The Minimum Wage in One Paragraph

reply to post by daskakik

Which is why the minimum wage rarely becomes that barrier you keep mentioning.

Define rarely? Also why do you think rarely? I would imagine just the opposite, that is the logical position. At least you now admit the barrier exist. Seems I have made some headway here.

And the lowest skilled worker is worth minimum wage.

Once again, that is your feeling on the subject but we have already talked about that it is not our feeling on the subject that matter in this conversation, it is the feeling of the employer and we already agreed that an employer may not value the lowest skilled worker at minimum wage.

C'mon what's next? The "even lower" skilled worker at $8 beat out a "even more lower" skilled worker at $7.

Now you are getting the hang of it. The buck stops at the point that the job is no longer desirable to the lowest skilled applicant because the wage is simply too low to give them an incentive to work there. Now the employer could always decide they don't mind paying more more a higher skilled worker but at least the lower skilled workers can compete in the job market now.

If someone wants to get a foot in the door then can enter an apprenticeship or do volunteer work. You could work off the books or even work as an independent contractor and work for less than minimum wage. I doubt that ever happens but it would be a way around that barrier, if you ever came upon it.

So your alternative is people working for free or working as an independent contractor whom has their hours regulated?

Wouldn't it be a bit simpler to simply allow a free person to decide the minimum amount they are willing to work for?

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
Define rarely? Also why do you think rarely? I would imagine just the opposite, that is the logical position. At least you now admit the barrier exist. Seems I have made some headway here.

You really haven't. You said:

The amount of job skills one has is directly related to the amount of money one commands in the job market.

So why would someone highly skilled settle for the minimum? According to you that isn't how the market works.

Once again, that is your feeling on the subject but we have already talked about that it is not our feeling on the subject that matter in this conversation, it is the feeling of the employer and we already agreed that an employer may not value the lowest skilled worker at minimum wage.

That is the price settled upon by society not you or me or even the employer.

Now you are getting the hang of it. The buck stops at the point that the job is no longer desirable to the lowest skilled applicant because the wage is simply too low to give them an incentive to work there. Now the employer could always decide they don't mind paying more more a higher skilled worker but at least the lower skilled workers can compete in the job market now.

Your still not getting why minimum wage exists.

So your alternative is people working for free or working as an independent contractor whom has their hours regulated?

No I was just addressing something you posted earlier about people willing to work for less to get a foot in the door. Not sure what you mean by hours regulated.

Wouldn't it be a bit simpler to simply allow a free person to decide the minimum amount they are willing to work for?

Actually you are free to do that but it has to be your incentive and not the employers and would actually take more work on your part. Getting it all organized.

reply to post by votan

I don't disagree with what the government should or not be doing but that isn't really what I am asking. I am asking why the government would set a minimum wage and not a maximum wage.

Forgive me, i didn't read the question that way as the answer seems pretty obvious, no?

What is the agenda behind setting a minimum wage and not a maximum wage.

umm.. they like making money and don't want it capped and they like to look like they are helping the poor? Seems self evident.

well if we live on some land and I monopolize all the resources honestly till you and your family have nothing not even my scraps is that okay?? You and your kin would die as a result of me honestly beating the shenanigans out of you on the resource competition. Is that acceptable??

If we both live on the land I am guessing we own that land together. Certainly some legalities that would stop you from monopolizing the resources of our shared land without me getting any benefit. Don't "WE" own the land, so how is it exactly you are stopping me from using the resources of Our land?

Obviously you killing me and my family is unacceptable. Your "what if" scenario seems a bit far fetched. Also, Obviously, if you are monopolizing the resources on "OUR" land, that isn't exactly honest, is it. I mean it is not your land, it is our land.

Is it acceptable that a group that got a leg up on everyone else can get to a point where they will always be at that level and no one else ever having a shot unless they exploit a new way to take away from the ones on top??

I think you are assuming an awful lot with that statement. But to answer your question, no I don't think someone making money honestly should be forced at gun point to share money with you.

Have you ever played the game of monopoly?? why do people stop playing?? is it because they quit or simply because some one acquired all the resources.

Monopoly is a board game and the rules do not mention property rights and the constitution.

I am just looking at both sides. for the record I make a bundle and really have no financial problems nor healthcare problems but I am not blind.

Good for you about the money and health, congrats. I to am looking at both sides and am not blind as well. We seem to have some things in common.

There is a reason why a minimum wage was placed. what is that reason??

Well, you are asking me and I didn't put the law in place. If you want my opinion and i am not sure that you do, They put the minimum wage on the books because the wanted to look compassionate to the poor while effectively forcing the poor to become dependent on the government, thus gaining the ability to push an ideology they otherwise could not.

And why was there no need to put a maximum wage??

That seems rather obvious, people don't like the idea of the government telling them how much they can make and the people in government don't like the idea of a limit on how much they can make. Also, I can't think of a single good reason for it to exist, though I can say the same about the minimum wage.

I would really like to know why one is in place and not the other.

Write your congressman. Good luck.

reply to post by daskakik

So why would someone highly skilled settle for the minimum? According to you that isn't how the market works.

I am not sure if you are messing with me at this point. When I say highly skilled, that means higher skills than the lower skilled person. Not so highly skilled that they are not going after the same job. This would seem rather obvious to me that a person would understand that.

That is the price settled upon by society not you or me or even the employer.

No, minimum wage was not decided by society, it was decided by people that are no longer alive that had jobs in government. Am I not part of society and is society not simply a collection of individuals with different opinions, not the same?

Your still not getting why minimum wage exists.

Uhhh, yea I am. Minimum wage exist because people decided to make a law. They felt like it would raise the standard of living for the lowest skilled workers. Assuming I don't know why a law was passed because I don't think it works seems pretty outlandish.

No I was just addressing something you posted earlier about people willing to work for less to get a foot in the door. Not sure what you mean by hours regulated.

Well nationally I would have to check that out but to be considered an independent contractor in my state I can not work for a company more than 20 hours a week, otherwise I am an employee.

Actually you are free to do that but it has to be your incentive and not the employers and would actually take more work on your part. Getting it all organized.

care to explain. The last I heard, it was illegal to pay a non-tipped employee less than $7.25 an hour, at least federally. States do make their own laws though, huh?

ETA: Are you getting tired of arguing with me in circles yet? I kinda am. I am not sure what else I can do to explain myself. It would seem we simply disagree and neither of us has said anything compelling enough to end the stalemate. I am happy that i finally got one detractor to actually discuss the topic of my thread though, so for that I thank you.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
I am not sure if you are messing with me at this point. When I say highly skilled, that means higher skills than the lower skilled person. Not so highly skilled that they are not going after the same job. This would seem rather obvious to me that a person would understand that.

Pretty vague. How would one establish the one is actually a barrier to the other? What is the skill to pay demand ratio? I don't think it can be done except hypothetically.

No, minimum wage was not decided by society, it was decided by people that are no longer alive that had jobs in government. Am I not part of society and is society not simply a collection of individuals with different opinions, not the same?

Your free to think that but in any case it isn't the employer.

Uhhh, yea I am. Minimum wage exist because people decided to make a law. They felt like it would raise the standard of living for the lowest skilled workers. Assuming I don't know why a law was passed because I don't think it works seems pretty outlandish.

Claiming that it doesn't work when it in fact works as intended leads me to think that you don't.

Well nationally I would have to check that out but to be considered an independent contractor in my state I can not work for a company more than 20 hours a week, otherwise I am an employee.

care to explain. The last I heard, it was illegal to pay a non-tipped employee less than $7.25 an hour, at least federally. States do make their own laws though, huh?

These 2 go together. Self employed independent contractor, gets 2 or 3 clients at less than 20 hours a week each and minimum wage does not apply because he is not an employee.

reply to post by daskakik

Pretty vague. How would one establish the one is actually a barrier to the other? What is the skill to pay demand ratio? I don't think it can be done except hypothetically

I have no idea where you are going with this. Is it not obvious to you that each job has a low to high range of skills that would be appropriate for that particular job and that only people that fell into that range of skills would desire that particular job?

Your free to think that but in any case it isn't the employer.

I don't recall ever saying opposite?

Claiming that it doesn't work when it in fact works as intended leads me to think that you don't.

You claim that it works, I claim that it doesn't. Has either of us proved anything by simply declaring it to be so?

These 2 go together. Self employed independent contractor, gets 2 or 3 clients at less than 20 hours a week each and minimum wage does not apply because he is not an employee.

Yes, I know, that is how I make my money these days. I am not exactly building a career at a company though, i am building my own business. I thought we were talking about employees not the self employed. I can't hit a target that you move after I pull the trigger.

In case you missed this, the below is from a previous post of mine.

ETA: Are you getting tired of arguing with me in circles yet? I kinda am. I am not sure what else I can do to explain myself. It would seem we simply disagree and neither of us has said anything compelling enough to end the stalemate. I am happy that I finally got one detractor to actually discuss the topic of my thread though, so for that I thank you.

That is my way of saying lets pick this up some other time. I have been on this thread from 2-12 yesterday and from 11 to nearly 8 today. That is probably enough time wasted on this topic. Thanks for the discussion. I look forward to talking with you more in the future. have a good night.

Originally posted by votan
What is the agenda behind setting a minimum wage and not a maximum wage.

That question is tricky to answer but the first minimum wage laws in the United States were born from the Great Depression. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Congress used its new expanded definition of the commerce clause, under the notion of interstate commerce. Its reasoning was just as altruistic sounding as any modern day legislation and that was to stabilize wages post depression.

Is it acceptable that a group that got a leg up on everyone else can get to a point where they will always be at that level and no one else ever having a shot unless they exploit a new way to take away from the ones on top??

Have you ever played the game of monopoly?? why do people stop playing?? is it because they quit or simply because some one acquired all the resources.

Understandable question but believe that is a completely different topic. In a short answer is, no just practices should be guarded against with smart and targeted regulations that ensure a level playing field. By this I mean each company or individual has the same access to legal recourse and protections, but no single company can lobby for favorable legislation to obtain or keep that edge. Sadly, that has fallen by the way side and many proponents of capitalism and free-market principles have no qualms over such but our representatives continue to carve out niche areas for businesses that obviously have a failing business model; see the auto-company bailouts.

There is a reason why a minimum wage was placed. what is that reason??

See above.

And why was there no need to put a maximum wage??

I would really like to know why one is in place and not the other.

Setting a wage-floor is fairly easy to sell with the public, especially once Congress inferred its power to do so via the odious and tenuous stretch it was authorized to do so to regulate interstate commerce and stabilize it. Pitching to the people that the Government has the ability to tell someone they can only make too much is starting to round a corner in some aspects (just see here on this site; wealth envy is ripe). A wage-ceiling would have an even more profound and disastrous effect than the minimum wage incurs; especially in a much more mobile economy.

If a wage-ceiling were effected, I would expect all those near or at that cap would find elsewhere to make a living.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
I have no idea where you are going with this. Is it not obvious to you that each job has a low to high range of skills that would be appropriate for that particular job and that only people that fell into that range of skills would desire that particular job?

Ok but minimum wage is meant for menial labor. The lowest of the low, so in order for a worker to have lower skills he'd have to be brain dead.

I don't recall ever saying opposite?

this had that feel:

it is the feeling of the employer and we already agreed that an employer may not value the lowest skilled worker at minimum wage.

Maybe I just read it wrong.

You claim that it works, I claim that it doesn't. Has either of us proved anything by simply declaring it to be so?

Well it was implemented to keep employers from hiring employees for less than that amount and it does do that. You may think it is bad policy but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work as intended.

Yes, I know, that is how I make my money these days. I am not exactly building a career at a company though, i am building my own business. I thought we were talking about employees not the self employed. I can't hit a target that you move after I pull the trigger.

You asked why can't a person be free to accept work for less. This is one way, as well as just working for cash.

ETA: Are you getting tired of arguing with me in circles yet? I kinda am. I am not sure what else I can do to explain myself. It would seem we simply disagree and neither of us has said anything compelling enough to end the stalemate. I am happy that I finally got one detractor to actually discuss the topic of my thread though, so for that I thank you.

I fully understand your point. I just disagree because while you see wages as the value of the worker I see it as the value of the position.

Looking at it like this the federal government is really saying, any job you create has to be worth at least $7.25.

That is my way of saying lets pick this up some other time. I have been on this thread from 2-12 yesterday and from 11 to nearly 8 today. That is probably enough time wasted on this topic. Thanks for the discussion. I look forward to talking with you more in the future. have a good night.

I think we have said all that we had to say. I know I have.

See you around.

If you're too dumb to make minimum wage in this country without a job, you don't deserve a minimum wage.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple


What I don't understand is how raising the minimum wage creates a barrier for workers to get into skilled trades. Would someone explain how that works? Seriously, I'm not making that connection.

For the same reason the the employer has to raise the price of the product. Let's say the skilled trade was automobile worker. The union will not allow the encroachment on the gap above minimum wage to last beyond the next wage adjustment (or contract at the very longest). So the autoworker will have a raise across the board including new hires...$20/hr to $22/hr as an example.

But often times the easiest way to offset the increased cost of manufacture is to cut labor. As labor is removed (layoff or termination), there is less money being spent in the market so less people as people working will save money by putting off purchases (bigger nest egg). Those not working obviously will not spend as freely. Thus, less new cars being sold. Which means more layoffs/terminations.

Restrictive spending out of fear is what creates that barrier to better paying jobs as that product is not as in demand, thus less labor needed to meet that lower demand.

The counter to exactly that in the auto industry was the Cash For Clunkers program. The full impact of that was that it raised the price of used cars which were always the providence of lower wage earners. By being forced to extend the life of their aging cars, the lower wage earner now will spend more discretionary income on parts and repairs rather than another decent car to get them by until it nickels and dimes them to death. Effectively the program helped those that didn't need help (people who could afford a new car and had the credit rating to get it) and hurt those that it should have helped (those that can no longer buy used cars and hurt their credit rating as they often have to skip other bills to get their car running again so they can continue working).

So while many people bought new cars (good for the industry and bankers) it did so at the expense of hurting the poor and lower middle class (by destroying what would have been their next car). And people wonder why others had a VERY skeptical eye towards Obamacare and other general hatred towards Obama early on.

Politicians just love talking about minimum wage because they want the masses to "feel sorry" for a group of people, yet that group of people is insignificant.

As OP says, hardly anyone works at minimum wage, it affects so very few people.

But, FORCING companies to raise pay will make them cut jobs and cut back hours, and it will make prices go up.

I don't have as much of a problem if we had rising inflation, but we actually have had deflation (outside of gas).

Originally posted by maxhobbs
But, FORCING companies to raise pay will make them cut jobs and cut back hours, and it will make prices go up.

And remember that by forcing a wage-floor upon private companies, the Government is also regulating your worth, however you may see it, to a certain amount. It is as much a regulation and dictate on private Individuals as it is on private companies.

It is illegal for you to to decide, in private consensual contract, to do work less than the Government says so. How is that Liberty?

reply to post by conspiracy nut


sorry it took so long to respond

she was a care giver taking care of old people in their homes, but she only made around 10.00 an hour, she pretty much killed her self working overtime and whenever she could get extra time, she invested around 50,000 of her savings before the previous crash and lost it all, so the 30,000 she saved up in those years after she held onto and didn't even place it into the bank

she also took up every opportunity to use coupons for what ever she bought, if she had a coupon for it she'd use it.

we never had luxury items or brand name food, toys, or even new clothes.

we'd wear the same shoes for 3-4 years "we wore shoes that were 2+ sizes bigger*
clothes were hand me downs or we'd borrow from each other.
food, home cooked, or starved, Fasts are good for the soul
also purchasing non perishables in bulk and canned food.

we only ate about 1 - 2 times a day maybe

no cable, no internet, only one tv with 3-4 channels on a good day.

i won't deny it though we did receive some help from the state, and that actually hurts more than saying we were poor.