Minimum Wage
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Sunny_Smiles
I think you're being too pessimistic
mass surplus of workers? where'd that point come from? a population rise?
and if they can afford to pay them practically nothing while there are multiple businesses looking to hire, then I don't see how that can exist in that way when businesses compete and thus will have to increase wages to get better workers
mass surplus of workers? where'd that point come from? a population rise?
and if they can afford to pay them practically nothing while there are multiple businesses looking to hire, then I don't see how that can exist in that way when businesses compete and thus will have to increase wages to get better workers
Supply and demand. High supply of workers = **** pay. Unless of course said workers form a union but you sound like the sort of person who doesn't like that kind of democracy.
Original post by Sunny_Smiles
and there's never going to be a revolution, believe me - capitalism only makes people's lives better
and there's never going to be a revolution, believe me - capitalism only makes people's lives better
Jesus Christ...
Go read some history.
I really hope you are being sarcastic and satirical because... so much stupid. :/
Do you honeslty think if we stripped baxck the state and let full blown capitalism prevail there would be no socioeconomic and moral problems to deal with?
Original post by Sunny_Smiles
is it ever a possibility that sometimes employers are paying their employees more than their market value? a minimum wage causes a lack of competition at that rise and under; the government artificially causing every shmuck to be synthetically worth something higher than they actually are causes them to lose their value of being able to work for less to make up for their lack of skill and thus they are naturally less able to find employment with this policy without companies losing money
As I said before the true value of labour is way higher than we are used to, because employees aren't paid just for their time, there is coercion because if the employee doesn't work, he won't be able to survive (food and shelter). So the employer has a gun to the employee's head and drives down the market value of labour accordingly.
You are wrong because the minimum wage has always been shown to improve the employment rate as well as workers' disposable income. It may be that there is a certain levelling so that the minimum wage becomes "the standard" wage for most people. But this is a good thing because it means workers are going to stand together and increase their bargaining power rather than resenting the next guy for getting 20p more an hour or whatever.
And managers (middle class) always have to feel like they're earning a premium so they can continue to feel superior to the workers (working class), so as long as there are tiers of responsibility in companies the minimum wage will only push up wages at all levels.
So no, in answer to your question, until we have a universal basic income which covers all living expenses (plus a small surplus) in perpetuity, no, we will not even come close to equalling (let alone exceeding) the true market value of any employee's labour. The only people who might be paid more than their market value in a company are those who have power over deciding their own compensation, i.e. the executive board and the shareholders. It is however true that people have more chance of approaching their market value as they progress in their careers and can leverage experience.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Supply and demand. High supply of workers = **** pay. Unless of course said workers form a union but you sound like the sort of person who doesn't like that kind of democracy.
high supply = more negotiations/compromises from all levels
for example, higher supply means a larger variety of sbilities; those with the better abilities can get more easily employed and for a better wage on their terms more so than the employer because the employers want the better worker, but because the employers don't (relatively) want low skill workers, they'll be paid less - that's natural and that's desirable in a market system where those workers can compete with others on the merit of the fact that they're willing (opposed to cornered) to work for less. and I'm not a full support of "democracy" with a capital D - I'm a supporter of democracy only as a means of getting rid of tyranny; a democracy can sometimes be a cause of stupidity or tyranny if not bound by some kind of constitution (e.g. a bill of rights, or a list of what the government can't do or what the government needs to do in order to get things done in a proper way) and I think that a constitution (if we had one that was something like the human rights act but with influences of the american bill of rights, or our own 1688 english bill of rights~ then I'd regard that as more important than democracy if democracy could take those rights away)
Jesus Christ...
Go read some history.
I really hope you are being sarcastic and satirical because... so much stupid. :/
Do you honeslty think if we stripped baxck the state and let full blown capitalism prevail there would be no socioeconomic and moral problems to deal with?
Go read some history.
I really hope you are being sarcastic and satirical because... so much stupid. :/
Do you honeslty think if we stripped baxck the state and let full blown capitalism prevail there would be no socioeconomic and moral problems to deal with?
if you're talking about riots, then those don't count as revolutions (against capitalism)
and the russian revolution, for example, or the french revolution, aren't examples of where capitalism caused people to revolt against a government; in the case of russia, the people who revolted were mostly lenin's henchmen (whereby people were playing along, seemingly because there was already an army~ on their side) or that there was a dictatorship that people were becoming less satisfied with; there wasn't any socialism following that revolution in france, maybe quite a lot longer down the line, but socialism was not as a factor nor a reason for that revolution
and hoboy, ad hominem = NAIL'D IT!
again. pessimism; you're assuming the worst opposed to the best
I'm more optimistic about it because I see capitalism overall (opposed to for absolutely every individual) as a success as it is usual the fuel on the fire for civilisations developing over time technological and economically. but I also see the moral argument of it revolving around individual people over groups - I personally feel that people that do well shouldn't be poked around to work for an invisible goal of benefiting a group that is nothing more than individuals wanting more for less through a government's gun.
I support the concept and implementation of a minimum wage. Business leaders would exploit the workers of this country if they could because when something concerns money, many people are not moral. If implementing a minimum wage means people in this country can at the very least subside, then I am wholly for it.
Original post by Sunny_Smiles
no I mean if you already believe that doing x amount of work for y amount of money and someone makes an offer for that amount, even though you believe you could be getting more, that's still someone agreeing to something that they believe is proportional from both ends of the deal, or else they wouldn't do it. the only exception to this is a monopoly.
I don't follow that at all except to say that wage-labourers must ultimately 'agree' to whatever the capitalist class offer as the alternative is whatever exists in the way of charity, begging or petty-theft, otherwise destitution and starvation await - in the absence of welfare and minimum-wage that is.
You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that the would-be wage-labourer has exactly the same power in 'negotiating' wages and conditions as the capitalists do, but they almost universally, and quite obviously, do not. Where there is a ready supply of would-be workers the bosses can push down the wages and conditions to the lowest that the most desperate will accept, that is the reality of capitalism.
Original post by The Angry Stoic
Against, it's a form of theft through government intervention.
A bit like private property - the coercive monopolisation of a portion of the earth, or its resources, defended through private force and, ultimately, state intervention. But you're not going to agree with that assertion are you? No, you will pick and choose your objections pragmatically no doubt.
Original post by Moosferatu
A sensible point. Please tell this to anyone on this forum who scoffs 'I don't care if you live in a deprived ex-industrial area with no investment or money in your pocket! MOVE TO LONDON!'.
It ain't that simple you dicks.
It ain't that simple you dicks.
Yeah, because:
a) everyone can move to London, and
b) it doesn't cost that much to move there.
For. Without it pretty much every business would exploit their workers.
Original post by Axiomasher
I don't follow that at all except to say that wage-labourers must ultimately 'agree' to whatever the capitalist class offer as the alternative is whatever exists in the way of charity, begging or petty-theft, otherwise destitution and starvation await - in the absence of welfare and minimum-wage that is.
You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that the would-be wage-labourer has exactly the same power in 'negotiating' wages and conditions as the capitalists do, but they almost universally, and quite obviously, do not. Where there is a ready supply of would-be workers the bosses can push down the wages and conditions to the lowest that the most desperate will accept, that is the reality of capitalism.
You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that the would-be wage-labourer has exactly the same power in 'negotiating' wages and conditions as the capitalists do, but they almost universally, and quite obviously, do not. Where there is a ready supply of would-be workers the bosses can push down the wages and conditions to the lowest that the most desperate will accept, that is the reality of capitalism.
you mean "inequality of bargaining power"? I personally don't hold that in very high regard; just because one person (probably the employer) may have more choices/leverage, that doesn't serve to nullify the consent of the person that agrees to work for them if they're 18 and of full mental capacity
Original post by Sunny_Smiles
you mean "inequality of bargaining power"? I personally don't hold that in very high regard; just because one person (probably the employer) may have more choices/leverage, that doesn't serve to nullify the consent of the person that agrees to work for them if they're 18 and of full mental capacity
No disrespect but that is rank formalism of the most painfully obvious kind. If my choice is working for you for a dollar a day or having no job and no wages and thus suffering the immediate prospect of starving to death then it is hardly a meaningful 'choice' by any reasonable standard, not that I expect reasonableness to enter into your considerations.
Original post by Axiomasher
No disrespect but that is rank formalism of the most painfully obvious kind. If my choice is working for you for a dollar a day or having no job and no wages and thus suffering the immediate prospect of starving to death then it is hardly a meaningful 'choice' by any reasonable standard, not that I expect reasonableness to enter into your considerations.
you sound like you're being slightly picky with your wages
imagine how other countries' people feelOriginal post by Sunny_Smiles
you sound like you're being slightly picky with your wages imagine how other countries' people feel
imagine how other countries' people feelAs before, I don't follow you, but here's a nice picture:
Original post by Axiomasher
As before, I don't follow you, but here's a nice picture:
the minimum wage guy should have been drawn holding a gun, representing the government
Obviously for. Look at all the 17 year olds who think they understand economics with their free market arguments
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Sunny_Smiles
you sound like you're being slightly picky with your wages imagine how other countries' people feel
imagine how other countries' people feelSo you got no comeback then? What should the poor Axoimasher do in those circumstances?
Original post by Genocidal
...
Look at France as an example. They have a huge minimum wage...
Look at France as an example. They have a huge minimum wage...
The minimum wage in France as of Jan 1st 2014 is €1,445.38 per month, or €9.53 per hour (based on their 35 hour week).
At todays exchange rate of 1.218, that's £7.82/hour. Hardly 'huge' as you claim.
Switzerland however is another matter altogether...
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
So you got no comeback then? What should the poor Axoimasher do in those circumstances?
what do you mean? if someone doesn't balance their budget then they should buy less things, much less things if that's the only way
Original post by Sunny_Smiles
what do you mean? if someone doesn't balance their budget then they should buy less things, much less things if that's the only way
You're just sticking your head in the sand now. Axiomasher can either to choose unemployment with no chance of claiming benefits as there is no welfare state. Or he can choose that job that will pay him 1 dollar which is not enough to house him, feed him and clothe him never mind if he has a family to provide for. What should he do? There is no option he can take that allows him to live.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
You're just sticking your head in the sand now. Axiomasher can either to choose unemployment with no chance of claiming benefits as there is no welfare state. Or he can choose that job that will pay him 1 dollar which is not enough to house him, feed him and clothe him never mind if he has a family to provide for. What should he do? There is no option he can take that allows him to live.
did this country employ people at £1 an hour until the minimum wage was introduced in the late 90s/early 2000s?
Original post by Rakas21
Osbourne did advocate that but the Low Pay Commision decided to raise it only to £6.50 instead in October.
There are far more British pensioners who have paid nowhere near enough tax to cover themselves than their will ever be Polish on British welfare. Hence why recent studies all suggest that immigrants have been net benefits (because immigrants are of working age which Britain has tonnes of pensioners).
It amazes me sometimes how socialists conflate economic and social policy in order to remove ties from examples they don't like. Cuba and North Korea (the USSR was for a while) are all fundamentally command economies (we'll ignore post 2006 reforms in Cuba for now) and very much socialist economies. You may choose to support a variant of socialism where democracy is key but the socialist who wants to close the borders and supports harsh justice policies (ala the Militants in Labour during the 1980's) is as much a socialist as you so long as you both support command economies. You are correct though that the USSR (and China now) became state capitalist.
Cuba being a country that had the 4th highest real wages in the world in 1967 and a GDP per capita on a par with Italy (in turn higher than the UK's until the 90's) is one of the best examples i have seen of how socialism can destroy an economy and a people's prosperity,
*I'm talking about the extremes here, there are of course social democracies which utilise the market and socialist thinking in some areas quite well.
There are far more British pensioners who have paid nowhere near enough tax to cover themselves than their will ever be Polish on British welfare. Hence why recent studies all suggest that immigrants have been net benefits (because immigrants are of working age which Britain has tonnes of pensioners).
It amazes me sometimes how socialists conflate economic and social policy in order to remove ties from examples they don't like. Cuba and North Korea (the USSR was for a while) are all fundamentally command economies (we'll ignore post 2006 reforms in Cuba for now) and very much socialist economies. You may choose to support a variant of socialism where democracy is key but the socialist who wants to close the borders and supports harsh justice policies (ala the Militants in Labour during the 1980's) is as much a socialist as you so long as you both support command economies. You are correct though that the USSR (and China now) became state capitalist.
Cuba being a country that had the 4th highest real wages in the world in 1967 and a GDP per capita on a par with Italy (in turn higher than the UK's until the 90's) is one of the best examples i have seen of how socialism can destroy an economy and a people's prosperity,
*I'm talking about the extremes here, there are of course social democracies which utilise the market and socialist thinking in some areas quite well.
If you read what I said you'll see I don't really believe in command economies. I sometimes advocate high taxes and protectionism because I think it's better than the totally free market but my ideal situation would be one neither ruled by massive corporations or massive government(I think government is better because at least we get some democratic say in it) but everyone responsible for themselves and the people in their close community. Have you heard of Confederación Nacional del Trabajo? They were an Anarcho-syndicalist group that put forward the true ideals of Socialism. You're falling in to the trap of looking at Socialist dictatorships and trying to learn Marx's ideas based on them. If you want to know what Marx wanted, (which included the state eventually dissolving) read Marx.
[h="1"]
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
