There was a guy named Adam Smith. He literally wrote the book on capitalism. Here is what he had to say about minimum wage.
" ... But though, in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate, below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself: But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above-mentioned, or many other, I shall not take upon me to determine.
There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate, evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity. ..."
Read more in Book 1 Chapter VIII - Of the wages of labour
Since he talks about a 50% child mortality rate, some of his other ideas should also be adjusted accordingly. We also have pretty effective contraception now, etc.
Minimum wage should not be a standard by which an entire socioeconomic class of people is paid. THAT is the problem moreso than what dollar amount is assigned to that wage.
Minimum wage should not be a standard by which an entire socioeconomic class of people is paid. THAT is the problem moreso than what dollar amount is assigned to that wage.
Absolutely. The matter of the dollar amount is essentially irrelevant if your system is, to use a technical term within the field of economics, fucked in the bloody head.
Since he talks about a 50% child mortality rate, some of his other ideas should also be adjusted accordingly. We also have pretty effective contraception now, etc.
Minimum wage should not be a standard by which an entire socioeconomic class of people is paid. THAT is the problem moreso than what dollar amount is assigned to that wage.
Since one thing in one of the paragraphs is not true in this one country you happen to be privileged to live in, the entire argument from the father of capitalism is now invalid.
That second paragraph is simply a method of calculating what the living wage should be. Obviously you would calculate it differently based on many facts that have changed. The fundamental point still stands.
There is a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages of even of the lowest species of labor. (emphasis mine)
Debate all you want what exactly that rate may be given our current circumstances. The point is that Adam Smith, inventor of capitalism, says there should be a minimum wage, and that it should be a wage that can support a person and their family, however much that may be.
Congratulations, Muppet, you have discovered how to bold things.
I'm not sure why emphasis deserves derision, but OK. Primarily I wanted people to read at least that far before reaching for my neck. :-)
Scott - I've never been big into hero worship, so someone being the originator of something doesn't give their ideas TOO much more weight in my book. The ideas stand on their own merits. I'm sure he was probably a smarter guy than me, but there's also something to be said for the value of decades of experimental data.
Right now minimum wage applies equally to a high school kid who flips burgers for movie ticket money and an unskilled laborer father trying to feed his family. That's broken. That coupling needs to be de-coupled.
There's a lot of moving parts. Simply increasing the minimum wage is like maintaining an engine by topping off the oil and ignoring everything else.
I'm not into hero worship either. I am also aware of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Just because he said it doesn't make it true. But if you actually bother to read the book, which I know you haven't, you will see that it is a well supported argument. Some details, as you have noticed, are no longer true as we have progressed as a society. But the fundamental points are difficult to argue with.
Yes, minimum wage applies equally to high school kids who flip burgers and unskilled laborers trying to feed a family. That is a true thing. So what? All you say it is broken, and needs to be de-coupled. Why does it need to be de-coupled? Why is it broken? You have no supporting facts or arguments whatsoever. All you have is an ideology about oil. When you state a thesis, you need to back that shit up. Allow me to demonstrate.
Why shouldn't a high school kid working hard be paid a living wage? The unskilled guy supporting a family will be paid for 80 hours a week. The teenager who works after school four nights a week will only be paid for maybe 16 hours. Why shouldn't each be paid at minimum the same amount per hour?
The teenager may end up making a large profit due to them living on the support of their own family, but they need to save money for college and to invest into the new life they are about to start. If you want to pay teenagers less than a living wage, then you need to increase the minimum wage of the teenager's parents even more so that the teenager's college and life expenses are added in. Now there is no reason for the teenager to work since their parents have provided the money they need to start a new life on their own.
I say the teenagers should be paid the same living wage. That will give them a great desire to work, so that more of them will get life experience of working. It will mean the overall minimum wage can actually be lower, since you won't factor in as much of the expense of starting college or independent life into the parents wages. And the best part is that it will create a huge boost to the economy as teenagers with lots of disposable income start buying things like crazy. Think about how many Steam games they would buy if they actually had their own money instead of barely enough for a slice of pizza. Teenagers with disposable income have always been one of the largest segments of consumer spending. Giving more money to teenagers who will spend a lot of it will bring happy times to all sorts of industries.
Nah, I think we've harped on muppet a little too bad, though the argument that having the minimum wage under the living wage in order to pay teenagers is stupid, and easily rectified by creating a separate minimum wage for dependent minors. The thing is, we established that in about the first five posts and the rest was unnecessary.
If you pay the family man more money (by law) than the teenager working beside him doing the same job you have age discrimination. Or you might find employers not hiring family men because it is cheaper to hire the teenager to do the same job.
Minimum wage laws could be based on type of work but not age of worker. There are too many anti-discrimination laws in place for that to fly.
What I was really trying to articulate was something else, but I was too involved in other stuff to fully form my argument.
My point really is that the minimum wage standard is applied too broadly, and that the market needs some pretty heavy fixing in order to correct that. Work typically taken on by teens looking for spending money should be in that class, but blue collar work typically should not. I'm not sure how to articulate the division I'm trying to draw right now.
Comments
"
...
But though, in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have
the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate, below which it seems
impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even
of the lowest species of labour.
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be
sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be
somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a
family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first
generation. Mr Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the
lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double
their own maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be
enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of
her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than
sufficient to provide for herself: But one half the children born, it
is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers,
therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to
rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance
of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children,
it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an
able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double
his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be
worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far at least seems
certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband
and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be
able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for
their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that
above-mentioned, or many other, I shall not take upon me to determine.
There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give
the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages
considerably above this rate, evidently the lowest which is consistent
with common humanity.
..."
Read more in Book 1 Chapter VIII - Of the wages of labour
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300
Minimum wage should not be a standard by which an entire socioeconomic class of people is paid. THAT is the problem moreso than what dollar amount is assigned to that wage.
That second paragraph is simply a method of calculating what the living wage should be. Obviously you would calculate it differently based on many facts that have changed. The fundamental point still stands.
There is a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages of even of the lowest species of labor. (emphasis mine)
Debate all you want what exactly that rate may be given our current circumstances. The point is that Adam Smith, inventor of capitalism, says there should be a minimum wage, and that it should be a wage that can support a person and their family, however much that may be.
Scott - I've never been big into hero worship, so someone being the originator of something doesn't give their ideas TOO much more weight in my book. The ideas stand on their own merits. I'm sure he was probably a smarter guy than me, but there's also something to be said for the value of decades of experimental data.
Right now minimum wage applies equally to a high school kid who flips burgers for movie ticket money and an unskilled laborer father trying to feed his family. That's broken. That coupling needs to be de-coupled.
There's a lot of moving parts. Simply increasing the minimum wage is like maintaining an engine by topping off the oil and ignoring everything else.
Yes, minimum wage applies equally to high school kids who flip burgers and unskilled laborers trying to feed a family. That is a true thing. So what? All you say it is broken, and needs to be de-coupled. Why does it need to be de-coupled? Why is it broken? You have no supporting facts or arguments whatsoever. All you have is an ideology about oil. When you state a thesis, you need to back that shit up. Allow me to demonstrate.
Why shouldn't a high school kid working hard be paid a living wage? The unskilled guy supporting a family will be paid for 80 hours a week. The teenager who works after school four nights a week will only be paid for maybe 16 hours. Why shouldn't each be paid at minimum the same amount per hour?
The teenager may end up making a large profit due to them living on the support of their own family, but they need to save money for college and to invest into the new life they are about to start. If you want to pay teenagers less than a living wage, then you need to increase the minimum wage of the teenager's parents even more so that the teenager's college and life expenses are added in. Now there is no reason for the teenager to work since their parents have provided the money they need to start a new life on their own.
I say the teenagers should be paid the same living wage. That will give them a great desire to work, so that more of them will get life experience of working. It will mean the overall minimum wage can actually be lower, since you won't factor in as much of the expense of starting college or independent life into the parents wages. And the best part is that it will create a huge boost to the economy as teenagers with lots of disposable income start buying things like crazy. Think about how many Steam games they would buy if they actually had their own money instead of barely enough for a slice of pizza. Teenagers with disposable income have always been one of the largest segments of consumer spending. Giving more money to teenagers who will spend a lot of it will bring happy times to all sorts of industries.
Dafuq.
Minimum wage laws could be based on type of work but not age of worker. There are too many anti-discrimination laws in place for that to fly.
My point really is that the minimum wage standard is applied too broadly, and that the market needs some pretty heavy fixing in order to correct that. Work typically taken on by teens looking for spending money should be in that class, but blue collar work typically should not. I'm not sure how to articulate the division I'm trying to draw right now.