Eliminating minimum wage would help the very poor!

[rockerrockstar]

Most of the people who make minimum wage are either part time workers or high school students just trying to make a little extra money. Very few adults actually work full time at minimum wage jobs.

Also, why exactly do you support Ron Paul if you support massive government regulations like the minimum wage? Do you realize that Ron Paul wants to abolish the minimum wage?

I don't like that aspect of Ron Paul's ideas of getting rid of minimum wage. I like many other things he says though. I don't support his stance on right to work law too. I think Unions are good. I don't like our current system of free trade. I think the free trade is the reason for union busting and shipping jobs over seas. We need better standard of living in America not worse. I don't want us to become a third world country.

Anyways, I do like Ron's ideas on getting our spending under control. Social Security can't be saved if our country keeps spending like it has. The dollar probably will not be saved if things keep going the way it has with the over spending. I don't like the endless wars. I know Ron is serious about cutting spending unlike the rest of the politicians. We need to stop doing all these wars we just can't afford it. I am really concerned with a future default of the dollar being possible. I don't like the idea of future tax hikes and high interest that probably will be coming once inflation starts taking off from all the out of control spending. I don't like the patriot act or the defense authorization act. I am sure there is much more. What it comes down to is that Ron would help get this country headed back to a more sustainable direction. The dollar would be more stable under Ron. Ron would fight to up hold the rights of the people. Which makes us all more free.

[Traditional Conservative]

I don't like that aspect of Ron Paul's ideas of getting rid of minimum wage. I like many other things he says though. I don't support his stance on right to work law too. I think Unions are good. I don't like our current system of free trade. I think the free trade is the reason for union busting and shipping jobs over seas. We need better standard of living in America not worse. I don't want us to become a third world country.

Anyways, I do like Ron's ideas on getting our spending under control. Social Security can't be saved if our country keeps spending like it has. The dollar probably will not be saved if things keep going the way it has with the over spending. I don't like the endless wars. I know Ron is serious about cutting spending unlike the rest of the politicians. We need to stop doing all these wars we just can't afford it. I am really concerned with a future default of the dollar being possible. I don't like the idea of future tax hikes and high interest that probably will be coming once inflation starts taking off from all the out of control spending. I don't like the patriot act or the defense authorization act. I am sure there is much more. What it comes down to is that Ron would help get this country headed back to a more sustainable direction. The dollar would be more stable under Ron. Ron would fight to up hold the rights of the people. Which makes us all more free.

Fair enough. I don't agree with Ron on every single issue either. There probably aren't many of us who do.

[LibertyEagle]

It seems strange to read two threads where a large number of members here are arguing in favor of FDA regulations and increasing the minimum wage. Doesn't everyone realize that Ron is opposed to the minimum wage and the FDA? I'm not even a libertarian, but I'm still more libertarian than most of the people who post on this forum.

[The Free Hornet]

The truth is that minimum wage has not been keeping up with inflation. I feel sorry for the minimum wage workers. I don't know how they can afford to drive to work. They must live right next to work because paying for gas at these high prices would not be economical to drive to work. Probably ride the bus otherwise.

Many carpool.

In 1970, minimum wage was $1.60 & gold was $36. One hour at minimum bought you 0.044444 oz of gold. Today, if you were paid 0.044444 oz of gold per hour, that would be worth $71 (at $1600/oz). By one measure, a 1970 minimum wage job is worth ~$142,000 annually today.

Anybody thinking minimum wage is designed to compensate for inflation ought realize the horrible failure it is.

[The Free Hornet]

I don't like that aspect of Ron Paul's ideas of getting rid of minimum wage. ... I don't support his stance on right to work law too. I think Unions are good. ... I don't want us to become a third world country.

Anyways, I do like Ron's ideas on getting our spending under control.

Read the Mainspring of Human Progress. It addresses the question of why mankind has been starving for thousands of years but we are not. If you think we're not a third world country because of government meddling in our affairs, you are mistaken. What led you to that conclusion?

Here is yet another link discussing the ills of the minimum wage:

Every intervention includes both winners and losers. Otherwise, there would be no intervention at all. Workers with a higher marginal productivity that are thus able to retain their jobs will gain in wealth because they now earn a higher wage. Those that are unemployed, find lower wages, or worse working conditions will be harmed in wealth. Producers will be harmed in wealth because there costs have increased. They are also harmed in utility because they have been coerced into exchange. Consumers will also be harmed in utility because the supply of goods will shrink due to additional costs for producers.

http://hanseconomics.com/2012/03/05/...torts-reality/

I doubt even the referenced subset benefits because they have to live in the same economic hellhole as the rest of us.

Do apologists for the state have any reasoning for their stance?

More so, how do you expect to get "spending under control" while keeping all the regulations you hold so dear?

Social Security can't be saved if our country keeps spending like it has.

SS = theft. It ought not be saved. Send the would-be recipients a list of the people who voted for it and a blank police report. Their money got stolen.

The dollar probably will not be saved if things keep going the way it has with the over spending.

The dollar is a small fraction of what it used to be: 5%. It's not unlike Terry Schiavo before the plug was pulled.

I don't like the endless wars. I know Ron is serious about cutting spending unlike the rest of the politicians. We need to stop doing all these wars we just can't afford it. I am really concerned with a future default of the dollar being possible. I don't like the idea of future tax hikes and high interest that probably will be coming once inflation starts taking off from all the out of control spending. I don't like the patriot act or the defense authorization act. I am sure there is much more. What it comes down to is that Ron would help get this country headed back to a more sustainable direction. The dollar would be more stable under Ron. Ron would fight to up hold the rights of the people. Which makes us all more free.

That's all legit but you need to learn how deep the rabbit hole is.

[kezt777]

You want to know why this is the case? Because some jobs quite simply aren't worth the current minimum wage, so why would an employer add more jobs when the minimum wage is paying the employee more than the production of that employee is bringing in? The idea of business is to make a profit. In some industries, paying an employee the current minimum wage doesn't put companies in a good position to even break even just like any regulations cause unemployment to skyrocket.

I think my business would be a good example of that. We would love to hire an extra person as a 'support person' in our daycare center because there are constantly so many new govt regulations adding to our paperwork load, we are having a lot of difficulty balancing that with looking after, you know, THE CHILDREN. However, we cannot afford to hire anyone new at the $9.10/hour minimum wage in Alberta without raising the fees for parents yet again. It's a slippery slope that a lot of small businesses go through. They cannot hire new people because the bar is set too high and paying someone over $9 an hour to clean a few counters and toilets and sign some checklists for 3 hours or so a day is just not going to work for us or our parents.

I just did some quick calculations as an example. The monthly fee at my center is the second lowest in the city, yet even though I get paid more than $5/hr above minimum wage, the daycare fee accounts for 37.6% of my highest possible 'take home' pay after income tax, pension, and employment insurance deductions. Those who make minimum wage can get a subsidy from the govt, but those that make above that will not. That's a hefty sum to pay for one of the cheapest daycares in the region and if we were to hire someone else, I would be paying pretty darn near 40% of my net income to the center before I got to pay for anything else. Who can live on that?

Then if we look at the center, the only income is from the 'service' we provide. That totals $12,000 income per month. That sounds pretty good for a business owned by a woman in her own home. But she has not paid the 4 staff members yet (4 are needed by govt regulations, no less). Before matching for taxes and contributions, she has to pay out an average of $8600 per month to wages alone. This is for people who have been employed there for 23, 17, 13, and 7 years respectively. The center actually pays between $1.40 and $2.50/hour above minimum wage from it's own 'profit'. We get mandated govt wage enhancement to make up the rest of our pay (hence why she is paying me $2 above min wage herself, but I actually make $5 an hour above it - clear as mud?). Anyhow, my point is that with wages alone, wages barely above minimum wage, for very long term staff, 72% of each month's income goes to wages- BEFORE adding in what comes out for matching income tax EI and CP, and before paying vacation pay. We do not have a health care plan or anything else - the only deductions are the required labour law amounts. So how on earth can this small business possibly hire even one more minimum wage staff member? Hiring just one more person for only 3 hours a day at minimum wage would eat up almost 20% of what was left of her 'profits'. Profits before paying any bills the center incurs (utilities, groceries, etc). It is ridiculous.

Parents cannot afford to pay more than they already do, and centers cannot hire more staff at these rising minimum wage amounts without charging the parents more. Insert 'consumers' 'employers' and 'products or services' into this story instead and I believe it is much the same for any small business. I can't think of another way to explain it other than my own personal experience. I live in a country where the standard of living is unbelievably high compared to many places in the US, including large cities, and raising minimum wage repeatedly across the provinces has not done a thing for anybody, not that I have seen. If you get 50 cents more per hour and then prices of goods and services go up in response, you are not making any more money at all. We watch House Hunters International a lot and watch home shows from the US a lot and nearly choke to death at the prices of homes down there compared to here. It's staggering. And it's not just because of the failing economy because I have been obsessed with home shows for many many years and it was the same before the big bubble burst. Houses in my city, old cruddy ugly houses that need a lot of work are over $200,000. It's insane. The price of everything has gone up hand in hand with the raises in minimum wage over the past 10 years - but when you are a min wage worker, you notice that the wage goes up FIRST, then the prices of products goes up AFTERWARD. Not the other way around. I was a single parent for a decade, believe me, I paid close attention to all of that for a very long time.

[LibertyRevolution]

Au contraire. In most cases, better employees mean higher quality work and thus more profits. It is competition for the best workers in the marketplace that determines wages. It is not the government.

Well, When it comes to employing minimum wage workers, your not looking for high quality workers..
You are looking for a body to carry heavy stuff, at crappy hours, for little pay...
My ex boss would go through 40+ employees a season. He work the guys on the crew 60-80hours a week on average..
When you started to slack off, or look burned out, he slap you with more hour or heavier loads till you quit, then replace you.
He had a pool of willing victims (employees), he would just hire the next guy out the halfway house to replace you...

Its hard to compete in a labor market that is filled with halfway house victims..
They have to work to not be in jail, they will take any job, they cannot refuse..
They only labor that can compete with that is illegal immigrant workers, and my ex boss switched to that in the end.

[Working Poor]

tptb do not want the very poor to have opportunity they want to keep them dependent.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, When it comes to employing minimum wage workers, your not looking for high quality workers..
You are looking for a body to carry heavy stuff, at crappy hours, for little pay...
My ex boss would go through 40+ employees a season. He work the guys on the crew 60-80hours a week on average..
When you started to slack off, or look burned out, he slap you with more hour or heavier loads till you quit, then replace you.
He had a pool of willing victims (employees), he would just hire the next guy out the halfway house to replace you...

Its hard to compete in a labor market that is filled with halfway house victims..
They have to work to not be in jail, they will take any job, they cannot refuse..
They only labor that can compete with that is illegal immigrant workers, and my ex boss switched to that in the end.

Which is one of the many reasons why it is worthwhile not to have a job on the bottom of the totem pole. Isn't this why our parents encouraged us to do well in school, so that we could get better jobs?

[green73]

Schiff:

Because the minimum wage prevents so many young people (including a disproportionate number of minorities) from getting entry-level jobs, they never develop the skills necessary to command higher paying jobs. As a result, many turn to crime, while others subsist on government aid. Supporters of the minimum wage argue that it is impossible to support a family on the minimum wage. While that is true, it is completely irrelevant, as minimum wage jobs are not designed to support families. In fact, many people earning the minimum wage are themselves supported by their parents.

The way it is supposed to work is that people do not choose to start families until they can earn enough to support them. Lower wage jobs enable workers to eventually acquire the skills necessary to earn wages high enough to support a family. Does anyone really think a kid with a paper route should earn a wage high enough to support a family?

And this:

In addition to keeping unemployed the low-skilled, the minimum wage also hurts consumers..it's the consumers of products made with minimum wage labor that bear some of the burden. As it tends to be the low paid who themselves consume the products of minimum wage labor this just makes the poor poorer in consumption terms: the only terms in which poverty ought to be measured.