More Americans Die of Poverty than Terrorism

[Drolefille]

Wait, so because a minimum wage doesn't let a racist employer pay black people less, it's the law that's the problem?

How would the alternative, hiring only minorities and paying them less than white people be any better? And the origin of minimum wage dates before civil rights, the odds that minority unemployment was being adequately counted and that the wars didn't have a huge impact seems unlikely. How would this not bring back sweatshops?

Why is the assumption that the employer would eventually pay the worker better? Why not fire the employee and hire someone else at a cheaper wage if they caused a fuss.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Tulip86

I feel minimum wage does in a way prevent companies to take abuse of those who have no other options than to take the "minimum wage" jobs. If there was no lower limit, they would just pay whatever they wanted to pay. Off course there are companies who do pay their employees well and treat them with respect, but for most, it's profits before people.

Obviously, companies are concerned about the bottom line. I think that the "high end" (for lack of a better term) jobs seem to realize the importance of work-life balance and employee retention more than "low end" ones do. This doesn't have anything to do with minimum wage, though.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And the origin of minimum wage dates before civil rights, the odds that minority unemployment was being adequately counted and that the wars didn't have a huge impact seems unlikely.

I was questioning that as well.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Wait, so because a minimum wage doesn't let a racist employer pay black people less, it's the law that's the problem?

When it doesn't allow them to pay less, that means they're unemployed.

Unemployment is the problem as it further marginalizes minorities by making it difficult to acquire workplace skills as well as drops their income to zero.

How would the alternative, hiring only minorities and paying them less than white people be any better?

Give them the ability to be unemployed, while gaining on the job experience and also possibly overcoming racism through interaction (ideally).

And the origin of minimum wage dates before civil rights, the odds that minority unemployment was being adequately counted and that the wars didn't have a huge impact seems unlikely.

Possibly. But the mountains of recent evidence at least points to current time. Whether or not it has historically happened, doesn't really matter if the correlation is there now. Especially the ones where the increase in minimum wage increases minority unemployment, which shows correlation nearly every time.

Here's an example article:
http://epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=180

The author found that for every 10% increase in the minimum wage:
• Minority unemployment increased by 3.9%
• Hispanic unemployment increased by 4.9%
• Minority teen unemployment increased 6.6%
• African American teen unemployment increased by 8.4%
• Low-skilled unemployment (i.e., those lacking a high school diploma) increased by 8%

But there are alot more. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for y'all. While economics can't be absolutely established because of the human element that lies within, these theories are as close to it as possible.

How would this not bring back sweatshops?

If workers are interested in working in sweatshops, how is that a bad thing?

Why is the assumption that the employer would eventually pay the worker better? Why not fire the employee and hire someone else at a cheaper wage if they caused a fuss.

So what?

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I am not getting this point, though. Minimum wage in and of itself doesn't act as a barrier -- it's actions like the one in the previously quoted section. Hiring someone on at minimum wage does not prevent that person from gaining experience and moving up within the company.

How does minimum wage not act as a barrier? If someone has absolutely no experience doing something, one could theoretically (without minimum wage) be hired for two or three dollars in order to gain experience needed. But, when minimum wage exists, this person would not be hired in order to gain said experience.

And another reference to racism is that within the unions. Many unions were established in South Africa to establish wage floors which kept out blacks. While I'm not saying that all unions act as such today, it is an easily understood example of the power of a wage floor in maintaining economic power status quo.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

How does minimum wage not act as a barrier? If someone has absolutely no experience doing something, one could theoretically (without minimum wage) be hired for two or three dollars in order to gain experience needed. But, when minimum wage exists, this person would not be hired in order to gain said experience.

What is stopping someone who has no experience from being hired at minimum wage*? Almost all minimum wage jobs are entry level, so I'm not getting this argument.

*Think of this in "pre-recession" terms, as the state of the economy has obviously changed things.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

What is stopping someone who has no experience from being hired at minimum wage*? Almost all minimum wage jobs are entry level, so I'm not getting this argument.

I don't know....tell me what the unemployment rate is again?

So you're saying that there is absolutely no one looking for a job at the entry-level...

You're looking at it from a minimum wage prospective. Look at our unemployment rates. It's clear that something IS stopping someone with "no experience" to gain an entry-level job. What do you think that something is?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I don't know....tell me what the unemployment rate is again?

So you're saying that there is absolutely no one looking for a job at the entry-level...

You're looking at it from a minimum wage prospective. Look at our unemployment rates. It's clear that something IS stopping someone with "no experience" to gain an entry-level job. What do you think that something is?

Isn't minimum wage the topic being discussed?

And when did I say that people aren't looking for entry level jobs?

I'm reading your argument as "if companies can't hire you for pennies, they won't hire you at all." This doesn't makes sense, since minimum wage existed pre-recession when our unemployment rate was much lower.

ETA: I think the thing that's stopping people from getting job is the influx of job seekers. People who are used to making well above minimum wage are scrambling trying to get minimum wage jobs, but the applicant pools have swelled. This is not an effect of minimum wage in and of itself.

If companies could pay, say, $3/hour to applicants, that doesn't mean that they'd hire more people. That just means they'd be getting cheap labor. That wouldn't have a massive effect on unemployment.

[Drolefille]

^^I should edit that to say "in America." New Zealand had minimum wage long before we did for example.

[Drolefille]

I think the assumption that employers will hire more people at lower wages instead of the same number of people at lower wages is an optimistic one on behalf of anti-minimum wage proponents.

EW if you're anti-minimum wage and anti-TANF and other welfare/entitlements... what are you going to do with someone who now might be working but doesn't make enough to eat? Or feed their kid? Or pay rent?

I highly recommend Morgan Spurlock's Minimum Wage episode of 30 days. As it is, a couple working on minimum wage can hardly support themselves assuming nothing bad happens. Then comes the ER bill for an infection or injury.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

EW if you're anti-minimum wage and anti-TANF and other welfare/entitlements... what are you going to do with someone who now might be working but doesn't make enough to eat? Or feed their kid? Or pay rent?

As he's pretty much a libertarian, I imagine he'd say that's not the government's problem.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As he's pretty much a libertarian, I imagine he'd say that's not the government's problem.

Well that's why I was asking, so we let people starve? Kids starve? Bring back workhouses and mass orphanages? Debtor's prison? I don't get it. At all.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Well that's why I was asking, so we let people starve? Kids starve? Bring back workhouses and mass orphanages? Debtor's prison? I don't get it. At all.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

[agzg]

From a strictly economic perspective, artificial price ceilings and floors creates a dead weight loss in any market, even a labor market.

Not that I don't support a minimum wage. It just makes the market less efficient.

[KSig RC]

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.

[Drolefille]

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.