(January 30, 2014 at 12:08 pm)No_God Wrote: I feel that no matter who you are, or what your mental/physical capabilities or disabilities are, if you work in the United States, you are qualified for minimum wage. PERIOD.

Only if what you do should count as work. Something should only count as work if it generates revenue greater than your pay.

---

(January 30, 2014 at 12:27 pm)Chad32 Wrote: People working full time at a job shouldn't also have to rely on government funds just to pay the bills. Minimum wage should go up. It tends to make the economy better because workers are putting more back into the economy. Government funding for basic needs should be a temporary thing. Not standard.

Why would a business fund the minimum wage if the additional revenue rate generated by the minimum wage worker is less than the minimum wage itself? What possible justification could the business have for hiring such a worker? If the business will not hiring, who is going to fund this scheme other than the government?

(January 31, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Chuck Wrote: Why would a business fund the minimum wage if the additional revenue rate generated by the minimum wage worker is less than the minimum wage itself? What possible justification could the business have for hiring such a worker? If the business will not hiring, who is going to fund this scheme other than the government?

The workers will need to work hard enough to make it, but an economy can't thrive if people aren't giving back to the government more than the government is putting in. If they can't live without government aid, even with a full time job, then they aren't giving back more than they put in.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(January 31, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Chuck Wrote: Why would a business fund the minimum wage if the additional revenue rate generated by the minimum wage worker is less than the minimum wage itself? What possible justification could the business have for hiring such a worker? If the business will not hiring, who is going to fund this scheme other than the government?

The workers will need to work hard enough to make it, but an economy can't thrive if people aren't giving back to the government more than the government is putting in. If they can't live without government aid, even with a full time job, then they aren't giving back more than they put in.

So back to the mentally disabled, if they can't rely on either the government, because they are incapable of giving back more than what the government must put in just to keep them alive, and they have no family, we should let them die?

At a certain point, one must recognize there are intangible but real social value to basic assurance of survival for its citizens. These social values are conducive to a government carrying out its implied mission of engendering social stability and minimizing certain fundamental friction in the society, and therefore the government should be willing to pay for it, and people who live under the government should be willing to fund the government so the government can pay for it.

We shouldn't make an exception for the minimum wage for disabled people. If they can work, there should be something they can do that would be worth it. If they can't then they can get funding. Just because some people are like that doesn't mean we should abolish minimum wages.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Chad32 Wrote: We shouldn't make an exception for the minimum wage for disabled people. If they can work, there should be something they can do that would be worth it. If they can't then they can get funding. Just because some people are like that doesn't mean we should abolish minimum wages.

I think minimum wage is the wrong idea. The business should pay the worker the minimum of what his work is worth to the business and how much the business might have to pay to hire someone else to do the same work.

If you add $10 an hour to the business's revenue, but there are 10 other people similarly qualified as you and willing to take the job for $8 an hour, it is obviously unreasonable for the business to pay you $10. If no one else is willing to take the job, the business obviously would be willing to pay up to $9.99 for your services.

If you take the take the job for $8, but it takes $10 to not starve to death or suffer some other generally agreed level of intolerability, then the government, in the interest of social stability, should make up a fix portion of the $2 difference to you out of general tax revenue, since the benefit of keeping you from agitating for the overthrow of established social order is diffuse and benefits everyone.

The government should not pay the entire $2 difference, because if it did so, then it becomes indifferent to you whether the business paid you $8 or $6, because the government would make up any difference. This encourages you to collaborate with the business to offload the burden of your salary to the government. So the government ought to pay for only a portion of the difference, to encourage your not to form a sort of wage cartel with your business at the expense of the government..

The government should have an idea how much it costs to enable someone to survive and not agitate for social instability, and should make up the difference between that and what the worker can get paid.

The government also ought to understand that how much various qualifications are worth on the job market, for example for running something of a clearing house for available job openings at private businesses and the pay being offered, so it has basis to estimate what the size of that difference should be.

(January 31, 2014 at 5:15 pm)Chuck Wrote: If you take the take the job for $8, but it takes $10 to not starve to death or suffer some other generally agreed level of intolerability, then the government, in the interest of social stability, should make up a fix portion of the $2 difference to you out of general tax revenue, since the benefit of keeping you from agitating for the overthrow of established social order is diffuse and benefits everyone.

I would agree to this with the provision that the revenue comes from increased taxes on corporations and business owners, since they are the ones responsible for the depressed wages. It shouldn't be up to working people like us to subsidize an employer's desire to be cheap with their labor.

(January 31, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I would agree to this with the provision that the revenue comes from increased taxes on corporations and business owners, since they are the ones responsible for the depressed wages. It shouldn't be up to working people like us to subsidize an employer's desire to be cheap with their labor.

They have no duty to pay more than what the market will bear. You are depressing what the market will bear when you take a job offer for less than what you think your services are worth.

So it should be up to both the employers and you to subsidize the effect of depressed wages eventhough employers seem to benefit while you seem to suffer, because in the end you both really did each contributed your share to wage depression.

(January 31, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(January 31, 2014 at 6:58 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I would agree to this with the provision that the revenue comes from increased taxes on corporations and business owners, since they are the ones responsible for the depressed wages. It shouldn't be up to working people like us to subsidize an employer's desire to be cheap with their labor.

They have no duty to pay more than what the market will bear. You are depressing what the market will bear when you take a job offer for less than what you think your services are worth.

So it should be up to both the employers and you to subsidize the effect of depressed wages eventhough employers seem to benefit while you seem to suffer, because in the end you both really did each contributed your share to wage depression.

A lot of people accept underpaying jobs because the alternative is not having basic necessities. That's not even close to fair. It's tantamount to punishing poor people for being poor while rewarding employers for actively contributing to their poverty.

(January 31, 2014 at 7:38 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 31, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Chuck Wrote: They have no duty to pay more than what the market will bear. You are depressing what the market will bear when you take a job offer for less than what you think your services are worth.

So it should be up to both the employers and you to subsidize the effect of depressed wages eventhough employers seem to benefit while you seem to suffer, because in the end you both really did each contributed your share to wage depression.

A lot of people accept underpaying jobs because the alternative is not having basic necessities. That's not even close to fair. It's tantamount to punishing poor people for being poor while rewarding employers for actively contributing to their poverty.

Not quite. An employer who pays more for his workers then he needs to puts himself at disadvantage next to another who would not. Therefore the generous employer is more likely to go out of business. Leaving you with only nasty mean scrouges to choose from.

---

(January 31, 2014 at 7:38 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 31, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Chuck Wrote: They have no duty to pay more than what the market will bear. You are depressing what the market will bear when you take a job offer for less than what you think your services are worth.

So it should be up to both the employers and you to subsidize the effect of depressed wages eventhough employers seem to benefit while you seem to suffer, because in the end you both really did each contributed your share to wage depression.

A lot of people accept underpaying jobs because the alternative is not having basic necessities. That's not even close to fair. It's tantamount to punishing poor people for being poor while rewarding employers for actively contributing to their poverty.

Not quite. An employer who pays more for his workers then he needs to puts himself at disadvantage next to another who would not. Therefore the generous employer is more likely to go out of business. Leaving you with only nasty mean scrouges to choose from.

An employer who pays employees more is also more able to be choosy about who they hire, and can also expect employees to be more motivated and better at their jobs, ultimately having a positive impact on their business.

Labor is only one expense among many for employers. Income from a job is often, literally, everything an employee relies upon for the entirety of their sustenance.