Hey, politicians! Want to create jobs!

[Sibirsky]

Wages would not be driven down to third world levels. Even the low skilled are more productive than that, because they have access to capital at the work site.

Sure they would. The ones bitching about minimum would drop the pay to nothing.

More capitol? What has that got to do with their lost income?

No, they would not. The low skilled workers in the US (those that might be affected by lowering or removing the minimum wage) is still going to be more productive than an employee in the third world because of capital.

More productive = higher pay.

[Sibirsky]

Where do you see me complaining about $0.30?

I would be willing to pay what they are worth. Simple.

You said you would lay them off for a 30 cent increase?

You are will to pay them what you think they are worth; not what they are worth.....

I said they were producing $7.50 for me, and I was paying them $7.25. Then, minimum wage went up to $7.80. I let them go. Because losing $0.30 per hour worked per employee is idiotic.

[Wanderjar]

No, they wouldn't. I would hire them at $0.50 (holy fucking shit, Batman, I am paying fifty times more) and make billions.

Except that I would not be the only one. Someone else would say, this is fucking stupid and pay $1. And all my employees would jump ship and go there. Employees usually get paid close to their market value.

Wait? You are complaining about .30 and you are willing to pay .50?

I don't think you understand what Sibirsky is saying. He is using the .30 cents and .50 cents thing as an analogy for price theory. Read .30 as "X" and .50 as "Y" and replace those numbers with $100,000 and $500,000 respectively. It would mean the same thing. The point is, labor is worth what the owner of the company is willing to buy a man's work for. If this value is too low, the skilled laborer will go elsewhere to sell his labor to a firm offering a more competitive wage, and he will be productive for them, earning them higher revenue.

Companies don't neglect workers and pay them crappy wages because they're mean and cruel. They do it because whatever that wage is, is all that firm values the job position at. A janitor's position does not bring in a revenue justifying a wage in excess of "X" amount, thus he will not be paid that amount.

[The Black Forrest]

Sure they would. The ones bitching about minimum would drop the pay to nothing.

More capitol? What has that got to do with their lost income?

No, they would not. The low skilled workers in the US (those that might be affected by lowering or removing the minimum wage) is still going to be more productive than an employee in the third world because of capital.

More productive = higher pay.

Err no. You just cut their pay to 1/3. What message are you sending there. Work hard and I might pay you $2.55 instead of $2.50.

You are bitching about .30 an hour. You are not going to be rushing to pay them that much.......

[Wanderjar]

Minimum wage means nothing. When there is an abundance of labor, companies will pay exponentially higher wages simply to draw in workers. McDonalds, for example, paid 12 dollars an hour, and bussed in workers at their expense during the late 90s. Why? Because profits were high, the economy was booming, and workers were plentiful. Labor is a commodity. A worker may sell it for what the market will bear, and this should be the set price of labor. It should not be an arbitrary number set by the State which only gives the illusion to doing the poor a favor.

I'd much rather allow the poor to sell their labor to their best advantage by establishing labor contracts with companies, rather than the government simply continuing to tell companies and workers how they may sell their labor. Without contracts, and with government intervention, people continue to be exploited.

I agree with your response, even if I am a Socialist. Not sure what you are, I think your a neutralist. But maybe your a capitalist??

I'm a libertarian. And yes I am a die-hard capitalist.

Capitalism is the right to sell one's labor at highest possible value, and to find the best possible way to serve humanity. My issue with socialism is that it is a system where the government tells people the best way to serve humanity, by inhibiting their ability to provide services. Some government regulations, even I admit, are necessary. But those are very few and far between. In general I favor the idea of freedom of choice among people, rather than that of coercion by a repressive state

[Sunny Marionette]

Believe it or not, outsourcing benefits the United States by raising the wages of an outsourcing company's American employees. Not only that, but it increases the job quality of the jobs over here. Would you like to deal with moody people all day on the telephone, or let someone else do that?

[Lackland]

The economic cycle works like this. You make the goods where its cheap and sell it where there is money. Money is in the US, and at the moment the laborer at least gets survivable wages. However, if you cut down minimum wage to almost nothing, then people don't have money, so they can't buy the goods they used to. Hence, the company has to accept a lower profit(Because nobody else is going to buy the goods at the 200-300% profit companies make on most light goods), stocks collapse, and company has less money and hence has to fire people. Or, even if they don't, why shouldn't they just pocket the extra money for themselves? "Trickle down" economics is too full of "what ifs" to be a viable theory, and your idea is worth just as much as it puts an even greater disproportionate share of the wealth into the highest elcons of society who make more, get taxed a lower rate (therefore, the country gets a net tax revenue deduction), and eventually make it so communism does come.

This is one of the reasons as to why we're seeing all the economic turmoil across the globe currently. Most of the Western nations are saturated with goods, many so durable they last for years. As a result corporations have had to try to artificially create market demand by trying to make goods outdated earlier. Not an easy task when people are more willing to keep their automobiles for 10-20 years, and computers for a good 5 years or more. The key is opening new markets and expanding existing ones, which would mean the wages would have to rise in those nations that we're exploiting. Of course we could stick to the Status Quo, where both the middle class and the wealthy continue to lose money to the point where there is no economy so to speak of at all.

[The Black Forrest]

Wait? You are complaining about .30 and you are willing to pay .50?

I don't think you understand what Sibirsky is saying. He is using the .30 cents and .50 cents thing as an analogy for price theory. Read .30 as "X" and .50 as "Y" and replace those numbers with $100,000 and $500,000 respectively. It would mean the same thing. The point is, labor is worth what the owner of the company is willing to buy a man's work for. If this value is too low, the skilled laborer will go elsewhere to sell his labor to a firm offering a more competitive wage, and he will be productive for them, earning them higher revenue.

Companies don't neglect workers and pay them crappy wages because they're mean and cruel. They do it because whatever that wage is, is all that firm values the job position at. A janitor's position does not bring in a revenue justifying a wage in excess of "X" amount, thus he will not be paid that amount.

I understood exactly what he said. He said he would lay off a worker if minimum wage was increase .30.

[Sibirsky]

No, they would not. The low skilled workers in the US (those that might be affected by lowering or removing the minimum wage) is still going to be more productive than an employee in the third world because of capital.

More productive = higher pay.

Err no. You just cut their pay to 1/3. What message are you sending there. Work hard and I might pay you $2.55 instead of $2.50.

You are bitching about .30 an hour. You are not going to be rushing to pay them that much.......

You are not paying fucking attention.

I said my employees produce $7.50 an hour for me. And I pay them $7.25. If you raise the minimum wage to $7.80 (above their productivity for me) I will let them go. I would losing $0.30 per hour.

[Osterveim]

ANARCHY!!! problem solved!

[The Black Forrest]

Err no. You just cut their pay to 1/3. What message are you sending there. Work hard and I might pay you $2.55 instead of $2.50.

You are bitching about .30 an hour. You are not going to be rushing to pay them that much.......

You are not paying fucking attention.

I said my employees produce $7.50 an hour for me. And I pay them $7.25. If you raise the minimum wage to $7.80 (above their productivity for me) I will let them go. I would losing $0.30 per hour.

Isn't your answer to everything passing it on to the consumer? Your competitors feel the same exact thing........

[Sibirsky]

I don't think you understand what Sibirsky is saying. He is using the .30 cents and .50 cents thing as an analogy for price theory. Read .30 as "X" and .50 as "Y" and replace those numbers with $100,000 and $500,000 respectively. It would mean the same thing. The point is, labor is worth what the owner of the company is willing to buy a man's work for. If this value is too low, the skilled laborer will go elsewhere to sell his labor to a firm offering a more competitive wage, and he will be productive for them, earning them higher revenue.

Companies don't neglect workers and pay them crappy wages because they're mean and cruel. They do it because whatever that wage is, is all that firm values the job position at. A janitor's position does not bring in a revenue justifying a wage in excess of "X" amount, thus he will not be paid that amount.

I understood exactly what he said. He said he would lay off a worker if minimum wage was increase .30.

The minimum wage increased $0.55 in my example. And I began losing $0.30 per hour per employee.

[Sibirsky]

You are not paying fucking attention.

I said my employees produce $7.50 an hour for me. And I pay them $7.25. If you raise the minimum wage to $7.80 (above their productivity for me) I will let them go. I would losing $0.30 per hour.

Isn't your answer to everything passing it on to the consumer? Your competitors feel the same exact thing........

I may not be able to do that.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Every time you look at the news, all you see is some politician talk about creating jobs. They do not realize that many jobs have been assigned to Asia, where labor is cheap?

I would like to know what the denizens of Nationstates think is the solution to this. Personally, I would fight fire with fire. If the labor is cheap there, then the minimum wage should be reduced here. I know it sounds scary, but companies will produce more (with more employees) and make more profit, even if products are sold at a lower price. And since they benefit more, prices will plummet, which correspond to the reduction of wages.

What does everyone else think?

Good. I am Asian.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

And then more workers will be exploited, like they are in Thailand, China, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc....
In short, lowering the minimum wage is bad. One is barely able to live off of minimum wage, let alone a family.

All the minimum wage does is make honest labor illegal. By allowing a minimum wage policy, those people who's skills are not valued at above "X" price are not legally allowed to be hired, as companies are not financially able to justify creating that position and paying them a market wage. Therefore, the most socially regressive policy one could argue, is in fact the minimum wage.

If you reduce or all together scrap minimum wage, stop annual monetary injectures into the economy and thus reduce inflation, allow the market to set short-term interest rates as oppose to the Federal Reserve, create a fiscally responsible government which spends less than it takes in, reduces wasteful spending in areas like the military and giving aid to political toadies and puppets around the world, begin a national policy of cutting Federal government positions by no less than forty percent over twenty years, as well as to begin over a fifty year period to have the ambition to have the United States be running a national surplus (and in the mean time to have all debt be owned and facilitated by Americans) ,and eliminate subsidies to the massive farm conglomerates which artificially keep food prices high, you will in fact undo many of the social ills these "progressive" policies have created. Price (food, consumer goods, most importantly again FOOD) and Cost of Living indexes will actually decrease as the markets shift to an equilibrium.

So while yes, an individual laborer may earn less, he/she will in fact have a more highly valued dollar as the US (in the case of this writer) is once again viewed as a stable investment. The dollar increases in value, and once again a factory worker, like in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, could earn $30,000-40,000 USD and still be able to own a home, buy a new car every couple years, and live a sound middle class life. Most importantly, by not making radical, immediate change and setting a stable time limit, one avoids the economic havoc created by such a shift if done too quickly.

As far as I'm aware, the minimum wage is set at the amount a full-time worker would have to earn to pay for basic necessities.

When you create a minimum wage law, you establish the standard that no-one's labor value is less than what it takes for them to support themselves.

And yes, I do realize it might result in some overall loss of jobs. But as far as I figure, if you're not going to pay someone enough to live, why hire them at all?

[Wanderjar]

No, they would not. The low skilled workers in the US (those that might be affected by lowering or removing the minimum wage) is still going to be more productive than an employee in the third world because of capital.

More productive = higher pay.

Err no. You just cut their pay to 1/3. What message are you sending there. Work hard and I might pay you $2.55 instead of $2.50.

You are bitching about .30 an hour. You are not going to be rushing to pay them that much.......

You're ignoring completely the message. By establishing an artificial price floor for a job that isn't valued at the level of that floor, you make that worker unemployable. If you allow that worker to sell his labor at highest cost he can, then he has a job.

Furthermore, that .30 cents an hour adds up. Assume worker "JOE" is paid .30 cents an hour above the level of revenue his labor brings into the company. If he works 9 hours a day for 200 days, that company as lost 540 dollars on his labor. Multiply this by one hundred. That is five hundred and forty thousand dollars a year, for one hundred over-paid employees. This is enough to cripple a company.

[New Palikir]

The problem with that logic is that it will decrease consumption, which will mean less work, which means less workers, which means less consumption, etc.

A much better idea would be to use either direct stimulus or targeted tax cuts to increase either private or public sector spending and job growth. Its actually stupefyingly easy to create jobs, its strange how no one seems willing to do it.

[Wanderjar]

Isn't your answer to everything passing it on to the consumer? Your competitors feel the same exact thing........

I may not be able to do that.

If he passes it on to the consumer, this drives up the price. If the consumer views his opportunity cost of purchasing the product to be lower than the real value of owning the product, he will not buy it. Passing on the added cost can result in adding several dollars to a price. This is why a t-shirt made in Asia costs $15. That same t-shirt made in America or Europe could cost $50-$75. The shirt simply won't be made, as it is not economically feasible.

[Wanderjar]

The problem with that logic is that it will decrease consumption, which will mean less work, which means less workers, which means less consumption, etc.

A much better idea would be to use either direct stimulus or targeted tax cuts to increase either private or public sector spending and job growth. Its actually stupefyingly easy to create jobs, its strange how no one seems willing to do it.

Stimulus increases inflation, which devalues currency. This makes the average wages of a worker even lower, while in fact increasing consumer goods price indexes.

[The Black Forrest]

Err no. You just cut their pay to 1/3. What message are you sending there. Work hard and I might pay you $2.55 instead of $2.50.

You are bitching about .30 an hour. You are not going to be rushing to pay them that much.......

You're ignoring completely the message. By establishing an artificial price floor for a job that isn't valued at the level of that floor, you make that worker unemployable. If you allow that worker to sell his labor at highest cost he can, then he has a job.

Furthermore, that .30 cents an hour adds up. Assume worker "JOE" is paid .30 cents an hour above the level of revenue his labor brings into the company. If he works 9 hours a day for 200 days, that company as lost 540 dollars on his labor. Multiply this by one hundred. That is five hundred and forty thousand dollars a year, for one hundred over-paid employees. This is enough to cripple a company.

Over-paid employees?

It's funny how that label is never applied to the execs.

[The Black Forrest]

Err no. You just cut their pay to 1/3. What message are you sending there. Work hard and I might pay you $2.55 instead of $2.50.

You are bitching about .30 an hour. You are not going to be rushing to pay them that much.......

You're ignoring completely the message. By establishing an artificial price floor for a job that isn't valued at the level of that floor, you make that worker unemployable. If you allow that worker to sell his labor at highest cost he can, then he has a job.

Furthermore, that .30 cents an hour adds up. Assume worker "JOE" is paid .30 cents an hour above the level of revenue his labor brings into the company. If he works 9 hours a day for 200 days, that company as lost 540 dollars on his labor. Multiply this by one hundred. That is five hundred and forty thousand dollars a year, for one hundred over-paid employees. This is enough to cripple a company.

Furthermore how are you going to implement $2.50 an hour a wage and not see any problems from doing that?

[Wanderjar]

You're ignoring completely the message. By establishing an artificial price floor for a job that isn't valued at the level of that floor, you make that worker unemployable. If you allow that worker to sell his labor at highest cost he can, then he has a job.

Furthermore, that .30 cents an hour adds up. Assume worker "JOE" is paid .30 cents an hour above the level of revenue his labor brings into the company. If he works 9 hours a day for 200 days, that company as lost 540 dollars on his labor. Multiply this by one hundred. That is five hundred and forty thousand dollars a year, for one hundred over-paid employees. This is enough to cripple a company.

Over-paid employees?

It's funny how that label is never applied to the execs.

People are paid based on the level of revenue they bring into a company. Ownership in the company, in many cases being an executive, means that they are the one's who have a real stake in the firm's future. They risk their own capital by investing it into the firm. They in turn do deserve a higher rate of return on that investment.

[Wanderjar]

You're ignoring completely the message. By establishing an artificial price floor for a job that isn't valued at the level of that floor, you make that worker unemployable. If you allow that worker to sell his labor at highest cost he can, then he has a job.

Furthermore, that .30 cents an hour adds up. Assume worker "JOE" is paid .30 cents an hour above the level of revenue his labor brings into the company. If he works 9 hours a day for 200 days, that company as lost 540 dollars on his labor. Multiply this by one hundred. That is five hundred and forty thousand dollars a year, for one hundred over-paid employees. This is enough to cripple a company.

Furthermore how are you going to implement $2.50 an hour a wage and not see any problems from doing that?

Well if you take that figure literally, if the market value for the job is $2.50 then it is a fair exchange of labor. Most likely scenario is that it's a kid looking to make a few bucks on the side. As Chicago School economist Milton Friedman said in Free to Choose, minimum wage makes teenagers and uneducated minorities unemployable, as their skills are not valued high enough to make their employment realistic.

However, if this were the case, an accompanying change in monetary/fiscal/budgetary policy in the United States would drive the consumer goods price index/cost of living index down to an equilibrium where such a wage would in fact be quite fair, especially for a part-time, unskilled laborer.

[Sibirsky]

All the minimum wage does is make honest labor illegal. By allowing a minimum wage policy, those people who's skills are not valued at above "X" price are not legally allowed to be hired, as companies are not financially able to justify creating that position and paying them a market wage. Therefore, the most socially regressive policy one could argue, is in fact the minimum wage.

If you reduce or all together scrap minimum wage, stop annual monetary injectures into the economy and thus reduce inflation, allow the market to set short-term interest rates as oppose to the Federal Reserve, create a fiscally responsible government which spends less than it takes in, reduces wasteful spending in areas like the military and giving aid to political toadies and puppets around the world, begin a national policy of cutting Federal government positions by no less than forty percent over twenty years, as well as to begin over a fifty year period to have the ambition to have the United States be running a national surplus (and in the mean time to have all debt be owned and facilitated by Americans) ,and eliminate subsidies to the massive farm conglomerates which artificially keep food prices high, you will in fact undo many of the social ills these "progressive" policies have created. Price (food, consumer goods, most importantly again FOOD) and Cost of Living indexes will actually decrease as the markets shift to an equilibrium.

So while yes, an individual laborer may earn less, he/she will in fact have a more highly valued dollar as the US (in the case of this writer) is once again viewed as a stable investment. The dollar increases in value, and once again a factory worker, like in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, could earn $30,000-40,000 USD and still be able to own a home, buy a new car every couple years, and live a sound middle class life. Most importantly, by not making radical, immediate change and setting a stable time limit, one avoids the economic havoc created by such a shift if done too quickly.

As far as I'm aware, the minimum wage is set at the amount a full-time worker would have to earn to pay for basic necessities.

When you create a minimum wage law, you establish the standard that no-one's labor value is less than what it takes for them to support themselves.

And yes, I do realize it might result in some overall loss of jobs. But as far as I figure, if you're not going to pay someone enough to live, why hire them at all?

Because they are not productive enough to make X per hour. Because they are in high school and it's all spending money. Minimum wage hurts the poor, far more than it helps them.

[The Black Forrest]

Over-paid employees?

It's funny how that label is never applied to the execs.

People are paid based on the level of revenue they bring into a company. Ownership in the company, in many cases being an executive, means that they are the one's who have a real stake in the firm's future. They risk their own capital by investing it into the firm. They in turn do deserve a higher rate of return on that investment.

Like I said they are never overpaid.

You want to be one some day eh?