Conservative Myth: "Minimum Wage Was Never Meant..." - OPEN DISCUSSION THREAD

[gfm7175]

Conservative Myth: "Minimum Wage Was Never Meant..." - OPEN DISCUSSION THREAD

I think that the whole "minimum wage is meant to be a living wage" mantra is an important idea to discuss, and since I am a supporter of open discussion, I have created this sister thread for ANYONE who wishes to contribute their viewpoints regarding the "conservative myth" that "the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage".


Here is the original post in its entirety...

"In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

“By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living,” he stated."

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

It Was Always Supposed To Be A Living Wage

Where do conservatives GET all these strange myths?

What would be the POINT of having a minimum wage that a worker cannot LIVE ON???

 

[CFM]

I think that the whole "minimum wage is meant to be a living wage" mantra is an important idea to discuss, and since I am a supporter of open discussion, I have created this sister thread for ANYONE who wishes to contribute their viewpoints regarding the "conservative myth" that "the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage".


Here is the original post in its entirety...

FDR made five promises related to Social Security that aren't true. Why would anyone listen to him on this?

 

[gfm7175]

My rebuttal to the echo chamber thread's OP...

"In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

“By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living,” he stated."

The term "living wages" was defined by FDR as "more than a bare subsistence level", "the wages of decent living". Those are as subjective of definitions as I have ever heard. What precisely is this "minimum level"? What precisely is "decent living"? Each individual will give you a different answer to those questions.

Those workers were not forced to work for those businesses at rates which FDR deemed to be "below decent living". Wages are agreed upon between employer and employee. The employee agrees to work for the employer for a particular wage. Those wage rates are determined by price discovery.

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Yes, I have the nerve to use the entire OP (and disclaimer) word for word, as I just did. If you wish to contribute in open discussion rather than an echo chamber, you will have to post in THIS thread instead of your own. Online bullies will be online bullies; you give them power by recognizing their effect on you. Your threads wouldn't get "stolen" if you simply encouraged open discussion in the first place.

Where do conservatives GET all these strange myths?

Minimum Wage was meant to be yet another price control. Like all other price controls, it fails due to the shortages that result from them.

What would be the POINT of having a minimum wage that a worker cannot LIVE ON???

What a person "can or cannot live on" is very subjective. You do not get to tell another person what amount of money they need in order to be satisfied with their finances. Maybe we should let free market price discovery do its thing instead of implementing shortage-creating price controls...???

If people want more money, then they need to increase their employment value (their skillset, dependence, and etc.) Heck, they could even start a business of their own one day! What's that old saying?? "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime" ... ???

 

[CFM]

My rebuttal to the echo chamber thread's OP...


The term "living wages" was defined by FDR as "more than a bare subsistence level", "the wages of decent living". Those are as subjective of definitions as I have ever heard. What precisely is this "minimum level"? What precisely is "decent living"? Each individual will give you a different answer to those questions.

Those workers were not forced to work for those businesses at rates which FDR deemed to be "below decent living". Wages are agreed upon between employer and employee. The employee agrees to work for the employer for a particular wage. Those wage rates are determined by price discovery.


Yes, I have the nerve to use the entire OP (and disclaimer) word for word, as I just did. If you wish to contribute in open discussion rather than an echo chamber, you will have to post in THIS thread instead of your own. Online bullies will be online bullies; you give them power by recognizing their effect on you. Your threads wouldn't get "stolen" if you simply encouraged open discussion in the first place.


Minimum Wage was meant to be yet another price control. Like all other price controls, it fails due to the shortages that result from them.


What a person "can or cannot live on" is very subjective. You do not get to tell another person what amount of money they need in order to be satisfied with their finances. Maybe we should let free market price discovery do its thing instead of implementing shortage-creating price controls...???

If people want more money, then they need to increase their employment value (their skillset, dependence, and etc.) Heck, they could even start a business of their own one day! What's that old saying?? "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime" ... ???

I don't know of a single worker that begins a job not knowing what he/she will make.

I'm not real sure what bothers me more about the minimum wage-living wage crowd. Is it the fact that they think they should be paid more than the skills to do the job are worth or that they knew their wage before starting then complain after they voluntarily accepted the wage/job.

 

[gfm7175]

FDR made five promises related to Social Security that aren't true. Why would anyone listen to him on this?

I have some ideas, but I'll let those people speak for themselves.

 

[Celticguy]

If you aspire to superior wages you make yourself deserving of them. If you make the least of your FREE education thats on you. Yes, your parent(s) should have demanded more of you but they didnt. If you aspire to be a ward of the state, you cant expect much.

 

[gfm7175]

I don't know of a single worker that begins a job not knowing what he/she will make.

Generally, people enter jobs knowing (at least approximately) what they are going to be making from them. For some jobs, what one will make from them isn't exactly crystal clear (anyone who makes a good portion of their money from tips, for one example... jobs that are "bidded out" are another example, more-so if someone isn't very good at estimating how long a job will take to complete).

I'm not real sure what bothers me more about the minimum wage-living wage crowd. Is it the fact that they think they should be paid more than the skills to do the job are worth or that they knew their wage before starting then complain after they voluntarily accepted the wage/job.

The first one bothers me more because those people are not allowing price discovery to do its thing (they are instead advocating for price controls).

The second one bothers me too, but to a slightly lesser extent than the first.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think that the whole "minimum wage is meant to be a living wage" mantra is an important idea to discuss, and since I am a supporter of open discussion, I have created this sister thread for ANYONE who wishes to contribute their viewpoints regarding the "conservative myth" that "the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage".


Here is the original post in its entirety...

Regardless of if the minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage, it does need to be raised to keep pace with inflation otherwise it is actually technically being decreased every year. If you don't support at least a slight increase in the minimum wage, by default you are supporting a decrease. That's just a fact. And if that's what you support, come out and say it. The last time the federal minimum wage was raised was 2009 (to 7.25). It has since been a decade. By my calculations, which match the calculations of economists, the minimum wage should be at least $11 to maintain the monetary value of the original intended minimum wage.

With that said, onto the subject at hand, I agree that the minimum wage does not need to be a living wage. It is not skilled work. Non-skilled work does not pay well. Get a skill. There are job opportunities in skilled trades. There are options, for those so inclined. I will not saying working in fast food is not hard work, it is actually hell. But there are next to no skills involved, I would be hard pressed to say it is worth $15-$20 an hour. And raising the minimum wage to such obscene levels would further the automation crisis, not to mention businesses would just hike prices knowing more people could afford them. We can see both happening in cities like Seattle with high local minimum wages.

 

[countryboy]

I think that the whole "minimum wage is meant to be a living wage" mantra is an important idea to discuss, and since I am a supporter of open discussion, I have created this sister thread for ANYONE who wishes to contribute their viewpoints regarding the "conservative myth" that "the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage".


Here is the original post in its entirety...

Polly want a cracker is a fucking moron. Of course minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a living wage, it's not a myth, it's just common sense. What, you should be paid the big bucks for an entry level position? Um, no.

 

[Celticguy]

Polly want a cracker is a fucking moron. Of course minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a living wage, it's not a myth, it's just common sense. What, you should be paid the big bucks for an entry level position? Um, no.

Average time at min wage, 2 months. If you are stuck there longer you must be doing a terrible job.

 

[gfm7175]

Regardless of if the minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage, it does need to be raised to keep pace with inflation otherwise it is actually technically being decreased every year. If you don't support at least a slight increase in the minimum wage, by default you are supporting a decrease. That's just a fact. And if that's what you support, come out and say it. The last time the federal minimum wage was raised was 2009 (to 7.25). It has since been a decade. By my calculations, which match the calculations of economists, the minimum wage should be at least $11 to maintain the monetary value of the original intended minimum wage.

I support completely doing away with the minimum wage, as I do not support price controls of any sort.

With that said, onto the subject at hand, I agree that the minimum wage does not need to be a living wage.

My argument is that "living wage" is a very subjective term. What might be a "living wage" for you likely isn't a "living wage" for me. In order to talk about it between people and have it mean anything, it needs to be quantified. What IS a "living wage"? $11/hr? $15/hr? $20/hr? $30/hr? And even then, goods hold different values in different locations. That's why I say to just let the free market do its thing instead of implementing price controls.

It is not skilled work. Non-skilled work does not pay well. Get a skill. There are job opportunities in skilled trades. There are options, for those so inclined. I will not saying working in fast food is not hard work, it is actually hell. But there are next to no skills involved, I would be hard pressed to say it is worth $15-$20 an hour.

Mostly agreed.

And raising the minimum wage to such obscene levels would further the automation crisis,

That's one thing which would result from such a minimum wage hike.

not to mention businesses would just hike prices knowing more people could afford them.

I wouldn't say because they "know more people could afford them"... I would instead say that businesses would hike prices in order to offset the now increased labor costs (due to price controls). They might instead choose to let go of workers (or reduce their hours, or explore numerous other options regarding workers, at the detriment of the workers) in order to reduce labor costs back down to previous levels. Some places might even have to shut down due to labor costs becoming too high for them to profitably operate. Whatever the consequent actions taken by businesses, and the reasoning behind those actions, price controls are not a good thing for the economy. Price controls, such as the minimum wage, inevitably lead to shortages of some sort.

We can see both happening in cities like Seattle with high local minimum wages.

Indeed we can! If Into The Night stumbles across this thread, he could speak better than I about what's going on in the Seattle area.

 

[gfm7175]

Polly want a cracker is a fucking moron.

Indeed he is.

Of course minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a living wage, it's not a myth, it's just common sense.

Correct. Many jobs like that are meant for adolescents to learn responsibility and the "value of a dollar", supplemental income, and the like. Those jobs are not meant to be careers.

What, you should be paid the big bucks for an entry level position? Um, no.

Correct. Worth increases once one acquires things such as desired skills, knowledge, experience, and the like... In other words, they need to be able to offer something of value to someone else. One can only get so far if their job is flipping burgers...

 

[gfm7175]

Imported from echo chamber thread...

Our whole immigration "crisis" is due to Republican businesses' desire for cheap labor.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Bigotry.


Democrats operate businesses (and desire to lower their operating costs) too, ya know...

Illegals are coming here for reasons other than being used for cheap labor, ya know...

 

[CFM]

Generally, people enter jobs knowing (at least approximately) what they are going to be making from them. For some jobs, what one will make from them isn't exactly crystal clear (anyone who makes a good portion of their money from tips, for one example... jobs that are "bidded out" are another example, more-so if someone isn't very good at estimating how long a job will take to complete).


The first one bothers me more because those people are not allowing price discovery to do its thing (they are instead advocating for price controls).

The second one bothers me too, but to a slightly lesser extent than the first.

All three examples you used in your statement about not being crystal clear are based on personal factors related to whether or not the person is doing a good job. As for jobs with tips, someone not making good tips is likely because they suck at what they do. In addition, they also know going in that the pay is based on tips. It's not like they started and were told after they started. If they bid poorly, that's their fault. If they estimate time poorly, that's their fault.

 

[CFM]

I have some ideas, but I'll let those people speak for themselves.

The point is the same people that hold FDR in such high regard when it comes to the topic of the OP ignore things related to SS that he said would happen that didn't and vice versa. Many of them are of an age where they're directly affected by things related to SS he said wouldn't happen.

 

[gfm7175]

All three examples you used in your statement about not being crystal clear are based on personal factors related to whether or not the person is doing a good job.

To an extent, yes. I'll expand a bit on that below...

As for jobs with tips, someone not making good tips is likely because they suck at what they do.

That's definitely possible. As an anecdotal example, one time that I went out to eat at a restaurant, my waitress did not do a very good job, as I had to take care of things that the waitress typically takes care of, such as getting drinks. My tip of just giving her my pocket change (and THAT was quite generous of me) was a direct reflection upon her poor service. Other times I have went there to eat, and had fantastic waitress service, I have indeed tipped very generously to reflect that fantastic service.

However, it is also possible that people are simply neglecting proper tipping etiquette, or forgetting about the musician that is providing entertainment on a tip-in-the-jar basis. It is also possible that the restaurant had a slow day (or stretch of days).

Regarding my "job bidding" example, yes, it might be due to the bidder sucking at bidding. It might also be due to some unforeseen circumstances (unrelated to the bidder's bidding skills) which increased how long the job took.

Point being, there's definitely the "person sucks at what they do" aspect to this, but that might not always be the case.

In addition, they also know going in that the pay is based on tips. It's not like they started and were told after they started.

True. They ought to know that tip based jobs have good days and bad days, for example (and the other intricacies of tip based jobs, such as people not always being great tippers).

If they bid poorly, that's their fault. If they estimate time poorly, that's their fault.

Generally correct.

 

[CFM]

To an extent, yes. I'll expand a bit on that below...


That's definitely possible. As an anecdotal example, one time that I went out to eat at a restaurant, my waitress did not do a very good job, as I had to take care of things that the waitress typically takes care of, such as getting drinks. My tip of just giving her my pocket change (and THAT was quite generous of me) was a direct reflection upon her poor service. Other times I have went there to eat, and had fantastic waitress service, I have indeed tipped very generously to reflect that fantastic service.

However, it is also possible that people are simply neglecting proper tipping etiquette, or forgetting about the musician that is providing entertainment on a tip-in-the-jar basis. It is also possible that the restaurant had a slow day (or stretch of days).

Regarding my "job bidding" example, yes, it might be due to the bidder sucking at bidding. It might also be due to some unforeseen circumstances (unrelated to the bidder's bidding skills) which increased how long the job took.

Point being, there's definitely the "person sucks at what they do" aspect to this, but that might not always be the case.


True. They ought to know that tip based jobs have good days and bad days, for example (and the other intricacies of tip based jobs, such as people not always being great tippers).


Generally correct.

Proper tipping etiquette? Who is to say what that is other than the one doing the tipping based on the service he/she received. Someone else doesn't determine that for me.

As for the musician, are you saying he/she didn't know the manner in which they would be compensated before making the choice to do what they do?

Unforeseen circumstances? You mean like the inability to take all things into perspective? That means they suck.

If you take a job that requires such low skills that anyone can do it, you suck at what you do, or you take a job knowing the compensation can vary, to complain is nothing more than whining.

 

[gfm7175]

The point is the same people that hold FDR in such high regard when it comes to the topic of the OP ignore things related to SS that he said would happen that didn't and vice versa. Many of them are of an age where they're directly affected by things related to SS he said wouldn't happen.

Yup, people tend to turn a blind eye to the faults of [insert self proclaimed "golden boy/girl" here] due to their own religious/political fundamentalism.

That's why, for example, you will see liberals cry foul at Trump for his supposed "hate" towards minorities, yet FDR literally ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps and those same liberals refuse to cry foul about FDR's actions.

 

[CFM]

Yup, people tend to turn a blind eye to the faults of [insert self proclaimed "golden boy/girl" here] due to their own religious/political fundamentalism.

That's why, for example, you will see liberals cry foul at Trump for his supposed "hate" towards minorities, yet FDR literally ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps and those same liberals refuse to cry foul about FDR's actions.

The left cries foul toward Trump for made up things yet totally ignore what FDR did.

 

[gfm7175]

Proper tipping etiquette? Who is to say what that is other than the one doing the tipping based on the service he/she received. Someone else doesn't determine that for me.

I will admit that "proper tipping etiquette" was clumsily worded on my part, as "proper" is subjective. I agree that you are the one who determines precisely what amount is a "proper" amount, as I had done in my anecdotal example.

My point on "proper tipping etiquette" is that sometimes people don't tip at all (or very stingily tip) even if they received really good service, so in that particular instance, it is not the waitress's fault that she is making little money (ie, she isn't making little money due to her "poor job performance"), but rather, it is the fault of the stingy tippers that she is making poor money. There are people who simply don't respect/realize the fact that those people make most of their money off of tips.

As for the musician, are you saying he/she didn't know the manner in which they would be compensated before making the choice to do what they do?

No. He knew the manner in which he would be compensated, or should have known, anyway...

Unforeseen circumstances? You mean like the inability to take all things into perspective? That means they suck.

Generally, yes... And successful bidders will obviously hit the nail on the head much more often than not. My point is that even the best of bidders cannot always foresee what they are going to run into. I'm just saying that while it is more often than not a case that the person just sucks at their job, it's not always the case in every instance.

If you take a job that requires such low skills that anyone can do it, you suck at what you do, or you take a job knowing the compensation can vary, to complain is nothing more than whining.

It just means that the person has no skills beyond approaching-universal skills, thus rendering their almost universally acquired skills to be worth very little. Supply and demand.


We generally agree on this discussion, but I'm just pointing out that the first part of your post #4 was a bit narrow-sighted in my mind, as there are indeed workers who don't know exactly what they are going to make (or don't have full control over what they are going to make, the restaurant servers being the main example of that).