Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Minimum Wage: MMUC (My Made Up Competition)

David_Debates
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?
AveryBenjamin
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 7:20:41 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
I think this will need more improvement i saw this post but i am not satisfy with this content. However i used to read many blog and i also run a blog by my self. for more visit http://www.assignmentdoer.com...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 5:39:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay). The issue is, there's opportunity for abuse by eliminating a minimum wage. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but that there is still an opportunity for it. By setting a low minimum wage, employers aren't tempted to abuse the system but also avoid negative economic consequences.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages. There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
David_Debates
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:09:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 5:39:36 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay). The issue is, there's opportunity for abuse by eliminating a minimum wage. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but that there is still an opportunity for it. By setting a low minimum wage, employers aren't tempted to abuse the system but also avoid negative economic consequences.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages. There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

I advocate for the removal of any minimum price on any commodity that has been placed by the Government.
Seeing that labor is a commodity, as it can be traded freely, when we put a limitation on it's minimum price it has heavy implications that affect all of us.

Think about it this way: would you advocate for a law that states that all businesses would be forced to sell wheat at a minimum price of $15 a bushel? What would happen to the value of wheat?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:20:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:09:17 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/7/2016 5:39:36 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay). The issue is, there's opportunity for abuse by eliminating a minimum wage. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but that there is still an opportunity for it. By setting a low minimum wage, employers aren't tempted to abuse the system but also avoid negative economic consequences.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages. There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

I advocate for the removal of any minimum price on any commodity that has been placed by the Government.

Okay. Could you respond to what I've said above?

Seeing that labor is a commodity, as it can be traded freely, when we put a limitation on it's minimum price it has heavy implications that affect all of us.

The value of labor is a real, important thing. We can't take the risk of allowing businesses to abuse the value an employee gives the company. They have to be paid more the $3 an hour. A BASELINE wage, not a "living wage" should be given to mitigate those concerns.

For more on the value of labor: [http://www.debate.org...]

Think about it this way: would you advocate for a law that states that all businesses would be forced to sell wheat at a minimum price of $15 a bushel? What would happen to the value of wheat?

That's a completely separate issue. The juxtaposition of wheat and a human worker is too much to compare closely. Regardless, you've neglected to respond to my other points above.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
David_Debates
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 6:48:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay).

But who should assign that value: the business and employee themselves? Or a Government that isn't hiring that worker?

The issue is, there's opportunity for abuse by eliminating a minimum wage. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but that there is still an opportunity for it. By setting a low minimum wage, employers aren't tempted to abuse the system but also avoid negative economic consequences.

They can't abuse the system if trade is made freely. If the worker wants to be paid more for his product (labor), he simply must find a business that values his product more. The reason why we don't want to abolish it is because none of us have seen the US before progressives advocated for it, and we are scared of changing it because "businesses are big and scary."

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

No you don't. You would find them extremely valuable. If you are able to purchase labor at a good price, you would value that worker a lot more than someone asking for more, because if that worker quits, you have to pay double, maybe triple what you were paying that worker.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

No, actually, that's not the case. I'm not paying for a worker, I'm paying for a worker's product, labor. Labor can be compared to wheat because it is concrete and can have a set price by both the business and the worker.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages.

You can if people are willing to enter into these low paying jobs. They won't because of competition between businesses.

There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

But they can't get the job because of the competition between other more qualified, more efficient and better trained workers. Did you read my argument?

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

So you want a low minimum wage of how much?

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

I advocate for the removal of any minimum price on any commodity that has been placed by the Government.

Okay. Could you respond to what I've said above?

No faster said than done.

Seeing that labor is a commodity, as it can be traded freely, when we put a limitation on it's minimum price it has heavy implications that affect all of us.

The value of labor is a real, important thing. We can't take the risk of allowing businesses to abuse the value an employee gives the company.

We aren't taking a risk. This type of thing has been done before, and workers were treated quite well. Just look at Ford's workers, they were paid $3/hr. and there was no minimum wage in place. Compare that to what workers are being paid today.

They have to be paid more the $3 an hour. A BASELINE wage, not a "living wage" should be given to mitigate those concerns.

What job is currently worth $3 an hour?
Answer: none of them.
Who do you know 5 years ago that is still working $3 an hour?
Answer: no one.
Your claims are all hypothetical, moral arguments that harm more than they protect.

For more on the value of labor: [http://www.debate.org...]

Think about it this way: would you advocate for a law that states that all businesses would be forced to sell wheat at a minimum price of $15 a bushel? What would happen to the value of wheat?

That's a completely separate issue. The juxtaposition of wheat and a human worker is too much to compare closely. Regardless, you've neglected to respond to my other points above.

We aren't talking about a human worker, we are talking about the value of his product, labor. The business isn't paying for a human, and it would be stupid to think so. It's paying for the human's product. Why is this so difficult to understand?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2016 10:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/7/2016 6:48:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay).

But who should assign that value: the business and employee themselves? Or a Government that isn't hiring that worker?

Local governments. Not federal governments. A successful local government knows the scale and ability of its businesses. Again, it's only as a safeguard to the workers themselves.

They can't abuse the system if trade is made freely. If the worker wants to be paid more for his product (labor), he simply must find a business that values his product more. The reason why we don't want to abolish it is because none of us have seen the US before progressives advocated for it, and we are scared of changing it because "businesses are big and scary."

Some are. It's inexplicably true that labor practices are regressive in relation to lackadaisical enforcement of labor laws. The minimum wage is one of such laws.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

No you don't. You would find them extremely valuable. If you are able to purchase labor at a good price, you would value that worker a lot more than someone asking for more, because if that worker quits, you have to pay double, maybe triple what you were paying that worker.

I disagree. There are plenty of people who need jobs, and would take them if they were available.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

No, actually, that's not the case. I'm not paying for a worker, I'm paying for a worker's product, labor. Labor can be compared to wheat because it is concrete and can have a set price by both the business and the worker.

But, you still continue to pay for the labor in an ongoing fashion. You don't pay for the labor one day and then not ever again. Wheat is purchased once, that is all. It's very different.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages.

You can if people are willing to enter into these low paying jobs. They won't because of competition between businesses.

That's only true as long as other companies don't also drop their wages. They would.

There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

^ and high turnover rates aren't good either.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

But they can't get the job because of the competition between other more qualified, more efficient and better trained workers. Did you read my argument?

Yes, I read it. But it makes little sense given the pretext of how *MOST* companies by and large would lower wages if there was no minimum. That reduces competition concurrent with wage drops. Besides, the jobs that would pay below the current minimum wouldn't be looked at by those with high skills and education. When wages go up, you see displacement of the less-skilled, because the higher skilled can get easier jobs with the nearly the same pay as a specialized profession.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

So you want a low minimum wage of how much?

Keep it about where it is now, but contingent upon localities. It can really help prevent paying really low wages while not hurting anything economically.

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

I advocate for the removal of any minimum price on any commodity that has been placed by the Government.

Okay. Could you respond to what I've said above?

No faster said than done.

Thanks. :)

Seeing that labor is a commodity, as it can be traded freely, when we put a limitation on it's minimum price it has heavy implications that affect all of us.

The value of labor is a real, important thing. We can't take the risk of allowing businesses to abuse the value an employee gives the company.

We aren't taking a risk. This type of thing has been done before, and workers were treated quite well. Just look at Ford's workers, they were paid $3/hr. and there was no minimum wage in place. Compare that to what workers are being paid today.

They have to be paid more the $3 an hour. A BASELINE wage, not a "living wage" should be given to mitigate those concerns.

What job is currently worth $3 an hour?
Answer: none of them.
Who do you know 5 years ago that is still working $3 an hour?
Answer: no one.
Your claims are all hypothetical, moral arguments that harm more than they protect.

It was just a random number. The point is, no one can live on $3 wages (which is representative of a wage too low to live on, not specific).

For more on the value of labor: [http://www.debate.org...]

Think about it this way: would you advocate for a law that states that all businesses would be forced to sell wheat at a minimum price of $15 a bushel? What would happen to the value of wheat?

That's a completely separate issue. The juxtaposition of wheat and a human worker is too much to compare closely. Regardless, you've neglected to respond to my other points above.

We aren't talking about a human worker, we are talking about the value of his product, labor. The business isn't paying for a human, and it would be stupid to think so. It's paying for the human's product. Why is this so difficult to understand.

But, if his labor can't earn him enough to support himself, the issue becomes moral.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW