7 ms·

Had liberals (or north-american libertarians) been able to win the battle for words, we would be discussing "making it illegal for low skill workers to get jobs

by boona 11y ago

Had liberals (or north-american libertarians) been able to win the battle for words, we would be discussing "making it illegal for low skill workers to get jobs", not "minimum wage".

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
js8 11y ago
They did win battle for words! Libertarians call any exchange of work for money, no matter how small, a "job". But normal people, when they want "a job", don't seek to have an economic exchange for miniscule amount of money that cannot pay their bills. That can be called either a "gig" or "slavery", depending on circumstances, but hardly a "job". A "job", in normal speech, is something that can actually economically support you. So what is being outlawed by minimum wage are "jobs" that cannot feed people, which, I am sure you will agree, are simply not worth existing. And in fact I think popularity of libertarianism is half of the cause why minimum wage is still being discussed, because people and businesses who actually know economic stuff support minimum wage, as they understand that flow of money in economic systems starts from the demand. The other half of the cause are possibly some rich people, who are a different type of political actor than businesses.
- RHSeeger 11y ago
  > So what is being outlawed by minimum wage are "jobs" that cannot feed people, which, I am sure you will agree, are simply not worth existing. I certainly don't agree with that sentiment. There are a lot of people that are working that don't need to support themselves. Between teenagers, college students (who may only need to pay for books, etc), mentally/physically impaired (that are supported by the state but work because it's good to be productive)... there's a place in society for jobs that pay below what you're saying.
  - js8 11y ago
    Then we will agree that we disagree. Let's ignore, for the moment, the big issue here, which is that by far, these jobs are not held only by people who you describe (college students and impaired). I don't think creating an artificial job that cannot actually feed you can make anybody feel better of themselves. In any case, it shouldn't be called "a job", which was my point. In particular, I think college students should study and not be distracted by having side jobs, and disabled people should either enjoy their pension (assuming they live in a civilized country that has that) or have a regular job (in fact, labor laws in my country prescribe positive discrimination for disabled people, even though it is probably economically inefficient).
    - mikaeluman 11y ago
      Because you don't care about those people who would really benefit from an easy job for 1-2 years which gives them a foot in. Horrible values on display.
      - js8 11y ago
        /s/horrible/different/ I do care for those people, but I subscribe to a different cultural model. To provide job training so that economy could function should be responsibility of the employer, or the government, and it should be considered a full time job. Regardless whether the "foot in the door" job is supposed to be a job training or not, then I think the employer is perfectly capable of paying minimum wage for people doing it.
        Tideflat 11y ago
        Job training by employers doesn't work great, because the worker can get training at an employer that gives training and then switch to one who pays more because that employer doesn't have to do training. Though possibly that could be fixed with proper regulation.
        imtringued 11y ago
        I would like to see a real flexible job market. (hire and fire misses the point). Companies want employees they don't have to train. I can't blame them for that but right now you have to decide your career path very early on and it's very difficult to switch. At the current pace of the economy it's not reasonable to expect from someone to work at the same job or industry their entire life.
  - michaelmrose 11y ago
    The labor market exists to turn work into food and shelter not provide money for bored children. Factually the overwhelming majority of low wage work is done by people who do in fact need to support themselves and their families. Even so it's entirely possible for special exemptions to be made for kids and the other cases are hardly worth mentioning.
  - cowsandmilk 11y ago
    > college students (who may only need to pay for books, etc) Now you're beginning to sound like the generation that talks about paying for college with their summer job, which has rapidly become close to impossible over the last few decades. Sure, if you have scholarships and such. Standard in-state sticker price is now $20,000/year; which would require 69 weeks of work at 40 hours per week before you even account for taxes.
    - russell_h 11y ago
      I agree with your sentiment, but the $20,000/year "sticker price" number is way off. The first result Google turns up suggests: In 2015-16, average published tuition and fee prices for in-state students at public four-year institutions range from $4,890 in Wyoming and $6,350 in Montana to $14,990 in Vermont and $15,160 in New Hampshire. http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/2015-16-state-tuition-and-fees-public-four-year-institutions-state-and-five-year-percentage http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-table...
    - RHSeeger 11y ago
      > Now you're beginning to sound like the generation that talks about paying for college with their summer job, which has rapidly become close to impossible over the last few decades. Sure, if you have scholarships and such. Not in the least. In fact, the wife and I are still paying off the $90,000 in loans she racked up during college, 20 years ago. However, a part time job a few days a week, to pay for things the loans didn't, was beneficial. Going out with friends, a few amenities, etc.
- partiallypro 11y ago
  That's a silly argument, Denmark for instance, doesn't even have a minimum wage, nor Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Norway, or Singapore..and technically neither does Switzerland. I'd hardly call those "libertarian" societies. Then again, I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they equate general labor with literal slavery. If you have mobility of labor through your own free will, you are not a slave. It's disgracefully offensive to those that actually do, to this day, work as slaves. Working for $8.50/hr at McDonald's is not slavery. As was debated in prior threads, minimum wages are nonsensical from an economic (and welfare) standpoint. Negative income taxes or living wages make a lot more economic sense.
  - js8 11y ago
    I don't see how you in any way address what I said (in fact I mostly agree with you): > I'd hardly call those "libertarian" societies. I didn't claim that society has to be libertarian to not have minimum wage. > If you have mobility of labor through your own free will, you are not a slave. It's a different definition of the word "slave", and perhaps more precise, that you are using here. Technical word for what I mean, is, I believe, "precariat". It's not the same as slavery but there is often an overlap. And historically it's not obvious that one or the other is definitively worse condition. For example, Czechoslovakia was communist. People were not free, yet they were economically quite well off. Today, people are politically free, but economically, some (although a small minority) are worse off. Because of that, I don't think it's obviously "disgracefully offensive" to compare the two situations. It's certainly not offensive to the poor people who make the comparison themselves. > As was debated in prior threads, minimum wages are nonsensical from an economic (and welfare) standpoint. It is only nonsensical if you subscribe to theories of "rational" decision-making, which do not hold for humans in practice. See for instance the ultimatum game, and how people respond to it.
    - partiallypro 11y ago
      > It is only nonsensical if you subscribe to theories of "rational" decision-making Oh, dear lord, you have just fallen into a stereotype of a person that thinks they understand economics, but actually doesn't. So, we'll just leave it here. Not all economics assumes 100% rational decision making from an overall perspective, you make those assumptions so you can make a model to test. A basic game theory table can tell you that much; even with the simple example of the prisoner's dilemma. You can make a "rational" decision without it being rational to an outside observer. For instance in the prisoner's dilemma it's in both people's interest to not cooperate, but since not all factors are known the "rational" decision is less apparent and both will betray one another. The field of economics, that generally is on the side of free trade (even from people like Krugman), is a much deeper field than the shallow picture you just painted. I basically already had your politics/understanding of economics picked from your previous post, but now I have a pretty clear picture.
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  Your view of the world is not cemented in reality. Go start and run a non-trivial business with lots of employees and international competition for ten+ years. Come back and see what you'll think of these views then. You'll struggle to understand how it was possible that your views were so misaligned with reality.
  - js8 11y ago
    > Go start and run a non-trivial business with lots of employees and international competition for ten+ years. Perhaps we could cut to the chase and you could tell me what am I supposed to learn from the experience? If it is the fact that the international competition causes wage race to the bottom, then I am already aware of that. And that's exactly the reason why minimum wage should be a law. Here's food for thought, too: How does Germany does it? Despite having high wages for decades, compared to the rest of the world, even in manufacturing, and recently adopting minimum wage, most Germans are employed, and there are many German companies out there. That I would like to have explained by someone with business experience.
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      Not to disagree with the premise of your comment but I can, at least partially, answer your question regarding Germany. Germany uses the weaker Eurozone countries to artificially deflate the cost of purchasing their exports. If the Euro was only based on the strength of the German economy their exports would be a lot more expensive. Whether or not this would reduce sales significantly or not is debatable but chances are it definitely wouldn't help.
    - pink_dinner 11y ago
      The point is that it's not law everywhere, and never will be. At some point, the minimum wage will price unskilled labor completely out of the market. Companies now have 5 years to start automating these positions. The Internet made this possible. So many people love using adblock and sharing files for free.. and the same tactics are being used to outsource labor... and now government intervention is a good thing.

by boona 11y ago

Had liberals (or north-american libertarians) been able to win the battle for words, we would be discussing "making it illegal for low skill workers to get jobs", not "minimum wage".

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

js8 11y ago

They did win battle for words! Libertarians call any exchange of work for money, no matter how small, a "job". But normal people, when they want "a job", don't seek to have an economic exchange for miniscule amount of money that cannot pay their bills. That can be called either a "gig" or "slavery", depending on circumstances, but hardly a "job". A "job", in normal speech, is something that can actually economically support you. So what is being outlawed by minimum wage are "jobs" that cannot feed people, which, I am sure you will agree, are simply not worth existing. And in fact I think popularity of libertarianism is half of the cause why minimum wage is still being discussed, because people and businesses who actually know economic stuff support minimum wage, as they understand that flow of money in economic systems starts from the demand. The other half of the cause are possibly some rich people, who are a different type of political actor than businesses.

RHSeeger 11y ago
> So what is being outlawed by minimum wage are "jobs" that cannot feed people, which, I am sure you will agree, are simply not worth existing. I certainly don't agree with that sentiment. There are a lot of people that are working that don't need to support themselves. Between teenagers, college students (who may only need to pay for books, etc), mentally/physically impaired (that are supported by the state but work because it's good to be productive)... there's a place in society for jobs that pay below what you're saying.
- js8 11y ago
  Then we will agree that we disagree. Let's ignore, for the moment, the big issue here, which is that by far, these jobs are not held only by people who you describe (college students and impaired). I don't think creating an artificial job that cannot actually feed you can make anybody feel better of themselves. In any case, it shouldn't be called "a job", which was my point. In particular, I think college students should study and not be distracted by having side jobs, and disabled people should either enjoy their pension (assuming they live in a civilized country that has that) or have a regular job (in fact, labor laws in my country prescribe positive discrimination for disabled people, even though it is probably economically inefficient).
  - mikaeluman 11y ago
    Because you don't care about those people who would really benefit from an easy job for 1-2 years which gives them a foot in. Horrible values on display.
    - js8 11y ago
      /s/horrible/different/ I do care for those people, but I subscribe to a different cultural model. To provide job training so that economy could function should be responsibility of the employer, or the government, and it should be considered a full time job. Regardless whether the "foot in the door" job is supposed to be a job training or not, then I think the employer is perfectly capable of paying minimum wage for people doing it.
      - Tideflat 11y ago
        Job training by employers doesn't work great, because the worker can get training at an employer that gives training and then switch to one who pays more because that employer doesn't have to do training. Though possibly that could be fixed with proper regulation.
      - imtringued 11y ago
        I would like to see a real flexible job market. (hire and fire misses the point). Companies want employees they don't have to train. I can't blame them for that but right now you have to decide your career path very early on and it's very difficult to switch. At the current pace of the economy it's not reasonable to expect from someone to work at the same job or industry their entire life.
- michaelmrose 11y ago
  The labor market exists to turn work into food and shelter not provide money for bored children. Factually the overwhelming majority of low wage work is done by people who do in fact need to support themselves and their families. Even so it's entirely possible for special exemptions to be made for kids and the other cases are hardly worth mentioning.
- cowsandmilk 11y ago
  > college students (who may only need to pay for books, etc) Now you're beginning to sound like the generation that talks about paying for college with their summer job, which has rapidly become close to impossible over the last few decades. Sure, if you have scholarships and such. Standard in-state sticker price is now $20,000/year; which would require 69 weeks of work at 40 hours per week before you even account for taxes.
  - russell_h 11y ago
    I agree with your sentiment, but the $20,000/year "sticker price" number is way off. The first result Google turns up suggests: In 2015-16, average published tuition and fee prices for in-state students at public four-year institutions range from $4,890 in Wyoming and $6,350 in Montana to $14,990 in Vermont and $15,160 in New Hampshire. http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/2015-16-state-tuition-and-fees-public-four-year-institutions-state-and-five-year-percentage http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-table...
  - RHSeeger 11y ago
    > Now you're beginning to sound like the generation that talks about paying for college with their summer job, which has rapidly become close to impossible over the last few decades. Sure, if you have scholarships and such. Not in the least. In fact, the wife and I are still paying off the $90,000 in loans she racked up during college, 20 years ago. However, a part time job a few days a week, to pay for things the loans didn't, was beneficial. Going out with friends, a few amenities, etc.
partiallypro 11y ago
That's a silly argument, Denmark for instance, doesn't even have a minimum wage, nor Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Norway, or Singapore..and technically neither does Switzerland. I'd hardly call those "libertarian" societies. Then again, I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they equate general labor with literal slavery. If you have mobility of labor through your own free will, you are not a slave. It's disgracefully offensive to those that actually do, to this day, work as slaves. Working for $8.50/hr at McDonald's is not slavery. As was debated in prior threads, minimum wages are nonsensical from an economic (and welfare) standpoint. Negative income taxes or living wages make a lot more economic sense.
- js8 11y ago
  I don't see how you in any way address what I said (in fact I mostly agree with you): > I'd hardly call those "libertarian" societies. I didn't claim that society has to be libertarian to not have minimum wage. > If you have mobility of labor through your own free will, you are not a slave. It's a different definition of the word "slave", and perhaps more precise, that you are using here. Technical word for what I mean, is, I believe, "precariat". It's not the same as slavery but there is often an overlap. And historically it's not obvious that one or the other is definitively worse condition. For example, Czechoslovakia was communist. People were not free, yet they were economically quite well off. Today, people are politically free, but economically, some (although a small minority) are worse off. Because of that, I don't think it's obviously "disgracefully offensive" to compare the two situations. It's certainly not offensive to the poor people who make the comparison themselves. > As was debated in prior threads, minimum wages are nonsensical from an economic (and welfare) standpoint. It is only nonsensical if you subscribe to theories of "rational" decision-making, which do not hold for humans in practice. See for instance the ultimatum game, and how people respond to it.
  - partiallypro 11y ago
    > It is only nonsensical if you subscribe to theories of "rational" decision-making Oh, dear lord, you have just fallen into a stereotype of a person that thinks they understand economics, but actually doesn't. So, we'll just leave it here. Not all economics assumes 100% rational decision making from an overall perspective, you make those assumptions so you can make a model to test. A basic game theory table can tell you that much; even with the simple example of the prisoner's dilemma. You can make a "rational" decision without it being rational to an outside observer. For instance in the prisoner's dilemma it's in both people's interest to not cooperate, but since not all factors are known the "rational" decision is less apparent and both will betray one another. The field of economics, that generally is on the side of free trade (even from people like Krugman), is a much deeper field than the shallow picture you just painted. I basically already had your politics/understanding of economics picked from your previous post, but now I have a pretty clear picture.
rebootthesystem 11y ago
Your view of the world is not cemented in reality. Go start and run a non-trivial business with lots of employees and international competition for ten+ years. Come back and see what you'll think of these views then. You'll struggle to understand how it was possible that your views were so misaligned with reality.
- js8 11y ago
  > Go start and run a non-trivial business with lots of employees and international competition for ten+ years. Perhaps we could cut to the chase and you could tell me what am I supposed to learn from the experience? If it is the fact that the international competition causes wage race to the bottom, then I am already aware of that. And that's exactly the reason why minimum wage should be a law. Here's food for thought, too: How does Germany does it? Despite having high wages for decades, compared to the rest of the world, even in manufacturing, and recently adopting minimum wage, most Germans are employed, and there are many German companies out there. That I would like to have explained by someone with business experience.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    Not to disagree with the premise of your comment but I can, at least partially, answer your question regarding Germany. Germany uses the weaker Eurozone countries to artificially deflate the cost of purchasing their exports. If the Euro was only based on the strength of the German economy their exports would be a lot more expensive. Whether or not this would reduce sales significantly or not is debatable but chances are it definitely wouldn't help.
  - pink_dinner 11y ago
    The point is that it's not law everywhere, and never will be. At some point, the minimum wage will price unskilled labor completely out of the market. Companies now have 5 years to start automating these positions. The Internet made this possible. So many people love using adblock and sharing files for free.. and the same tactics are being used to outsource labor... and now government intervention is a good thing.