Okay, I'll play. Assumes facts not in evidence. Suppose Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice all work for Google. They all make eleventy seven gajillion dollars a year. The minimum wage is eleven dollars a year. Neither Bob, nor Carol, nor Ted nor Alice are experiencing wealth distribution. Let's suppose instead that Larry, Moe and Curly all pick lettuce for Farmer Bob (no relation). They all make eleven cents a year. Suppose the minimum wage is eleven dollars a year. Oh, ho! You cry. Now we're redistributing money. No, not really. Because Bob is gonna sell the farm or hire robots before he pays that much extra. And you know what? Bob can get a bunch of undocumented workers to replace Larry, Moe and Curly. A minimum wage has nothing to do with "monetary redistribution" and everything to do with lifestyle protectionism. The argument against minimum wage is that if people want a job that badly, they ought to be allowed to work for it. The argument for minimum wage is "How else do you intend to keep out the wetbacks?" Seriously. The first time a federal minimum wage was passed and not immediately abolished by the Supreme Court, it was 25 cents an hour - $4.10 in 2012 dollars. That's not enough to keep anybody in their shanty and socks... but it's enough to drive the goddamn Mexicans back across the border where they can't Terk our Jerbs. Two years later they criminalized El Marijuana. It was the other shoe of The New Deal - plenty of make-work, but only for white folks. So that out of the way, let's not pretend that a minimum wage is a living wage, which is what the socialists and communists and neoutopians and myself are really interested in talking about. Minimum wage in California is $8 an hour. A living wage in Los Angeles is $11.37 and that's without kids. Minimum wage plus a baby = food stamps, no two ways about it. So let's not look at it from a perspective of money and buckets. The question at hand is who you wish to remunerate well enough to establish themselves within your community. For places that pay minimum wage, the answer is "nobody." This is not an unfortunate consequence of capitalism, this is a conscious choice by predatory corporations. It doesn't have to work that way. I know two people who work at Costco. One of them is out on the floor, the other one does advertising. Both of them have been there more than fifteen years. Compare and contrast with Amazon's digital Okies.A minimum wage is a means of monetary redistribution built into payroll.
Thanks for playing. Well, it would come from Google Inc. if they had a minimum wage workforce, but they don't. It's a targeted redistribution that only hits those employers with a minimum wage workforce. It's a type of legislated redistribution, but not a universally applied one. Maybe that's an arguable upshot of minimum wage? It's a tax that doesn't fall on high-skill labor employers (place-making). I agree that it is partially about lifestyle protectionism, but that's not exclusive to redistribution. It can be about both. A Federal minimum wage of $10.10 does approach or equate to a living wage in a number of places, but even where it doesn't it could reduce the overall need for other subsidies, and the proposal is to adjust for inflation, so it won't erode (as fast). Costco is a nice corporation. IMO the minimum wage is in part an attempt to force other companies to be as just as Costco since it doesn't seem that the workforce is rational or mobile or organized enough to make it untenable for employers to do so. Predatory corporations can't employ kids anymore and they have to provide safety equipment. No doubt some places did so before they were compelled, but that doesn't mean that compelling the rest was unnecessary. But what of a living wage? Is that what an employer should provide?Assumes facts not in evidence. Suppose Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice all work for Google. They all make eleventy seven gajillion dollars a year. The minimum wage is eleven dollars a year. Neither Bob, nor Carol, nor Ted nor Alice are experiencing wealth distribution.
Right - as opposed to employers with a living wage workforce, which is not the same. Most of the minimum wage employers - fast food, retail - will simply ditch jobs if their margins are too low. McDonald's has had automated order and checkout in the works for 20 years now - they aren't pulling the trigger because they don't have to. Best Buy has vending machines at lots of airports. Grocery stores are most likely to invest in self-check in regions that are most heavily unionized. "Minimum wage workforce" is code for teens, illegals and the indigent. A wage is not a tax. A tax is not a wage. Employ someone on an 01 visa and you will pay a tax to the government for hiring them instead of an able-bodied American Pay someone $4 over what you're required to pay them and the government doesn't benefit at all - the same money comes to them from you or them. But you haven't made the argument. Quite. Red states, mostly. Goes a long way towards explaining approval ratings, considering. Problem is, it isn't a living wage everywhere. That's why Republicans generally argue against it - it isn't enough to do anybody any good, but it's too much to expect those poor, downtrodden "small business owners" to shoulder.
IMO the minimum wage is like Obamacare - a not-quite-good-enough solution to a problem that desperately needs something better. Yeah, but that shit dates back to Upton Sinclair. What have they done for us lately? There are plenty of employers that do. In'n'Out provides a living wage. Dick's Drive In in Seattle. Costco. There are others. These are generally privately-held corporations that aren't beholden to stockholders, who recognize that employee retention is often just as valuable as overhead reduction to long-term profit. Know what would be interesting? If the Amazon warehouses unionized. I'll betcha Amazon would fold within a year of it. Because by your reasoning ("minimum wage is a tax"), zero-margin Internet goods are a penalty.It's a targeted redistribution that only hits those employers with a minimum wage workforce.
It's a tax that doesn't fall on high-skill labor employers (place-making).
I agree that it is partially about lifestyle protectionism, but that's not exclusive to redistribution.
A Federal minimum wage of $10.10 does approach or equate to a living wage in a number of places...
IMO the minimum wage is in part an attempt to force other companies to be as just as Costco since it doesn't seem that the workforce is rational or mobile or organized enough to make it untenable for employers to do so.
Predatory corporations can't employ kids anymore and they have to provide safety equipment.
But what of a living wage? Is that what an employer should provide?
This may be true. However, it has become less so in the last several years, correct? No doubt automation might relieve some minimum wage pressures, but I'm not sure that McDonald's has standard wages as they are franchised, and I wonder how many franchise owners would benefit so much so that making them available would be worthwhile, along with the repairs, etc. Also, people might prefer to order their burger from a person rather than having to push 'customize' > 'no pickles', etc... I'm just saying that there are other hurdles that might be keeping that specter at bay, at least in some industries. True, but a legislated minimum wage does force employers to pay employees more when they might have paid less. That is the government legislating with the intention to take money from one set of folk and put into the hands of another. Also, it does increase the payroll tax on employers. But I am not arguing that it's for the government's benefit. I'm saying that it's a means to alter the distribution of money. I was using the term 'tax' loosely in the above comment. It's government-directed employer to worker monetary distribution. I can agree with this. Some might argue that's why the Fed should set the floor, and the States take it from there, but I do agree that it is not a solution to a problem, more a way to alleviate some symptoms. What I wonder, is if this highlights something that can be improved upon from another angle. Is it necessary and good to have shitty corporations in addition to the good ones? Is there a magic ratio? A constant one? What changes the ratio if it does change, and is that sustainable? Ha. It's funny. I made a similar argument about Amazon to wasoxygen in a previous post, and never finished it, and it was a question that he asked me that spurred me to write this one. I think I need to revisit that discussion and see if my reasoning takes me full circle."Minimum wage workforce" is code for teens, illegals and the indigent.
A wage is not a tax. A tax is not a wage.
Problem is, it isn't a living wage everywhere.
IMO the minimum wage is like Obamacare - a not-quite-good-enough solution to a problem that desperately needs something better.
These are generally privately-held corporations that aren't beholden to stockholders, who recognize that employee retention is often just as valuable as overhead reduction to long-term profit.
Know what would be interesting? If the Amazon warehouses unionized. I'll betcha Amazon would fold within a year of it. Because by your reasoning ("minimum wage is a tax"), zero-margin Internet goods are a penalty.
For clarity - I'm a big booster of a livable minimum wage. It solves all sorts of pernicious social ills. It is also bare-faced wealth redistribution, which I'm also a big booster of. I'm mostly here as an annoying gadfly to pick apart your arguments. We actually disagree about very, very little. So in that vein: Quite. The rise in fast food strikes/minimum wage protests is in direct correlation to the rise in structural underemployment due to the aftermath of the 2008 recession. I read in The Week today that since 2000, minimum wage workers under 18 have dropped from 27% in 2000 to 17% in 2012, while those with "some college" are now in a majority. We're back in the space where we instituted a minimum wage to get rid of the wetbacks. Franchises function on standardization. You charge what we say you charge for a burger, you make it our way, and if you want to maintain your right to use our logos and brand identity, you pay $2500 for a Blizzard machine. If McDonald's decided that their interests were better served by BurgerBot, every franchise would have one. They don't - McDonald's response to Super Size Me demonstrates that they're intensely aware of their public image and will sell salads at a loss even when nobody buys them. However, they've also managed to create a bifurcated culture where there are long-term employees and itinerants. It's just not as simple as either of us are making it out to be. Yeah, but it's not a tax. This is an important distinction. The government can also mandate that McDonald's can only serve beef that's been inspected by the USDA - that's also not a tax, despite the fact that it redistributes wealth from McDonald's to USDA-compliant beef processors. And increases the tax burden paid by employees. Yeah - a minimum wage is a form of wealth redistribution. It still ain't a tax, and shouldn't be thought of as one. HELL NO. We draw a line as to what corporate behavior is permissible and dissolve corporations that cross the line. What you're asking is if we need corporations just this side of "too shitty to live." Nope.com. Here, let me finish it for you. IF: Amazon has gained tremendous marketshare through cut-throat behavior and abusive labor practices AND: They destroy a competitor that does not employ cut-throat behavior and abusive labor practices THEN: The greater marketplace suffers despite any savings to the consumer because Amazon has made it that much harder for an honest business to remain in the marketplace. It's social darwinism, pure and simple: survival of the fittest leads to the biggest, nastiest shark in the tank and nothing else. Even Adam Smith believed in protectionism.This may be true. However, it has become less so in the last several years, correct?
No doubt automation might relieve some minimum wage pressures, but I'm not sure that McDonald's has standard wages as they are franchised, and I wonder how many franchise owners would benefit so much so that making them available would be worthwhile, along with the repairs, etc.
True, but a legislated minimum wage does force employers to pay employees more when they might have paid less.
Also, it does increase the payroll tax on employers.
Is it necessary and good to have shitty corporations in addition to the good ones?
Ha. It's funny. I made a similar argument about Amazon to wasoxygen in a previous post, and never finished it, and it was a question that he asked me that spurred me to write this one.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I do wonder at which point does the medicine become worse than the disease? That is not to say that I don't think that some of Amazon's practices shouldn't be curtailed, but for every effort made, something is lost. Sometimes the cost is more bureaucracy for good corporations that don't need it, sometimes it the creation of infrastructure that devolves into legacy and then drag, and worse, sometimes it is an opportunity for special interests to weave their wishes into new legislation. One nice thing about a minimum wage is the simplicity of it. That being said, I'm not sure that shark is the proper term, or at least, I don't think the shark is the worst enemy. The leach is the worst. It's one thing to watch companies beat up on each other using their own resources, but when they are using the public's resources to fight each other, that's when it's really bad. Wallmart is a big leach. Amazon will make the transformation, but it's not as far along yet.HELL NO. We draw a line as to what corporate behavior is permissible and dissolve corporations that cross the line. What you're asking is if we need corporations just this side of "too shitty to live." Nope.com.
Question of the century, ladies and gentlemen. John Lewis Gaddis made the point in "The Cold War: A New History" that the 20th Century was nothing more than Capitalism squaring off against Socialism and the two extremes grinding each other to nubs while the successful, thriving societies tended to pick something on the spectrum in between.I do wonder at which point does the medicine become worse than the disease?
Why shouldn't it be thought of as one? The government is (legitimately) coercing an individual or group of individuals to spend more money than they would normally. I hear heads on talk radio refer to all sorts of government coercion as tax, not that I should take my cues from willy-nilly.And increases the tax burden paid by employees. Yeah - a minimum wage is a form of wealth redistribution. It still ain't a tax, and shouldn't be thought of as one.
BECAUSE THAT MONEY IS NOT GOING TO THE GOVERNMENT. A tax is remuneration to the government. Period. Full stop. Should I hire "an Alien of Extraordinary Ability" I will pay more to the government than I will had I hired a citizen. That is a tax. Should I buy gas in Los Angeles County instead of Riverside County I will pay more to the government. That is a tax. Should the government require me to pay someone a dollar more than I want to, however, that is NOT a tax BECAUSE THE MONEY DOES NOT GO TO THE GOVERNMENT. Demagogques use the word "tax" incorrectly because they have successfully made "tax" a bad word, so they might as well apply it to everything.