I'm not a libertarian, but I don't think from a libertarian perspective, it means letting people starve. It means that aid/welfare/assistance/whatever you want to call, is not the role of the government. Citizens and groups of citizens (churches, philanthropic organizations) should certainly be free to provide assistance, and even be encouraged (but not by the government) to do so. But it's something everyone should be free to contribute to or not, as they wish. It's the role of private citizens, not the government.

And if citizens and private charity do not provide, people starve? I really can't see any other conclusion.

My bad, I meant you're looking at it as if minimum wage is natural.

That would have to be your assumption to come to that conclusion.

I wouldn't read it as that because it makes no sense. I don't know what a company would hire for, but I would imagine it to be whatever the market equilibrium wage rate was.

Disagree, and here's why...

So you think that Wal-Mart wouldn't, for example, remove one person's 7.25 salary for two people's three dollar salary and have those two people be personal shoppers around the store or some such. I mean, this is getting theoretical...but you could vastly improve customer service if you could double the amount of people you had working in your store. Improved customer service could mean a great deal more business, etc. And companies wouldn't be getting "cheap labor" they would be getting whatever labor the market demands. Currently, there really aren't many people on minimum wage (relatively speaking), which means that companies AREN'T being cheap...when they certainly could be.

It is your assumption that it is an optimistic one. We have not seen it in practice, so we cannot say.

Well the government does a great deal to harm these things, so it would be partially their fault. This includes taxes on food, income, apartments, etc, etc. Food taxes especially are incredibly anti-poor. Obama broke his promises of not raising taxes on the middle class and the poor by raising the tobacco taxes, where cigarettes are overwhelmingly smoked by the poorer classes.

If we had more money to spend to create jobs, we would have more money to give to other people. I believe I am correct in saying that the United States is the most philanthropic nation in the world. Just imagine if we had more of that money in our pockets to spend correctly instead of massive waste by the government.

I absolutely hate Rush Limbaugh...hate hate hate. Ignorant and misguided. But he did say this. "If I knew that my taxes were going to the most needy and that it wasn't incredibly wasted by the government, I would ask for more taxes." That's sort of how I feel.

Watched it awhile back. Did it really have any affect on you?

"It would be much truer to say that money is one of the greatest instruments of freedom ever invented by man. It is money which in existing society opens an astounding range of choice to the poor man, a range greater than that which not many generations ago was open to the wealthy."
- F.A. Hayek "The Road to Serfdom"

I'm not sure if you've ever worked in a menial job, but being paid low wages does not increase employee morale and would not positively impact customer service. Employees would be more concerned with "Wow. How am I going to pay rent when I'm spending all of my time here at $3/hr" and not "How can I make the next customer's visit more tolerable."

So, in essence, you'd have more pissed off people running around pissing off customers.

We have in fact seen it in practice. It was just long enough ago that the results are incomparable. Also when preface with "i think" a statement is naturally one's thought.


Poor people don't pay income tax *been there* there is not an apartment tax, but there are property taxes that the landlords have to pay. If we remove all food tax and tobacco taxes, now what? That's maybe 5-10% of food dollars returned, that's not making a huge difference in the long run unfortunately.

Hence the reason I made this post.

But we don't live in a perfect world run by a perfect government, so what do we do with the imperfect one we have?

Brought home exactly how on the edge people live even when working full time jobs. Right before i ended up in a very similar place myself, despite the fact that I still had the computers, phone, etc. all the trappings of having more money. It illustrates the point that the working poor are not being lazy, there simply is no way for all of them to get ahead. A relatively few make it, but that income gap is widening, not closing.

"How am I going to pay for the bus pass at $3/hr" even.

I just don't see how paying so little is anything but exploitation and why we should allow it.

Wait...so now employers WOULD want to pay more for people, if they're not required to. You guys have to make up your minds.

I was simply giving examples. There are many utilizations of people with lower wages that don't include customer service. (although your assumptions are depending that these people have families and aren't just high school kids looking for a job)

Just one of the reasons I'm not a libertarian.

I'm saying that because you can at least survive on minimum wage, employees can focus their attention on the task at hand. If you have no hope of survival, that's where your mind is going to wander to.

We brought up families/adults because high school students aren't the only ones looking for/working in minimum wage positions.

Why would walmart care if they piss off customers if they know people will still shop there for the low prices. Not like they can shop anywhere else on their wages?

Our point is that your examples aren't making sense to us. Why would an employer hire more people rather than simply cut costs across the board? Why would that racist employer actually hire a black person when there are plenty of white people unemployed in this economy? Why do you assume that employers would NOT exploit and abuse workers when that is why the minimum wage was created in the first place? Or is it acceptable for workers to be exploited?

That money thats not in the poor person's wallet. For them to use. It's robbery.

Remove as much of it as possible, perhaps?

Why do you think that is...in an America full of more regulation, more welfare, more entitlements than ever before?

Any ideas? Christ. The government is the problem, not the solution.

This is exactly why I abhor everything with your philosophy.

Who are you to say how one may spend their time? If a person chooses to work for 3 dollars, allow them to. Who are you to prohibit them?

This is on par with GLBT/minority rights. I see no difference between the two. Basic human rights.

Hire more people? Cut costs across the board? I'm not sure exactly in what context/reference you're speaking of.

Because a black person would work for less due to being traditionally disadvantaged, thus giving them a cost advantage.

Impossible to exploit workers unless they consent to being exploited.

If they consent to being exploited, who are you to say they can't?

No.

Yes.

And I say that with some statistical background of the general education level, unemployment levels, etc.

Why do you think recent Hispanic immigrants are hired onto construction firms to a greater degree than other ethnicities? Cost advantage. They don't need high education levels nor even a grasp of the English language and work cheaper than their counterparts.

Wow. I find that so incredibly ignorant. Go 'choose' to work for that wage - $120 a week and tell me how you're going to pay rent or buy food or raise a kid.

If those are the only jobs being offered, or the only jobs for which you are qualified, it is not a real choice, is it? Workers are people. Businesses had their chance at not having a minimum wage and fucked it up. People weren't working in sweatshops because they chose that over other labor, they did it because it was choosing that or dying. And sent their children to work in mills because it was that or dying. And when the child lost a hand to unsafe machinery there were no more choices. The employer hired a new one. When the woman spoke up and asked for breaks, better wages, or ventilation she was fired (and sometimes worse) and the employer hired a new one. People sent their children off in orphan trains or abandoned them in orphanages because it was that or death. People weren't making living wages back in the glory days of pre-minimum wage awesomeness.

It's been done. Employers have already proven that they can and will treat people as garbage, so now they might as well at least pay them a reasonable wage for it.

Abuse and exploitation are not 'choice' they're abuse and exploitation, period.

So you're saying that it's ok to pay black people less money because they're used to it?

Seriously?

And you don't think the fact that construction companies pay cash under the table to illegal immigrants without having to pay payroll taxes is part of the freaking problem?

I want to smoke whatever it is you're on because seriously it must be good shit.

If the employer is really racist, why would he tarnish his "pure" business by hiring a "colored" man?

And if black man knows that the employer is an "out" racist, why would he still pursue said job?

You're still looking at things in a vacuum.

This is the only thing that wasn't irrelevant.

They are choices. You enter into a working relationship with a job orr you don't. What happens at that job is your choice to either put up with or not put up with.

In the 1920's, the gap between the rich and poor was quite low. (lower than the USSR post-revolution..actually) It's a wonder what an economic mess the statists have created to push that gap.

At what point did I say anything like that?

That certainly happens. But many construction companies pay legal immigrants as well. Due to their cost advantage, which even recent immigrants have over the African-American populace. To be honest, I like illegal immigrants working here because they're circumventing this ridiculous minimum wage law for both their and their employers benefit. Win-Win.

How is a business pure?

To gain employment, I imagine.

And things were awesome in the 20s for everyone. You're right.

I give up. The idea that one can only choose to be exploited when there are power dynamics and one's livelihood involved, when there is not an alternative out there... it ridiculous. Starvation is the other option, so that's obviously equally viable.

Really it's just shy of "she stayed in the relationship so she deserved it/wanted it/let it happen/it's her fault."

Fuck that.

You're waaaay too smart for that. I know you know what I meant.

Even at my lowest point (professionally), answering to someone like that would not have been in the cards. I am pretty sure the same can be said for those who have less opportunities than I do.

Awesome for everyone that wasn't oppressed by the federal or state government, yep. (also, I'm not really sure what you're getting at...do you prefer the gap between the rich and the poor today)
Assuming there is not an alternative out there...which is a poor assumption. Only in monopsonistic competition is there not an alternative...which is quite rare.

Yeah, but it doesn't make alot of sense.

I may have given this example before... but here's a little of what I'm talking of. I think everyone is aware of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Bad dudes. Serious guys. Usually decked out in swastikas, four leaf clovers and SS tattoos. They're a business of sorts. An illegal one, but a business all about race...about keeping things "pure" if you will.

Anyways, they were profiling them on Gangland. I suppose the question was asked "Why do you pair with the Mexican Mafia for selling drugs...when they're Mexican?" (along those lines) And this man who is in the Aryan Brotherhood says something like "Yes, we fight for our white brothers...but the only real color we see is green." That's why I posted that song lyric about "to the fucking rich man all poor people look the same".

You are assuming that you know that he is racist...which is probably not too well known these days anyways. But that's your perogative.

I see what you're saying, but if the choices are "hire black man at $3/hr" or "hire white man at $4.50/hr," someone that's racist is likely going to go with the latter. The only time I can see the owner being blinded by race is if the choices are "hire black man at $3/hr" or "hire white man at $25,000/yr"

Believe me -- even though it's more subtle, it's not hard to pick up on.

[I haven't read this thread and don't know what this thread is about, but I saw the mention of the AB prison gang.]

The Aryan Brotherhood (the original AB and not the many knockoffs) is a prison gang that was created to protect white inmates and then became focused primarily on making money. Their business isn't all about race and keeping things pure. One of their founders/leaders is half Jewish (he bears a swastika on one arm and Star of David on the other arm) and they have nonwhite affiliates as you mentioned with the Mexican Mafia.

As with the structure of racism in general, the AB has members who could otherwise not be considered prejudiced on the basis of race but they join the AB (or seek AB protection in some other way) for protection. Thus, racism in general isn't about bigotry and prejudice, it is about opportunity, incentive, and power.

It depends on how much he values his ignorance.

If he is frugal and good with money, ultimately his ignorance will probably dissipate. It's really a matter of how much he values his ignorance over his money, but any good businessman worth his salt will value money over prejudices.

But the current system allows no weighing of it and instead allows the racist to make a simple decision, with zero opportunity cost.

It isn't so obvious and cut and dry.

The trend is for capitalists who are prejudiced to go with the former. The trend is also for capitalists who are racist to go with the former. They are able to not only keep an extra $1.50/hr but they are usually able to get a Black employee who works hard and with fewer other options for employment. Fewer options means fewer complaints on the part of the employee.

Based on these trends, the general pattern is that the only way someone who is prejudiced and/or racist will choose the latter is when their white customers won't patron them because they have Black employees (or a similar incentive to allow their prejudice to manifest into racism and discrimination). Then, the capitalist would pay the extra money for the white employees because more money and a better reputation will be made in the end.

Both of you have valid points.

I still think the "black folks will work for less" argument isn't going to fly, though, especially in 2010. Also, I don't think that a lot of non-whites* are going to put up with a racist employer (subtle or not). Maybe I'm headstrong about it because "my circle" wouldn't, but even when I've come in contact with folks that aren't in my circle and who are in lower-paying jobs, the sentiment has been the same**.

*I can see it with day-laborers, etc though.

**I also realize that my folks represent a small cross section. I'm just speaking based on experience.

It is flying like a hawk in 2010. Absolute and relative deprivation have increased drastically in the past 20 years. Meaning, the actual and perceived gap between the haves and have nots is greater than it has ever been in this country. Blacks are disproportionately have nots. There goes that hawk again.

People express all kinds of sentiments that they won't back up in their actions. People like to talk shit to/with those who don't have the power to punish them. In reality, nonwhites put up with racist employers everyday.

Like you said, your folks represent a small cross section. My family, friends, and I all have MBAs, J.Ds., and PhDs. I would never use my personal experiences with myself, my friends and family for such a discussion because we represent a tiny percentage of the Black population. Our education and professional networks are able to buffer some of the effects of racism and discrimination. Only some.

However, even some of my family and friends have had points in their lives where they had to tolerate racially charged bullshit from white people in order to achieve a goal. That includes those who were hosed as college students in the 1960s and those who had to use white people's business networks in the 1990s and 2000s.

Even still, we don't represent the majority of Blacks who don't have much to fall back on. They can't say "fuck you, I didn't go to law school for this shit." Guess where being obviously pissed off at a racist employer lands you? The unemployment line. Awesome and guess what most of these people hear in the unemployment line? "You should've counted your blessings, taken the paycheck, and just ignored the racist motherfucker."**


**A successful EEOC claim is rare even for the companies that provide that option

I see this more as a socio-economic issue than as a pure race issue. Yes, I know that there are correlates, but I still think "someone who is used to receiving lower pay" would have been a better argument than "blacks who are used to getting low pay."

Ex. If Deshaun Smith lost his $25,000 job and had to find something quickly to support himself, I don't believe that he would flock to a lower-than-minimum-wage job "because he's black and is used to it." I don't think that his being black means that he'll flock to something as soon as it opens and get exploited because society told him he can't do better.

I try to be careful where I draw examples from when I'm having discussions because a large group of my friends are college+. I do have a lot of contact with "have nots," if you will, because of places I used to frequent and because of friends-of-friends. Even these folks have shared my sentiments because 1) it makes the work environment unacceptable and 2) they don't want to "help a person like that" make money.

There's no such thing as a pure race issue. Race and socioeconomic status are highly correlated.

No, someone is generic and an attempt at political correctness and exaggerated inclusion. Whites who are used to lower pay are at an advantage to Blacks who are used to lower pay. Socioeconomic status does not have an equal effect on Blacks and whites. That's why Blacks are disproportionately of the lower socioeconomic status. That's why Blacks of the higher socioeconomic status are still racially profiled in lending and so forth. That's why whites have a higher level of social mobility than Blacks. While most people who were raised poor will remain poor, whites are more likely than Blacks to move up the social ladder as they age and if they acquire human capital and social capital. White privilege is one reason for that.


Has their rhetoric ever translated into action? Ask them that next time. It sounds good in theory but theory without practice means nothing.

And1 let's think of minorities who have family responsibilities. If you have mouths to feed, a racist motherfucker is something you would rather deal with than having to deal with not being able to provide for your family.

And2 capitalists are capitalists. Most employees will never meet the Head Capitalist in Charge so they don't know WHO they are helping to make money. They may be blessed with a really nice manager (although there are plenty of nice racists) but unbeknownst to you the CEO is a complete racist asshole. His/Her board room antics, for example, aren't common knowledge among those on the lower end of the totem pole.

*Please note that $25,000 is not a high income. Deshaun is generally considered living paycheck-to-paycheck (or poor). This is especially the case if he isn't the only person in his household*

He might and being named "Deshaun" isn't much help. He may do this if he has been socialized to believe that he will never be able to access higher paying means to achieve his goals. It happens all of the time and it's the same thing that happens with Black males who commit crimes to make money. They often do this because they believe that this is the only viable option. I'd rather someone make lower pay legally than higher pay illegally. And, yes, those two are considered to be the only options for many Black males. Hence, educated and successful Black males are considered an exception that has temporarily put a dent in the pattern.

But, I don't think that's what Elephant Walk was saying.

I know all about white privilege and how it's impacted us (I assume this was informational for those who are lurking). I had an issue, though, because of this post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk (Post 1993340) Because a black person would work for less due to being traditionally disadvantaged, thus giving them a cost advantage.

I interpreted it as "blacks [in general] are used to lower wages." Even though I have worked for low wages, I wouldn't say I'm "used" to them. 1) I know I'm more valuable than that, 2) I know how working in an environment like that would negatively affect me, and 3) I have resources to pull myself up so that I don't have to "settle" into low wages. I'm sure the same could be said for several people in my position, black, white, or otherwise.

I don't believe it has. And after all of my talk about not living in a vacuum :o

These points make sense.

Oh, I know that $25,000 isn't a lot, but compared to $3/hr (~$6,000 /yr working 40 hours), it's a substantial difference.

No, it wasn't just informational for those who are lurking.

Elephant Walk was correct. Blacks are generally used to lower wages. As I always tell people, we can't have it both ways. We can't highlight disadvantage and then not want people to mention the disadvantage that we just highlighted. It's awesome if it doesn't apply to you because generalizations and trends aren't meant to apply 100%.

The bolded is really the point. And those resources aren't just "you" pulling yourself up. As for 1) and 2), a large percentage of the population is underpaid and miserable. Yet, many of them believe they are worth more and know how it negatively affects them. Unfortunately, most of those people will live the rest of their lives underpaid and miserable.

This is what I was getting at. Some blacks, some minorities, many non-whites, some people -- any of these would have been better than just plain blacks. I refuse to believe that the mere fact that someone is black causes him/her to "expect" to work for pennies.

I don't see "underpaid but comfortable" as equal to "being underpaid and not being able to buy the necessities." I know that I could get more than my current salary, but I'm still able to support myself comfortably so I deal with it. Removing the wage floor and expecting me work when I can't afford shelter, food, and clothing is different.

Dudes, the market still exists, and it's still a powerful force - and it's kind of ironic to attack EW's points as unsympathetic and pie-in-the-sky, then basically deny peoples' abilities to act rationally in their own best interests out of hand.

Guess what guys? If we stop making decisions for people, they might just do the right thing themselves (or, more correctly, they'll be forced to)! Now, not all - of course not. But when you're not forced to act rationally, more will tend to act irrationally because they can.

It's not dispassionate, it's a fundamental belief in the ability of man and market to act rationally.

Why does the market act rationally? Or more importantly, for whom does the market act? Why is there an assumption that the market acts for the benefit of the workers?
"The market" freaks the fuck out when someone makes a typo in a computer program and "the market" panics when Steve jobs sneezes. "The market" isn't a rational actor.

If people have a choice between no jobs and working for unfair wages, we know they'll work for unfair wages, that's historical fact. That's not a free and noble choice, that's an act of desperation. Particularly when they could work 80 hours a week at those wages and not make enough to live on. When employers have the option to pay wages that low, they pay them, that's also a historical fact. And it is in their benefit to do so.

The 'free market' without regulation causes a lot of problems. Until the people with the power decide they don't want it anymore, I don't really see the reason to give them more.

Look how shitty things are now with regulation. Do you know what the free market without any kind of regulation is? It's called the Great Depression.

I feel like you're exaggerating for effect here - the actors are assumed to act rationally within the context of the market.

Completely irrelevant. (Or, to oversimplify - it doesn't.)

This isn't the assumption at all. The assumption is that workers would necessarily benefit from a competitive, efficient market because they are necessary players and contribute directly to the employer's bottom line.

It's insane to suggest that employers would slash everything across the board with no outcry or consequence - would you patronize such a place? I most likely wouldn't. It's the Whole Foods concept taken to a grander scale.

I think you're confusing topics here, or you're possibly misusing "market" in this sense - this isn't about the stock market, or even one select type of business. Not at all.

You're creating a series of false dilemmas. The only two options aren't "no regulation" or "current levels of regulation" - and deregulation doesn't mean elimination of all fail-safes. Just like azgz pointed out, many types of market regulations cause market inefficiencies. Who pays for those inefficiencies? It's not rich people, in general.

It might seem counterintuitive for you to read these things, but that doesn't make them wrong - history is littered with well-meaning but ultimately counter-productive policies. It's all well and good to say that "minimum wages automatically protect workers" but that statement isn't simply correct on its face - we need to make sure it is actually true in all situations. EW is saying that minimum wage laws protect workers who already have jobs at the expense of those who don't - that could very well be literally more correct than the former.

If it is, then it's part of the unemployment (and thus poverty) problem, and not part of the solution. Much like saying "employers always pay the least" (which is blatantly and demonstrably false), it sounds correct to say "minimum wages are good for workers" but that doesn't make it true.

Not a student of history I see.

The Great Depression was caused mostly by the influence of government in the monetary/banking system (which, incidentally, is also what got us out) as well as government involvement in the market (the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff act is most notably the case here).

Unsurprisingly, the current recession we're in was mostly caused by government meddling with the monetary/banking system as well as the governments close ties with corporations which created multiple moral hazards.

Both statements are false.

From a 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Of the 2.7 percent of all hourly paid workers are at the minimum wage.

And at least a quarter of the 2.7 percent are likely living with their parents.

I believe it shows a willingness to pay more than the minimum wage while hourly. The minimum wage affects a very small amount of Americans. Furthermore, it benefits corporations to pay more than the minimum wage because it increases retention (thus reducing turnover and greater costs) and ideally produces more apt workers.

And what evidence have you seen of that? And which problems exactly?

LOL. You are educated enough to understand generalization language when you read it. I only use "some" and "many" when I'm talking around people who may miss the overall point because they are focused on the fact that I didn't use "some" and "many." I'm sure you know that Elephant Walk isn't clueless enough to believe that ALL Blacks are underpaid (although Blacks tend to be underpaid in almost all professions in relation to their white counterparts) and ALL Blacks are accustomed to being underpaid.

The average person who is underpaid is unable or barely able to buy the necessities. That's the point of this entire discussion. Many people can pay their bills but they don't have anything in the bank after they do that. Being poor is not just about being unable to pay the bills.

My discussion more relates to not any sort of "race-conscious" or anything as such, but more to statistical averages being that Blacks are generally less educated, generally more unemployed, and generally disadvantaged in other senses which gives them a cost-advantage. Clearly not every Black person is underpaid and many are overpaid (see: the person in the White House), but speaking in generalities and statistical averages.