Should the government guarantee full-time minimum wage?


Machjo
#1
Some here have accused me of not caring for the poor because of my opposition to minimum wage legislation, so I decided I'll turn the tables around with a question to those who support minimum wage legislation:

Do you support the government guaranteeing a full-time minimum wage to the unemployed, especially considering that some might be unemployed because of the minimum wage, especially among unskilled workers?

Now to some the following might seem contradictory even though to me the two are simply flip sides of the same coin, and that is that on the one hand I oppose minimum-wage legislation, and on the other I support guaranteeing the full-time established minimum-wage to the unemployed. In other words, if you insist on having a minimum wage, then ensure that those potentially affefcted are fairly compensated.

I'd like to know how many among you who support minimum wage legislation also support holding social security to the same standard as any employer?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Some here have accused me of not caring for the poor because of my opposition to minimum wage legislation, so I decided I'll turn the tables around with a question to those who support minimum wage legislation:

Do you support the government guaranteeing a full-time minimum wage to the unemployed, especially considering that some might be unemployed because of the minimum wage, especially among unskilled workers?

Now to some the following might seem contradictory even though to me the two are simply flip sides of the same coin, and that is that on the one hand I oppose minimum-wage legislation, and on the other I support guaranteeing the full-time established minimum-wage to the unemployed. In other words, if you insist on having a minimum wage, then ensure that those potentially affefcted are fairly compensated.

I'd like to know how many among you who support minimum wage legislation also support holding social security to the same standard as any employer?

Are you saying a min wage for a person that is unemployed regardless of length of time?

How can you identify each person affected by a raise in min wage?
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
+2
#3
Yes, the government should care for the unemployed, the alternative is a very bleak organization of people that can barely be called society. Once upon a time this was simply provided by trades guilds and, where there were not enough tradesman of a particular trade, the Oddfellows. Then the monarchs got scared of the power of the guilds and forbade their existence. In order to avoid riots, the kings had to provide unemployment benefits in place of the guilds.

Is there a minimum wage in reality? Why are unpaid internships on the rise?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Yes, the government should care for the unemployed, the alternative is a very bleak organization of people that can barely be called society. Once upon a time this was simply provided by trades guilds and, where there were not enough tradesman of a particular trade, the Oddfellows. Then the monarchs got scared of the power of the guilds and forbade their existence. In order to avoid riots, the kings had to provide unemployment benefits in place of the guilds.

Is there a minimum wage in reality? Why are unpaid internships on the rise?

Do we not have social assistance? Yet we know it is not enough- yet when to generous many do not seek work - catch 22 -
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Are you saying a min wage for a person that is unemployed regardless of length of time?

How do you know he hasn't been unemployed for so long because of the minimum wage?

Quote:

How can you identify each person affected by a raise in min wage?

You can't in most cases, but since it's reasonable to suppose than the minimum wage could reasonably be a reason for his unemployment, it would therefore seem reasonable, no?

Just for the record, though I'm in favour of a decent social security programme, skills raining for the unemployed, and other such hand-ups, I do oppose legislating people out of work with minimum wage legislation. At the same time though, if we are to introduce such legislation, it would seem that the unemployed are entitled fair compensation, no?
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Are you saying a min wage for a person that is unemployed regardless of length of time?

How can you identify each person affected by a raise in min wage?

The same way you identify a person who got lung cancer because they smoked as opposed to just getting lung cancer naturally. I don't think you will get very far with individualistic arguments. The argument against minimum wage is usually a sort of utilitarian argument on the grounds that society will be richer, where society is measured on cross section ignoring the standard deviation.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

How do you know he hasn't been unemployed for so long because of the minimum wage?



You can't in most cases, but since it's reasonable to suppose than the minimum wage could reasonably be a reason for his unemployment, it would therefore seem reasonable, no?

Just for the record, though I'm in favour of a decent social security programme, skills raining for the unemployed, and other such hand-ups, I do oppose legislating people out of work with minimum wage legislation. At the same time though, if we are to introduce such legislation, it would seem that the unemployed are entitled fair compensation, no?

The difficulty with this argument is that it is short sighted. Are you even sure that minimum wage laws decrease unemployment? If we assume that wage follows a supply curve, then there are individuals willing to work for basically nothing. It is cheaper to higher these people for 70 hours a week than to hire one of these people for 35 hours a week and then a person who demands slightly more money for 35 hours a week.

Minimum wage can be seen to decrease unemployment therefore. Since with minimum wage legislation, it is much cheaper to hire 2 people at minimum wage for 35 hours a week, than one person for 70.
 
Machjo
#7
[QUOTE=Niflmir;1589807]Yes, the government should care for the unemployed, the alternative is a very bleak organization of people that can barely be called society. Once upon a time this was simply provided by trades guilds and, where there were not enough tradesman of a particular trade, the Oddfellows. Then the monarchs got scared of the power of the guilds and forbade their existence. In order to avoid riots, the kings had to provide unemployment benefits in place of the guilds.

Is there a minimum wage in reality? Why are unpaid internships on the rise?[/QUOTE]

To circumvent the minimum wage of course. At least they're getting experience and a reference, which is still better than nothing.

And definitely we should provide generous social security, but my idea is that if social security is decent, then minimum wage is redundant, right?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#8
Why not cut-out the middle man entirely and have the gvt mail an annual chaequ of $20k to every man, woman and child in the nation... No unemployment issues and no poverty - problem solved.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#9
You got my vote - but I can't see you getting popular with the monied few....
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

The same way you identify a person who got lung cancer because they smoked as opposed to just getting lung cancer naturally. I don't think you will get very far with individualistic arguments. The argument against minimum wage is usually a sort of utilitarian argument on the grounds that society will be richer, where society is measured on cross section ignoring the standard deviation.



The difficulty with this argument is that it is short sighted. Are you even sure that minimum wage laws decrease unemployment? If we assume that wage follows a supply curve, then there are individuals willing to work for basically nothing. It is cheaper to higher these people for 70 hours a week than to hire one of these people for 35 hours a week and then a person who demands slightly more money for 35 hours a week.

Minimum wage can be seen to decrease unemployment therefore. Since with minimum wage legislation, it is much cheaper to hire 2 people at minimum wage for 35 hours a week, than one person for 70.

Now you're confusing minimum wage with working hours, which is covered in separate legislation. Minimum wage and maximum working hours are two separate things.

As for supply and demand, once everyone is employed, employers must then compete for them, thus pushing wages up to equilibrium. Also, once wages drop to the same rate as social assistance, it's natural many people would quit working and choose social assistance instead, and i that sense social assistance acts as a pressure valave of sorts.

Also, if the government provides skills training for those on social assistance, then they go back into the market in more demand and so can negotiate a higher wage. Add to this that with fewer people unemployed, it might even be affordable to increase social security by a little bit, which again pushes wages up.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Why not cut-out the middle man entirely and have the gvt mail an annual chaequ of $20k to every man, woman and child in the nation... No unemployment issues and no poverty - problem solved.

Many would quit their jobs. Maybe $12,000/annum? Even that would be a little high maybe. Also, do you really want to give money to an addict, whether a sex addict, drug addict or gambling addict, or would it be preferable to provide him with room and board directly?

Providing room and board would probably be preferable in that sense.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

To circumvent the minimum wage of course. At least they're getting experience and a reference, which is still better than nothing.

And definitely we should provide generous social security, but my idea is that if social security is decent, then minimum wage is redundant, right?

You can view minimum wage as a sort of excise tax on businesses whose business model is based on exploiting the most desperate laborers. Since these businesses inelastically demand X hours of labor, then there is no social loss to this excise tax, and the people that should be paying the tax are paying the tax. As opposed to it burdening more honest people. There are also some nonlinear effects on the supply of labor curve that would make a lack of minimum wage disastrous over time.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Why not cut-out the middle man entirely and have the gvt mail an annual chaequ of $20k to every man, woman and child in the nation... No unemployment issues and no poverty - problem solved.

If the money supply is ever increasing (and it is) effectively this is already happening. So who is getting all the new money? Some prominent conservative economists have advocated for doing exactly that, together with tax reform however.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

The same way you identify a person who got lung cancer because they smoked as opposed to just getting lung cancer naturally. I don't think you will get very far with individualistic arguments. The argument against minimum wage is usually a sort of utilitarian argument on the grounds that society will be richer, where society is measured on cross section ignoring the standard deviation.

Now do not get me wrong - I am for min wage - I am for income supplements for the working poor- i am in favor of lowering the claw back level for CPP- I am in favor of raising the GST-

I am against gold plated pensions that the civil service at all levels have- i am against their holding Cities - provinces- Countries hostage as was the case on a number of occasions.

I am for people that can work- working - I am in favor of raising Social Security - But remember it like any program can be abused - that does not detract from the people that need it in my opinion - it detracts from the people that manage it.

When you have a substantial number of poor - the social costs are never included - from drugs- alcohol- dysfunctional families - poor health - and on and on.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

You got my vote - but I can't see you getting popular with the monied few....


The monied few get paid as well... Can't have any discrimination now, can we?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#14
Even twelve thou/an is better than being disabled and paying heat and hydro. Thank Gawd the mortgage is paid off....

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The monied few get paid as well... Can't have any discrimination now, can we?

In a utopian scheme, discrimination is built into the monied few
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Now you're confusing minimum wage with working hours, which is covered in separate legislation. Minimum wage and maximum working hours are two separate things.

As for supply and demand, once everyone is employed, employers must then compete for them, thus pushing wages up to equilibrium. Also, once wages drop to the same rate as social assistance, it's natural many people would quit working and choose social assistance instead, and i that sense social assistance acts as a pressure valave of sorts.

Also, if the government provides skills training for those on social assistance, then they go back into the market in more demand and so can negotiate a higher wage. Add to this that with fewer people unemployed, it might even be affordable to increase social security by a little bit, which again pushes wages up.



Many would quit their jobs. Maybe $12,000/annum? Even that would be a little high maybe. Also, do you really want to give money to an addict, whether a sex addict, drug addict or gambling addict, or would it be preferable to provide him with room and board directly?

Providing room and board would probably be preferable in that sense.

You can't stick your head in the sand about working hours in conversations about minimum wage. If you do away with minimum wage, overtime legislation means exactly nothing since laborers at the bottom of the labor supply curve will just negotiate their salary down to compensate and you will arrive at the 1 employee for 80 hours being cheaper than 2 for 40 hours situation I pointed out. What law is going to stop this situation from occurring if wages can always be negotiated down?

You can't avoid an inconvenient truth just because the government decided to put these issues in two separate pieces of legislation.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Some here have accused me of not caring for the poor because of my opposition to minimum wage legislation, so I decided I'll turn the tables around with a question to those who support minimum wage legislation:

Do you support the government guaranteeing a full-time minimum wage to the unemployed, especially considering that some might be unemployed because of the minimum wage, especially among unskilled workers?

Now to some the following might seem contradictory even though to me the two are simply flip sides of the same coin, and that is that on the one hand I oppose minimum-wage legislation, and on the other I support guaranteeing the full-time established minimum-wage to the unemployed. In other words, if you insist on having a minimum wage, then ensure that those potentially affefcted are fairly compensated.

I'd like to know how many among you who support minimum wage legislation also support holding social security to the same standard as any employer?

NO - The Gov't should keep its nose RTF out of wages, minimum or otherwise except in cases where they are hiring directly. Wages have to be set in accordance with the skills & work ethic of the individual and at a level where they don't impact adversely on profits for the shareholders.
 
Machjo
#17
Lone Wolf, I'm all for different rules for the disabled, giving them a more services according to circumstances. That's a whole separate issue.

Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

You can't stick your head in the sand about working hours in conversations about minimum wage. If you do away with minimum wage, overtime legislation means exactly nothing since laborers at the bottom of the labor supply curve will just negotiate their salary down to compensate and you will arrive at the 1 employee for 80 hours being cheaper than 2 for 40 hours situation I pointed out. What law is going to stop this situation from occurring if wages can always be negotiated down?

You can't avoid an inconvenient truth just because the government decided to put these issues in two separate pieces of legislation.

I'm also for codetermination legislation as is available in Sweden and Germany. This would mean that workers would have a vote on the board of directors, meaning that they too could negotiate fair wages and work rules, the difference being that they could also negotiate their salaries downward in an economic downturn as they could negotiate them upward in better times. But that they they're more likely to save their jobs in a recession.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

NO - The Gov't should keep its nose RTF out of wages, minimum or otherwise except in cases where they are hiring directly. Wages have to be set in accordance with the skills & work ethic of the individual and at a level where they don't impact adversely on profits for the shareholders.

I agree with that. But when the government does choose to legislate people out of work, are they not entitled to compensation?
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
#18
There should be no minimum wage that the government forces on businesses, workers should form unions so they can get a better rate of pay and benefits.

In some provinces unions provide the workers for all businesses and if they don't want to pay they do not get the workers they need to operate their businesses. This should be the case accross Canada
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I'm also for codetermination legislation as is available in Sweden and Germany. This would mean that workers would have a vote on the board of directors, meaning that they too could negotiate fair wages and work rules, the difference being that they could also negotiate their salaries downward in an economic downturn as they could negotiate them upward in better times. But that they they're more likely to save their jobs in a recession.

A single vote doesn't mean much, especially when all the employees can just be let go and replaced with cheaper employees.

Germany also has legislation that guarantees raises, and forces employers to give permanent contracts after a certain number of contract extensions. If you have had 3 contracts or have been working at the same place for more than 5 years, you basically cannot be fired.

Industry is not suffering there for minimum wage.

But you are dodging the point: a race to the bottom means that 1 person will be hired for a day over 2 persons at a slightly higher salary working for half a day each. What law is going to stop that from happening?

Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

There should be no minimum wage that the government forces on businesses, workers should form unions so they can get a better rate of pay and benefits.

In some provinces unions provide the workers for all businesses and if they don't want to pay they do not get the workers they need to operate their businesses. This should be the case accross Canada

This doesn't work because the government interferes with the freedom of the union to strike. So long as the government has that power, they need to provide some regulations on businesses as well. If the government lost that power, the unions would coagulate, regulate a minimum wage for all employees, and effectively be the new government.

That's how anarchy works in practice anyways.
 
Machjo
#20
Well then if you insist on a minimum wage, then seeing that it could potentially legislate a person out of work, it's reasonable to guarantee a full-time minimum wage to the unemployed too right?
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

A single vote doesn't mean much, especially when all the employees can just be let go and replaced with cheaper employees.

Germany also has legislation that guarantees raises, and forces employers to give permanent contracts after a certain number of contract extensions. If you have had 3 contracts or have been working at the same place for more than 5 years, you basically cannot be fired.

Industry is not suffering there for minimum wage.

But you are dodging the point: a race to the bottom means that 1 person will be hired for a day over 2 persons at a slightly higher salary working for half a day each. What law is going to stop that from happening?



This doesn't work because the government interferes with the freedom of the union to strike. So long as the government has that power, they need to provide some regulations on businesses as well. If the government lost that power, the unions would coagulate, regulate a minimum wage for all employees, and effectively be the new government.

That's how anarchy works in practice anyways.

If it is a hardship for the national economy the government might but those jobs are far from minimum wage jobs the and I don't think the government cares about the eating place workers, janitors, hotel workers and so on you know the jobs the illegal and legal immigrants take the ones regular people would pass over
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Well then if you insist on a minimum wage, then seeing that it could potentially legislate a person out of work, it's reasonable to guarantee a full-time minimum wage to the unemployed too right?

Actually, my argument is that the minimum wage actually decreases unemployment, I have yet to see you provide evidence to support that minimum wage increases unemployment.
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Actually, my argument is that the minimum wage actually decreases unemployment, I have yet to see you provide evidence to support that minimum wage increases unemployment.

I have no proof but it is just common sense. If you raise minimum wage 20.00 an hour or 50.00 or 100.00 an hour, what is the effect?
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I have no proof but it is just common sense. If you raise minimum wage 20.00 an hour or 50.00 or 100.00 an hour, what is the effect?

Better house parties
 
Cabbagesandking
No Party Affiliation
#25
You have already, ,y opinion on this so I think I will sit back and see what others think. Further than that, I support a Guaranteed Annual Income.

Here is a study that you might like to read for the purposes of the discussion. It supports what I said on the other thread about the decline in minimum wage. It also claims that minimum wage does not increase unemployment. There are others that show it works both ways. I don't think there are any that say the effect is great.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sit...verty_line.pdf
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Cabbagesandking View Post

You have already, ,y opinion on this so I think I will sit back and see what others think. Further than that, I support a Guaranteed Annual Income.

Here is a study that you might like to read for the purposes of the discussion. It supports what I said on the other thread about the decline in minimum wage. It also claims that minimum wage does not increase unemployment. There are others that show it works both ways. I don't think there are any that say the effect is great.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sit...verty_line.pdf

Raising the minimum wage helps the government in raising more taxes and helps the worker stay for a little longer.

The companies that pay minimum wage do not mind the high employee turn over and the skill level is easy to teach.

Raising the minimum wage helps the government get re-elected
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

There should be no minimum wage that the government forces on businesses, workers should form unions so they can get a better rate of pay and benefits.

In some provinces unions provide the workers for all businesses and if they don't want to pay they do not get the workers they need to operate their businesses. This should be the case accross Canada



You mean so we can pay for another level of bureaucracy! Perhaps there is an Economics 1 course available in your community!
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post


You mean so we can pay for another level of bureaucracy! Perhaps there is an Economics 1 course available in your community!



The economist are the ones getting it wrong because the rules are always changing so Economics 1 would be a waste of time

Last edited by Liberalman; May 14th, 2012 at 05:39 PM..Reason: change
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Actually, my argument is that the minimum wage actually decreases unemployment, I have yet to see you provide evidence to support that minimum wage increases unemployment.

It's actually pretty simple to figure out using logic..................Son 'o Mac gets a raise, so what do you think happens to Big Mac? Big Mac becomes "more valuable" to cover increased wages and what do you think happens to us old codgers on fixed income when sloppy old Mac goes from $11 to $12? We don't go there anymore. We buy a lb. of hamburger for $5 and a dozen buns for $3 and build our own at home for 70 cents a piece.
 
Cabbagesandking
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

It's actually pretty simple to figure out using logic..................Son 'o Mac gets a raise, so what do you think happens to Big Mac? Big Mac becomes "more valuable" to cover increased wages and what do you think happens to us old codgers on fixed income when sloppy old Mac goes from $11 to $12? We don't go there anymore. We buy a lb. of hamburger for $5 and a dozen buns for $3 and build our own at home for 70 cents a piece.

Don't you buy day olds? You are paying far more than you need.
 

Similar Threads

130
Minimum wage rises in Canada
by theconqueror | Oct 3rd, 2010
30
24
Making the minimum wage a living wage
by marygaspe | Feb 10th, 2007
10
Federal minimum wage recommended
by scabs | Nov 14th, 2006