4 ms·

The thing I find most obnoxious is that people don't seem to understand that a minimum wage is necessary to prevent employee abuse. Without a minimum wage, corp

The thing I find most obnoxious is that people don't seem to understand that a minimum wage is necessary to prevent employee abuse. Without a minimum wage, corporations will gladly hire people who are unable to negotiate hire rates despite doing the same work as everyone else. The disabled, prison labor and immigrants are all examples of people who have been historically abused by companies in order to pay them much less. Ultimately when any job is better than no job, people will take what they can get. Companies know this, and will pay people obscenely low amounts to take advantage of people without any other options. Therefore to protect them and ensure they can have a livable wage, we need to maintain a minimum wage.

greggyb 8y ago
If I may rearrange your post a little (and please tell me if I am misrepresenting your view, because that is not my intent): Employers may abuse employees in terms of wage, and this has been seen in the past. Corporations have a stronger negotiating position than many (most?) potential employees, and one of the primary ways this is manifested is in the following manner: When a person faces the choice of no-income (substituted for your use of "job") or income, the choice of income is near-universally better. I think the conclusion "we need a minimum wage" is too strong. This is not the only way to provide bargaining power to potential employees. By way of proof I offer an alternative means to a minimum wage, namely some form of subsidy given to all humans. This type of arrangement is often termed a universal basic income and there are numerous specific implementations which have been proposed over time. It seems that having identified a problem (employees may be faced with a raw deal when interacting with employers), we should look for multiple (though perhaps not all - exhaustive searches can be expensive (keep in mind time is a resource and that opportunity cost is always present)) approaches and weigh their positive and negative characteristics. To do otherwise seems but a parody of rhetoric and reason, captured well in the "Yes, Minister" scene linked below[0]. I do not propose UBI as the only alternative to a minimum wage, or even as the best of all possible options, only to suggest that your obnoxious people may perceive both the problem you have posed and an alternative solution that they believe to be better than the one you propose. The way you present your argument seems to me to assume that those who disagree with you must be ignorant or malicious. Starting a conversation with either assumption seems fruitless. To accuse (even obliquely) a person of ignorance and forcibly try to educate them is, in my experience, an exercise in insult and folly - even if a person is ignorant, an aggressive teacher is not likely to be listened to. To engage a malicious actor with reason and education seems simply folly - if they understand the problem you pose and enjoy the ill it brings to people, then you have nothing to gain by explaining that negative effect. It seems to me that such a rhetorical approach is geared to identify friends and foes, group these people together, and allow the speaker to dismiss the latter. You have the unlucky position of being the first in this thread engaging in such a way. I see it equally among those that I imagine you would side with and those you would side against. I have the unfortunate disposition of occasionally ranting as I have above. I hope that if you've stayed with me this far that you are, in fact, interested in reasoned discourse and willing to accept some unsolicited advice from an internet stranger who is ornery today. Perhaps you might do better at engaging those obnoxious people by finding common ground - it is usually simple to agree that you are both interested in improving the lot of those who are least well off and that you both agree that certain problems can and do exist. From there it is much easier to find a productive conversation about various means to address the specific problems, and the many positives and negatives of each. [0]: https://youtu.be/trw1PbQt_Yo?t=11 https://youtu.be/trw1PbQt_Yo?t=11
- elicash 8y ago
  Not OP, but in their defense -- we know a minimum wage is effective at increasing wages. I'm very open to the idea of UBIs but it's largely untested. You don't mention it, but I think the most effective way of shifting power is with strong labor unions.
paulddraper 8y ago
The thing I find most obnoxious is the "a better end naturally justifies removing liberties" concept. Suppose there was positive correlation between racial diversity and violent crime in the US. Would you support de jure segregation, because it reduces violence? Even if there seem to be good effects from segregation didn't necessarily mean the government should dictate living locations. Even if there are good effects from legislated prices, that doesn't necessarily mean the government should dictate employment contacts.
- elicash 8y ago
  I find it obnoxious to say "yes, a minimum wage makes for a better society overall but I'm going to take a principled stand because ideologically I'm opposed to forcing employers to pay a living wage." Seems silly to me. If I think something will make society better, I'm in favor of it. > Even if there seem to be good effects from segregation didn't necessarily mean the government should dictate living locations. To be clear, you're NOT saying there are good effects of segregation, right? That was just an example to illustrate a point? Because I see zero positives from segregation.
- goalieca 8y ago
  Your argument is moronic. De-segregation is not the cause of violence in your hypothetical and if it was then you were imagining a racist dreamland.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    It's a (negative) example. It's supposed to be moronic.
  - davvolun 8y ago
    To play devil's advocate (you can read my response to OP to see how I feel generally about the overall argument), it does seem to correlate that more homogeneous societies, e.g. Japan, Norway, have lower crime statistics, or lower violent crimes. Possible reason being, the more likely you are able to socially connect with your potential victim and the less likely you are to see them as the "other," then the less likely you are to feel justified in causing them harm. KKK feels justified because other races are inferior, the rich feel justified in exploiting the poor because poor people are lazy, e.g.

greggyb 8y ago

If I may rearrange your post a little (and please tell me if I am misrepresenting your view, because that is not my intent): Employers may abuse employees in terms of wage, and this has been seen in the past. Corporations have a stronger negotiating position than many (most?) potential employees, and one of the primary ways this is manifested is in the following manner: When a person faces the choice of no-income (substituted for your use of "job") or income, the choice of income is near-universally better. I think the conclusion "we need a minimum wage" is too strong. This is not the only way to provide bargaining power to potential employees. By way of proof I offer an alternative means to a minimum wage, namely some form of subsidy given to all humans. This type of arrangement is often termed a universal basic income and there are numerous specific implementations which have been proposed over time. It seems that having identified a problem (employees may be faced with a raw deal when interacting with employers), we should look for multiple (though perhaps not all - exhaustive searches can be expensive (keep in mind time is a resource and that opportunity cost is always present)) approaches and weigh their positive and negative characteristics. To do otherwise seems but a parody of rhetoric and reason, captured well in the "Yes, Minister" scene linked below[0]. I do not propose UBI as the only alternative to a minimum wage, or even as the best of all possible options, only to suggest that your obnoxious people may perceive both the problem you have posed and an alternative solution that they believe to be better than the one you propose. The way you present your argument seems to me to assume that those who disagree with you must be ignorant or malicious. Starting a conversation with either assumption seems fruitless. To accuse (even obliquely) a person of ignorance and forcibly try to educate them is, in my experience, an exercise in insult and folly - even if a person is ignorant, an aggressive teacher is not likely to be listened to. To engage a malicious actor with reason and education seems simply folly - if they understand the problem you pose and enjoy the ill it brings to people, then you have nothing to gain by explaining that negative effect. It seems to me that such a rhetorical approach is geared to identify friends and foes, group these people together, and allow the speaker to dismiss the latter. You have the unlucky position of being the first in this thread engaging in such a way. I see it equally among those that I imagine you would side with and those you would side against. I have the unfortunate disposition of occasionally ranting as I have above. I hope that if you've stayed with me this far that you are, in fact, interested in reasoned discourse and willing to accept some unsolicited advice from an internet stranger who is ornery today. Perhaps you might do better at engaging those obnoxious people by finding common ground - it is usually simple to agree that you are both interested in improving the lot of those who are least well off and that you both agree that certain problems can and do exist. From there it is much easier to find a productive conversation about various means to address the specific problems, and the many positives and negatives of each. [0]: https://youtu.be/trw1PbQt_Yo?t=11 https://youtu.be/trw1PbQt_Yo?t=11

elicash 8y ago
Not OP, but in their defense -- we know a minimum wage is effective at increasing wages. I'm very open to the idea of UBIs but it's largely untested. You don't mention it, but I think the most effective way of shifting power is with strong labor unions.

paulddraper 8y ago

The thing I find most obnoxious is the "a better end naturally justifies removing liberties" concept. Suppose there was positive correlation between racial diversity and violent crime in the US. Would you support de jure segregation, because it reduces violence? Even if there seem to be good effects from segregation didn't necessarily mean the government should dictate living locations. Even if there are good effects from legislated prices, that doesn't necessarily mean the government should dictate employment contacts.

elicash 8y ago
I find it obnoxious to say "yes, a minimum wage makes for a better society overall but I'm going to take a principled stand because ideologically I'm opposed to forcing employers to pay a living wage." Seems silly to me. If I think something will make society better, I'm in favor of it. > Even if there seem to be good effects from segregation didn't necessarily mean the government should dictate living locations. To be clear, you're NOT saying there are good effects of segregation, right? That was just an example to illustrate a point? Because I see zero positives from segregation.
goalieca 8y ago
Your argument is moronic. De-segregation is not the cause of violence in your hypothetical and if it was then you were imagining a racist dreamland.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  It's a (negative) example. It's supposed to be moronic.
- davvolun 8y ago
  To play devil's advocate (you can read my response to OP to see how I feel generally about the overall argument), it does seem to correlate that more homogeneous societies, e.g. Japan, Norway, have lower crime statistics, or lower violent crimes. Possible reason being, the more likely you are able to socially connect with your potential victim and the less likely you are to see them as the "other," then the less likely you are to feel justified in causing them harm. KKK feels justified because other races are inferior, the rich feel justified in exploiting the poor because poor people are lazy, e.g.