5 ms·

Or business will pass the compliance costs to the consumer, thus raising price for all. Those breaking the law and not complying will have a competitive advanta

by nickpp 8y ago

Or business will pass the compliance costs to the consumer, thus raising price for all. Those breaking the law and not complying will have a competitive advantage, as well as those large enough to spread the compliance costs over all their production. And thus the raise of the regulation-loving mega-corporation. Wages are the price of work as established by the free market. Minimum wage in effect eliminates less competitive workers from the market place, since their added value becomes less than their cost. They are simply replaced by more productive workers or robots. The most vulnerable members of our society are affected the most, being robbed by the dignity and opportunities of a paid job and being relegated instead to live off the government's teat.

chmod775 8y ago
Edit: I thought my parent poster was the same as my grandparent's parent. I removed a paragraph aimed at the latter. Sorry! [...] Just because people earn less and have less money, the economic output in goods won't change. Goods will simply become cheaper. What really matters is WHERE the money is removed from the system because companies/individuals supposedly hoard it, pay low wages, or cost of compliance is high. Because that place/group/country will become poorer compared to the rest of the world or country. There's many complex interactions when you think about economies at global or nation scale. To get to the matter at hand: > Or business will pass the compliance costs to the consumer, thus raising price for all. Yes. They may need to hire two additional people or change their manufacturing process to a more expensive one to comply with some safety standards and whatnot. The good might become slightly more expensive compared to other goods, and some economic output will be lost. But everyone will have to do that, which gets me to your next point: > Those breaking the law and not complying will have a competitive advantage. Criminals always had a competitive advantage. It's the job of law enforcement to make sure this doesn't happen - if that doesn't work you have a bigger problem. This argument is useless. > as well as those large enough to spread the compliance costs over all their production. Depends on what the compliance cost is. Need to hire an extra guy to do paper pushing for compliance? This cost (maybe) can be spread. Need to use more expensive materials? Bigger corps won't have more advantages here than they had anyways (buy in bulk etc.) > Wages are the price of work as established by the free market. That's the theory and mostly true. The problem is a disparity in bargaining power and stakes at wage negotiations. You need organizations selling that "work" who are at least as powerful as their buyers (read: unions). A lack of unions can force companies (through no fault of their own) to determine wages by the market price of their produce, instead of raising their prices. An union has the power to negotiate wages across entire industries - thus allowing companies to compete without doing so on the backs of their workers. (Edit: This is essentially a way of arriving at a minimum wage for that industry). > They are simply replaced by more productive workers or robots. Again. Maybe they should use robots - if a robot can perform the work for less than what could be considered a livable wage for a human worker, the human worker is best used elsewhere. You just made a good argument that minimum wages could increase economic output. > The most vulnerable members of our society are affected the most, being robbed by the dignity and opportunities of a paid job and being relegated instead to live off the government's teat. The dignity of a job that is paid so badly that the government has to indirectly subsidize the industry by giving the worker additional government aid, even though he has a paid job? Another great example that the free market fails at setting fair wages. Industries like that should be forced to increase their prices instead of indirectly being subsidized with tax payer money by having their workers receive government aid. Yes: McDonalds & Co. prices may increase - but you were paying that anyway, indirectly, with taxes.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Just because people earn less and have less money, the economic output in goods won't change. Goods will simply become cheaper. Wait, what? That is obviously not what happens. If 100K people lose their jobs, they have less money which means they buy less stuff. But nobody is going to materially change prices as a result of what 100K people do out of 300M. Those 100K people are just screwed. > Criminals always had a competitive advantage. It's the job of law enforcement to make sure this doesn't happen - if that doesn't work you have a bigger problem. Law enforcement is never 100% effective. People paying each other under the table is rampant and most of them never get caught. Every time you impose more burdens on law abiding citizens, you increase the wages of crime. > Depends on what the compliance cost is. Need to hire an extra guy to do paper pushing for compliance? This cost (maybe) can be spread. Need to use more expensive materials? Bigger corps won't have more advantages here than they had anyways (buy in bulk etc.) Both of those benefit larger entities. Suppose you sell a unit for $100 and your previous unit cost was $80 but with the more expensive materials it's $90. Then you need to sell 50,000 units to cover a $500,000 fixed cost instead of 25,000 units. But you only sell 40,000 units, so you're out of business. The larger company sells a million units and has no such problem. > Maybe they should use robots - if a robot can perform the work for less than what could be considered a livable wage for a human worker, the human worker is best used elsewhere. You just made a good argument that minimum wages could increase economic output. But that's what would happen regardless if the human worker could find another job that pays more than the one being automated. The issue is that the human worker would prefer $5/hour to unemployment, and the employer would prefer a $5/hour employee to automation but prefer automation to an $8/hour employee, so an $8 minimum wage puts the employee on the unemployment line. > The dignity of a job that is paid so badly that the government has to indirectly subsidize the industry by giving the worker additional government aid, even though he has a paid job? Another great example that the free market fails at setting fair wages. Which is more undignified, working a job supplemented by government assistance or being unemployed and 100% reliant on government assistance?
  - chmod775 8y ago
    > But that's what would happen regardless if the human worker could find another job that pays more than the one being automated. The issue is that the human worker would prefer $5/hour to unemployment, and the employer would prefer a $5/hour employee to automation but prefer automation to an $8/hour employee, so an $8 minimum wage puts the employee on the unemployment line. Putting people who perform work we can do cheaper with automation on the unemployment line is a side-effect of a good thing. Think of what the first wave of industrialization brought us. People can now invest time learning skills they're actually needed for, without reducing economic output (and later supplementing it). > Which is more undignified, working a job supplemented by government assistance or being unemployed and 100% reliant on government assistance? Honestly? Rather than slaving away at McDonalds working for 7 dollars an hour, effectively kissing the ass of that horrible company, just to receive government aid anyways to get me to the end of the month I'd just not work at all. At least that way FastFoodChainX can't use me to leech off the government and myself. Just because you introduce a minimum wage restaurants and junk food chains aren't going to go away. They're gonna get more expensive, sure. But you'll lessen the burden they create on society, as well as raising a class of neglected workers to the point where they can afford to dine at such places themselves. > Both of those benefit larger entities. Suppose you sell a unit for $100 and your previous unit cost was $80 but with the more expensive materials it's $90. What's really gonna happen is that it'll now sell for $110. Or probably $115 to cover the advertising for the new "High quality ingredients! Now 95% less poisonous!"
scotty79 8y ago
> ... being robbed by the dignity and opportunities of a paid job ... Why don't you work for below minimum wage and relate to us what dignity and opportunities it provides. I worked as a developer and I didn't get any additional dignity from the fact that the job was paid. I got the exactly same dignity when I got same money (and more) for doing nothing. As for opportunities I don't think there are many in below minimum wage jobs, people tend to describe them as "dead end jobs".
- nickpp 8y ago
  I did. That fist job barely covered food but it taught me how to behave, how to listen and how to work with others. The opportunities and connections it offered put me on the path that took me where I am today. I would’ve done it for free.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    > I would’ve done it for free. Are you sure? If you didn't have a job (because there weren't enough business good enough to pay minimum wage) but had your basic needs paid for (through basic income) wouldn't you want anything more for yourself? Wouldn't you seek connections and new skills? Probably some people wouldn't, but you? Are you sure that you owe where you are today only to someone buying lots of your time for a price below reasonable minimum wage?
    - nickpp 8y ago
      Very sure. If I had UBI I would’ve stayed home, played video games and jerked off. That first job taught me the value of work, the value of my time, how to get others to give me what I needed in exchange of me giving them what they wanted. Taught me how the world works. Finally it was a huge motivator to improve - through hard work. No government-assured income would have been able to give me all that.

by nickpp 8y ago

chmod775 8y ago

Edit: I thought my parent poster was the same as my grandparent's parent. I removed a paragraph aimed at the latter. Sorry! [...] Just because people earn less and have less money, the economic output in goods won't change. Goods will simply become cheaper. What really matters is WHERE the money is removed from the system because companies/individuals supposedly hoard it, pay low wages, or cost of compliance is high. Because that place/group/country will become poorer compared to the rest of the world or country. There's many complex interactions when you think about economies at global or nation scale. To get to the matter at hand: > Or business will pass the compliance costs to the consumer, thus raising price for all. Yes. They may need to hire two additional people or change their manufacturing process to a more expensive one to comply with some safety standards and whatnot. The good might become slightly more expensive compared to other goods, and some economic output will be lost. But everyone will have to do that, which gets me to your next point: > Those breaking the law and not complying will have a competitive advantage. Criminals always had a competitive advantage. It's the job of law enforcement to make sure this doesn't happen - if that doesn't work you have a bigger problem. This argument is useless. > as well as those large enough to spread the compliance costs over all their production. Depends on what the compliance cost is. Need to hire an extra guy to do paper pushing for compliance? This cost (maybe) can be spread. Need to use more expensive materials? Bigger corps won't have more advantages here than they had anyways (buy in bulk etc.) > Wages are the price of work as established by the free market. That's the theory and mostly true. The problem is a disparity in bargaining power and stakes at wage negotiations. You need organizations selling that "work" who are at least as powerful as their buyers (read: unions). A lack of unions can force companies (through no fault of their own) to determine wages by the market price of their produce, instead of raising their prices. An union has the power to negotiate wages across entire industries - thus allowing companies to compete without doing so on the backs of their workers. (Edit: This is essentially a way of arriving at a minimum wage for that industry). > They are simply replaced by more productive workers or robots. Again. Maybe they should use robots - if a robot can perform the work for less than what could be considered a livable wage for a human worker, the human worker is best used elsewhere. You just made a good argument that minimum wages could increase economic output. > The most vulnerable members of our society are affected the most, being robbed by the dignity and opportunities of a paid job and being relegated instead to live off the government's teat. The dignity of a job that is paid so badly that the government has to indirectly subsidize the industry by giving the worker additional government aid, even though he has a paid job? Another great example that the free market fails at setting fair wages. Industries like that should be forced to increase their prices instead of indirectly being subsidized with tax payer money by having their workers receive government aid. Yes: McDonalds & Co. prices may increase - but you were paying that anyway, indirectly, with taxes.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Just because people earn less and have less money, the economic output in goods won't change. Goods will simply become cheaper. Wait, what? That is obviously not what happens. If 100K people lose their jobs, they have less money which means they buy less stuff. But nobody is going to materially change prices as a result of what 100K people do out of 300M. Those 100K people are just screwed. > Criminals always had a competitive advantage. It's the job of law enforcement to make sure this doesn't happen - if that doesn't work you have a bigger problem. Law enforcement is never 100% effective. People paying each other under the table is rampant and most of them never get caught. Every time you impose more burdens on law abiding citizens, you increase the wages of crime. > Depends on what the compliance cost is. Need to hire an extra guy to do paper pushing for compliance? This cost (maybe) can be spread. Need to use more expensive materials? Bigger corps won't have more advantages here than they had anyways (buy in bulk etc.) Both of those benefit larger entities. Suppose you sell a unit for $100 and your previous unit cost was $80 but with the more expensive materials it's $90. Then you need to sell 50,000 units to cover a $500,000 fixed cost instead of 25,000 units. But you only sell 40,000 units, so you're out of business. The larger company sells a million units and has no such problem. > Maybe they should use robots - if a robot can perform the work for less than what could be considered a livable wage for a human worker, the human worker is best used elsewhere. You just made a good argument that minimum wages could increase economic output. But that's what would happen regardless if the human worker could find another job that pays more than the one being automated. The issue is that the human worker would prefer $5/hour to unemployment, and the employer would prefer a $5/hour employee to automation but prefer automation to an $8/hour employee, so an $8 minimum wage puts the employee on the unemployment line. > The dignity of a job that is paid so badly that the government has to indirectly subsidize the industry by giving the worker additional government aid, even though he has a paid job? Another great example that the free market fails at setting fair wages. Which is more undignified, working a job supplemented by government assistance or being unemployed and 100% reliant on government assistance?
- chmod775 8y ago
  > But that's what would happen regardless if the human worker could find another job that pays more than the one being automated. The issue is that the human worker would prefer $5/hour to unemployment, and the employer would prefer a $5/hour employee to automation but prefer automation to an $8/hour employee, so an $8 minimum wage puts the employee on the unemployment line. Putting people who perform work we can do cheaper with automation on the unemployment line is a side-effect of a good thing. Think of what the first wave of industrialization brought us. People can now invest time learning skills they're actually needed for, without reducing economic output (and later supplementing it). > Which is more undignified, working a job supplemented by government assistance or being unemployed and 100% reliant on government assistance? Honestly? Rather than slaving away at McDonalds working for 7 dollars an hour, effectively kissing the ass of that horrible company, just to receive government aid anyways to get me to the end of the month I'd just not work at all. At least that way FastFoodChainX can't use me to leech off the government and myself. Just because you introduce a minimum wage restaurants and junk food chains aren't going to go away. They're gonna get more expensive, sure. But you'll lessen the burden they create on society, as well as raising a class of neglected workers to the point where they can afford to dine at such places themselves. > Both of those benefit larger entities. Suppose you sell a unit for $100 and your previous unit cost was $80 but with the more expensive materials it's $90. What's really gonna happen is that it'll now sell for $110. Or probably $115 to cover the advertising for the new "High quality ingredients! Now 95% less poisonous!"

scotty79 8y ago

> ... being robbed by the dignity and opportunities of a paid job ... Why don't you work for below minimum wage and relate to us what dignity and opportunities it provides. I worked as a developer and I didn't get any additional dignity from the fact that the job was paid. I got the exactly same dignity when I got same money (and more) for doing nothing. As for opportunities I don't think there are many in below minimum wage jobs, people tend to describe them as "dead end jobs".

nickpp 8y ago
I did. That fist job barely covered food but it taught me how to behave, how to listen and how to work with others. The opportunities and connections it offered put me on the path that took me where I am today. I would’ve done it for free.
- scotty79 8y ago
  > I would’ve done it for free. Are you sure? If you didn't have a job (because there weren't enough business good enough to pay minimum wage) but had your basic needs paid for (through basic income) wouldn't you want anything more for yourself? Wouldn't you seek connections and new skills? Probably some people wouldn't, but you? Are you sure that you owe where you are today only to someone buying lots of your time for a price below reasonable minimum wage?
  - nickpp 8y ago
    Very sure. If I had UBI I would’ve stayed home, played video games and jerked off. That first job taught me the value of work, the value of my time, how to get others to give me what I needed in exchange of me giving them what they wanted. Taught me how the world works. Finally it was a huge motivator to improve - through hard work. No government-assured income would have been able to give me all that.