If someone is willing to work under the minimum wage, should they?

[dubeskin]

Yesterday I was having a pretty good conversation about minimum wage with my economics teacher, and he brought up a good point that I don't know how to answer.

Say there's a theater operator. He wants to hire someone to walk people to their seats and show direct them through the theater. He doesn't want to pay them the $7 minimum wage, but has two or three people who would be willing to do the job for $5, which is under the minimum wage. Now, assuming it's illegal to pay underneath $7 per hour, why shouldn't he be able to hire those people who are willing to work under it?

[glowing]

1. Because its illegal.

[dubeskin]

7. I realize that

But just assuming the situation, why not allow the workers to if they are willing?

[Donnachaidh]

50. We've found an economics teacher willing to work at your school for 10K and no benefits

Ask your teacher if he's willing to work for LESS than that in order to keep HIS job.

Arguments go both ways dude.

[dubeskin]

52. I'll throw that at him next time I see him

[Donnachaidh]

59. please do -- and post HIS reactions.

What's good for the goose, etc. etc.

Is he using Friedman's World is Flat as a text? My son had to deal with this crap last year, and he drove the teacher mad with his counter arguments. :evilgrin:

[dubeskin]

63. Na, we're using an actual textbook

Surprisingly I haven't heard that name uttered yet...although it won't be too long I bet.

[Donnachaidh]

68. do you have a bibliography in the back of the text?

If it's fairly new you can bet your boots Friedman is referenced.

[dubeskin]

70. I just looked and I don't see his name

Although he referenced on page 840, besides that there's no mention of him in the acknowledgments or anywhere else.

[Bandit]

87. What does minimum mean to you?

Business can always find someone that will work for less. It is called the lowest common denominator and once we allow them to get started down that path all wages will come down. To promote fairness and to develope a middle class we have laws to aid the worker and maintain a fair wage and should even be a living wage..

[TahitiNut]

71. NOT illegal in some circumstances.

The Federal Minimum Wage is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which does NOT apply to many classes of employee. Family members, for example, aren't covered. Thus, the theater owner could employ his children or his brother to do the job. Workers with disabilities can be paid less than minimum wage.

Generally speaking, only employers in businesses engaged in interstate commerce and having gross receipts in excess of $500,000 per year are covered. In MANY states, however, the state itself has labor standards that match or exceed (more comprehensive) the Federal standards.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/

[HEyHEY]

2. First, tell your economics teacher to go fuck himself

Why shouldn't he? Cause then it sets a standard and the poorer classes get exploited some more and the quality of life declines even more. Tell your economics teacher he's a money whoring fuckhead who's into class slavery.

ANd he should know better, this is BASIC economics there's something called buying power... if everyone is making five bucks an hour how the fuck are they supposed to buy shit to keep the economy going? Oh, I know CRIME!

[PeaceNikki]

8. .

:thumbsup:

[tosh]

11. ..

:thumbsup:

[dubeskin]

15. Probably wouldn't be appropriate at a high school

However, in this scenario, let's say that's the best job that that worker can find, and the employer is willing to pay $5. Why would it be necessarily a bad thing if both parties agree? And isn't a low-wage job better than no job?

[PeaceNikki]

17. The theater owner should pony up the minimum

In your scenario, he doesn't "want to". That's bullshit.

[HEyHEY]

Yeah, I don't "want to" pay for clothes anymore, so what's wrong with me stealing them?

[HEyHEY]

18. Oh my god, they're getting into your brain. Give your head a shake, you're talking like a con

YES it would be a bad thing, because that employer is now exploiting someone's desperate situation to save a few bucks. And everything else I said still applies, it sets a standard and that standard is bad for everyone.

[dubeskin]

40. That's why I'm seriously considering dropping the class

Because I fear the more I sit in it, the stupider I'm getting, although it is somewhat helpful to study the other side of things...sometimes...

[HEyHEY]

45. Not only quit, report this to the administration

NO teacher should be advocating breaking the law OR peddling his personal politics on students.

[dubeskin]

54. Unfortunately it's Placer County

Pretty much one of the most conservative counties on California aside from the OC.

I can't imagine too many people would care honestly.

[Donnachaidh]

42. go to dictionary.com and look up ILLEGAL.

sheesh...

[psychmommy]

72. but isn't this the problem with illegal workers coming in and

taking low wage jobs. the problem with outsourcing our it jobs and manufacturing jobs. on a large scale it has ruined our economy. it has broken the back of our middle class.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Hell Yeah!

:applause:

[terrya]

85. .

:thumbsup:

[angstlessk]

3. it works so well for all those poor folks in China, why not here?

no need for neighborhood restrictions on shacks built out of cardboard and tar..hell, just create slave villages where one can life in a tarpaper shack and make just enough to get some plants to keep from starving to death...why not?

[dubeskin]

10. I mentioned something like this

And he brought up the fact that
1) people are willing to work at those wages, but they are also able to survive.
2) if that's the only job they can get, isn't it better than nothing?

[angstlessk]

23. ask your teacher if s/he truly wants to live in a dog eat dog world

where only the strongest survive...if survival is the ONLY test for what is paid to anyone!

[pitohui]

25. they aren't the only two people on the planet

the harm done because of the downward pressure on wages, and the resulting destruction of society as a whole because the worker can't earn a wage that supports a family, trumps one drunk's or one scab's willingness to be exploited

if i agree to be your slave because i have no hope otherwise to eat...why shouldn't i be your slave?

obviously because more and more women would then be put in the same downward spiral of being forced to agree to be someone's slave

[truedelphi]

30. The other thing to consider

I am talking economics here - not morality

The person who makes $ 7 an hour at a theatre may well BE TAXED on that amount.

If they work forty or more hours a week.

They also have to pay Social Security - 7 percent plus out of their wages.

So the person who works under the table is making just about the same amount. Now if that individual is on disability, or if they are on unemployment, if they are on AFDC, etc they are better off than ever - they have job earnings, untaxed, and they have tax payer paid bennies besides.

The theatre operator also no longer has the headache of paying the city its cut of taxes, the state, the unemployment and worker's comp, etc

When you are in the REAL WORLD, you realize that this bleeding hearts theory of how AWFUL it is for people to be forced to work under the table doesn't always make sense.


That in fact, it might be the under the table worker who is making out quite well.

$ 5 an hour UNTAXED may be almost as much as $ 7 an hour that is taxed. And the side benfits are immense.

[EstimatedProphet]

83. Yeah, all those illegals are getting rich because of the minimum wage law.

[csziggy]

84. Economics - maybe the worker paid under the table would be slightly better off in the short run

But if he (or she) does not get health care, when they get sick they not only are not earning the $5 an hour, they have no way to pay bills - as many legal workers find these days. If they are injured on the job, tough luck - you think an employer who is not interested in paying the legal wage will pay workman's compensation for care of that illegal worker even if the injury is his fault?

Say the worker works for this sub-minimum wage for 20 years, then wants to retire - sorry, no retirement since nothing was paid into Social Security. Maybe there is a fire in the theater - the worker is laid off. No unemployment so the worker is SOL.

And your statement that the worker might be on one of those programs already is a trap - if paying under the table is better for the employer and the worker, then why do those programs exist? Why should any employer provide them? Why not just everyone get paid cash for time at work and save the costs of those social safety nets?

Sorry, your claim that the under the table worker is better off than the legal worker might be true for a percentage of the population. But the reason our society - and most of the more prosperous industrial societies - has all those social programs is so that the workers do not end up destitute and homeless. And it is better for society as a whole to have programs that protect most of the population from that fate.

This is not just a moral decision - it is an economic decision on both a personal and a societal level.

[truedelphi]

92. One of the people I knew who was working under the table

Was a roommate who up and disappeared in the middle of the night.

I had wondered while he lived in my household why he worked under the table for what was rather little - he was very bright, seemed totally honest, was a delight to be around etc.

However, after he left, I found out from his friends that he had a marijuana conviction on his record and had served prison time. The way the charges against him had read - you would have thought he was a bigwig Columbian cocaine drug lord. Since he had refused to rat out any one else, he served far too long in jail for a rather ordinary non-violent marijuana offense.

He left in the middle of the night because of paranoia. Due to not obeying all the conditions of his parole, he had outstanding warrants against him - and when he saw me talking to cops earlier that day (I was afraid that these people in a grey Toyota who I believe were stealing my mail and that of other people on our street) he became panic-y.

Unfortunately, he thought I was turning him in.

I had known nothing of his past life until AFTER he left. I certainly understand his paranoia though, and certainly understand that he wanted to avoid spending another three or four years in prison. I will always feel bad that when he asked me why the police were over, and I saw that he didn't accept my explanation, that I didn't spend time probing deeper. It was a shame that he had to go even further underground - all because of a rather innocent conversation I had had with the police.

In this case, the underground economy did help keep him alive for at tleast the time I knew him. No other employers wanted him - not with those types of charges on his record.

[Incitatus]

39. So your teacher would he happy if America turned into China?

[lisa58]

4. Well, if a mortgage broker gets paid by the mortgages he/she sells...

...approves mortgages for people who cannot afford them for his/her own benefit - should he/she?

[angstlessk]

6. hell yeah, why have laws at all, lets all just get us some six shooters

and live by the seat of our pants and sixguns!!

[lisa58]

19. Yee Haaa - the good old days!

[nini]

5. because it's against the law

- a law that protect a worker's wages. If employers start ignoring the law we'll all be having to settle for slave wages.

[Incitatus]

9. Why stop there?

Maybe he can find a homeless person who would work all day for a sandwich. Then the theater owner can spend an extra week in Hawaii on his next vacation. We have minimum wage laws for a reason.

[droidamus2]

12. No way

Okay I don't claim to be an expert on all the implications of the minimum wage but here's my take. The minimum wage is set up to protect all workers and make sure they receive reasonable pay for a days work. If it was left strictly up to the employers of course they would like to pay $2.00/hr or less for labor but who could live on that. Any laborer who would accept less than minimum wage is just undercutting all laborers. This is why NAFTA was such a bad idea and resulted in jobs moving overseas to lower wage countries. So the idea is if that theater owner believes that having ushers in his theater will bring in enough business to make it worth his while then he is obligated to pay the established minimum wage no matter if he can find some idiot that will work for less. Yes this means that some people that are 'willing to work' won't get a job but in the battle between management and labor that is the side effect of trying to guarantee a livable wage.

[dubeskin]

21. On the livable wage

My teacher then brought up the fact that there are homeless people who still "survive" on essentially nothing, just eating scraps from the ground. While this sounds VERY wrong, it is a logical point, and while no one should be homeless, the fact I think is that they DO survive.

[pitohui]

35. your teacher is mentally ill, i hope you know that

don't engage with idiots, just be polite, humor him, and realize that everyone who wears the mask of "teacher" is not automatically a smart or good or decent person

guess what, homeless people DON'T survive, their life expectancy is in their 50s, your fat-ass teacher's is his 80s, that isn't called surviving, i'm pretty sure that's called DYING

and this on just another day when we received just another report of a homeless man being burned alive in california!

your teacher is a fool but as he is in a position of power, you can't argue with him, just avoid him and don't expect fools to make sense

you can't teach a pig to whistle...

i invite you to live off "scraps from the ground" for just one week, you can't, i know some homeless guys and none of them live off "scraps from the ground" because there aren't enough calories to support life there -- this fool has no idea what he's talking about

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. wtf?

:wtf: Your *teacher* is a callous idiot!

[XemaSab]

46. Yeah, and these homeless people are HOMELESS

Ideally, a job should pay enough for people to have a roof over their head and enough food... MINIMUM.

For a business owner to argue that a dollar an hour is MORE than enough to eat on for 10 hours work... defies sleazy.

Ask the dude what times were like when teachers basically worked for room and board, and if he wants to go back to a system like that.

[HEyHEY]

13. What school is this? Where did this "teacher" get his economics education?

[dubeskin]

24. Whitney High School

http://whs.rocklin.k12.ca.us/

I don't have a clue where he got his degree. Several colleges I believe, although I can't remember the three.

[PeaceNikki]

29. And this guy advocates breaking the law?

:wtf:

[HEyHEY]

32. Are they all at the mall? fuck.

[insleeforprez]

99. I'm going to defend this guy.

The standard assumption in economics, if you assume a competitive market for buyers and sellers (an assumption that is NOT always true, nor is it always assumed), is that any transaction that occurs is a good thing. This is because at least one of the parties would refuse to enter into this transaction if it weren't beneficial to them. I.e., you wouldn't buy a product if you valued the cash to spend it more than the utility of its use. As such, the minimum wage reduces transactions, and is a bad thing.

Of course, the reality of the world is not a competitive market. If the buyer of labor (i.e. the employer) has market power, than this analysis breaks down, and a minimum wage makes perfect sense. These conclusions also break down if there is a restriction of movement (i.e., you can't change jobs on a dime). Also, playing devil's advocate... if we assume a competitive market again, unions are a bad thing (because it gives one side monopoly power).

But as for teaching high school economics, he's absolutely right.

[msongs]

14. wanna bet there are economics teachers willing to work for less than YOURs?? nt

[dubeskin]

27. And I got into that point as well

In that event, he introduced the idea of "accepting that lower wage because someone is willing to work for less."

Granted, those same incentives don't exist for wanting to work as hard. Although, there would still be someone who WOULD.

[pitohui]

16. for the greater good of society people have to be able to earn a living wage

in a society where people are allowed to bid down the hourly wage, eventually it isn't possible to live w.out committing some fraud or crime (if only not paying your bills or ripping off your friends and relatives and moving forward to the very common but extreme case of getting involved in gangster life and selling drugs) just to survive, and we have the society we have today, where kids see that getting an education gets you a job where you still can't pay your bills and your college debt, so you might as well cut to the chase and be a drug dealer to begin with

come on dude, some common sense here

there will always be a scab willing to work for nothing and live 17 people to one trailer, if you allow employers to pay the minimum they can get away with, there is no chance of a decent life for working people

if there is no chance of a decent life thru work and being honest, then there is going to be violent crime because, well, if the reward for decency is unending misery then there is no point to being decent

ever heard of the 19th century??????


besides the obvious fact that if something is ILLEGAL, then we've already agreed as a society that he doesn't have the right to do it -- is your prof too stupid to know what ILLEGAL means?

[angrycarpenter]

20. I don't want to pay 4 dollars for a gallon of gas

Shouldn't I be able to pay 1 dollar if I want? Things cost money. People have no control over what goods cost. Why would the services of an employee be any different? Minimum wage is one of those things that free marketeers hate. But it the thing that keeps our cities from looking like mexico city, surrounded by hovels built by squatters.

[izquierdista]

22. Say there is an economics student

And he wants to hire a teacher to tutor him in the principles of economics. He doesn't want to pay the college educated American teacher the $7 minimum wage, but there are two or three Indians who will video-tutor him over the Internet for $5, which is under the minimum wage. Now, assuming it is illegal to pay underneath $7 per hour, why shouldn't he be able to tell his American economics teacher to go fuck himself?

[dubeskin]

37. Because that student would be expelled

But I guess it all comes down to what YOU think would get the best value: the better education at a higher price, or (assuming) a poorer education at a lower price.

[HEyHEY]

43. Wait, so this fucker can spew his personal politcal views on young minds and it's okay

But those young minds can't tell him to go fuck himself?

[dubeskin]

49. Well, it's economics

It's sort of the nature of the entire class to be very conservative.

But this was after class, and seeing as how I'm pretty politically active already, it was almost like talking to someone about politics in the street...I just happened to know the guy.

[Donnachaidh]

53. it's flat-earthiness - Friedman economics at it's WORST.

This is what is being fed to our kids today. :eyes:

[dubeskin]

58. Let me rephrase it - It's AP MICROeconomics

[Donnachaidh]

62. using Friedman's model for arguments such as this.

My kid went through a similar AP class. And he countered everything that was thrown out with progressive aruments. He also passed the tests, so the teacher couldn't retaliate.

Friedman should not be used in the schools.

[izquierdista]

61. Are you sure of that?

We know that the American is paid more to teach economics, but does that mean his teaching is worth more? He can be outsourced as easily as anyone else, and that is the point -- the minimum wage is the minimum compensation you can give a fellow citizen for his labors. Anything less, and you exploit your fellow citizen by giving your money to someone who will settle for less.

[Donnachaidh]

64. why be rude? I think it would be far more of a blow to hear exactly WHY

the teacher had been turned down, using the same economic principle the teacher is advocating.

These folks don't 'see' the other side of the argument until it touches them personally. So be nice, spell it out EXACTLY, and then add -- "Well, YOU were the one who said it was OKAY to hire someone for less than minimum wage -- I'm only doing what you were saying." And say that with a big ole cheesy grin. :evilgrin"

[Donnachaidh]

28. this is the same type of argument that got us into this shithole economy in the FIRST place

First and foremost -- it's ILLEGAL.

What's that 'theater operator' going to do if these people get injured on the job? I'll bet he's even considered not putting the paperwork in to get them covered by Worker's Comp. Do you "think" the lawyers they hire will be thinking about his crappy little *economizing* measures? Do you think his insurance is going to cover his cheap ass in a LAWSUIT when he's been doing illegal hirings?

Has he looked into the possibility of FINES if he gets caught?

Do you think the newspapers won't have a freaking FIELD DAY with exposing the FACT that this moron wanted to illegally hire people for less than minimum wage?

If he cannot afford to pay minimum wage, he's a lousy businessman and deserves to lose his business. I'll bet a quick look at his books will show that he doesn't shortchange HIMSELF on a salary. And he certainly doesn't deserve the patrons he'll lose for his moment of looking out for his own wallet.

[gollygee]

31. Obviously everyone will choose $5 over starving

And if that choice is available, that will be the only choice.

[gravity]

33. It's exploitation of the workers

The problem is that the theater operator is in a position of power, and the workers aren't. If the workers are able to collective bargain, then it would be fair if both them and the theater owner are able to reach an agreement. In the real world this isn't the case.

[El Fuego]

34. Why shouldn't he be able to raid neighboring villages and kidnap people to use as slaves?

There's always a more ruthless, more profitable way to do things and enrich yourself at the workers' expense. In a civilized society, lines are drawn, which in this case is the minimum wage law.

[XemaSab]

55. With the cost of gas?

Kidnapping slaves just doesn't pencil out like it used to. x(

[Donnachaidh]

36. lemmee guess - your economics teacher is a flat-earther.

You should remind him of the FACT that even Friedman has jettisoned his own theories, and moved on to GREEN venues. Real big *poke-in-the-eye* for all his followers. :rofl:

[riley3]

41. Willing or Coerced

Especially in these hard times the distinction between "want" and "need" are blurred. In other words, desperate people might say they are okay with less money simply because they need to survive. In much the same way that WALMART employees say they don't mind working without health insurance benefits. The minimum wage is set by law in order to protect workers and make sure they are treated fairly.

[XemaSab]

57. Succinctly put

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[truedelphi]

67. One of the big problems with WalMart is that many of its employees do get health insurance

And they get it from the Social Services System of the County that the worker lives in. especially if the worker has children.

So Joe and Josie middle income earner lose their Ma And Pa store on account of WalMart. Forced to do something else, they now pay taxes to the government, in part so that the government can pay for the health insurance that the Big Ol Corporate Giant WalMart claims it cannot afford to pay, despite all the tax rebates and help the local governments often provide the Big Ol Corporate Giant.

Pls note - in this discussion - my beef is not with the poorly paid worker who gets government paid benefits. It is with the system by which WalMart fleeces most of the rest of us.

[insleeforprez]

101. That needs to be the crux of the argument

in favor of minimum wage.

[leeroysphitz]

44. If someone is willing to work in exchange for some bread and a bowl of soup...

or maybe a place to sleep. Maybe they could work for nothing out of a deep seated need to be industrious.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

47. Because it is against the law

Minimum wage protects all worker's rights. The idea that someone is willing to work for less has been the way capitalists have exploited workers since time immemorial.

[Odin2005]

48. No. Society has an interest in preventing "race-to-the bottom" phenomena.

n/t.

[Whoa_Nelly]

51. Ask your teacher if he's playing devil's advocate

with the scenario, questions, and points he's giving you, or does he really believe what he's saying.

And, if he really does believe what he's saying, ask him why he believes that way.
and just listen, don't argue/debate/respond until he's done with his version 2.0 of disenfranchisement of the worker's right to be paid the minimum guaranteed by law.

oh...and ask him why he hates Amurika..

[TomClash]

56. It's the will of the people

We hold this truth to be self-evident. And the people, through their elected representatives, have determined that there should be a minimum wage you cannot undercut.

The owner is in a much better bargaining position and that is the only reason he can pay less than $7. Under the guise that both worker and owner are "free" to work at whatever wage they agreed on, the worker is exploited. If the worker is free to join with other workers and bargain collectively or, alternatively, take "other action" against the owner, then a minimum wage is probably not necessary - the worker will probably get more than $7 per hour.

[Beregond2]

60. Of course not.

That undermines the whole concept of a minimum wage.

[Warpy]

65. No.

As the law is ignored by more and more employers, it will have the effect of driving wages down.

That sounds great for employers, and it is in the short term. In the long term, they start seeing that they need fewer of those $5/hour people to be ushers, and they lay them off. Since jobs are harder to come by, they tell the rest that they'll have to work for $2/hour, take it or leave it.

Employers will drive wages down as far as they can get away with in any market. As this pleases free marketeers who think wages will eventually normalize and start to rise as more people are employed, what actually happens is the opposite: with people making less money, there is less demand for goods and services leading to less employment and driving wages down farther. It only equalizes at slavery or serfdom, with workers earning less than subsistence and being replaced from a never ending pool of idled workers when they get too sick to work.

The minimum wage floor in the 50s to late 60s was enough to support a family of four on a thrifty budget--above poverty. Now it won't support a single worker above the poverty line. I think it can be argued that our economy was stable in the 50s, with opportunity everywhere and a large and stable middle class. I don't think that same argument can be made now.

The money pump works from the bottom up, not from the top down, as your economics prof. seems to think. My advice to you is to learn enough to pass his exam and then forget most of it as quickly as possible.

[earth mom]

66. HELL NO. Because it undermines the pay for ALL workers. This is the reason we need Unions.

And it's also the reason why Unions have been trashed and crushed and the reason why so many people in this country now rely on their credit cards to buy food and gas. :argh:

p.s. Your fucking asshat teacher is trying to brainwash you!

[trotsky]

76. Bingo. Best answer.

We have to set a minimum rate for labor, so workers can at least survive. By allowing desperate workers to under-bid each other, ALL workers lose.

[Matariki]

69. Absolutely not. Doing that undermines minimum wage for everyone.

Terrible idea.

[EC]

73. Because it would drive down wages across the board

if everyone did that...including teachers...

On Edit: that's why there are laws, to keep all employers at an even advantage/disadvantage, so the competition (which will always go to the lowest pay they can)doesn't bring down living standards of the whole/break the economy...

[On the Road]

74. The Difference is Between an Economy

where employers can bargain unskilled wages down as low as they can get them and one in which there is a minimum. It is not a matter of a single employer.

People need income to survive. There is almost always more supply than demand for labor. Because prospective employees are unemployed and desperate, employers can bargain wages down to subsistence levels.

You cannot confine this to people who bored and need a little pocket money. It quickly becomes the norm for the bottom tier of society. Every negative characteristic of third world societies follows -- overcrowding, homelessness or shanty towns, crime, health problems, etc. None of it can be avoided if wages are allowed to sink to the lowest level.

This is not speculative. This happens all over the world. the correlation is very clear. It does not hold in boom times or places where there is an undersupply of labor. It does not hold for skills in great demand. But it holds for a very large proportion of the market.

Eliminating the minimum wage is sometimes presented as a way to increase employment and help the working class. But this is a false promise. If you have a job for $10 and hour, you don't need to work two jobs for $5 and hour.

[TexasObserver]

75. Because we live in an advanced society that has determined a minimum wage protects workers.

Your economics professor is posing the question because he is a free marketer, and believes the market should set the wages of the workers by supply and demand, in every given area.

You might tell him we abandoned his viewpoint in the Great Depression, because it didn't work, because it led to company towns where desperate workers took Company script, instead of money, and lived at subsistence levels.

You might also tell him that since much of the marketplace has been dominated by large companies, there is a lack of bargaining power between workers and big business, and that labor unions grew in the last century for that very reason.

Finally, tell him the free market is a myth, as demonstrated by the $700 billion dollar bailout of big companies that are lined up to be saved by the federal government. We live in a highly regulated economy, where government helps or hurts various interests, and those who are the biggest companies buy the most help from government through their lobbyists and campaign contributions.

If his view of the world prevailed, Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee, and he'd be winning the race. Let him know that we live in a representative democracy, and the simple fact is the PUBLIC wants minimum wage laws, so it is the public determination that there should be a minimum wage, and for that reason, his suggestion that wages should be allowed to go lower is rejected.

In summary: no one in the USA except a handful of libertarians buy his argument, for the reasons stated above.

[TreasonousBastard]

77. That's already happened here several times...

and it never worked well.

During the Depression, there was a steady stream of workers willing to bid down the price of a day's work. If ditch digging paid a buck a day, a crew would show up willing to work for 75 cents.

Even before the Depression, contractors were sent to Europe to bring over the starving wretches who would work cheap in the factories and slaughterhouses. Each crew that came over with the dreams of streets paved with gold found themselves begging for work at lower wages.

From around the 60s onward factories moved from North to South where unions were nonexistant and workers lined up for low wages as opposed to no wages. This was long before they moved offshore, but no one who watched the factory closings in upstate New York or michigan should have been surprised at the move to even cheaper labor.

Even now, you can tell where the sweatshops in Chinatown are from the blacked out windows, and immigrant labor has been bidding down wages in meatpacking plants and other agricultural areas. Cleaning contractors in the metro area here have been lowering heir bids and they only cost they can control is labor, so they beat that cost down, hiring almost only illegals who will work for any wage. Hotels around here have also changed the work rules for housekeeping staff, often paying under the minimum if converted to hourly, and also have entirely immigrant staff.

The libertarian view is that two willing parties are entering into a contract and it should be honored. The progressive view is that the two parties are not equal in their bargaining power and at least two related situations are untenable in a modern society:

A potential employee desperate enough for work to bid the wage down to subsistance levels and below.

An employer who will offer only substandard wages, preying on the desperation of potential employees.

Now, it's possible that this economics teacher is simply playing Devil's advocate to get some discussion going. Or, he might be a Libertarian. Either way, you should be able to argue the point that the while the utilitarian value of labor is simply financial, there must be some value to the community at large when labor is paid well. A multiplier effect of higher wages being spent in the community is one financial benefit, but better health, lower crime, and other benefits also ensue.

There's another argument, too, and one even libertarians can sometimes agree to-- productivity...

If a worker can make two widgets a day by hand, and the widgets are sold for $100, and the worker makes an hourly wage of $5, he made $40 for the day, or $20 per widget. The company grossed $200 from his labor.

So, a machine comes out that can allow that worker to make 50 widgets as day, and they are now sold for $50, grossing the company $2,500. At $40 per day, he's now being paid 80 cents per widget. Because he didn't buy the machine, he can't ask for all the new profit in the widgets, but he certainly can demand some share in the profits from his higher productivity.

[FarmGuys]

88. Working at minimum wage

Our young must start somewhere and not everyone is qualified to walk in and demand top salary for minimum wage experience.

[FarmGuys]

90. Wages

Perhaps I should clarify myself regarding my original post.

When I was a kid we hired out to our fellow farmers to pick strawberries for 25 cents a quart, shopped weeds in the cornfields for a dollar an hour and lunch. A lot of kids today do the same in the farming areas and it pays their way in school for extras.

I'm not some ancient old soul but I'm admitting to being long in the tooth.

Commercial work situations are covered under the labor laws and paying less for adults to work is not only wrong but illegal.

[Trillo]

78. Wasn't one argument against a living wage that it would result in jobloss?

Well, guess what, jobloss seems to have very little to do with wages and everything to do with fatcats making gazillions essentially for ripping everyone else off including, now, the U.S. Treasury.

Unlike some of the others in this thread, I find myself wondering if homelessness is a better model than enabling even one of these predator parasites. Living a longer life under tyranny, or a shorter life free? I'm really not sure which is truly better. Maybe there's a third way, but if so, where is it?

Any employment situation enables the predators, as the greater financial system is currently set up.

Any self-employment situation contains the risk of earning far less than minimum wage.

[mwooldri]

79. You don't employ them. You hire them as independent contractors.

Then you can pay them whatever the heck you like, because they're not your employees. If they're employees you have to pay taxes and that kind of stuff on top of the stuff above minimum wage. If they're merely an independent contractor, then although they need to render a "seat walking service" between the hours of "5pm and 12 midnight, Friday and Saturday" they just then pay the contractor X amount of money, and they don't have to worry about taxes. The independent contractor would then need to worry.

Mark.

[The Inquisitive]

86. best post in this thread

[Edweird]

80. I've witnessed that happen, and it sucks.

Skilled construction jobs that paid $30/hr went down to $12-$15/hr, due to an influx of "workers willing to work for less than the minimum". It drove profits and income down for EVERYBODY including contractors. The only ones that benefited were the developers. It didn't make your house any cheaper, only less well constructed and less safe. It galls me to no end to see people here support that. I suppose it's wonderful and easy to be so "altruistic" when it's not your OWN financial destruction you're supporting.

[onethatcares]

81. ask him this,

his twelve year old daughter wants to become a prostitute, should he let her? Now, assuming that it's illegal to be a prostitute and it's illegal to have carnal knowlege of a girl under the age of consent, shouldn't someone else be able to have it because she wants to?

that ought to rock his socks.

[lligrd]

82. Why? Because By Doing So He Is Cheating Other Businesses

that pay their employees fair. Meaning that their employees can afford to spend money to see a movie at his theater while his employees have no money to spend on other businesses.

[Snotcicles]

89. Ask him what happens when someone is driving 25 mph in a 60 mph zone

it slows the whole system down and nobody gets ahead.

[Incitatus]

91. Ask your teacher if he is a Christian, and if he is

how does he reconcile his Christian beliefs with the massive increase in poverty that would be caused by eliminating the minimum wage.

[readmoreoften]

93. Because slavery is illegal.

First of all, minimum wage isn't $7 an hour. Second of all, what people are "willing to work for" means nothing. If people are beaten and starving they'd be willing to work for $1 a day. Beat them down far enough and you can get them for even less. If people are willing to work for less than minimum wage they are desperate and hiring them for less than the standard wage is profitting off the suffering of others. Putting someone to work below minimum wage is abuse. It is abusive labor practices. There is zero reason why a theatre operator can't pay $7 an hour.

If the position is a VOLUNTEER position, then make it a volunteer position and let people come and go as they please without commitment. If you're a for-profit business than you are a failed business model if you can't pay minimum wage.

[endthewar]

94. Why bother having a minimum wage then?

[baldguy]

95. If someone is willing to sell their body parts for food, should they?

[garlicmilkshake]

100. Absolutely. Republicans would say no, however.

My position is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Don't most DUers think a woman should have the right to terminate an unwanted fetus (as I do)?

[baldguy]

102. Cannibalism is acceptable, just as long as the victim "agrees" & there's enough money involved?

[garlicmilkshake]

106. Well, the "victim" doesn't stand to gain much other than posthumous satisfaction.

Are you also of the opinion that Jack Kevorkian should be imprisioned for life? I think he was performing a service for those who sought it.
A fair number of people consider birth control to be a form of infanticide (or even murder)...there are a LOT of gradations between 'black and white' in these moral quandaries.

[buckettgirl]

96. My backwards answer. . .

That would be an under the table job

My husband worked as a bouncer in our local country bar for just over a year back in 2003/2004.
He was paid $30 per night, and usually worked 2 nights per week. He worked various hours, depending how busy the night was and how much clean up had to be done. He probably averaged 6 hours a night, sometimes more - which makes his wage under minimum wage.
Why was he willing to work this? Because it was easy, dependable money, and we were poor. It was under the table, which meant no hassle. That job kept my gas-tank full so that I could commute to college (We could not afford to live in the same town that I went to school in, we had one vehicle, and a total legal household income of between $18,000-19,000 per year).

That is why someone would be willing to work for less than minimum wage. It might not be legal pay, buts honest work and not a hand out. You gotta do what you gotta do.

[BlooInBloo]

97. If a person wants to be a slave, should they be allowed to be?

Gawd save us from stupid fucking questions like these.

[garlicmilkshake]

107. Well, who should have the authority to tell someone they can NOT exercise their right or freedom to

do precisely that? Is it a decision you would reserve uniquely to yourself?

I am just asking.

[jmowreader]

98. I can think of three reasons why this is bad

Not counting the main reason: Labor, like any other product, has a fair price.

In all these examples, Frank owns a company that sells cleaning solvent to mechanics. In his state, the minimum wage is $7 per hour.

Example 1: John applies for a job and (not knowing any better, or doing this on purpose) enters $5 as the minimum rate of pay he's willing to accept. Frank hires him and, because the solvent business is not a high-profit one, pays him $5 per hour. Three months later, Frank calls the other five employees in and tells them, "John works very well and makes less than any of you. If you don't accept a pay cut, we'll find a new employee." Frank backs off when the shop foreman threatens to call OSHA over the lack of ventilation in the shop.

Example 2: Six months after John is hired, he brings his nephew Mark in for a job. Frank tells him, "I'd like to hire you but I have no openings." Mark tells Frank, "I know you pay Uncle John five dollars an hour. Why don't you fire Harry? I know you pay him twelve dollars an hour." This happens four more times.

Example 3: Now that Frank's company is full of John's relatives, John approaches Frank. "My friends Tom and Ralph want to use the plant tonight for a special purpose. Leave the doors unlocked when you go home." Frank correctly deduces that Tom and Ralph are up to no good--either selling something that isn't legal, using the chemicals and machines in the plant to make something that isn't legal, or conducting some kind of illegal business transaction with people who don't mind smelling solvent the whole time they're in there--and refuses. "Frank, you better. We have proof you've been paying us an illegally-low wage for a long time. If you don't want the labor department crawling up your ass tomorrow morning, leave the doors unlocked tonight."

[SmokingJacket]

103. No, that's the whole POINT of a minimum wage.

There will always be desperate people, and 1) it's wrong to exploit their desperation, and 2) they bring down wages for people who need to actually support themselves.

[prayin4rain]

104. If everyone took after the "clever" theater operator

no one could afford to go the movies and he would have to close his theater down.

[Chimichurri]

105. Because if the owner cannot afford that luxury, he

must do without or figure out a way to increase his bottom line. He can do this by trimming waste, increasing traffic, more streamlined advertising, whatever. The notion of cutting wages is a lazy approach to increasing profits, both for the owner and the community at large. When workers are paid a decent salary, profits go up because those same employees will have the income to spend within their communities. That in turn increases traffic, increases profits, increases the need for workers.

Trimming wages below what's reasonable has it's consequences. Look at what we've done to our economy by outsourcing all in the name of cheap labor. Yes it helped the corporations bottom line in the short run but it has devastated us in the long run. We are drowning in debt because workers have had to use credit to compensate for the lost wages. This massive amount of debt is unsustainable which is why we are where we are.