4 ms·

Not as crazy as you think. Many economists support this.

blindhippo 14y ago
Err what? Not as crazy... Care to back this statement up with references to said "economists"? If you give organizations the option to employ people and just randomly decide not to pay them, they will at every opportunity NOT pay time. This is basic logic... the motivators for the organization propel this behavior and the American market system will reward them for it - these economists you speak of are likely cracked.
- gms 14y ago
  The free market actually doesn't reward this behaviour. Consider that organisations that decide not to pay their workers might very well lose out to those who do. If Organisation A doesn't pay their workers, then all my organisation has to do to steal their productive workers is to offer a wage. Organisation A loses out and eventually has to shut down, while I and the workers win.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Oh bullshit. If Organization A doesn't pay its workers, Organization B will notice that Organization A has gotten away with it. Then, Organization B will stop paying their workers, since after all, each employer who stops paying increases the degree of monopsony buying labor for zero.
    - gms 14y ago
      There is an assumption underlying my premise: that organisations are in competition with one another. I think that's a fair assumption to make. I would expect that competing organisations would do anything legal to give them a leg up over the competition, including the hiring of workers they consider productive away from the competition. It's too risky otherwise; all it takes is for some other organisation to offer wages, causing both organisations A and B to lose their productive workers. Do you disagree with that?
      - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Yes, I disagree. Again: employers know that each employer who stops paying any wages reinforces the non-paying equilibrium by increasing the price-point-zero oligopsony. Market dynamics work as you described when buyers are required to actually pay something.
        liber8 14y ago
        Honest question: can you point to any example in history where this has happened? I ask because, if your theory of how labor markets work is valid, it would seem that every professional sports team on the planet would be willing to reward you handsomely if you could demonstrate how this works in practice.
        eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Honest question: can you point to any example in history where this has happened? All periods of labor glut when it has been legal. In order for competition to force wages up (above zero, at least), there must on some level be more jobs than workers.
        liber8 14y ago
        1. You didn't answer the question. Can you point to any example in history of this EVER happening? I'll take any example. 2. This is patently false. Even if there were 0 jobs, wages would not be zero. People simply won't work without some incentive. If I want you to go out and dig a hole in the ground, I either need to reward you for doing so, or find a way to convince you that you want to dig that hole of your own free will.
  - drumdance 14y ago
    Your decision to offer a wage IS the market. Its no different than paying more for a stock than I am willing to do. I might wish I could get Google at $10, but the market shuts me out. Once upon a time there were a lot of companies that allowed you to "get paid to surf the web!" They are all out of business or have different models because they were overvaluing those assets.
- liber8 14y ago
  Nearly every economist on the planet recognizes that minimum wage laws are net counter-productive. They are great for the limited number of people who happen to snag one of these over-paying jobs, but they are not so great for all the other people whose skills are not worth that amount, and are thus made unemployable. And, as you can see in basically every position where government hasn't mandated that employers pay some minimum wage, organizations do not choose to pay people zero. Ever. They choose to pay people just enough to perform the work that needs doing. Sometimes that number is $10 per hour, sometimes that number is $24,000,000 per year.
- drumdance 14y ago
  To be more clear: many economists think there should be no minimum wage because it sets an artificial floor on the market. An unpaid intern is earning what the market will bear. Put another way, they are paying for an education with time instead of money. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html
zeroonetwothree 14y ago
This is just abolishing the minimum wage. Since most people don't get paid the minimum wage this would only affect a small number of workers. But the main benefit is that currently unemployable people would actually be able to get hired.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  If a job isn't productive enough to provide for the upkeep of the worker (ie: to pay a living wage), why should it exist? At that point, the worker's slow-motion death (or the welfare money society pays to prevent that) are just subsidizing a ridiculously unproductive employer.
  - gms 14y ago
    By your logic no part-time hourly-wage work should ever exist.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Oh, if the employer can provide a liveable income in 20 hours/week, I've got no problem with that! But yes, it simply shouldn't exist. Well, maybe we can allow an exemption based on age or legal dependency status for teenage kids earning extra money at a movie theater. In that case, though, the parents are basically subsidizing the movie theater.
      - gms 14y ago
        What if I have a spare 8 hours a week (say, Saturdays), and want to use them every week to earn some extra cash (at say $12 an hour, coming out to an extra $96 a week). Should I be prevented from doing this?
        eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Yes, because it results in employers "playing games" with the distinction between full-time and part-time to avoid having to give a living wage and benefits.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
You are thinking of the Chicago and Austrian school economists on the subject of the minimum wage. We're not talking about minimum wages, except in the sense that they should be above zero. We are talking about the requirement that companies pay workers at all. Do you expect people to just slowly starve to death for the sheer joy of toiling away?
- civilian 14y ago
  Cool! So, you're a smart guy, what do you think will really happen if companies are given the choice to pay employees anything they want, including nothing. I graduated with a shitty major and I worked for free. I volunteered at a lab, to help get me some experience. I could've been doing something else, but hey, I couldn't get a job! But now that I have a skill, and that skill is in demand... I'm imagining that I would just up and leave if I was told I wasn't going to get paid anything. I would expect that people would just leave their jobs. Companies would learn that they can grab great quality employees if they pay them with profits. It's not as complicated as you think, and I have no idea why you're trying to pin the absurd situation of people starving while toiling away on this policy. There are already lots of opportunities for people to work for free (volunteer groups, church organizations) yet we don't have people mindlessly working themselves to death.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    When there are more jobs than workers, companies have to pay well to attract workers. But when you construct an intern economy in which people are paid in the hope of a future "real job", you are suppressing the number of real, paying jobs. You are thus exacerbating the labor glut in these fields.

Err what? Not as crazy... Care to back this statement up with references to said "economists"? If you give organizations the option to employ people and just randomly decide not to pay them, they will at every opportunity NOT pay time. This is basic logic... the motivators for the organization propel this behavior and the American market system will reward them for it - these economists you speak of are likely cracked.

gms 14y ago
The free market actually doesn't reward this behaviour. Consider that organisations that decide not to pay their workers might very well lose out to those who do. If Organisation A doesn't pay their workers, then all my organisation has to do to steal their productive workers is to offer a wage. Organisation A loses out and eventually has to shut down, while I and the workers win.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Oh bullshit. If Organization A doesn't pay its workers, Organization B will notice that Organization A has gotten away with it. Then, Organization B will stop paying their workers, since after all, each employer who stops paying increases the degree of monopsony buying labor for zero.
  - gms 14y ago
    There is an assumption underlying my premise: that organisations are in competition with one another. I think that's a fair assumption to make. I would expect that competing organisations would do anything legal to give them a leg up over the competition, including the hiring of workers they consider productive away from the competition. It's too risky otherwise; all it takes is for some other organisation to offer wages, causing both organisations A and B to lose their productive workers. Do you disagree with that?
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Yes, I disagree. Again: employers know that each employer who stops paying any wages reinforces the non-paying equilibrium by increasing the price-point-zero oligopsony. Market dynamics work as you described when buyers are required to actually pay something.
      - liber8 14y ago
        Honest question: can you point to any example in history where this has happened? I ask because, if your theory of how labor markets work is valid, it would seem that every professional sports team on the planet would be willing to reward you handsomely if you could demonstrate how this works in practice.
        eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Honest question: can you point to any example in history where this has happened? All periods of labor glut when it has been legal. In order for competition to force wages up (above zero, at least), there must on some level be more jobs than workers.
        liber8 14y ago
        1. You didn't answer the question. Can you point to any example in history of this EVER happening? I'll take any example. 2. This is patently false. Even if there were 0 jobs, wages would not be zero. People simply won't work without some incentive. If I want you to go out and dig a hole in the ground, I either need to reward you for doing so, or find a way to convince you that you want to dig that hole of your own free will.
- drumdance 14y ago
  Your decision to offer a wage IS the market. Its no different than paying more for a stock than I am willing to do. I might wish I could get Google at $10, but the market shuts me out. Once upon a time there were a lot of companies that allowed you to "get paid to surf the web!" They are all out of business or have different models because they were overvaluing those assets.
liber8 14y ago
Nearly every economist on the planet recognizes that minimum wage laws are net counter-productive. They are great for the limited number of people who happen to snag one of these over-paying jobs, but they are not so great for all the other people whose skills are not worth that amount, and are thus made unemployable. And, as you can see in basically every position where government hasn't mandated that employers pay some minimum wage, organizations do not choose to pay people zero. Ever. They choose to pay people just enough to perform the work that needs doing. Sometimes that number is $10 per hour, sometimes that number is $24,000,000 per year.
drumdance 14y ago
To be more clear: many economists think there should be no minimum wage because it sets an artificial floor on the market. An unpaid intern is earning what the market will bear. Put another way, they are paying for an education with time instead of money. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html

zeroonetwothree 14y ago

This is just abolishing the minimum wage. Since most people don't get paid the minimum wage this would only affect a small number of workers. But the main benefit is that currently unemployable people would actually be able to get hired.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
If a job isn't productive enough to provide for the upkeep of the worker (ie: to pay a living wage), why should it exist? At that point, the worker's slow-motion death (or the welfare money society pays to prevent that) are just subsidizing a ridiculously unproductive employer.
- gms 14y ago
  By your logic no part-time hourly-wage work should ever exist.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Oh, if the employer can provide a liveable income in 20 hours/week, I've got no problem with that! But yes, it simply shouldn't exist. Well, maybe we can allow an exemption based on age or legal dependency status for teenage kids earning extra money at a movie theater. In that case, though, the parents are basically subsidizing the movie theater.
    - gms 14y ago
      What if I have a spare 8 hours a week (say, Saturdays), and want to use them every week to earn some extra cash (at say $12 an hour, coming out to an extra $96 a week). Should I be prevented from doing this?
      - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Yes, because it results in employers "playing games" with the distinction between full-time and part-time to avoid having to give a living wage and benefits.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

You are thinking of the Chicago and Austrian school economists on the subject of the minimum wage. We're not talking about minimum wages, except in the sense that they should be above zero. We are talking about the requirement that companies pay workers at all. Do you expect people to just slowly starve to death for the sheer joy of toiling away?

civilian 14y ago
Cool! So, you're a smart guy, what do you think will really happen if companies are given the choice to pay employees anything they want, including nothing. I graduated with a shitty major and I worked for free. I volunteered at a lab, to help get me some experience. I could've been doing something else, but hey, I couldn't get a job! But now that I have a skill, and that skill is in demand... I'm imagining that I would just up and leave if I was told I wasn't going to get paid anything. I would expect that people would just leave their jobs. Companies would learn that they can grab great quality employees if they pay them with profits. It's not as complicated as you think, and I have no idea why you're trying to pin the absurd situation of people starving while toiling away on this policy. There are already lots of opportunities for people to work for free (volunteer groups, church organizations) yet we don't have people mindlessly working themselves to death.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  When there are more jobs than workers, companies have to pay well to attract workers. But when you construct an intern economy in which people are paid in the hope of a future "real job", you are suppressing the number of real, paying jobs. You are thus exacerbating the labor glut in these fields.