car? How about your own car? To maximize his return-on-investment, a slave-OWNER would have to provide for his slaves well-being. But, there is no shortage of minimum-wage labor. Such workers are "rented", and the employer has no incentive or obligation to provide for their well-being.
The basic principal I subscribe to is that if a job requires a human being to perform it, a human performing that job "full-time" and motivated to acquire his own subsistence, should be able to fully subside on the compensation for that job. I would refer to "subsistence wages" as anything above the poverty line.
Of course, we can't feasibly legislate that principal directly. We can't say "This worker is trying to survive while this other worker doing the same job is just looking to get out of the house for awhile, so the first worker must be paid more." I am NOT trying to **dictate** wages like that.
I do tend to agree with you that minimum wage wreaks havoc throughout the economy with a primary effect of driving inflation. The value of money is constantly changing. What was a living wage 20 years ago is frequently a starvation wage today.
Clearly, the minimum wage system is not the proper method for dealing with the problems its proponents perceive. We agree on that. But, are you willing to say that problems like "bargaining inequality" simply don't exist?
My primary objective is to demonstrate the existence of business practices that are harmful to the economy. A major employer who pushes his workforce into poverty is not benefiting the economy; he's a detriment to the economy. It's frequently suggested that he's simply following the market, but this isn't quite true: He's actually driving the market.
A minimum wage price floor won't solve this problem as it just moves the price floor the employer can sink to. It doesn't remove the competitive effect of the "most-desperate, qualified worker" that drives every equally qualified worker's wages down to that point. You have suggested this. I agree with you.
The person who should be considered in determining market wages is not the "most desperate qualified worker". That man's desperation should have no impact on the market whatsoever. The market should be setting wages considering the needs of the average qualified worker, not the most desperate.
But, this is not something that can be defined directly. We can't legislate from on high and say "The average worker will earn $12/hour"
What we can do is require that the economic effect of a company's payroll must be positive. We can say "If you want to do business here, the poverty rate of your workforce must be equal to or less than the local poverty rate."
So let me get this straight.... Perhaps I am oversimplifying you plan. So you are basically for a minimum wage that is much more localized and based on the local poverty line. Is that right? I guess that is better. I still have issues with it. I think that anything that removes the incentive (or some of it anyway) to stay in school and make yourself marketable is not the best idea. I still think that your idea still retains a lot of the problems that the 9 dollar one has. I do see that it is better, but still there are problems with it. Like how are you going to establish localized poverty levels? And wouldn't it be much more unstable because one large employer opening or leaving would alter it greatly right?
I may not be understanding.... So let's say there is a manufacturing facility in a small town (only current employer) and the pay range it from 10 to 18 an hour depending on position held.... And I want to open a burger joint right next to it... What would I have to pay my burger flippers?
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
There are many people working full time for minimum wage and making a living. It's simply a matter of living withing your means. Living with your parents, roommate(s) or a less expensive town where minimum wage is enough. Don't buy a new Lexus or water-ski boat if you can't afford it.
That comment about inequality at the bargaining table works both ways. back in the late 90s I had to pay entry level people at my small business from $10/hour, to compete with fast food that was offering $8-9, since mine required some skills.
Many employers were offering in-house childcare, free lunches, and other benefits
to attract the best people. There were far more jobs than workers, especially in high tech. Times have changed, now it's the opposite. That's just the marketplace at work.
There are many people working full time for minimum wage and making a living. It's simply a matter of living withing your means. Living with your parents, roommate(s) or a less expensive town where minimum wage is enough. Don't buy a new Lexus or water-ski boat if you can't afford it.
That comment about inequality at the bargaining table works both ways. back in the late 90s I had to pay entry level people at my small business from $10/hour, to compete with fast food that was offering $8-9, since mine required some skills.
Many employers were offering in-house childcare, free lunches, and other benefits
to attract the best people. There were far more jobs than workers, especially in high tech. Times have changed, now it's the opposite. That's just the marketplace at work.
Don't get me started on the living within your means stuff. I have no sympathy for folks griping about their pay or whether they can pay their bills or not if they have 150 dollars in cable/Internet/phone bills. Not to mention car payments and all that other garbage.... I think people trying to live beyond their means is a HUGE part of the problem. Frankly, if you can afford lottery tickets and cable you don't "need" any assistance. What you need is to rearrange your priorities!!
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Some things aren't necessary, but even most of the fast food places require that you apply over the internet and they require a phone. I know that the only way you can apply for our local McDonalds is on line and they respond on line. Walmart also takes all applications on line and they also require you to have a phone. The state employment office here is available only on line and people can use the library computer but they may have to wait a couple hours to get on and are then limited to one hour use a day. Our local welfare office is only accessible by phone and so is social security. With both of those you leave a message and they will call you back to set an appointment. There is no walk in with either one.
Some things aren't necessary, but even most of the fast food places require that you apply over the internet and they require a phone. I know that the only way you can apply for our local McDonalds is on line and they respond on line. Walmart also takes all applications on line and they also require you to have a phone.
Yeah yeah..... And I guess there isn't a library for miles and no such thing as a 20 dollar phone bill... Oh, and to get to the library it's up hill both ways. Yeah, any excuses to have the luxuries. My phone is my Internet. $45 a month. Do I have the latest and greatest? No. Could I afford one if the newest phones? Maybe. Do I have cable? No. I just don't buy it. Next thing you know, people will be saying the government should provide free smartphones, cable, and Internet! Oh wait...
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Most local phone companies have a low income discount, ours (Quest) as low as $15/month for a land line. The library has 25 computers and even allow 75 pages printing per month free.
Linear Mode
