Turn on thread page Beta

The minimum wage promotes more discrimination than it alleviates. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What is the minimum wage? Well, it's essentially a 'cut-off' point. The people that are skilled enough to be granted a minimum wage, get a minimum wage or higher.

    But what about those people who simply are not skilled enough? Furthermore, what about sexist, or racist employers, who I personally believe are in the minority, but still exist?

    In our current system, the people who are not skilled enough to deserve a minimum wage lose out. They claim benefits or become homeless. It's all quite tragic in my opinion. Moreover, a woman who applies to a job can get rejected by a sexist employer for simply being a woman.

    I propose we should get rid of the minimum wage.

    Now, if women get's rejected by a sexist employer, she can say 'well, I'll work for you for less than the man you just hired'. This puts the employer in a rather tough situation. Does he pay the man more for doing the same job and therefore pay a price for his sexist, or does he hire this woman who is prepared to do the same job for less, thereby extinguishing the discrimination that would have otherwise succeeded if the minimum wage was everpresent?

    There are many other reasons why I think getting rid of a minimum wage is a good idea, but I'll discuss them in the comments if the opportunity for debate presents itself.

    So, In my opinion, the minimum wage promotes more discrimination than it alleviates and we should get rid of it entirely.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No woman will say I will work for you for less than the man.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    No woman will say I will work for you for less than the man.
    Why not? If someone wants a job they can easily acquire it though simply negotiation tactics if the minimum wage was to be abolished. The alternative would be that she either finds a job elsewhere.

    And I think you're taking the example a little too literally. A women wouldn't necessarily say THAT exactly. She would most likely get rejected for whatever reason, and then can offer her services at a lower cost to the employer.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It's a monumentally bad policy that requires lots of hidden loopholes to appear functional.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Minimum wage is by age, not by skill? You can’t be “not skilled enough to deserve minimum wage”.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    It's a monumentally bad policy that requires lots of hidden loopholes to appear functional.
    The minimum wage or the lack of it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    The minimum wage or the lack of it?
    The MW. It's a price control pure and simple. I mean if you're going to make the argument that some people need more money, just hand it to them, it'll do less damage than this awkward policy. Lawmakers aren't entirely stupid and will either set it at levels where it can't cause much harm (below the market wage, or at least to be effectively driven down by price inflation), or they will introduce a number of exemptions and workarounds, like apprenticeships.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Being paid less for the same job because of your gender (or any other discriminating factor) and having to bargain for it is still discrimination

    Surely the problem lies with the discriminative employers, not the minimum wage?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sianhafbaldry)
    Being paid less for the same job because of your gender (or any other discriminating factor) and having to bargain for it is still discrimination

    Surely the problem lies with the discriminative employers, not the minimum wage?
    I would say in the case laid out above the problem lies with the person saying I will do it for less than him. You can’t go round saying that and then later cry about a gender pay cap. By saying you will do it for less, you are creating the gap no?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Minimum wage is by age, not by skill? You can’t be “not skilled enough to deserve minimum wage”.
    All jobs, no matter what age, are given to someone by determining how good they are at performing them. Employers don't hire you because of your age, they hire you because of your skill. They pay you (the minimum wage) according to your age sure, but not hire you. And you need to be hired to be paid, surely we can agree on that !

    A 25-year-old, with no GCSE qualification, is going to have a tremendously difficult time at getting hired at Tescos for example. He cannot get hired, because, in the eyes of the Tesco Manager, he does not deserve to be paid the minimum wage because he's not skilled enough.

    According to you, if you're old enough, you get the job no question asked, which is not the case. You get hired because of your skill level. And you get paid, when you get hired.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    I would say in the case laid out above the problem lies with the person saying I will do it for less than him. You can’t go round saying that and then later cry about a gender pay cap. By saying you will do it for less, you are creating the gap no?
    I agree, I just think that asking that shouldn’t be what you have to do to get a job and that everyone doing the same job should be paid the same regardless of their gender/age/race etc. imo I don’t think many people would be willing to ask that of an employer anyway
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sianhafbaldry)
    Being paid less for the same job because of your gender (or any other discriminating factor) and having to bargain for it is still discrimination

    Surely the problem lies with the discriminative employers, not the minimum wage?
    Oh, i agree, if we could punish all discriminatory employers, I'd support it. But pragmatically that is impossible.

    No employer says "we're not going to hire you because you're black".

    Rather the employer simply just rejects the application because it was delivered by a black, white, gay, straight, female, male applicant etc. And you know what allows for them to simply reject these people? The minimum wage. It gives employs a very good, unchallenged justification to reject potential candidates. If it wasn't in place, people could challenge their rejection and say 'well, ill work for a bit less'. The alternative is that these people who have been unjustly or justly rejected would simply have to carry on the job hunt.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    I would say in the case laid out above the problem lies with the person saying I will do it for less than him. You can’t go round saying that and then later cry about a gender pay cap. By saying you will do it for less, you are creating the gap no?
    Of course, you're creating a gap. But I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'd rather have everyone working that a 5% unemployment rate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    All jobs, no matter what age, are given to someone by determining how good they are at performing them. Employers don't hire you because of your age, they hire you because of your skill. They pay you (the minimum wage) according to your age sure, but not hire you. And you need to be hired to be paid, surely we can agree on that !

    A 25-year-old, with no GCSE qualification, is going to have a tremendously difficult time at getting hired at Tescos for example. He cannot get hired, because, in the eyes of the Tesco Manager, he does not deserve to be paid the minimum wage because he's not skilled enough.

    According to you, if you're old enough, you get the job no question asked, which is not the case. You get hired because of your skill level. And you get paid, when you get hired.
    Then you shouldn’t be arguing against the minimum wage laws? Minimum wage exists to ensure that workers earn enough to live on, that they aren’t exploited.

    Getting a job and fair payment aren’t the same issue. The tesco manager thinks the person doesn’t have the skill to do the job to an acceptable standard, he doesn’t think they don’t deserve to be paid minimum wage. Not hiring someone isn’t a judgement on that person’s worthiness, it’s selecting the best candidate to do the job. Business, not personal.

    I don’t know if you’re confused or trolling, but the case you’re putting forward is nonsense.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sianhafbaldry)
    I agree, I just think that asking that shouldn’t be what you have to do to get a job and that everyone doing the same job should be paid the same regardless of their gender/age/race etc.
    I agree with you!

    But there is a difference between someone negotiating a salary as well as being happy with the terms, and someone getting paid something differently from another individual without knowing about it.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Of course, you're creating a gap. But I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'd rather have everyone working that a 5% unemployment rate.
    Ah I’m finally starting to understand your point. I disagree because 5% unemployment is better than 2% unemployment but the 3% have a dismal wage they can’t live on.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Much better I suppose to adopt a healthy system where people can work for 0.5 pounds per hour?

    The minimum wage prevents abuse, you will find that by getting rid of it, certain groups (see: migrants) will be liable to exploitation as they are desperate for jobs when they arrive into the country.
    It gets worse, as working for less means working more hours; I could not begin to discuss the issues created by overworking.

    These potential cases of discrimination created by having a minimum wage you talk about are nonetheless severely outweighed by the benefits of ensuring the working population receives a fair wage sufficient to feed themselves and their families.

    I would much rather stand for minor inequality than systemic exploitation as it occurs in most countries without a minimum wage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Then you shouldn’t be arguing against the minimum wage laws? Minimum wage exists to ensure that workers earn enough to live on, that they aren’t exploited.



    I don’t know if you’re confused or trolling, but the case you’re putting forward is nonsense.
    It's amazing how when people hear views differing from their norm the result is calling people trolls. You’re calling my argument nonsense without understanding the basic premise of it.

    Let’s play ball.


    First, my comment was a response to your comment. And second, my argument is that minimum wage laws lead to unemployment, poverty, a less active workforce, increased discrimination etc.

    Thirdly, I’d argue that labour is market. And like all market, the basic laws of supply and demand apply. If there is a huge demand for labour, which there is, then wages will adjust accordingly. No company get away with paying it workers £4. The workers will either leave, strike or not work as effectively. The supply with therefore increase to meet the demands of the workers, hence, labour is a market.

    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Getting a job and fair payment aren’t the same issue. The tesco manager thinks the person doesn’t have the skill to do the job to an acceptable standard, he doesn’t think they don’t deserve to be paid minimum wage. Not hiring someone isn’t a judgement on that person’s worthiness, it’s selecting the best candidate to do the job. Business, not personal.

    Yes, and in my opinion, the person who just got rejected should be allowed to negotiate and work for less if he really wants that job. This will allow people who are not skilled enough to get jobs, to survive, to keep themselves off the streets. 30% of the people in the UK have IQs lower than 70. Where do suppose these people go? They cannot get jobs easily. Is it moral to deny them the right to negotiate the salary in the hope to convince an employer to hire them? To allow them to buy food, a roof over their heads? According to you, it’s neither moral, nor just, but just nonsense.
    0
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    Ah I’m finally starting to understand your point. I disagree because 5% unemployment is better than 2% unemployment but the 3% have a dismal wage they can’t live on.
    Labour is a market like I mentioned elsewhere. And all markets abide by the laws of supply and demand. If we abolish the minimum wage, and some smartass company says, "okie dokie, we're gonna pay you all £3 from now on". What you think will happen? I'll tell you:

    1. The workers either leave
    2. Go on strike
    3. Work less effectively and the business goes bust.

    You cannot pay your workers pennies! I'd argue the abolishment of minimum wage laws would actually INCREASE wages.

    But lets take your dystopian view for a second. You honestly think a 5% unemployment rate is better than a 2% one? You think more people homeless is better than less? Wat??? Even if 3% of the population is earning crap wages (which they won't be), but let's say they do, even then, thats better than NO WAGES.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Labour is a market like I mentioned elsewhere. And all markets abide by the laws of supply and demand. If we abolish the minimum wage, and some smartass company says, "okie dokie, we're gonna pay you all £3 from now on". What you think will happen? I'll tell you:

    1. The workers either leave
    2. Go on strike
    3. Work less effectively and the business goes bust.

    You cannot pay your workers pennies! I'd argue the abolishment of minimum wage laws would actually INCREASE wages.

    But lets take your dystopian view for a second. You honestly think a 5% unemployment rate is better than a 2% one? You think more people homeless is better than less? Wat??? Even if 3% of the population is earning crap wages (which they won't be), but let's say they do, even then, thats better than NO WAGES.
    I can see your point. This would be solved if wages were above benefits.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.