Any other centrist atheists?

[Ryantology]

...I never said it was. Food just happens to be something which does not come as naturally to us as other things. It is easier to buy food and live under a bridge than it is to buy/rent a home and catch / grow your own food. Hence, in the list of things that I find "necessary", food is right there at the top.

I don't think having food does one much good if you'll freeze to death in cold months, unless you're lucky enough to live where it never gets cold. Of course, that leads to its own problems.

I'm not sure about what the state of taxes is in the US, but in the UK nobody earning minimum wage is taxed, ergo it is a handout.

1. Minimum wage earners still pay income taxes in the US.
2. Not being taxed is a handout? Do I extrapolate that into tax cuts being handouts?

1) If an employer wants to keep its current workforce, it would have to start making more money to make up the loss of hiring people at the new rate, hence prices go up, and when they go up somewhere, they usually go up somewhere else, and somewhere else, etc. So, now everything costs more money...and we're back to people not having enough money for stuff.

Many large businesses would need to do no such thing. They would do it, because paying millions in bonuses to CEOs is more important than paying people at the bottom enough for them to eat and afford shelter. And, a significant portion of small businesses have so few employees that the impact would be manageable.

Would some small businesses go under? Sure. But, so what? If you can't afford to pay your employees adequately, you shouldn't be running a business in the first place.

2) Alternatively, if the employer decides that $20 is ridiculous to pay, and doesn't want to affect customers by upping the price of goods, they can make a large number of their workforce redundant and increase the amount of work the people left over have to do. This creates a number of unemployed people on welfare, whilst also making a harsher work environment for those who are left in a job.

The problem with that is, many of the low-paying jobs in this country can't be outsourced. If the companies existing shrink, others will take the opportunity to rise and fill the gap. Introducing a minimum wage did not end the world, nor has raising it ever done so. Parasitic businesses will fall, new ones, accustomed to the new way things are done, will rise to replace them. Paying employees more does not crush the entrepreneurial spirit except in exploitative employers, and who wants them around?

Again, you recognize that companies do it, and they do it for PR, but then for some reason decide that if the minimum wage wasn't set, this would simply stop, and companies would now just pay pennies...and on top of that, you think people would actually accept this? Would you?

Yes, they would stop. Because while Wal-Mart would get some negative PR for slashing its wages, that would cease to matter as much once their competitors followed suit. Everyone else is doing it, so why is it wrong when we do?

We live in a society where being employed, even if it's in a shit job, is vital for certain things, so yes, a lot of people would accept it. What choice would they have?

Can you verify this? If you really know it for certain I mean...

No, I can't. This is what I've heard my bosses say. I have no reason to suspect that they made it up.

Look, it might work like this under the current system, but that is only because minimum wage is in effect. When corporatism is ended, and the market is actually run by consumers (as it always should have been), then things are a different ballpark. When corporations simply cannot afford to piss off their customers or employees, any company that tries to set wages to unacceptable levels is going to fail, and fail fast.

And how do you propose to end corporatism? How can the free market dissolve corporatism? How can consumers actually do anything about it, when so many rely on huge corporations for so many things?

Also, I'm in favour of enforcing contract law. That is, if a company agrees your salary in a contract, they can't alter it unless both parties agree and sign a new contract.

Who would enforce it?

See above. When laws protect corporations rather than consumers or employees, corporations can do whatever the hell they like. I'm not saying we should get rid of the minimum wage in the current system; I'm arguing for an overhaul of the system itself.

When the 'free market' replaces government, the winners in free market will become government. What makes you think they'll not go corporate the moment the opportunity appears, and who could possibly stop them once they do?

...and the great thing about large corporations is that they can always have vacancies, because they are always growing, and they obey the supply/demand of the market. If a large number of employees become available, especially if they come from a competitor, hiring those employees is going to give you a considerable boost in the market, both economically and from a public relations standpoint.

If Wal-Mart went under, how many retailers could absorb two million + employees? How many would want to? Could all of them, combined, do that?

One major problem with Wal-Mart, in particular, is that Wal-Mart has significant rural presence. In many smaller towns, Wal-Mart is all there is for miles around. If they decided to slash wages, many employees at rural stores would be absolutely fucked, while the stores will persist because there are no other legitimate choices for locals in terms of shopping. Where else could they go?

Probably because you assume capitalism is similar to corporatism, where companies hold all the power. This is not the case.

Probably because I am not idealistic enough to ever believe that the free market would never transform into a unrestrained corporatist hellhole. I do not trust the free market to police itself. A self-policing free market sounds every bit as much fantasy to me as the old utopias of communism a century ago.