PDA

View Full Version : Abolish Minimum Wage*


Porpoise101
July 22nd, 2017, 12:52 PM
Look, I made a click-bait title. But it's serious: abolish the minimum wage in the USA*. It would be unnecessary and it creates a one-size-fits-all approach in regards to the wages due to a particular form of labor. It gets the government involved without need and it provides an unneeded political distraction for the left and right in this country. Perhaps the worst part is that it puts the power to set wages in the hands of politicians. But with my statement comes this extra clause:

*as long as private-sector service jobs are unionized.

Why is that important? Because if the government is going to get out of the way, something else needs to step in to advocate for workers. The idea is that unions become stronger again and they will be able to stand on their own to negotiate wages with the companies. While some conservatives/libertarians in here may not like trade unions, this is a reminder that at least we are keeping Big Gubmint away and that the wages are now being set by private groups.

Now, to console those on the political left, reinvigorating unions will help fix some of those problems that are an issue for you all. With unions, there are higher wages for members and nonmembers, as well as reduced income inequality in the economy as a whole (http://www.epi.org/publication/union-decline-lowers-wages-of-nonunion-workers-the-overlooked-reason-why-wages-are-stuck-and-inequality-is-growing/). Partially this can be attributed to the increased power unions have to negotiate wages. However, stronger unions also indirectly limit the ability of companies to give exorbitant salaries to their CEOs (because they will be giving higher wages to employees). In this way inequality is attacked by a two pronged effort: limiting the top and increasing the bottom. Stronger unions also historically fought for better working conditions, so it could also help reduce social issues in the workplace such as harassment. For example, much of the sexual abuse in Silicon Valley that goes on today could be prevented by an improved corporate culture that unions would probably push for. Liberals have a lot to gain by pushing for more organized labor.

This is one issue that I think a lot of people can rally around. It appeals to the left directly, it is better than the status quo for libertarians, and even for the Trump supporter it would make economic conditions more similar to the time when America was "great". What say you all? I am open to criticism here because I want to know more of the downsides relating to this issue.

Flapjack
July 22nd, 2017, 01:08 PM
Ermmm no we should be raising it XD Unskilled poor workers are already taken advantage of and are living in poverty and you wish to make that worse?! I am all for strengthening unions but I am also for increasing minimum wage that will reduce poverty, improve the lives of millions, force everyone's wage up and stimulate the economy.

Amethyst Rose
July 22nd, 2017, 02:10 PM
Porpoise101 I agree with strengthening unions in order to stem government involvement in wages (while at the same time ensuring adequate pay/working conditions for all) as I think they should be determined by individual private companies.

Ermmm no we should be raising it XD Unskilled poor workers are already taken advantage of and are living in poverty and you wish to make that worse?!

Why should unskilled employees be paid more if they're not doing quality work? It would be more worthwhile for them to find a new job they have an aptitude for and actually earn the money rather than being paid for not contributing anything.

Porpoise101
July 22nd, 2017, 02:11 PM
Ermmm no we should be raising it XD Unskilled poor workers are already taken advantage of and are living in poverty and you wish to make that worse?! Yeah man I frickin hate the poor working class. This "you hate the poor" rhetoric gets a little annoying after a while.

The whole reason for implementing this is to improve conditions for workers, including those who are unskilled. It also insulates their wages from political control. Imagine you are a minimum wage worker in the US. Who do you want to determine your pay: Trump and Congress or your fellow workers and employer?
I am all for strengthening unions but I am also for increasing minimum wage that will reduce poverty, improve the lives of millionsIf you have one, you don't need the other. Maybe it could be useful to have a much reduced minimum wage for informal work, but if the majority of workers are unionized then a minimum wage as we understand it today is unnecessary and frivolous.force everyone's wage upYeah, that isn't necessarily good either. stimulate the economy. Look, I'm not sure what you mean by "stimulate", but if it means "make more money go to those with lower incomes" the proposal does the same thing.

Look, one of the weaknesses with this whole thing, I'll admit, is that it probably takes dollars from those that could build businesses and turns the wealth into household commodities. But having a class of the working poor in society isn't good because poverty hampers productivity.

Flapjack
July 22nd, 2017, 02:34 PM
Why should unskilled employees be paid more if they're not doing quality work? It would be more worthwhile for them to find a new job they have an aptitude for and actually earn the money rather than being paid for not contributing anything.
They might be doing quality work but it is unskilled work, for example car washers or brick layers or waiters, they might work very hard for long hours and only get small wages. They then have families to feed and unfortunately that means the family lives in poverty. I think there is a misconception that the poor are lazy when often they are working full time or even 2 or 3 jobs and still don't earn enough money. A lot of people unfortunately don't have an aptitude that will make them a lot of money.

There is also the benefit of stimulating the economy because of how the poorest in society have the highest economic velocity.

Increasing the minimum wage will also increase the wages for all workers.

Below me is a graph that shows how minimum wage is actually lower than it should be.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/files/2013/02/productivity-wages.png
Now I understand you might not be able to view it because of your device so I will describe it if that helps :) The graph plots percent change against time and from 1945 to about 1973, the hourly compensation of workers increases as national productivity increased but then from 1975 hourly compensation stays the same and only raises a little until 2010 whereas national productivity has increased massively.



Yeah man I frickin hate the poor working class. This "you hate the poor" rhetoric gets a little annoying after a while.Sorry buddy I didn't mean any offence and I am not one of them liberals that believe the right hates the poor, they might believe in trickle down economics or the value of hard work or be concerned about the threat to industry buddy. Sorry if it came across like a personal attack.




The whole reason for implementing this is to improve conditions for workers, including those who are unskilled. It also insulates their wages from political control. Imagine you are a minimum wage worker in the US. Who do you want to determine your pay: Trump and Congress or your fellow workers and employer?
If you have one, you don't need the other. Maybe it could be useful to have a much reduced minimum wage for informal work, but if the majority of workers are unionized then a minimum wage as we understand it today is unnecessary and frivolous.Yeah, that isn't necessarily good either. Look, I'm not sure what you mean by "stimulate", but if it means "make more money go to those with lower incomes" the proposal does the same thing.
Giving more power to the unions would certainly improve the unions but can't we increase minimum wage and give them that power? What about cooperation's that try to crack down on union workers?

4.6% of America is currently unemployed, if you abolish minimum wage do you really believe that no one will be taken advantage of? A poor unskilled single mother with no other job prospects may be forced to work for a dollar an hour for example. If Bob sets up a bakery he will be able to choose to pay a dollar and just not employ anyone who has a problem with it.

There are currently more people looking for work than there are available jobs, this will drive wages down.

mattsmith48
July 22nd, 2017, 02:56 PM
In the current context the US are in, no this could create a lot of problems and increase poverty. Unionizing everything can bring higher wages, if you look at Denmark they don't have a minimum wage, but McDonald workers there are still making $20 an hour thanks to the strong unions they have over there. In a country like the US where unions are despise and often demonized I don't think Unionizing everything would be welcome and would work, or it would take time in the while where those workers would become border line slaves.

The only time it would be guarantee to work would be if the abolition of the minimum wage included or came after the instoration of a universal unconditional basic income.

Snowfox
July 22nd, 2017, 04:40 PM
Look, I made a click-bait title. But it's serious: abolish the minimum wage in the USA*. It would be unnecessary and it creates a one-size-fits-all approach in regards to the wages due to a particular form of labor. It gets the government involved without need and it provides an unneeded political distraction for the left and right in this country. Perhaps the worst part is that it puts the power to set wages in the hands of politicians. But with my statement comes this extra clause:

*as long as private-sector service jobs are unionized.

Why is that important? Because if the government is going to get out of the way, something else needs to step in to advocate for workers. The idea is that unions become stronger again and they will be able to stand on their own to negotiate wages with the companies. While some conservatives/libertarians in here may not like trade unions, this is a reminder that at least we are keeping Big Gubmint away and that the wages are now being set by private groups.

Now, to console those on the political left, reinvigorating unions will help fix some of those problems that are an issue for you all. With unions, there are higher wages for members and nonmembers, as well as reduced income inequality in the economy as a whole (http://www.epi.org/publication/union-decline-lowers-wages-of-nonunion-workers-the-overlooked-reason-why-wages-are-stuck-and-inequality-is-growing/). Partially this can be attributed to the increased power unions have to negotiate wages. However, stronger unions also indirectly limit the ability of companies to give exorbitant salaries to their CEOs (because they will be giving higher wages to employees). In this way inequality is attacked by a two pronged effort: limiting the top and increasing the bottom. Stronger unions also historically fought for better working conditions, so it could also help reduce social issues in the workplace such as harassment. For example, much of the sexual abuse in Silicon Valley that goes on today could be prevented by an improved corporate culture that unions would probably push for. Liberals have a lot to gain by pushing for more organized labor.

This is one issue that I think a lot of people can rally around. It appeals to the left directly, it is better than the status quo for libertarians, and even for the Trump supporter it would make economic conditions more similar to the time when America was "great". What say you all? I am open to criticism here because I want to know more of the downsides relating to this issue.

That is more or less exactly how it works in Scandinavia/Finland/North Europe. Only that Unions limit only bottom not top. Companies can freely pay better if they wish.
But each type of work and each field of business has recognized Unions and employers do have their own unions too. They set basic rules of employment and salaries. Also they can negotiate exceptions locally on company level.
All companies that compete in same field must follow this basic rules negotiated between coalition of companies and Unions.
I can say it works while it is not perfect system.
Downsides are that smaller business will suffer from over regulation.
Good sides are that problems of exploitation are less severe.

Well It has good points and bad ones. I know this since I live in country that has that kind of system

Amethyst Rose
July 22nd, 2017, 05:09 PM
Flapjack your use of unskilled was somewhat ambiguous, so I interpreted its meaning as workers not performing their jobs well. And I appreciate the description of the graph :)

Periphery
July 22nd, 2017, 10:05 PM
Ermmm no we should be raising it XD Unskilled poor workers are already taken advantage of and are living in poverty and you wish to make that worse?! I am all for strengthening unions but I am also for increasing minimum wage that will reduce poverty, improve the lives of millions, force everyone's wage up and stimulate the economy.

Instead of actually giving them "free money" (not in the literal way) they should be put to work, atleast better work. What yiu actually want to do is reward people for not going to college/university. There are plenty of ways for them to get out of that poverty and they can make an effort to do so. By raising the minimum wage the problem of these unskilled workers won't get solved since they shouldn't even try to make an effort to find a job because you are raising their income anyway. By doing this you'll end up with a spiral of problems where the amount of money is increased and the amount of work decreased.

Fleek
July 22nd, 2017, 10:29 PM
I vote different minimum wages based on the type of job and skill level.

DriveAlive
July 22nd, 2017, 11:39 PM
I wrote a paper and did a presentation on abolishing the minimum wage for a class last year.

Dmaxd123
July 23rd, 2017, 05:49 AM
I don't think we should get rid of it and I don't think we should encourage more unions.

look at the domestic auto industry vs the foreign auto industry: domestic is unionized and some of them almost failed partially due to labor costs as well as other management aspects.

many forgeign automakers are producing cars in the US without unions, paying good wages and building a better product than the "domestic" car made in Mexico


you can make the minimum wage $5 and a burger will cost $5 or you can make minimum wage $500/hour and a burger will cost $500.

Personally I didn't like working minimum wage so I learned to do more tasks at work, I work harder, and now I'm worth more to my boss so I get paid more

Dalcourt
July 23rd, 2017, 06:46 AM
I don't really think that minimum does anything to improve people's situation.

But there is one thing about this thread that really shocked me and that's the forum members view on people who work such minimum wage jobs.
People not having a college/university degree are just seen as lazy and worthless to some extent.
That's a really sad view. Not everyone can be at the top but it doesn't automatically mean that those other people's work is not important...

mattsmith48
July 23rd, 2017, 08:31 AM
Instead of actually giving them "free money" (not in the literal way) they should be put to work, atleast better work. What yiu actually want to do is reward people for not going to college/university. There are plenty of ways for them to get out of that poverty and they can make an effort to do so. By raising the minimum wage the problem of these unskilled workers won't get solved since they shouldn't even try to make an effort to find a job because you are raising their income anyway. By doing this you'll end up with a spiral of problems where the amount of money is increased and the amount of work decreased.

Not everyone can afford to go to college or university and are stuck working minimum wage jobs their entire life. By raising the minimum wage the are at lease being paid enough money they can live on.

I don't think we should get rid of it and I don't think we should encourage more unions.

look at the domestic auto industry vs the foreign auto industry: domestic is unionized and some of them almost failed partially due to labor costs as well as other management aspects.

many forgeign automakers are producing cars in the US without unions, paying good wages and building a better product than the "domestic" car made in Mexico


you can make the minimum wage $5 and a burger will cost $5 or you can make minimum wage $500/hour and a burger will cost $500.

Personally I didn't like working minimum wage so I learned to do more tasks at work, I work harder, and now I'm worth more to my boss so I get paid more

Unions are a good thing they protect and fight for the workers and without them workers would be even more exploited.

Flapjack
July 23rd, 2017, 08:56 AM
What yiu actually want to do is reward people for not going to college/university.
Why? Surely going to college/ university is better for both the individual and the country?

Periphery
July 23rd, 2017, 09:56 AM
Why? Surely going to college/ university is better for both the individual and the country?

It is better, but do you know what unskilled worker means? I don't really get where your reply is coming from since I I never said sending people to college is bad.

DriveAlive
July 23rd, 2017, 10:10 AM
Not everyone can afford to go to college or university and are stuck working minimum wage jobs their entire life. By raising the minimum wage the are at lease being paid enough money they can live on.



Unions are a good thing they protect and fight for the workers and without them workers would be even more exploited.

Society needs unskilled workers to function.

Unions have destroyed Illinois.

mattsmith48
July 23rd, 2017, 10:24 AM
Society needs unskilled workers to function.

Unions have destroyed Illinois.

Explanations please. :)

Vlerchan
July 23rd, 2017, 10:25 AM
While some conservatives/libertarians in here may not like trade unions, this is a reminder that at least we are keeping Big Gubmint away and that the wages are now being set by private groups.
Except in order for unions to exist as monopsonist suppliers of the labour, government intervention is required to inhibit those from outside the Union from entering the market at a lower price. By those outside the Union, I mean those who can't find employment as a result of the minimum wage being bargained upwards.

These people, on that note, tend to be disproportionately younger, older, female and immigrant (esp. non-white). In other words, the gains for low-skill workers are being appropriated from even lower-skilled workers.

We find that time-varying indicators of unionization decrease the employment–population ratio of young and older individuals relative to the prime-aged, and of prime-aged women relative to prime-aged men, and unionization raises the unemployment rate of prime-aged women and, possibly, young men compared to prime-aged men.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00148-007-0137-8

But never fear, as I have another suggestion: Expand the EITC program. This - unlike the minimum wage and unionisation - does not crowd out the lowest earning workers, can be targetted so that a substantial amount isn't being wasted on teenagers from middle-class backgrounds. This is because it explicitly does what Liberals want - transfers income from high-skill workers to low-skill workers - but probably aren't achieving - but, @conservatives, it was also supported by The Ronald Reagan, Supreme Defender of the Capitalist Faith because it rewards work.

---

Though NB, the historical issue that American Labour Movements faced was that to succeed, they needed to be built on top of a (disproportionately!) culturally and racially fragmented populace. Which is actually why they didn't succeed.

I think re-unionisation could rather easily be a socially expensive failure for that reason too.

[...]will reduce poverty[...]
Dubious, highly dubious.

[...]improve the lives of millions[...]
As mentioned, the gains accrued by low-skill workers are largely appropriated from other low skill workers.

[...]stimulate the economy[...]
The level of aggregate demand does not affect the economy across the long-run - i.e. the real economy.

Please read anything published in a mainstream journal since the 1950s as a source.

There is also the benefit of stimulating the economy because of how the poorest in society have the highest economic velocity.
The level of supply - whatever demand - is still bounded in the long-run equilibrium and can't magically expand because we want it to. That's the reason that the only relevant formulae that economic velocity is an input into is the formula for demand-pull inflation.

Below me is a graph that shows how minimum wage is actually lower than it should be.
That graph doesn't take into account the value of non-wage compensation.

I'm also not sure if it is specifying just non-salaried workers - i.e. those with a calculatable hourly pay - or not. If it is just specifying non-salaried workers then there is a bunch of reasons behind it that have nothing to do with corporations being mean.

There are currently more people looking for work than there are available jobs, this will drive wages down.
You're misinterpreting what those figures suggest: that we are at- or approach-full employment, that the labour market is tightening. The number of vacancies per job was ~1.1 at the beginning of the year, twice the number of people quit their job in a given annual period than are laid-off ((source) (https://www.bls.gov/web/jolts/jlt_labstatgraphs.pdf).

The vast majority of 4.6 percent are effectively just between jobs and are at no risk of going long-run unemployed.

Society needs unskilled workers to function.
Only because we haven't worked out how to automate their current roles.

But if everyone was skilled, there would be a considerable amount of incentive to do so.

DriveAlive
July 23rd, 2017, 10:29 AM
Explanations please. :)

Unskilled workers make the food, work in the factories, fix the roads, etc. Without them, society ceases to function. We will always need ditch diggers.

Illinois is by far the most corrupt state because the politicians are in the pockets of the unions. The governor did not want to pass a budget for 2 years because the budgets all called for massive pay increases and government contracts to unions. The teachers and construction unions dictate what gets done. It is almost like an old mob movie where the unions are working with the mob to influence politicians because that is exactly what is happening. Without unions, Illinois would be in a much better place.

Porpoise101
July 23rd, 2017, 10:34 AM
Now I understand you might not be able to view it because of your device so I will describe it if that helps :) The graph plots percent change against time and from 1945 to about 1973, the hourly compensation of workers increases as national productivity increased but then from 1975 hourly compensation stays the same and only raises a little until 2010 whereas national productivity has increased massively.Your graph sort of demonstrates my point though. Because the power to set wages lies in political hands, it may or may not be set where it should be depending on who is in power. But unions will naturally push for higher wages themselves, so there should not be as much of a difference as shown on the graph.

Another issue here is that (I'm assuming) these values are averaged across the whole labor force somehow. In the system I proposed, the wages would be set for each specific industry. That way the productive ones get the wealth they deserve and the lesser ones do not.

mattsmith48 I do not really think social opinions are too much of a barrier. Sure, they took a hit in the late 60s through the 80s. But historically, unions have been a crucial part of society. Now, you are possibly correct that there could be a time lag where the unions are being formed. But a law like this would only come into force some months after it was passed in all likelihood.

Snowfox That is sort of what I was basing this idea off of. Do you think it's better than the American model that we have today?

Anyways, in this proposal the unions would only try to bargain for their minimum wage. I was saying they reduce the pay of management and those at the top because a company only has so much money. So, if the company gives a larger share of its wealth to its employees, it has less of a share that can go to the top. As such, the pay of the CEOs and those like them should decrease (or at least be capped).

Historically in the US before the unions were busted, small businesses did not really have unions. The webpage I linked in my first post has some key findings that illustrate why they don't necessarily need them. One is that non-unionized companies still increase wages if their competitors have unionized workers. This is because trade unions set standards for that industry, along with companies themselves. It's also because the non-unionized companies need to keep their talent.

Here's an example: if the unionized company raises its pay, naturally workers will start to leave the non-unionized one. To combat this, the non-unionized company raises its pay to keep its employees from leaving/attract new talent. However, the pay still tends to be somewhat lower at the non-unionized company. Since this is the case, perhaps small businesses do not even need the unions.

Dmaxd123 Look I live in Metro Detroit. Auto capital of the world. But the auto industry was pretty much shielded from competition. And when competition came, it was hard hit. These domestic companies moved production to the Southern US and to Mexico typically. But while physical, durable goods can be easily off shored, it's a lot harder to offshore a fry-cook, grocery bagger, or even software engineer. That's why it's important for these unions to be for service based, private-sector employment.

DriveAlive do you mind sharing your thoughts/thesis?

Bull
July 23rd, 2017, 10:47 AM
[QUOTE=DriveAlive;3550186]Unskilled workers make the food, work in the factories, fix the roads, etc. Without them, society ceases to function. We will always need ditch diggers. QUOTE]

I continue to have a problem with identifying "unskilled" laborers. IMO all the jobs listed here require a certain skill set. These, as mentioned, are essential jobs to keep society moving and the people filling those jobs have the necessary skills. They are not unskilled. I doubt many CEO's have the skills necessary to fix roads, build a house, sew clothing, etc. Therefore, they too are "unskilled". :D

Flapjack
July 23rd, 2017, 10:47 AM
It is better, but do you know what unskilled worker means? I don't really get where your reply is coming from since I I never said sending people to college is bad.
You said and I quote, 'What yiu actually want to do is reward people for not going to college/university.' So I asked why people should be rewarded for not going to college/university? I didn't claim you said sending people to college was bad.

So I ask again, why should people be rewarded for not going to college/university?
In the system I proposed, the wages would be set for each specific industry. That way the productive ones get the wealth they deserve and the lesser ones do not.
Unions should always fight to increase wages in wealthy industries but I think there should be a minimum wage as a so people aren't taken advantage of.

As I said, there will be employers that try to crush unions and offer a ridiculously low salary as they know the desperate will work for it.

DriveAlive
July 23rd, 2017, 10:48 AM
Porpoise101 while I would like to just post my whole 10 page paper right here, I dislike posting school essays online for a variety of reasons so I will just give you a brief synopsis of what I argued.

Basically, raising the minimum wage causes price inflation and national job losses. Businesses pass on the increased cost by reducing hours or firing employees. The central point of my argument is that the most marginalized workers will become the most marginalized in society as they will be the first to lose their jobs. While raising the minimum wage will benefit some workers, it will hurt others far worse as they see their incomes go to zero. People with no marketable skills will be unable to compete in the job market and will be left permanently unemployed. Also, the minimum wage was only ever meant to be an economic safety net but the calls to raise it are not meant to help the poor (as demonstrated by the job losses of marginalized workers) but rather to have the government adjust income equality. This is not the role of the government in the minimum wage. These proponents of raising the minimum wage want to hurt those at the top than the want to help those at the extreme bottom.

[QUOTE=DriveAlive;3550186]Unskilled workers make the food, work in the factories, fix the roads, etc. Without them, society ceases to function. We will always need ditch diggers. QUOTE]

I continue to have a problem with identifying "unskilled" laborers. IMO all the jobs listed here require a certain skill set. These, as mentioned, are essential jobs to keep society moving and the people filling those jobs have the necessary skills. They are not unskilled. I doubt many CEO's have the skills necessary to fix roads, build a house, sew clothing, etc. Therefore, they too are "unskilled". :D

Seriously? There is a huge difference between the time and education and skill required to learn how to pave a road or flip a burger than there is to run a Fortune 500 company. I am so tired of these pointless attacks on business executives as being "unskilled" or doing nothing.

Posts merged. ~Amethyst Rose

PlasmaHam
July 23rd, 2017, 11:03 AM
I'm no fan of organized and government supported unionization. While unions can help workers bargain for better condition and pay, oftentimes, especially in today's society, they are nothing but ways for the union elite to advance their own greed and political agendas. The fact that unions can enforce effective monopolies on certain aspects of society (schooling is a big one) doesn't help them in my eyes. Essentially I see unions as a good thing, but one that can be easily be subverted to further personal ends at the determent of both the average worker and the employer.

However, if this means abolishing the economical determent called the minimum wage, I'll accept a universal right to unionize.

mattsmith48
July 23rd, 2017, 11:07 AM
Unskilled workers make the food, work in the factories, fix the roads, etc. Without them, society ceases to function. We will always need ditch diggers.

So your point is?

Illinois is by far the most corrupt state because the politicians are in the pockets of the unions. The governor did not want to pass a budget for 2 years because the budgets all called for massive pay increases and government contracts to unions. The teachers and construction unions dictate what gets done. It is almost like an old mob movie where the unions are working with the mob to influence politicians because that is exactly what is happening. Without unions, Illinois would be in a much better place.

Your wrong it's actually Mississippi, Illinois is 4th, it's called Google, and that only counts illegal corruption since you know, you live in a country where corruption is legal and businesses and rich people can legally buy politicians at a greater rate than unions.

Porpoise101
July 23rd, 2017, 11:13 AM
Except in order for unions to exist as monopsonist suppliers of the labour, government intervention is required to inhibit those from outside the Union from entering the market at a lower price. By those outside the Union, I mean those who can't find employment as a result of the minimum wage being bargained upwards.I guess that is true. It's probably no coincidence that periods of high amounts of immigration (1880-1910) saw infighting and a failure of unions to coordinate.
These people, on that note, tend to be disproportionately younger, older, female and immigrant (esp. non-white). In other words, the gains for low-skill workers are being appropriated from even lower-skilled workers.Alright. But what about unions for high-skilled workers? I would think think that unionization could actually bring benefits there. Something that has been neglected here are the actual working conditions themselves. In high-skilled industries like tech and engineering, I know at least anecdotally that the corporate culture is not really conducive for female employees or even non-white ones. I know people who have had to leave jobs because the employer wouldn't do anything about sexual harassment. A union here could force the hand of management to take a stronger stand.
But never fear, as I have another suggestion: Expand the EITC program. This - unlike the minimum wage and unionisation - does not crowd out the lowest earning workers, can be targetted so that a substantial amount isn't being wasted on teenagers from middle-class backgrounds. This is because it explicitly does what Liberals want - transfers income from high-skill workers to low-skill workers - but probably aren't achieving - but, @conservatives, it was also supported by The Ronald Reagan, Supreme Defender of the Capitalist Faith because it rewards work.Sounds good, but it still does not help deal with working conditions. If there aren't unions, then the only way to improve those are 1) activist government interventions 2) media exposÚs. Seeing as the government often isn't activist and that the press is highly distrusted currently, I feel that unions could be the only option here.

DriveAlive
July 23rd, 2017, 11:28 AM
So your point is?



Your wrong it's actually Mississippi, Illinois is 4th, it's called Google, and that only counts illegal corruption since you know, you live in a country where corruption is legal and businesses and rich people can legally buy politicians at a greater rate than unions.

Visit Illinois some time with an insurmountable debt, insolvent pension system, crony politicians, and the most powerful unions. Anyone from Illinois will tell you that the teachers and construction unions control everything.

Periphery
July 23rd, 2017, 11:35 AM
So I ask again, why should people be rewarded for not going to college/university?


Since you want to help unskilled workers by giving them the minimum wage increase. Do you know what an unskilled worker is?

DriveAlive
July 23rd, 2017, 11:39 AM
Nothing like the government paying for you to spend four years at college just so you can go back to a minimum wage job. If people have the will and the skill to improve, then they should go to college and move up in the job market, but this push for universal college education is unnecessary. Education is a great thing, but when you go to blue collar towns where people graduate high school and then go work as carpenters or mechanics or other blue collar trades where they make good money and can support their family, there is no need for them to go to college. So when you are asking these people to pay more in taxes to support a universal free college system, it makes absolutely no sense. We also have many great low cost community colleges that can help people further their education.

Flapjack
July 23rd, 2017, 11:39 AM
Since you want to help unskilled workers by giving them the minimum wage increase. Do you know what an unskilled worker is?
Ohhhh was you saying I would be rewarding unskilled workers??

I am so confused XD Let's clear things up... Do you believe people should be rewarded for not going to college/university??

And yasss I know what an unskilled worker is :D

Vlerchan
July 23rd, 2017, 11:41 AM
But what about unions for high-skilled workers?
I believe this is called licencing in America, which is a more explicit effort to constrain supply.

In high-skilled industries like tech and engineering, I know at least anecdotally that the corporate culture is not really conducive for female employees or even non-white ones. I know people who have had to leave jobs because the employer wouldn't do anything about sexual harassment. A union here could force the hand of management to take a stronger stand.
I am less than certain that, formally organised, the disproportionately white, conservative and male engineering class would take any more action than they are currently. The issue is that this culture permeates the industry - it exists out of the tacit consent of the employees, whose skill set offers them more than enough power to swap into more ethical companies.

Seeing as the government often isn't activist and that the press is highly distrusted currently, I feel that unions could be the only option here.
I think the work environment issues you highlight require a change of culture as opposed to the formal organisation or an already well-empowered labour. I understand the point you're trying to make but I'm just not sure it's a very effective response.

Porpoise101
July 23rd, 2017, 11:42 AM
Visit Illinois some time with an insurmountable debt, insolvent pension system, crony politicians, and the most powerful unions. Anyone from Illinois will tell you that the teachers and construction unions control everything.Right, I don't particularly like public-sector unions. But private-sector ones are a different matter in my opinion. They don't control essential services without substitutions usually.

Bull
July 23rd, 2017, 12:54 PM
Seriously? There is a huge difference between the time and education and skill required to learn how to pave a road or flip a burger than there is to run a Fortune 500 company. I am so tired of these pointless attacks on business executives as being "unskilled" or doing nothing.

My point is that different jobs take different skill sets. Therefore a successful employee has the necessary skills for the job. So, a successful worker repairing the road is a skilled worker, as is a successful CEO. Just different skill sets. :)

ShineintheDark
July 23rd, 2017, 12:55 PM
Unions can only do so much, even when strengthened. It purely relies on the worker themselves and if they choose to involve their unions in things. It's better to have a universal minimum wage that is fair and realistic than to abolish it and rely on the possibly conflictinng views of different unions and business owners to determine wages.

Bull
July 23rd, 2017, 01:11 PM
Several posters, myself included, have offered opinions on labor unions. I am quoting 3 relative statements:

"If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a lair. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool." US president Abraham Lincoln
"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice." US president Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." President of Screen Actors Guild Ronald Reagan

So much of what workers take for granted today-40 hour work week, but one example-are the result of union representing the needs and concerns of their members for a fair and safe working environment. Thank the union movement for standing against unfair and unsafe labor practices. :D

PlasmaHam
July 23rd, 2017, 01:13 PM
Unions can only do so much, even when strengthened. It purely relies on the worker themselves and if they choose to involve their unions in things. It's better to have a universal minimum wage that is fair and realistic than to abolish it and rely on the possibly conflictinng views of different unions and business owners to determine wages.

Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, and a handful of other countries have no legally established minimum wage. They rely almost entirely on union bargaining to establish wages, yet nearly all of them meet or exceed countries with established minimum wages in terms of unemployment and average wages.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/images/hankeglobeapr2014-1.jpg

Explain to me again how the private sector is "incapable" of handling wages without government wage controls?

Periphery
July 23rd, 2017, 02:40 PM
Ohhhh was you saying I would be rewarding unskilled workers??

I am so confused XD Let's clear things up... Do you believe people should be rewarded for not going to college/university??

And yasss I know what an unskilled worker is :D

*sighs* No I do not. You say though that the unskilled workers should be a group that you want to help by increasing the minimum wage. These unskilled workers are the ones that did not go to college/university. So what you are saying is that instead of helping these people by setting up educational programs you'll just give them more "free" money. That's not a solution.

Flapjack
July 23rd, 2017, 03:44 PM
*sighs*
Alright dude chill a little xD
You say though that the unskilled workers should be a group that you want to help by increasing the minimum wage. These unskilled workers are the ones that did not go to college/university. So what you are saying is that instead of helping these people by setting up educational programs you'll just give them more "free" money. That's not a solution.
I have nothing against educational wages buddy, just think people should be paid a living wage is all :P Of courseee people should be encouraged to better themselves and just because I support raising the minimum wage does not mean that I am against other policies that would help the poor.

Periphery
July 23rd, 2017, 07:05 PM
Alright dude chill a little xD

I have nothing against educational wages buddy, just think people should be paid a living wage is all :P Of courseee people should be encouraged to better themselves and just because I support raising the minimum wage does not mean that I am against other policies that would help the poor.

Raising the minimum wage won't encourage people to bettee themselves though, it can achieve the exact opposite.

mattsmith48
July 23rd, 2017, 07:48 PM
Raising the minimum wage won't encourage people to bettee themselves though, it can achieve the exact opposite.

Because leaving the minimum wage where it is will encourage them.

Periphery
July 23rd, 2017, 07:49 PM
Because leaving the minimum wage where it is will encourage them.

I never said that it does. In case you haven't been paying attention the past 24 hours I hate minimum wage so I don't even get why you are making this reply.

Dalcourt
July 24th, 2017, 12:55 AM
PlasmaHam just FYI Germany has a minimum wage since 2015 and there was a rise this year 2017.

PlasmaHam
July 24th, 2017, 09:00 AM
PlasmaHam just FYI Germany has a minimum wage since 2015 and there was a rise this year 2017.
My source must have been outdated, oh well. The other countries still without a mimimum wage still show my point.

Bull
July 24th, 2017, 09:24 AM
A job has a monetary value. That value should determine the wage range from starting salary to full monetary value. When an employee is no longer satisfied with the salary at full value it is time to move on to job with a higher monetary value. That move will undoubtedly require developing new/higher level skill sets.

Labor unions working together with market values and management is the appropriate venue for establishing value and salary. Higher monetary value require higher level skills which are then rewarded with a higher wage.

However, in the absence of unions it becomes necessary to establish a living wage by the government. This is imo the least desirable solution to lift the poverty level of working poor. People in the US have become too dependent on government. We need to take more personal responsibility for ourselves!

PlasmaHam
July 24th, 2017, 09:55 AM
People in the US have become too dependent on government. We need to take more personal responsibility for ourselves!
Took the words right out of my mouth.

Dalcourt
July 24th, 2017, 10:11 AM
My source must have been outdated, oh well. The other countries still without a mimimum wage still show my point.

In our day and age and with societies changing so fast, I'm not sure if outdated infos are useful to get any points across. So who knows what the graphics would look like now...

I also don't see which countries are compared here.
It says something alongside EU on the bottom ...so your other example Switzerland wouldn't really be in it?

So I really would like some further explanation if you want to get a point across.

Living For Love
July 26th, 2017, 11:50 AM
Increasing the minimum wage will also increase the wages for all workers.
This is actually quite untrue. The last 2 governments in my country have been raising the minimum wage for the past years, yet they only raise that wage, not the others, meaning only people who earn minimum wage are benefited. If you want to raise salaries, you should raise all salaries proportionately, not only those who earn the least. I also believe that a CEO of a big company with a college degree who works 40 hours a week should earn more than a Primark sales assistant without a college degree who works 40 hours a week. Also, if you raise the minimum wage, how do you expect small companies to have enough money to pay their workers if all their workers receive minimum wage? If you raise salaries, you need to help companies and employers with benefits so that they can be able to pay that extra amount of money to their employees.

Porpoise101
July 26th, 2017, 12:44 PM
If you want to raise salaries, you should raise all salaries proportionately, not only those who earn the least.
How to artificially cause inflation

NewLeafsFan
August 1st, 2017, 01:41 AM
It would not bring us all closer together. It would give the unions too much power. Minimum wage is one of those things that makes the USA a first world country. I have no idea why you would even consider moving backwards.

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2017, 08:42 AM
Minimum wage is one of those things that makes the USA a first world country. I have no idea why you would even consider moving backwards.
Mind elaborating on that? Because I don't see minimum wage as a necessary factor for being a first world country. Almost every Third-world country has a minimum wage set by law, and like I stated before, there are a handful of First-world countries that don't have minimum wage laws.

mattsmith48
August 1st, 2017, 11:56 AM
It would not bring us all closer together. It would give the unions too much power. Minimum wage is one of those things that makes the USA a first world country. I have no idea why you would even consider moving backwards.

Hahaha The US a first world country. lol

If the US needs to have a minimum wage to be a first world country, they have bigger problems they should look at before calling them self a first world country.

Mind elaborating on that? Because I don't see minimum wage as a necessary factor for being a first world country. Almost every Third-world country has a minimum wage set by law, and like I stated before, there are a handful of First-world countries that don't have minimum wage laws.


CanadienHockeyGuy Plasma is kinda right, countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Iceland don't have a minimum wage, they have strong unions and because of those unions, in Denmark McDonald workers make the equivalent of $20 US a hour.

Snowfox
August 1st, 2017, 02:36 PM
Hahaha The US a first world country. lol

If the US needs to have a minimum wage to be a first world country, they have bigger problems they should look at before calling them self a first world country.




CanadienHockeyGuy Plasma is kinda right, countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Iceland don't have a minimum wage, they have strong unions and because of those unions, in Denmark McDonald workers make the equivalent of $20 US a hour.

You just forgot purchasing power of that 20 bucks in Denmark.
Its far from what purchasing power of $20 is in USA. Denmark and Nordic countries generally are expensive places.
BUt you are right that they make living with that.
What buggers me more and more is hourly wage at generally. IF you pay for hours it is hours that you get. In Nordic countries working long hours is very rare but working hard for those hours that you actually do work is common.

Like good worker gets done same amount of work in 6 hours and someone else who is not so good gets same amount of work done in 12 hours. But that one who wastes 6 hours more gets paid more. Doesnt make any fucking sense to me. Also hoursly pay has nothing to do with quality of work.
Example cleaner can take 12 hours to clean office and with that 12 hours he/she does average quality of work. True professional can do same job with better quality and uses only 8 hours.

So we encourage bad quality and time wasting with hourly pay. This doesnt apply for all works of course.

Porpoise101
August 1st, 2017, 04:30 PM
Also hoursly pay has nothing to do with quality of work.This does not hold up to any sort of scrutiny. If the productivity of a business stagnates or decreases, businesses will not have the capability to pay those higher wages (or will choose to offshore or automate them if possible). And even if it is an issue (I doubt it is), minimum wage hikes are just as arbitrary because they are in the hands of politicians. They are under no obligation to follow any sort of economic data in the US, even if they should.

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2017, 08:36 PM
Hahaha The US a first world country. lol

If the US needs to have a minimum wage to be a first world country, they have bigger problems they should look at before calling them self a first world country.
Stop with the strawmans, shall we? This is starting to become a constant with you.

Your hate for America is obvious. Unless your hate is somehow meaningful to the conversation, please keep it to yourself. Thank you.

NewLeafsFan
August 1st, 2017, 09:17 PM
Mind elaborating on that? Because I don't see minimum wage as a necessary factor for being a first world country. Almost every Third-world country has a minimum wage set by law, and like I stated before, there are a handful of First-world countries that don't have minimum wage laws.

My point being that other first world countries have minimum wage. Countries that don't often pay there workers pennies a day starting at 5 years old.

Drewboyy
August 1st, 2017, 11:03 PM
People should just get paid what they deserve based on skill level and schooling

Life guards and ems workers should get paid more than mcdonald's workers and dish washers since they need a specific set of skills and training. Just like how a doctor or an engineer should get paid more than a secretary.

Raising the minimum wage would make people less likely to want to invest time and money into training since they can get a job that gives just as much pay, but is much easier to get.

Snowfox
August 1st, 2017, 11:34 PM
Drewboyy so you mean that engineer who flips burgers cause there is no engineering jobs available should get paid like an engineer? Or master chef who has all skills for michelin star restaurant who flips burgers should pay more for flipping burgers just cause he/she potentially could do better?

Agent X
August 2nd, 2017, 12:48 AM
I disagree. We should keep the minimum wage, but lower it back down. In some places, such as my home state, $11 is way too much for minimum wage and prices have gone way up in restaurants so that they can pay their employees. Minimum wage should be more like $9.50 because it's enough for basic necessities, but still not too much

Drewboyy
August 2nd, 2017, 03:10 PM
Drewboyy so you mean that engineer who flips burgers cause there is no engineering jobs available should get paid like an engineer? Or master chef who has all skills for michelin star restaurant who flips burgers should pay more for flipping burgers just cause he/she potentially could do better?

No I'm saying an engineer as an engineer should get paid more than a secretary as a secretary and obviously more than a burger flipper as a burger flipper