5 ms·

> Besides, Sweden has one of the rich world's biggest gaps between native and immigrant employment rates. Youth joblessness is 70 percent higher among the forei

> Besides, Sweden has one of the rich world's biggest gaps between native and immigrant employment rates. Youth joblessness is 70 percent higher among the foreign-born than among Swedes. Lowering the minimum wage could draw more of the new, mainly Middle Eastern population, into the workforce and reduce social and ethnic tension. A minimum wage is simply not moral. It prevents me and you from entering into an employment agreement with which we may both benefit. Instead, the government is telling me how I have to interact with you. The left-wing philosophy of a minimum livable wage is ironically hurting the new immigrants to these countries. The reality is that first-world nations have higher employment standards because citizens are more educated and capable. Instead of giving new immigrants, who are almost certainly less educated and capable (remember, they're trying to move to countries with better opportunities) the ability to work and gain experience, we leave them with little options. And like the quote says, it's just bad for assimilation into the host society. Being able to work is fantastic for that. You have to learn at least a bit of the language. Interact with the people. Learn to follow the laws and customs of the new country. Without work opportunities, immigrants can often wind up stuck in their segregated ghettos. And high unemployment invariably leads to a lower quality of life. Abolish the minimum wage. Give new immigrants the opportunities they want.

bluecalm 11y ago
>>A minimum wage is simply not moral. It prevents me and you from entering into an employment agreement with which we may both benefit. Instead, the government is telling me how I have to interact with you. This argument doesn't make any sense. It is often the case that preventing people from entering a contract thy both benefit from is beneficial for society. It's a standard social dilemma example of which is tragedy of commons. You may argue against minimum wage but "simply not moral" is just a wrong argument. This kind of thinking is what frustrates me about common libertarian arguments. You can't just ignore social dilemma implications when arguing for voluntarily contract being the end of it.
- jrs235 11y ago
  I lean libertarian. I don't think the argument is as much libertarian as it is Austrian Economics. What gets me going is that most GOP/Republican/conservative folks that clamor against the minimum wage are Keynesians. And if they are then they condradict themselves when they tout the importance of a strong economy and GDP yet argue against a minimum wage. If you're Keynesian you believe demand drives the economy and GDP. Well if the majority/working class doesn't have disposable income then they can't buy all the trinkets and toys that companies are producing thus grinding things to a halt. There's only so much demand for yachts. Austrians can, in a less contradictory way, argue against a minimum wage. But everyone can't continue to ignore parts of reality. Yes, there are social implications and to dismiss them is no different than dismissing emotions in arguments and marketing, or politics in offices. They exist and must be included and dealt with when trying to make "rational" and prudent choices.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
gorpomon 11y ago
A minimum wage is moral. It ensure that you and I do not enter into an employment agreement where one side excessively benefits. The government as third party is ensuring we have minimum amount of fairness in our interaction. The right-wing philosophy of wage bargaining is ironically hurting the workers of their countries. The reality is that first-world nations have predatory labor practices because citizens are systemically and by their own lack of resources unable to realize what fair wage is or how to effectively bargain for it. Instead of giving workers, who are almost certainly less educated and capable the ability live off their wage so they may better their lives constructively, we indenture them into subsistence living, where the minorest of life disruption can decimate savings. It's just bad for the people living in the lower rungs of society. Being able to work at a living wage is fantastic for mitigating these shortcomings. You can actually do things like plan for the future and interact with people without worrying about the next big life problem. You can learn more labor laws to further advocate for yourself and others, and even the customs of other cultures, rather than fear someone cutting even your meager floor from under you. Without fair wage, workers can often find themselves being the "working poor", people whose jobs won't ever let them save enough money to do anything meaningful. And fair employment inevitably leads to high quality of life. Institute a living wage. Give people the opportunities they want.
- firethief 11y ago
  > [A minimum wage] ensure[s] that you and I do not enter into an employment agreement where one side excessively benefits. I don't see how that is a goal of minimum wage. People can be underpaid at any pay level, and a lot of jobs just aren't worth very much to the employer. A sweatshop paying pennies an hour for extremely unskilled labor could be a fair wage for that work. Minimum wage serves important functions, but I don't see how they include preserving work value : pay level equity. Free counseling to help inform people of an appropriate wage for their skill level and find an employer who would pay that seems like more of a way to meet that goal.
  - vertex-four 11y ago
    > A sweatshop paying pennies an hour for extremely unskilled labor could be a fair wage for that work. Sure - in which case said sweatshop probably shouldn't exist. Sorry, but if you need to pay people less than they can live on to stay in business, and it's "not profitable" to replace them with robots, you can damn well go out of business and be replaced with a company that will automate it, allowing humans to do things that actually matter (and I'm not talking about "find less automatable work" here). That is - in a perfect world, everyone poor would be given enough money to live on and not have to feel guilty about it. If they find a job that they can survive on, they can take it and drop their benefits. What would be immoral would be to force people to take a job that pays less than they can live on to receive benefits - that's outright punishment for not being able to find a job. We tried punishing people for being poor/unskilled in the UK, it's called the workhouses, and to some degree our Job Centre wants to bring the concept back. Of course, if you're calling for both a lack of minimum wage and cutting benefits further than they already are in many places... I think you'll find most would call you immoral. "Let them die so that my ideology wins."
pharrington 11y ago
Companies, empirically, keep operating costs as low as possible. There is a reason people literally fought and died to obtain a minimum wage.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  Lots of Parisians fought and died for price controls on bread. It didn't mean it was economically sound or ultimately beneficial to the poor.
pwthornton 11y ago
A don't know if you're American or not, but at least in the U.S., we have lots of regulations on what kinds of contracts people can enter into. Contract law is a major part of our legal system (and the legal system it was derived from). You're arguing that any regulations on contracts are not moral. This has far wider reaching implications than you realize. There are all kinds of things that the government -- and voters by extension -- have deemed it illegal to enter into contractually. You cannot enter into an agreement to be murdered. You cannot enter into an agreement that amounts to slavery. You cannot enter into a work agreement that violates safety law. We could go on and on about this, but if you're arguing against contract law, you are many hundred years too late. Contracts have always been subject to laws and regulations in place.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
This is horrifically naive. The minimum wage exists because there is an inherent power imbalance between employers and employees in today's economy. This distorts the labor market and puts workers and corporations on an unequal footing when it comes to negotiating pay, to the extreme disadvantage of the worker. The minimum wage is an attempt to force a correction to that inequality and unfairness. It is far from perfect, but until other, better systems exist it's one of the best tools available at present.
- harryh 11y ago
  There is very little empirical evidence to support this point of view in non-monopsony situations.
  - InclinedPlane 11y ago
    http://i.imgur.com/PFSjZXC.png http://i.imgur.com/PFSjZXC.png
    - bassman9000 11y ago
      That graph only tells you productivity increase has accelerated in respect to salary increase. Which makes sense, due to technology gains.
    - harryh 11y ago
      Ya, I've seen that graph before. It's bullshit. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30585 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30585
jes5199 11y ago
Paying someone an hourly wage that is below the socially accepted minimum amount is simply not moral. It binds employees to a cycle of poverty where they have neither enough money nor the free time to work for themselves productively. To break this social contract is cruel, whether or not it is legal. The right-wing philosophy that money-exchanging relationships should not be regulated is ironically destroying the economy, creating an underclass who must produce but cannot consume. New immigrants - who are often educated and productive in their home countries - are forced to enter the underclass rather than using their skills in the capacity most useful to society. Strengthen the minimum wage. Give everyone a fair chance.

bluecalm 11y ago

>>A minimum wage is simply not moral. It prevents me and you from entering into an employment agreement with which we may both benefit. Instead, the government is telling me how I have to interact with you. This argument doesn't make any sense. It is often the case that preventing people from entering a contract thy both benefit from is beneficial for society. It's a standard social dilemma example of which is tragedy of commons. You may argue against minimum wage but "simply not moral" is just a wrong argument. This kind of thinking is what frustrates me about common libertarian arguments. You can't just ignore social dilemma implications when arguing for voluntarily contract being the end of it.

jrs235 11y ago
I lean libertarian. I don't think the argument is as much libertarian as it is Austrian Economics. What gets me going is that most GOP/Republican/conservative folks that clamor against the minimum wage are Keynesians. And if they are then they condradict themselves when they tout the importance of a strong economy and GDP yet argue against a minimum wage. If you're Keynesian you believe demand drives the economy and GDP. Well if the majority/working class doesn't have disposable income then they can't buy all the trinkets and toys that companies are producing thus grinding things to a halt. There's only so much demand for yachts. Austrians can, in a less contradictory way, argue against a minimum wage. But everyone can't continue to ignore parts of reality. Yes, there are social implications and to dismiss them is no different than dismissing emotions in arguments and marketing, or politics in offices. They exist and must be included and dealt with when trying to make "rational" and prudent choices.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

gorpomon 11y ago

A minimum wage is moral. It ensure that you and I do not enter into an employment agreement where one side excessively benefits. The government as third party is ensuring we have minimum amount of fairness in our interaction. The right-wing philosophy of wage bargaining is ironically hurting the workers of their countries. The reality is that first-world nations have predatory labor practices because citizens are systemically and by their own lack of resources unable to realize what fair wage is or how to effectively bargain for it. Instead of giving workers, who are almost certainly less educated and capable the ability live off their wage so they may better their lives constructively, we indenture them into subsistence living, where the minorest of life disruption can decimate savings. It's just bad for the people living in the lower rungs of society. Being able to work at a living wage is fantastic for mitigating these shortcomings. You can actually do things like plan for the future and interact with people without worrying about the next big life problem. You can learn more labor laws to further advocate for yourself and others, and even the customs of other cultures, rather than fear someone cutting even your meager floor from under you. Without fair wage, workers can often find themselves being the "working poor", people whose jobs won't ever let them save enough money to do anything meaningful. And fair employment inevitably leads to high quality of life. Institute a living wage. Give people the opportunities they want.

firethief 11y ago
> [A minimum wage] ensure[s] that you and I do not enter into an employment agreement where one side excessively benefits. I don't see how that is a goal of minimum wage. People can be underpaid at any pay level, and a lot of jobs just aren't worth very much to the employer. A sweatshop paying pennies an hour for extremely unskilled labor could be a fair wage for that work. Minimum wage serves important functions, but I don't see how they include preserving work value : pay level equity. Free counseling to help inform people of an appropriate wage for their skill level and find an employer who would pay that seems like more of a way to meet that goal.
- vertex-four 11y ago
  > A sweatshop paying pennies an hour for extremely unskilled labor could be a fair wage for that work. Sure - in which case said sweatshop probably shouldn't exist. Sorry, but if you need to pay people less than they can live on to stay in business, and it's "not profitable" to replace them with robots, you can damn well go out of business and be replaced with a company that will automate it, allowing humans to do things that actually matter (and I'm not talking about "find less automatable work" here). That is - in a perfect world, everyone poor would be given enough money to live on and not have to feel guilty about it. If they find a job that they can survive on, they can take it and drop their benefits. What would be immoral would be to force people to take a job that pays less than they can live on to receive benefits - that's outright punishment for not being able to find a job. We tried punishing people for being poor/unskilled in the UK, it's called the workhouses, and to some degree our Job Centre wants to bring the concept back. Of course, if you're calling for both a lack of minimum wage and cutting benefits further than they already are in many places... I think you'll find most would call you immoral. "Let them die so that my ideology wins."

pharrington 11y ago

Companies, empirically, keep operating costs as low as possible. There is a reason people literally fought and died to obtain a minimum wage.

twoodfin 11y ago
Lots of Parisians fought and died for price controls on bread. It didn't mean it was economically sound or ultimately beneficial to the poor.

pwthornton 11y ago

A don't know if you're American or not, but at least in the U.S., we have lots of regulations on what kinds of contracts people can enter into. Contract law is a major part of our legal system (and the legal system it was derived from). You're arguing that any regulations on contracts are not moral. This has far wider reaching implications than you realize. There are all kinds of things that the government -- and voters by extension -- have deemed it illegal to enter into contractually. You cannot enter into an agreement to be murdered. You cannot enter into an agreement that amounts to slavery. You cannot enter into a work agreement that violates safety law. We could go on and on about this, but if you're arguing against contract law, you are many hundred years too late. Contracts have always been subject to laws and regulations in place.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

This is horrifically naive. The minimum wage exists because there is an inherent power imbalance between employers and employees in today's economy. This distorts the labor market and puts workers and corporations on an unequal footing when it comes to negotiating pay, to the extreme disadvantage of the worker. The minimum wage is an attempt to force a correction to that inequality and unfairness. It is far from perfect, but until other, better systems exist it's one of the best tools available at present.

harryh 11y ago
There is very little empirical evidence to support this point of view in non-monopsony situations.
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  http://i.imgur.com/PFSjZXC.png http://i.imgur.com/PFSjZXC.png
  - bassman9000 11y ago
    That graph only tells you productivity increase has accelerated in respect to salary increase. Which makes sense, due to technology gains.
  - harryh 11y ago
    Ya, I've seen that graph before. It's bullshit. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30585 http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30585

jes5199 11y ago

Paying someone an hourly wage that is below the socially accepted minimum amount is simply not moral. It binds employees to a cycle of poverty where they have neither enough money nor the free time to work for themselves productively. To break this social contract is cruel, whether or not it is legal. The right-wing philosophy that money-exchanging relationships should not be regulated is ironically destroying the economy, creating an underclass who must produce but cannot consume. New immigrants - who are often educated and productive in their home countries - are forced to enter the underclass rather than using their skills in the capacity most useful to society. Strengthen the minimum wage. Give everyone a fair chance.