B-Man Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 OF COURSE THEY DO: Minimum Wage Activists Call Tipping Racist. “However, there is little historical evidence for the argument.” When has that ever stopped them before?
DC Tom Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 OF COURSE THEY DO: Minimum Wage Activists Call Tipping Racist. “However, there is little historical evidence for the argument.” When has that ever stopped them before? "Tipping was a racist institution because blacks were hired only for tips and not paid a wage." "Tipping is still a racist institution because blacks only get wages and do not get much in tips." [This is an automated response.] The dissonance...it...hurts... Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.9.
unbillievable Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) Because $1,000/hr would cause massive inflation. That's why you wouldn't do it. A higher minimum wage doesn't automatically mean everything else rises in price accordingly as to make the wage increase redundant. In the short term, it's a good growth stimulator as people are taking home more in paychecks and their spending power is increased. Some business will increase their prices to adjust for the added labor expense, but not nearly enough to nullify the wage increase completely as has been posited here. Long term, the rationale is that raising the minimum wage could potentially see real earnings increase across the board. This would dramatically improve the take-home of millions of people who have seen stagnant wage growth for over four decades now http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ . So damaging the economy a lot is bad, but damaging it a little is good; if it makes us feel better about ourselves. Everything you're trying to improve with Minimum wage occurs naturally under Capitalism. The problem is that the conditions for the market adjustment are being suppressed by piles and piles of Socialist Central planning that is trying to fix a problem it created in the first place. Just let the wage go low enough to force the labor force to quit. Then the business will raise wages to draw them back. (or let interns and teenagers have the jobs). It's already happened in many industries; most people are already above the minimum. They are getting paid what they are worth. Edited April 2, 2017 by unbillievable
GoBills808 Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 So damaging the economy a lot is bad, but damaging it a little is good; if it makes us feel better about ourselves. Everything you're trying to improve with Minimum wage occurs naturally under Capitalism. The problem is that the conditions for the market adjustment are being suppressed by piles and piles of Socialist Central planning that is trying to fix a problem it created in the first place. Just let the wage go low enough to force the labor force to quit. Then the business will raise wages to draw them back. (or let interns and teenagers have the jobs). It's already happened in many industries; most people are already above the minimum. They are getting paid what they are worth. Is this really feasible? And if the end result is increased wages, doesn't a minimum solve that? I suppose my issue is that I see the flaws in expecting capitalism to address the imbalance of ownership with regards to the surplus of production...one of the hallmarks of a capitalist society.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 Is this really feasible? And if the end result is increased wages, doesn't a minimum solve that? Yes. It always has. The labor market, just like any other, is competitive. No. A minimum doesn't account for the true value of labor at any fixed point in time. I suppose my issue is that I see the flaws in expecting capitalism to address the imbalance of ownership with regards to the surplus of production...one of the hallmarks of a capitalist society. That's not a flaw of capitalism, it's a feature. It's why it works. Without the possibility of the reward of profits, no one would make the necessary investments or take the necessary risks. The laborer risks nothing, and is contracted to sell his labor at a certain price, which he must mutually agree to. If he feels his labor is worth more than the compensation offered, he is free to not take the job. He is not entitled to the profits of the owner unless he is able to obtain them through his contract. Further, the laborer is not entitled to his job. The job is not actually his. The job belongs to the owner.
GoBills808 Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 Yes. It always has. The labor market, just like any other, is competitive. No. A minimum doesn't account for the true value of labor at any fixed point in time. That's not a flaw of capitalism, it's a feature. It's why it works. Without the possibility of the reward of profits, no one would make the necessary investments or take the necessary risks. The laborer risks nothing, and is contracted to sell his labor at a certain price, which he must mutually agree to. If he feels his labor is worth more than the compensation offered, he is free to not take the job. He is not entitled to the profits of the owner unless he is able to obtain them through his contract. Further, the laborer is not entitled to his job. The job is not actually his. The job belongs to the owner. Sure. We're basically just taking about the difference between capitalism and socialism now. The socialist's contention would be that the worker is in fact entitled to the production surplus. It's just a different philosophy. The bolded is why I take capitalism as ultimately a cynical enterprise. It's just a bad interpretation of the human condition that ascribes our every motivation to the pursuit of profit IMO.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 (edited) Sure. We're basically just taking about the difference between capitalism and socialism now. The socialist's contention would be that the worker is in fact entitled to the production surplus. It's just a different philosophy. The bolded is why I take capitalism as ultimately a cynical enterprise. It's just a bad interpretation of the human condition that ascribes our every motivation to the pursuit of profit IMO. Every motivation is in self interest. We do things because they make us feel either good or bad. That's it. The worker is entitled to no such thing. The innovation does not exist without the capitalist. The job doesn't exist without the capitalist. The production does not exist without the capitalist. 100% of the risk is taken on by the capitalist. The capitalist is the reason the laborer has a job rather than being a subsistence farmer. The laborer has sold his own labor to the capitalist for an agreed upon wage, and that's all he's entitled to. Edited April 3, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 Every motivation is in self interest. We do things because they make us feel either good or bad. That's it. The worker is entitled to no such thing. The innovation does not exist without the capitalist. The job doesn't exist without the capitalist. The production does not exist without the capitalist. 100% of the risk is taken on by the capitalist. The capitalist is the reason the laborer has a job rather than being a subsistence farmer. The laborer has sold his own labor to the capitalist for an agreed upon wage, and that's all he's entitled to. But the capitalists' capital is paid for by labor. With hammers.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 But the capitalists' capital is paid for by labor. With hammers. I thought it was bicycles, but yes.
GoBills808 Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 Every motivation is in self interest. We do things because they make us feel either good or bad. That's it. The worker is entitled to no such thing. The innovation does not exist without the capitalist. The job doesn't exist without the capitalist. The production does not exist without the capitalist. 100% of the risk is taken on by the capitalist. The capitalist is the reason the laborer has a job rather than being a subsistence farmer. The laborer has sold his own labor to the capitalist for an agreed upon wage, and that's all he's entitled to. I'm quoting loosely here, but what of those who aren't motivated by profit but the greater good to society? Every man is not so self interested.
Azalin Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 I'm quoting loosely here, but what of those who aren't motivated by profit but the greater good to society? Every man is not so self interested. Those are entirely different things. It's laudable to want to endeavor to the betterment of society, but self-interest and profit is what puts food on your table, a roof over your head, and provides a standard of living for those dependent on you. The only people I can think of offhand that seek to work purely for the betterment of others are volunteers (who earn nothing at all), philanthropists (who have already accrued monetary stability) or clergy.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 I'm quoting loosely here, but what of those who aren't motivated by profit but the greater good to society? Every man is not so self interested.Every man is not motivated by profit, but every man is motivated by self interest. People tend to do what makes them feel good when they can. Charitable works are not done to help those in need, charitable works are done because it makes the giver/doer feel good about helping those in need. The hard truth is, however, that nothing else would even begin to be possible without the man motivated by profit.
GoBills808 Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 Those are entirely different things. It's laudable to want to endeavor to the betterment of society, but self-interest and profit is what puts food on your table, a roof over your head, and provides a standard of living for those dependent on you. The only people I can think of offhand that seek to work purely for the betterment of others are volunteers (who earn nothing at all), philanthropists (who have already accrued monetary stability) or clergy. Our military volunteers are asked to give their lives for the betterment of their countrymen. It's not so rare as you've made it. Every man is not motivated by profit, but every man is motivated by self interest. People tend to do what makes them feel good when they can. Charitable works are not done to help those in need, charitable works are done because it makes the giver/doer feel good about helping those in need. The hard truth is, however, that nothing else would even begin to be possible without the man motivated by profit. I'm not saying capitalism doesn't have its place, because it certainly does. I'm just not sold on the idea that it's the ultimate derivation of socioeconomics. It's too exploitative to continue indefinitely.
B-Man Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 Report: SEIU spent $19 million to promote ‘Fight for $15’ Undoubtedly for selfless reasons................
Azalin Posted April 3, 2017 Posted April 3, 2017 Our military volunteers are asked to give their lives for the betterment of their countrymen. It's not so rare as you've made it. It's true that they volunteer for service, but they do get paid, receive health benefits, and have opportunity for free education and training so that they can enter a rewarding vocation wen they leave the service. Some even make entire careers out of it. It's both a vital and much appreciated vocation, but much of the rewards go beyond simply doing one's duty for the benefit of the country. That's why I didn't include military service members i my example. But even if you want to count them among people who volunteer purely for the sake of the nation, it still amounts to a very small segment of our society who do that with their lives.
GoBills808 Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 It's true that they volunteer for service, but they do get paid, receive health benefits, and have opportunity for free education and training so that they can enter a rewarding vocation wen they leave the service. Some even make entire careers out of it. It's both a vital and much appreciated vocation, but much of the rewards go beyond simply doing one's duty for the benefit of the country. That's why I didn't include military service members i my example. But even if you want to count them among people who volunteer purely for the sake of the nation, it still amounts to a very small segment of our society who do that with their lives. If we took this a bit further... I'd argue ALL people who are currently holding tax-paying jobs are working, albeit many indirectly, for the good of the nation. Now their motivations are obviously their own and I'd be hard pressed to say any meaningful percentage would be in favor of the kind of profit sharing I've touched on here, but if we acknowledge that a person's legitimate work adds value to society beyond the actual sum they earn as salary...that seems like at least a framework for arguing a larger portion of the surplus be allocated to the labor force.
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 The only people I can think of offhand that seek to work purely for the betterment of others are volunteers (who earn nothing at all), philanthropists (who have already accrued monetary stability) or clergy. And even they don't. They do it because they get something out of it, even if it's just personal fulfillment. Everyone acts out of self-interest, all the time.
unbillievable Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 I'm quoting loosely here, but what of those who aren't motivated by profit but the greater good to society? Every man is not so self interested. Phoebe and Joey have a highly philosophical debate on whether any act can be truly self-less. I just watched it on TBS. To paraphrase the Gator: If you bring in workers, jobs will surely follow. That is socialism.
Azalin Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 If we took this a bit further... I'd argue ALL people who are currently holding tax-paying jobs are working, albeit many indirectly, for the good of the nation. Now their motivations are obviously their own and I'd be hard pressed to say any meaningful percentage would be in favor of the kind of profit sharing I've touched on here, but if we acknowledge that a person's legitimate work adds value to society beyond the actual sum they earn as salary...that seems like at least a framework for arguing a larger portion of the surplus be allocated to the labor force. Looks like we have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that an employee deserves anything more than what than what they agreed was a fair wage, regardless of how much profit a company may make. If a company wants to reward an employee further, then that's their prerogative. As an aside, when it comes to people advocating for employees sharing in company profits, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that it would be fair to reduce an employee's pay if the company under-performs and fails to hit their projected profits. And even they don't. They do it because they get something out of it, even if it's just personal fulfillment. Everyone acts out of self-interest, all the time. You're correct. I could have worded that better.
Recommended Posts