8 ms·

There's another way to see this, worker protections were invented to put low skilled people out of work (historically, people of color). https://www.forbes.com

There's another way to see this, worker protections were invented to put low skilled people out of work (historically, people of color). https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-the-historically-racist-motivations-behind-minimum-wage/#4914f8f211bb https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-t...

deogeo 7y ago
Countries other than the US have minimum wage laws. Or do you want to imply we have to choose between worker protections and diversity?
- nostrademons 7y ago
  It's possible for different countries to adopt the same policy for different reasons. Many countries get around diversity issues by not having diversity.
- patrickaljord 7y ago
  Read the article, it's not just the US, South Africa too. And I know it was the same in France and many European countries to prevent low skilled immigrants from getting jobs. My point is, worker protections almost by definition prevent low skilled workers from getting jobs because they impose additional costs that low skilled workers are the first to pay by losing job opportunities. In the economy, any additional cost has to be paid by someone eventually, guess who that usually is.
  - js2 7y ago
    So let the free market sort it out in a race to the bottom? Should workers be able to unionize to demand better from their employers?
    - patrickaljord 7y ago
      Only 4% of people are paid minimum wage, everyone else is paid above http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-characteristics-minimum-wage-workers http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-characteristics-mini... so even if there really was a "race to the bottom" it would only affect those 4% and then most people would refuse to work for a salary that is so ridiculously low that staying at home would be more beneficial. The free market is the best (or less worse) system at giving people a wage as high as possible compared to socialism. Now, we're talking very low skilled people who can't seem to get a job anywhere, in this case, increasing barrier to entry only makes things worse. Given that most jobs require skills, most jobs are paid above minimum wage thanks to free market competition so no race to the bottom would happen in most case and even then the market would fix a limit (ie no one would accept your offer if it's too low, same reason no one in SV would accept an offer below $100k ;). > Should workers be able to unionize to demand better from their employers? Absolutely, there can't be a free market without freedom of association.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        In your argument to reduce worker protections you seem to ignore the contradictory stance of increased unionization with lower worker protections. Unions by definition will increase the number of protections for workers and increase the costs of labor. Personally I take an opposite stance: the problem with the free market is that it has to optimize for infinite growth. It doesn't matter if you make profit, you have to make the most profit or you're a failure. Which means removing insurance for workers, minimizing wages, maximizing unpaid overtime etc. The free market is fundamentally at odds with workers and that's why companies employ lobbying and union busting behavior.
        patrickaljord 7y ago
        > the problem with the free market is that it has to optimize for infinite growth. It doesn't matter if you make profit, you have to make the most profit or you're a failure. Which means removing insurance for workers, minimizing wages, maximizing unpaid overtime etc. The free market is fundamentally at odds with workers and that's why companies employ lobbying and union busting behavior. Have you ever ran a company? Most people running a business care about all these things you're enumerating and no one believe in infinite growth.
  - Veen 7y ago
    There is a difference between creating laws that deliberately exclude a large portion of a country's citizens (America and South Africa) and laws that as a side-effect make it difficult for immigrants to get jobs (Europe). The citizens of a country should not be subject to exploitative labor practices simply in order to make life easier for low-skilled non-citizens who choose to immigrate.

deogeo 7y ago

Countries other than the US have minimum wage laws. Or do you want to imply we have to choose between worker protections and diversity?

nostrademons 7y ago
It's possible for different countries to adopt the same policy for different reasons. Many countries get around diversity issues by not having diversity.
patrickaljord 7y ago
Read the article, it's not just the US, South Africa too. And I know it was the same in France and many European countries to prevent low skilled immigrants from getting jobs. My point is, worker protections almost by definition prevent low skilled workers from getting jobs because they impose additional costs that low skilled workers are the first to pay by losing job opportunities. In the economy, any additional cost has to be paid by someone eventually, guess who that usually is.
- js2 7y ago
  So let the free market sort it out in a race to the bottom? Should workers be able to unionize to demand better from their employers?
  - patrickaljord 7y ago
    Only 4% of people are paid minimum wage, everyone else is paid above http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-characteristics-minimum-wage-workers http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-characteristics-mini... so even if there really was a "race to the bottom" it would only affect those 4% and then most people would refuse to work for a salary that is so ridiculously low that staying at home would be more beneficial. The free market is the best (or less worse) system at giving people a wage as high as possible compared to socialism. Now, we're talking very low skilled people who can't seem to get a job anywhere, in this case, increasing barrier to entry only makes things worse. Given that most jobs require skills, most jobs are paid above minimum wage thanks to free market competition so no race to the bottom would happen in most case and even then the market would fix a limit (ie no one would accept your offer if it's too low, same reason no one in SV would accept an offer below $100k ;). > Should workers be able to unionize to demand better from their employers? Absolutely, there can't be a free market without freedom of association.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      In your argument to reduce worker protections you seem to ignore the contradictory stance of increased unionization with lower worker protections. Unions by definition will increase the number of protections for workers and increase the costs of labor. Personally I take an opposite stance: the problem with the free market is that it has to optimize for infinite growth. It doesn't matter if you make profit, you have to make the most profit or you're a failure. Which means removing insurance for workers, minimizing wages, maximizing unpaid overtime etc. The free market is fundamentally at odds with workers and that's why companies employ lobbying and union busting behavior.
      - patrickaljord 7y ago
        > the problem with the free market is that it has to optimize for infinite growth. It doesn't matter if you make profit, you have to make the most profit or you're a failure. Which means removing insurance for workers, minimizing wages, maximizing unpaid overtime etc. The free market is fundamentally at odds with workers and that's why companies employ lobbying and union busting behavior. Have you ever ran a company? Most people running a business care about all these things you're enumerating and no one believe in infinite growth.
- Veen 7y ago
  There is a difference between creating laws that deliberately exclude a large portion of a country's citizens (America and South Africa) and laws that as a side-effect make it difficult for immigrants to get jobs (Europe). The citizens of a country should not be subject to exploitative labor practices simply in order to make life easier for low-skilled non-citizens who choose to immigrate.