The debate "Critics of minimum wage increase only reference the restaurant industry" was started by
February 17, 2019, 8:32 pm.
By the way, Nemiroff is disagreeing with this statement.
44 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 62 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 33 arguments, historybuff posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 17 arguments, Consitution101 posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
finthechat, historybuff, cringyuh, akahazel, OUTSMARTED, rainingdown, lukeluckynuke123 and 37 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, tmjcb99, happy, HelloWorLd, Jippity_J, chrissurvivor, Nemiroff, troythegreat, SMNR, LucyTheDebatorQueen and 52 visitors disagree.
and hes gone. sure can dish it, but call him out once and he vanishes. smh
"I'm glad you finally understand it means money is less valuable."
I knew it from the beginning. I defined it for you. where do you come off saying I "finally understand it"?
many small businesses support a higher minimum wage for the reasons I've repeated several times and you've continuously ignored.
most of your argument depends on how high the min wage is raised. I dont support a federal 15. that's stupid. cities certainly need it, and the businesses will be fine, but small towns would get destroyed.
can you please try debating with me and not some caricature of a liberal from your right wing blog?
these laws did not bring about America's golden age! the war brought about America's golden age. clearly you still don't understand what drives inflation. I'm glad you finally understand it means money is less valuable. also I don't know where you get your info that minimum wage is loved by small businesses...... haha you probably don't understand that most small businesses are just the owner and that they actually only hire someone when they can AFFORD it........ let's make a simple timeline of what will happen if you raise the minimum wage. company A flips burgers for people. they pay their workers minimum wage except managers. they might have a plan in place to give you raises if you stay with the company on a year to year basis. a burger costs 7 bucks. minimum wage is increased to 15 or so dollars. the company receives a notice from their suppliers that due to the increased wage their supplies are now worth approximately the same percentage In crease as the wage. now that business also increases by the same amount their burger to 15 bucks a burger to help offset cost. boom Inflation. just because you think forcing businesses to pay workers more and that we live in a unicorns little world where nothing happens because of it. you literally gained no ground but made money worth less. you do NOT understand how businesses work. Anybody that argues supply and demand nonstop clearly doesn't understand anything past their high school.courses on business. DUDE seriously look deeper and realize a business is built off of MUCH MORE than just supply and demand
and I simply showed that some things are more important then cost of goods.
there will be many things that offset the cost to businesses, including increased patronage. which is why many small businesses support a minimum wage, they are more dependant on their communities.
inflation is the decrease in the value of the currency, like if more is printed. it is decreased demand for the dollar. an increase in the price of a single commodity is not devaluing the currency at large. I dont know who taught you inflation.
what about me? what do you know about me? if I argue for gay rights i must be gay? doesn't that sound foolish?
a minimum wage and other federal regulations ended an industrial worker nightmare, which lead to no prosperity, only the great depression. these laws brought about Americas golden age.
oh yes it will I crease sales on products that businesses now can't afford cause they have to spend so much money on minor employees. therefore they increase the prices of products and therefore o ce again your money is worth less than it is today
oh and yes that is inflation. I don't know who taught you that money being worth less wasn't inflation..........
I think we need to realize what the real argument is here: you think you deserve to get paid 50000 a year for flipping burgers or some other Job that only requires the frontal lobe of your brain. how about you learn to either work your way up to a position that actually deserves more money or go to college and get some knowledge.
plus the economy is a actually running very well right now. what source do you have that shows participation in the economy is going down???? just because YOU cant buy everything your mommy and daddy buy which took them working for a while to do it doesn't mean people aren't participating in the economy.
no I would not prefer that I just simply showed that things cause increases. that only caused a small increase. raising minimum wage is a muuuuch larger increase on businesses that have to be offset by raising prices. do you not realize that all profits don't go to just management. they also go to making that business better so it survives.
also, cost increases may be a factor, but an economy with shrinking participation is a dying economy by any measure.
that is not inflation, but why do you think the increase in prices of some goods will cancel the entire income increase. more people buying things will increase sales = $$.
you claim that businesses cant afford this increase in just one of their many expenses, how profitable are the big companies? and why do many small businesses support an increase.
so you would prefer poison in the air, and inside every person for the sake of cheaper gasoline and more profits?
and hence the reason gas prices climbed when lead was removed....... duh
and yes I am a full time student, part time worker
you clearly don't understand how money works. your economic theory completely ignores inflation and how the products that businesses produce are made. money isn't worth the same if you print more to give out more. and yes to raise minimum wage, the country would have to print more money., the businesses would have to also raise prices to be able to pay higher minimum wages and waalaa you are worse off than when you started
is this full time student also a full time employee? cause then the student part doesnt really matter to the math, just adds a big bonus to his character.
a living wage depends on full time employment at min wage. I would hope we would support him as a part time student but no ones going for that yet.
saying their workers are too expensive is like saying their inventory is too expensive. if you can't make profit, you arent a good business. most mom and pop shops support a min wage because they are dependant on their community. it vastly profitable big corp that keeps crying about anything that will cost them a few stock points. they will survive.
do you know why all the gasoline is "unleaded"? because it used to be full of lead that you would breathe, and companies cried about how expensive it would be to convert, so they had to keep pumping poison. they survived. or were replaced by companies that were better. the oil industry continued to be pretty successful (doniminant) for several decades. talk about victim culture.
you say it will destroy jobs, but what drives economic growth? supply, or demand?
if you have supply, and products are being made, but noone is buying them, what happens? economic collapse.
however, if there is demand and people can/want to spend money on something, you bet someone will find some way to capitalize.
which path is best for growth? to promote cheap supply and shrink the consumer demand? or to increase the demand for goods? the market exists to solve problems for and service the people. the people do not need to adapt to the market. the market is the one that adapts to needs and demand.
your economic theory is backwards. its trickle down 2.0
and now I would just like to add that if a full time student who could save money making minimum wage and not have to live paycheck to paycheck with no scholarships......... it is called learning to not spend everything you have and learn to save a little each paycheck. live lower then your means until you can get that better job that you go to school for.
I am not in Orin most of the factors involved. you are the one that decides how much you need In money to live off of. before you get a job, they tell you how much you will be making and you have to decide if you are going to take it. as I said, a business is too busy running a business and they know how much they can pay workers to keep their business profitable and worth it. raising minimum wage will only cause less jobs and destroy several.businesses/ raise all prices even more to where you really aren't making any more money anyway. I go to school and I work two jobs. and by the way I am a full time student. the jobs are out there that work with school. keep looking and stop blaming the companies for nor just handing you everything you want.
I would also add that, yeah you can quit anytime you want, but then you'll be out of a job which is most likely an even worse situation. And, ease won't say, "just get another job" because as someone who is currently looking for work, it is not the easiest and if you're living paycheck to paycheck, as I would assume many retail and restaurant workers are, they can't afford to wait to find a new job.
the right wing media puts down "burger flippers" but they love Americas factory worker golden age where puting piece A into piece B earned you a house in the suburbs and the american dream.
fast food service work is far more hectic and labor intensive then assembly line monkey work. the simple aspect of dealing with customers makes it many times harder and more stressful. so pay our service industry workers some respect. 40 hours in the richest country in the world shouldnt land you on welfare.
the fact of the matter is that short term schedule changes are abuses. how can they find a better job if the schedule makes going to school, or getting a 2nd job to afford school (lol, that can start it's own tangent). I understand the logic of your argument just like I understand the logic of "I don't feel the earth move so it must stand still". logic isnt reality if your ignoring most of the factors involved.
and once again I will say raising minimum wage will ruin the Economy.
because when you are in a two way relationship with the business and have a job then you can quit if you believe you are being treated poorly. the companies are trying to run a business, they don't have time to try and ruin your life.
now let's hear an example of bullying where you are not in a two way deal with the business. I. E. you can't quit if you want.
Then you quit your last food job and search for a job that supplies you with your needs. now let me emphasize NEEDS. not your WANTS. Everybody is not expected to fall on their knees and worship your schedule. there are jobs out there that work with your schedule and no job is bullying anybody. p.s. I have part time jobs that work perfectly with my schedule so it IS possible and way more often than not.
well you have fast food workers who are given part time work with last minute schedule changes making it impossible to get a second job or go to school...
I also don't believe in unions getting their nitty gritty fingers into my work either. I don't see bullying from the corporations on their employees and I would like an example that you have been through where you have been "bullied" by a corporation.
the minimum wage does not stabilize the economy. it destabilizes it through interest.
I don't think that's wrong, I just don't think that minimum wage is a good solution for the government to impose
I understand your alternative solution, and agree it is acceptable, but that wasnt what I was asking. not sure if it was misunderstood or a topic you dont want to explore, so this will be the last time I poke at it.
alternative solutions aside, what is wrong with the government setting standards for the good of the economy as a whole?
if large portions of the population dont have disposable income, they wont be able to participate in the economy and almost everyone will suffer. why is it wrong for the government to ensure economic stability?
I think a good alternative to a minimum wage law is a law that requires unions for, say, businesses over 50 people. This, I understand will never happen, but would equal the power in businesses between the employees and employers and negate the need for a minimum wage because the employers could negotiate their wages themselves
if I may speculate, this dont interfere sounds like control propaganda from the people doing the bullying (corps), just like the tale of trickle down economics.
same players, same winners, same time period. how many moral philosophies sound right yet contradict each other? just because an ideal looks pretty doesnt make it good.
I im sorry to press this issue, your stance is unsettling to me. not that it is just yours. I think I got to the root problem I have:
Do you think this non intervention philosophy will make the world better or worse? Should we never interfere when someone is being cheated, used or being bullied? even if we forget about considering the economy and our own well being, this is a wrong philosophy.
would it not be good to look back and see why minimum wage laws were created to begin with back in 1938? what the situation was before them? what it might look like again without?
the age of sweat shops. and despite negligible human costs (for employers), the economy was spinning into the great depression. FDR enacted the first min wage along with union protections cause unions were failing; employers simply didnt take them seriously. that's what happens in a big power gap, you can just ignore them. replace them or theyll cave from desperation.
and to the many people who disagree... link?
may I ask why you feel it is wrong for the government to enter the negotiations but unions are ok? a union is as much a 3rd party but is very biased towards the workers, and as I said earlier, could bully small companies, or even big ones. it's not like the workers are all saints who wouldn't squeeze everything they can get for their own benefit.
the government is a union, of the people. the workers, the owners, the consumers. all are represented and all are considered. it sounds to me more like a neutral arbiter rather then an interested 3rd party. rather then doing what's best for 1 side, it would do what is best for the economy and the nation as a whole. we don't have a 1 man dictatorship, we have a slow representative process with committees and expert panels.
and especially if it is just setting sensible minimum standards instead of mandates of what to build and how much. there is much that is left to the market, but I dont think fundamental rules have ever made anything worse, they are a necessity.
it's still forcing something on the 2 parties so I dont see much of a difference. also, will this effect all companies cause unions could completely overpower mom and pop shops.
I'm totally down with legislating union protections, idk about mandates, but more unions is a solution i welcome. i cant say if that is less intrusive then setting a basic minimum, but it will solve this issue, as well as many others such as safety protections, etc.
Making unions legally required, I think, would be a much better idea than a legal minimum wage. And, that's just a social issue that the public, I feel, needs to tackle so that unions are not so villianized
I agree that would likely also work. If america wanted to legally enforce that all businesses had to have unions that would help. But america has been attacking and undermining unions for years. Companies like Walmart will close any store that tries to unionize. And billionaires have lobbied for years to undermine the legal protections for unions. So
a) if you didn't pass laws requiring unions, most businesses would just prevent them either directly banning them or making it so hard that it isn't feasible
b) you would have a terrible time getting it passed because almost all amercian politicians rely on corporate donors and they would literally kill to prevent unions.
in case you doubt that, here is an article about coca cola using paramilitary groups to harass and murder people trying to start a union at their bottling plant in Columbia. They denied being behind it, but who else would murder workers trying to unionize other than the people who owned the business?
That being said, I would argue that a union is a much better way to get your company to do what you want while still not legally forcing either party to do anything, regarding wages
I think that safety conditions should be legally enforced because it directly affects the employees physical condition. Getting days off could be given a similar argument.
Overtime wages, of course I agree with on an intellectual level, but I still don't think that they should be legally enforced
So do you disagree with other laws related to employment? For example: employers having to pay overtime wages if they work over so many hours per week, requiring employers to give their employees days off, requiring employers to maintain certain safety standards in their facilities.
All of these infringe on the "freedom" of the employer and employee relationship by forcing restrictions on the employer, the same way a minimum wage does. If you want to see what that kind of "free" relationship looks like just look up factory conditions in the 19th century. There are very good reasons we instituted labor laws.
Okay, and I still say that the government's job, on this topic, is to protect the citizens from threats and coercion, but but to force an employer to give or an employee to take a certain wage.
"What do these things have to do with minimum wage, though?"
well your main, and so far only, argument against the minimum wage is that it's a deal between 2 people and the government has no place involving itself.
all the mentioned scenarios are also potentially between 2 people that the government (or in some cases, nearly every government) has involved itself in for reasons stated. so these are all, imo, very valid analogies considering your argument.
We should teach people to be strong-willed, then, to do what they wish to do and not give in to empty words. But, it is a person's right, I feel, to do what they wish with their body, including mutilate it (selling organs) and terminating their life. We should protect people from being coerced or threatened, obviously, because both of those things are illegal.
What do these things have to do with minimum wage, though?
if people are pressured or socially ostracized for not selling their organs by creditors or dependents, is that voluntary? is it really a choice if the person making it feels like he has no choice?
same with euthanasia. elderly may be pushed towards suicide by overwhelmed or greedy family members. they both sound like good ideas on face value but terrible in reality.
oh wow, it let me post that giant quote! did the update the app?
"Impoverished donors' economic outcomes are no better than their health outcomes. A study of Indian donors found that while 96% of donors sold a kidney to pay off debts, 75% still had those operative care that is not provided by the buyer. Donors in all countries often report weakness after surgery that leads to decreased employment opportunities, especially for those who make a living through physical labor."
do you have no comment about my unequal power dynamic argument?
because unequal power results in coercion that is less then voluntary.
can we make an analogy with euthanasia? do you think people should have the right to choose to end their own life in time of old age and suffering?
I would say that you should be allowed to sell your own organs. I don't see why not; they're just another good
do you think it should be legal since there is no reason for a 3rd party to be involved in the decision? even tho the only nation it is legal in is Iran making it illegal in both free and oppressed nations, rich and poor, across demographics, religion, and cultures?
maybe some things are not best between 2 parties of unequal power?
not in the us because selling your organs is illegal and strictly enforced, but you've never heard of that happening worldwide? at one point it was a common media trope (fiction like movies and tv shows, not news media) about visiting the 3rd world.
Um, I've never heard of that organ thing happening??
I meant slavery and not to the public but to another individual.
dont you see the potential for abuse? like how in countries where it's legal to sell your organs people wake up in ice baths with no recollection of their volunteerism?
its like the euthanasia debate. on face value it sounds like a human right that is meant to help, but it can be abused to a twisted purpose. The parties are not of equal power, it will not work as you imagine.
I haven't thought about for clearing a debt but just because is called volunteer work. And, to clear a debt could be considered as community service, so sure. I guess it depends on why the person is indebted and what the work is, but yes, I am okay with it.
is it ok with you if people volunteer themselves into servitude? such as to clear a debt or just because
It's not about whether or not I want less money, obviously I don't. It's about being allowed to accept any wage and not being forced to accept one, or to give one on the employers end, that the employer and employee haven't agreed upon. If I want a $12/hour wage, I should be able to get that based on my merits, not because a third party is threatening my employer.
also, does the potential collapse of the entire economy mean nothing in the face of idealism?
I hope you gained some appreciation for our food service industry workers from my past post. no matter how simple the job, doing it faster and faster while dealing with rude customers is difficult and stressful. much harder then the assembly line work that earned an american dream not too long ago.
however, why would you accept 11 dollars instead of 12? that's stupid. usually the argument is the employer is forced to pay higher wages, but you think workers want to accept lower wages? that only happens if they are desperate to get a job and have zero bargaining power.... which is the main argument against your 2 party scenario. if one party is powerless, libertarianism turns into feudalism.
but once again, this depends on local costs. 12$/hr would destroy many rural economies. I'm talking about expensive cities which coincidentally is where most low wage work exists.
the right wing media puts down "burger flippers" but they love Americas factory worker golden age where puts piece A into piece B earned you a house in the suburbs and the american dream.
fast food service work is far more hectic and labor intensive then assembly line monkey work. the simple aspect of dealing with customers makes it many times harder and more stressful. so pay our service industry workers some respect. 40 hours in the richest country in the world shouldnt land you on welfare and the value of 12 dollars is subject to influence of inflation. they are very much worth it.
are these companies crying about wages struggling to make profits? cause most of them are rolling in $$ year after year. your position is logical but the premises it depends on are false.
What employee would ever want to make less? The point is to prevent an employer from taking advantage of people and hiring people at a wage they cannot live on.
And of course it involves the government, they are involved in literally every transaction. There are countless laws around transactions to make sure they are done fairly. These are intended to protect the parties involved as well as society as a whole.
Employees and society in general benefit from minimum wage laws. The only people who don't benefit are corporations who want to pay people so little that they require food banks to survive. Is there any reason, other than dogmatic "I hate the government", that there shouldn't be a minimum wage?
The government does force me to take nothing less than $12 an hour, even if I would accept $11 and that's not right. The consensual transaction between myself and my employer should involve only the two of us, not a third party.
No one is forcing an employee to take a certain wage. The government simply sets a floor for what is acceptable. I really wish that this wasn't necessary either. If corporations could be trusted to treat their employees fairly then minimum wages wouldn't exist. But history has proven that corporations will maximize profits at the expense of literally anything. If they have to push their employees into poverty, they will. If they have to poison the water table because dealing with waste safely is expensive, they will.
The reason that a government exists is to provide services and to protect it's people. Protecting them from corporations has become increasingly important and it isn't ever going to go away. In the current climate, you need more government regulations, not less.
But to circle back, a minimum wage is needed to try to keep corporations from driving people below the poverty line. Companies like walmart love to pay their employees as little as possible, crush any attempts to unionize and then have their employees use government services to try to stay alive and feed their families.
The question then becomes, do you want the government to subsidize companies with social programs to feed their starving employees, do you want a reasonable minimum wage so companies do it themselves, or do you want people starving to death while working 40 hours a week?
I'm sorry, but being a McDonald's cashier is nor worth $12 an hour. If a job calls for higher or lower wages, then the employer and employee can negotiate that, a third party should not force either one of them to take a certain wage.
that's nice, but what if that philosophy leads to economic collapse as large portions of the population fall out of the economy? should we still follow blind idealism?
Well, I'm very libertarian, and I think that it's not right for a third party to force an employer to pay a certain amount to the employee that he doesn't consent to. Minimum wage in WA (where I'm from) is $12.00, so if an employer offers me $11.75, I cannot legally accept that offer, even if I would. I think that the lack of consent in the contract for the employer is wrong.
Yeah you have hit on the main problem. In an oil town in alberta they can't find people to work at a Mcdonalds for less than $18 per hour. Its usually higher. But that is because there is so much money being made in the area that the cost of living is crazy high. $18 per hour isn't enough to live on there.
The area I'm from $18 per hour is a decent wage. Minimum wage here is currently $14. Cost of living is much lower.
So setting a national minimum is problematic. In some areas it will be way too low, in others it will be very high.
But not having one isn't an option. Companies in North America have made it very clear they will not be responsible when it comes to their employees. If every employee had a viable union there wouldn't be as much of a problem. But companies have spent the last few decades systematically undermining and crushing labor unions so that they don't have to listen to their employees.
well seeing the lack of activity, let's discuss the min wage broadly.
the push back is that the situation is nonfunctional. cost of living continues to rise, wages stagnate. we are a decade it our recovery and markets have soared. why are wages still stagnant, just now starting to crawl up at a snail's pace?
if wages =/= costs, the economy will collapse. the real economy, not the stock market.
do you live in a small town or a big city? I'm from a big city and costs are crazy. minimum wage is absolutely necessary. if your in a small town, a federal minimum wage hike will destroy your town.
that's certainly a discussion I'm willing to have, but the purpose of this thread was the break a false narrative and dishonest arguments.
Oh, definitely I agree with that. I thought it was a minimum wage discussion; my bad
that is off topic. this thread pushes back against critics who say it doesn't work, not whether it is just or not.
and if your argument that it doesnt work keeps mentioning a specific industry and routinely ignores all others.... well that leaves a strong suspicion of cherry picking and dishonesty.
I don't believe that a minimum wage should exist. I think that it is wrong for a third party (the government) to force an employer to pay an employee a wage that they do not consent to.