You just avoided the question.

Answer this question, if you dare:

Should the government allow the children of poor families to die of starvation or untreated medical problems to promote these values you talk about? Poor children in third world countries die every day of these very causes.

I didn't ask you anything about private charities, I asked you about the government. Just the government.

You can never assume that some private entity will help people.

Should the government allow innocent children to die or should the government intervene?

It was a simple question, really. :)

I'm trying to establish your position on how far the government should go in this "hands off" approach.

Laissez faire in labor market would probably cause very high transaction costs, thus reducing efficiency.

Negotiations, going from one job to another, need to travel elsewhere, insecure jobs .
You could go on and on.

To answer your question, no gvt doesn't necessarily know best, but who does? Would you trust a bum off the street more than the government?

I'm sure there are benefits and costs in minimum wage system, as in regulated wage systems in general. What you choose to represent, often comes down to a value question, because most if not all economists agree with the simple ECONOMIC rules mentioned here.

they'll either learn they are worth more than they make or will be happy/content with what they make. what's the problem with that? so what if they can't look out for their own interests.

their manager is their manager because he knows how to look out for his own interests - that's one of the things that separates them. there's really no way the government can be expected to train everyone to evaluate themselves like that.

my point is if you're not capable of looking out for yourself, don't expect me to help.

Ah Okay, now that you've made yourself clear. Like I posted earlier, libertarianism has limits. Out of humanitarian purposes, the government should not let children starve to death. To answer your question, the government/state should pay the money to hand over the kids to charities for private care.

There are limits to a hands off policy: government should take care of the courts, police, military, and yes the environment.

Libertarians and Communists are both fun to argue with. :)

I would work for $4 an hour if that's what it took to feed and shelter myself. And if one job at $4 an hour wasn't enough, I'd take a second job.

If you allowd people to work for $2-4 an hour, why would any employer want to pay more then that ever?

You want sweat shops? Cause that'll be the outcome. In some countries where the standard of living is lower the wage is lower, but can you live off $2-4 an hour?

You can not tell me that a human being is not worth at least min wage? If so, then the work force is not for them, they should be in institutions!

Exactly. Individual responsibility. Government should be the last resort, not the first. Almost every American inner city is strewn with relics of the failure of America's 1960's flirtation with MEGA government. Did the billions spent on the "War on Poverty" produce anything? NOPE. Did the 1990's welfare reform law actually move people out of welfare? YEP.

I believe that labor is a market, just like pork bellies. Telling employers how much they MUST pay, just puts some businesses out of business and creates unemployment. If it doesn't put a company out of business, it makes it difficult to compete with other businesses, makes the business less profitable, and inhibits growth and improvement, because monies that might have been put into building a bigger business (which can employ more people) and creating better and more salable products is diverted into paying people whose value doesn't reach the level of required pay. This simply cheats more workers further on down the road.

My ex-wife worked as a manager in a high-tech firm, and frequently had to hire underlings in at more than she was being paid. Why? Because the company needed them. And yet, why should she complain? It was by hiring these highly paid people that the company's products were more attractive than the competition's, and success in that competition put money in everyone's pocket.

Maybe less American companies going overseas. I hate to say it, but in an economy [not philosophically, not spiritually or legally speaking, just economic terms] not all humans are valued the same.

Exactly and it forces employers to go overseas.

let's say that you make $2-4 an hour working in a sweatshop and produce $20 an hour worth of stuff. if you're not happy with this situation you'd ask for a raise or look for a new job. or do the next best thing! start your own shop, pay your employees more of the $20 an hour you'd make off of them and potentially put your former boss out of business (or at least, be a real pain in his ass). in this country you can do that.

if you're not motivated or intelligent enough to do this, why should the government have to help? in any case, chances are that someone in that group would be so motivated and would do it if you don't, and they'd be the ones raising the wage "standard" for the biz.

Hahahah unlike my Maoist, Leninist, Trotskyist friends during my Berkeley days, I am the first to admit to the limits of libertarianism.

Okay, so you could work 20 hours a day and earn the princely sum of $80 a day before tax.

What does someone like that have to look forward to in life? And why wouldn't he/she instead choose a life of crime or dealing drugs just so life is a little more tolerable.

Pay people a livable wage. It's the fucking decent thing to do. It's a little sad that we look at people and evaluate their worth based on how useful they are to the rich.

That's right. And many already choose.
Would you like to have more prostitutes and drug dealers in your streets?

i assume you meant "not all humans are valued the same" here. if so i agree and i believe that the ideal "all humans are equal" is going to destroy us. survival of the fittest is gone for humanity but is still there for every other species.

:) Berkeley kids are awesome to argue with. I've been in a few near brawls while debating Communism/Marxism at Gilman St.

you're missing the point. say the grocery store pays their people minimum wage. what do you think will happen if the government forces the store to raise their wages? they'll have to raise their prices or get rid of people (grocery stores are exceptionally low margin). if you made minimum wage, you got a raise too, but it's effectively gone because the prices for the groceries you have to buy has just gone up as well.

that's inflation.

Gilman, right on! Used to watch punk shows there. Best show I saw was NOFX and Lagwagon together. Also, Anarchists are fun to argue with as well.... neo-Bakunists particularly

Sly and Quiet pointed out a very valid point...and that is that some of you sound as though you have never ran a business.

Well I speak from over 7 years experience in the fast food industry.

6 of those with the Taco Bell Corporation and/or franchises of that corporation.

I watched 2 brothers go from owning 10-20 stores to well over 150 in a matter of 2 years...they were one of the largest Taco Bell Franchise holders.

Anyway, there are many things to consider when dealing with the min. wage.

So many variables.

When you're dealing with a min. wage you're mainly dealing with the dregs of society and children.

This also creates a lack of competition between the employers.

In other words I could pay a kid min. wage he can come in do the job if he wishes to or just plain fuck around. So I fire him...what happens next? He goes down the street to McDonalds who pays him the same exact thing.

He has fast food experience...the manager will hire him. You become so desperate for workers that you end up hiring just about anyone...and rehiring those you wouldn't touch in any other industry.

I had my well paid assistant manager, adequately paid shift managers, and some rewarded regular employees. But the largest percentage of my staff which was well over 40 consisted of pawns. Foot soldiers that you could toss into the heat of the battle at min. wage or barely above.

Now if there had been no min. wage some kid who might have been fired from my store would have been hard pressed to find the McDonald's down the street to pay him the same wage.

He would be forced to meet the employers standards.

Now on the other hand, I can see where in some areas where there are more employees than companies people could be taken advantage of. Local businesses could pay ungodly wages knowing people who may not have a car or other forms of transportation would be forced to accept this.

The company I worked for worked us hard.

We based my own particular store on a 110% productivity level...this was all based on your stores income.

There were some stores out there who were running up to 150% productivity levels.

This does not mean that the employees actually worked that hard...this is what I was allocated in my budget.

For every $1.00 I spent on an employee I needed to get out of them $1.10.

This is impossible in a min. wage type situation.

This basically meant we ran short handed through much of our shifts with at times low quality workers...because once again they all can't be gems.

I was able to make it work, in fact my store was ranked #1 in overall growth. I took it from making $12-$14K a week to $20-$22K a week within 6 months.

This allowed me to lower my labor productivity and keep the staffing to somewhat respectable levels which in turn kept the customers happy and continued to increase sales.

now you're getting into competitive advantage issues that you don't seem to know much about. allowing other countries to handle these extremely low paying jobs is better than having people here making peanuts when they won't be able to afford anything to live.

Interesting...

supply and demand determines what they are worth. why does wendys pay 8 bux? because there isn't enough people willing to work for 7.

The employer will pay what it takes to get what he wants. You're talking like if a floor sweeper is worth $6 an hour so is an account manager or heart surgeon.

Exactly. I used to work for a large company in korea, and in their factories they used an employment technique that was very efficient and benefited the workers. Basically, workers were paid higher wages, but they learned and worked every single part of the assembly line and even had janitorial duties. They would rotate job duties every 2 weeks. Over time, they would skim the workforce until the entire factory was operating at maximum efficiency. Not a single second wasted. People employed earned high wages, but there was less people to pay.

Entry level, (low paid) workers were required to learn every aspect of factory production. as they did so, there wage increased. The were rewarded for their efficiency over time and become more valuable in the workforce.

The current wage system offers no motivation or incentive for people to increase their income. Employers use the minimum wage against their employees. They are able to say this is a minimum wage job and if you dont like it, go down the street. If you really think about it, it keeps the employee from advancing.

I guess if you don't get paid enough to live on, what you would do is burglarize people's houses or sell crack. Do I have you right there?

It wouldn't occur to you to look around and find something worthwhile you could do which other people might want?

You must be the most weak-backboned, lazy, fatalistically-inclined, "I can't succeed unless success is handed to me on a silver platter" slob I've ever heard about, then.

Do I have THaT right?

Every prostitute and drug dealer is someone who took an easier (if more risky) road than that of doing something more worthwhile.

Perhaps if someone has NO talent to bring to the market, nothing to offer of any value, no contribution to make, even if they make it themselves on a freelance basis rather than on someone's payroll...perhaps they don't belong here. Or, perhaps they belong in an institution where someoen can wipe the drool off their chins while they fritter away the hours till their extinction.

1. If i had the choice of dealing drugs or working for $4 an hour then yes I would deal drugs. But I actually see drug dealers as providing an important service to the community, so I wouldn't have a problem with it anyway. After all, it's not THAT different to smut peddling.

2. "Success" depends on your definition.

I think the only fact that really needs thinking about is that someone working full-time at min-wage is well below the "poverty level", and the average min-wage worker isn't a high school kid saving for a car, it's someone supporting children. The richest country on earth (according to GNP) should be able to do better.

On the other hand, it makes the 200 bucks I offer for a nude shoot seem a lot more impressive. :)

Everytihng has its price and can be bought and sold in a free market at a reasonable profit. (including people)

Maybe the reason the US became the richest country in the world is that we resisted the temptations of being a SOCIALIST state [in the case of Europe] or cultural Paternalism [see Japan]. I don't mean to bash on Europe or Japan but compare their system to ours and our culture and you would easily realize why the US is so rich and powerful.

-- drugs should be legalized. Shit, as long as its made legal only to responsible adults, then have at it. We're all adults here....we don't need the government to hold our dicks while we take a piss. Besides, it would free up all that cash that leaves or gets reduced due to money laundering and could circulate freely back into the economy.

Legalized drugs and prostitution would be SOOOO good for the economy. Tons of money previously wasted on stomping out things that can't be stomped out could be put to better use. Tons of money could be gained through direct taxation and regulation fees. Tons of money previously hidden would be circulated freely throughout the economy giving it a nice boost. And both activities would be cleaner and safer saving money on the health costs later on.

legalized drugs and prostitution would also take some power away from gangs and give the governement more money. plus they could try to help people with a drug problem instead of just sweeping it under the carpet.

problem is, you'll never get elected if you want to pull this off.

n/m

Right on, actually a lot of conservatives like William F. Buckley argue the same point. Drug Money is actually poisoning governments the world over due to bribery and corruption--this is another cost we pay in the War on Drugs. If a govt official agrees to look the other way while drugs are imported, what's preventing them from being bribed to look the other way while terrorists or others smuggle weapons of terror into the country?
Legalization destroys this cultural degradation.

This says nothing about the business, and everything about the maids.
If they can make $8/hr at Wendy's pulling fries out of the cooker, why aren't they doing it? With that extra $3 per hour perhaps they could quit one of those extra jobs you talk about.

Point blank, some people have no ambition, and even less common sense. If the maids can do less back-breaking work for more money and they're not over there doing it - it is NOT the fault of the business. It's their own fault.

Giving these people a minimum wage enables them, encourages them, to stay right where they're at instead of aiming for something higher. (Enable in psychological terms, not physical terms.)

:thumbsup
This is the whole point of things. Being responsible and doing what needs to be done - no matter what you THINK you're worth, no matter what your pride tells you your job title SHOULD be.

If you've got bills to pay and mouths to feed, you get off of your ass and do your duty.

Amend that - people with a sense of responsibility get off of their asses and do their duty. Everyone else seems to think the gov't should take care of them in one way or another.

I just find all of the responses for keeping minimum wage laughable.

Consider what you all do. You sell porn. You advertise sponsors who pay you $X per signup.
If you do a better job than your fellow pornmaster, the sponsor pays you $X +$5 per signup.
If you do *really* well, the sponsor pays you $X +$10 per signup.

That's called incentive to do better. To learn more skills in marketing, filtering traffic, and basically making the sale. The more you learn, the better your sales, the more you get paid.

Now let's change this to a minimum wage situation.
All sponsors are now required to pay $50 per signup. It doesn't matter if you send them 1 sale per week or 300 sales per week.
The sponsors will immediately STOP rewarding the webmasters who learn more and do better - because they can't afford the extra bonuses when they have to pay the unlearned peons a whopping $50 per signup.
And where is the incentive to do better? There isn't one. Because Joe Schmoe over there knows that he can make just as much money *per signup* as Quiet without ever lifting a finger and putting some work into really learning how to filter and sell. So rather than focus his priorities on learning how to sell the traffic he's got, he focuses his priorities on numbers - building as many shitty websites as possible and getting as many hits as possible in the hopes of making that sale that is equal to the highly filtered, pre-sold sale that Quiet makes.

What happens? The amount of freely available porn increases exponentially - far worse than what it is now, OVERALL conversions drop, everyone's ratio suffers and everyone's sales go down. Even better - the sponsor now has to increase the monthly membership fee to their website because they've got to pay out $50 per signup no matter what. The membership drops off, the signups get fewer and far between, because no one wants to pay those high prices.

Now then - how about we institute a minimum per signup so that YOUR 300 highly targeted signups per week won't get you any special bonuses and will only pay you a flat rate with no hopes of ever increasing if you do better?

I didn't think so.

:glugglug

thats not really the same situation. even if everyone gets paid the same there is always more incentive to make more sales, because you make more money.

take out min wage and you'll have a ton of workers pretty much on welfare to supplement their extremely low income. i don't consider min wage to be a decent wage and you'll just barely get by. take it away and you'll see students and unskilled workers making pathetic wages, even if they're good workers.