The thing is not everyone is provided with the same mental and intellectual tools in life. Should someone be punished to poverty for lacking the intelligence or emotional fortitude to rise above the station they were born into? I don't think weakness is something to be punished.
I don't think weakness is something to be punished.
So, to your mind, expecting people to take responsibility for themselves and their situation in life, is a "punishment"?
There are very few conditions in life that cannot be overcome with hard work and determination. Is it easy? Of course not, nor should it be, but it's certainly possible, and not that uncommon. If someone isn't willing to put in the work, then that's their choice, and one they're free to make, but that doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to subsidize that choice.
But it's not about hard work and determination. For one, there are still tons of manual labor centered jobs that are necessary for society to function. We'll likely always need retail staff regardless of how automated retail becomes, custodial staff, construction centered manual laborers, fruit pickers, among others. Those are all typically minimum wage, but they're absolutely necessary, and most low-skill jobs are backbreaking work in high-pressure environments.
And yes, I do believe that forcing people to work for a pittance for a job that's incorrectly perceived as being low value is a punishment. And I think it unjust to view a worker as being lesser for doing a job that some believe is for lesser people. I'm sorry, but your attitudes about this are extremely frustrating to me. It seems as if you think that a person's job and position in society are a reflection of their morality and value as a human being. Do not confuse someones economic worth with their absolute worth; they are absolutely independent of one another.
You can make all of the emotional appeals you want, it doesn't change the basic economic facts, and those are what we need to deal with.
When you have jobs (like the ones you mentioned) that require no special skills, and that can be done by anyone, with little to no training, the value of those jobs will always be low, there is no changing that; whether you're a 16 year-old looking for a summer job, or a 35 year-old single mother with two kids to feed, the value of the job remains the same. It's not a company's responsibility to pay more for a job than it's worth, simply because the worker "needs it more".
When you have jobs (like the ones you mentioned) that require no special skills, and that can be done by anyone, with little to no training, the value of those jobs will always be low, there is no changing that
No one is arguing that the value of low skilled labor is and should be low compared to that of high skilled labor where skilled labor is in short supply. The question is what should the floor value be for labor? Even today's meager minimum wage is set to a value higher than that dictated purely by market forces. Are you suggesting there should be no floor? If so look to Bangladesh or China. Is that the kind of labor market you want? The minimum wage should not be determined by market forces only, there should be safeguards built in to ensure a decent quality of life for all workers.
Whether you like it or not- whether you agree with it or not, wages are subject to market forces, namely supply and demand. When you mandate a wage that’s higher than market value, you create an imbalance in the market that the market will correct. In this case it means that people are going to lose their jobs. When you increase the cost of wages, you increase both: the quality of labor that employers have to choose from, and the quality of labor they demand; this means that the lowest-skilled, least-educated workers (the very workers you’re claiming to want to help), are going to get priced out of the market.
If you want wages for low skill jobs to go up, then you need to reduce the surplus of workers we have in this country, and that’s all there is to it. The real unemployment rate is still over 10%, and the labor force participation rate is at its lowest point in nearly 40 years; to put it plainly it’s a buyer’s market for labor right now.
I love how no one ever complains about market forces when they work in their favor, well this is the other side of the equation, and you have to take the good with the bad.
I'm skeptical. Increasing wages isn't going to change at all the skill levels available in the labor pool that companies can draw from. Prices will increase to offset the increased cost of labor, but consumer spending will also increase which will more than offset the escalation in prices. It's been shown that higher wages for low income workers increases spending which feeds back into economic growth. I also happen to live in an area where the minimum wage was raised to double the national average and the local economy is one of the strongest in the nation.
Increasing wages isn't going to change at all the skill levels available in the labor pool that companies can draw from.
It does actually. It increases the number of people who are willing to work these jobs, meaning that employers will have their choice of a much wider field of applicants, a field that will include higher-qualified, higher-skilled workers; workers who weren't willing to do these jobs for $7.25 hr, will be willing to do them for $15 an hour.
Prices will increase to offset the increased cost of labor, but consumer spending will also increase which will more than offset the escalation in prices.
No, it really won't.
You're talking about over $16,000 in additional revenue, per minimum wage employee, that a business would have to generate in order to simply maintain their current level of profitability. That's to say nothing of all the supervisors and assistant managers, making $10 - $15 an hour that are now going to have to be bumped up.
From where did people ever get this notion that businesses can simply generate additional revenue on demand, markets be damned?
It's been shown that higher wages for low income workers increases spending which feeds back into economic growth.
No it hasn't. Not ever. That's an economic fallacy that was disproven over 160 years ago by Frédéric Bastiat. Raising wages does not create economic growth, it redistributes wealth. The only thing that creates economic growth is production.
The thing is not everyone is provided with the same mental and intellectual tools in life. Should someone be punished to poverty for lacking the intelligence or emotional fortitude to rise above the station they were born into? I don't think weakness is something to be punished.
So, to your mind, expecting people to take responsibility for themselves and their situation in life, is a "punishment"?
There are very few conditions in life that cannot be overcome with hard work and determination. Is it easy? Of course not, nor should it be, but it's certainly possible, and not that uncommon. If someone isn't willing to put in the work, then that's their choice, and one they're free to make, but that doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to subsidize that choice.
But it's not about hard work and determination. For one, there are still tons of manual labor centered jobs that are necessary for society to function. We'll likely always need retail staff regardless of how automated retail becomes, custodial staff, construction centered manual laborers, fruit pickers, among others. Those are all typically minimum wage, but they're absolutely necessary, and most low-skill jobs are backbreaking work in high-pressure environments.
And yes, I do believe that forcing people to work for a pittance for a job that's incorrectly perceived as being low value is a punishment. And I think it unjust to view a worker as being lesser for doing a job that some believe is for lesser people. I'm sorry, but your attitudes about this are extremely frustrating to me. It seems as if you think that a person's job and position in society are a reflection of their morality and value as a human being. Do not confuse someones economic worth with their absolute worth; they are absolutely independent of one another.
You can make all of the emotional appeals you want, it doesn't change the basic economic facts, and those are what we need to deal with.
When you have jobs (like the ones you mentioned) that require no special skills, and that can be done by anyone, with little to no training, the value of those jobs will always be low, there is no changing that; whether you're a 16 year-old looking for a summer job, or a 35 year-old single mother with two kids to feed, the value of the job remains the same. It's not a company's responsibility to pay more for a job than it's worth, simply because the worker "needs it more".
No one is arguing that the value of low skilled labor is and should be low compared to that of high skilled labor where skilled labor is in short supply. The question is what should the floor value be for labor? Even today's meager minimum wage is set to a value higher than that dictated purely by market forces. Are you suggesting there should be no floor? If so look to Bangladesh or China. Is that the kind of labor market you want? The minimum wage should not be determined by market forces only, there should be safeguards built in to ensure a decent quality of life for all workers.
Whether you like it or not- whether you agree with it or not, wages are subject to market forces, namely supply and demand. When you mandate a wage that’s higher than market value, you create an imbalance in the market that the market will correct. In this case it means that people are going to lose their jobs. When you increase the cost of wages, you increase both: the quality of labor that employers have to choose from, and the quality of labor they demand; this means that the lowest-skilled, least-educated workers (the very workers you’re claiming to want to help), are going to get priced out of the market.
If you want wages for low skill jobs to go up, then you need to reduce the surplus of workers we have in this country, and that’s all there is to it. The real unemployment rate is still over 10%, and the labor force participation rate is at its lowest point in nearly 40 years; to put it plainly it’s a buyer’s market for labor right now.
I love how no one ever complains about market forces when they work in their favor, well this is the other side of the equation, and you have to take the good with the bad.
I'm skeptical. Increasing wages isn't going to change at all the skill levels available in the labor pool that companies can draw from. Prices will increase to offset the increased cost of labor, but consumer spending will also increase which will more than offset the escalation in prices. It's been shown that higher wages for low income workers increases spending which feeds back into economic growth. I also happen to live in an area where the minimum wage was raised to double the national average and the local economy is one of the strongest in the nation.
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this one.
It does actually. It increases the number of people who are willing to work these jobs, meaning that employers will have their choice of a much wider field of applicants, a field that will include higher-qualified, higher-skilled workers; workers who weren't willing to do these jobs for $7.25 hr, will be willing to do them for $15 an hour.
No, it really won't.
You're talking about over $16,000 in additional revenue, per minimum wage employee, that a business would have to generate in order to simply maintain their current level of profitability. That's to say nothing of all the supervisors and assistant managers, making $10 - $15 an hour that are now going to have to be bumped up.
From where did people ever get this notion that businesses can simply generate additional revenue on demand, markets be damned?
No it hasn't. Not ever. That's an economic fallacy that was disproven over 160 years ago by Frédéric Bastiat. Raising wages does not create economic growth, it redistributes wealth. The only thing that creates economic growth is production.