Big Sky Cairn

The Federal Minimum Wage just went up. Doesn’t really matter in Montana since our state minimum wage is already higher then the Federal Minimum, but it did remind me of when I was making the minimum wage at my first job at Wendy’s. Oh, wait. Now that I think about it, as a green high school freshmen with zero work experience, my first job actually paid more than the minimum wage. Turns out, not too many people actually make the minimum wage…

So next time a liberal tells you a sob story about how hard it is to raise a family on the minimum wage, ask him to produce a family that’s trying to survive on the income from a sole breadwinner earning minimum wage.

And while they are looking, I’ll produce hundreds of small business owners who are struggling mightily in a soft economy, pinching pennies everywhere they can just to keep the doors open and the ledger in the black. I’ll show you a small business owner who has to reduce their payroll or postpone hiring new workers. I’ll show you the reasons for increasing unemployment.

And if by some miracle your liberal buddy manages to find someone scraping by on minimum wage, be sure to ask them if they’d prefer a slightly smaller paycheck or no paycheck at all.

So, employees are just supposed to work for… What, free? If a small business can’t afford to pay it’s employees minimum wage, they can’t afford to be in business.

Actually, minimum wages often set an artificial floor for wages - I’ve even seen evidence that a minimum wage depresses overall wages.

But Courtney you stumbled onto another interesting aspect of the minimum wage. Namely, if an increased minimum wage creates strain on a business, they will pass that cost onto the consumer. Since the employee who enjoys the higher wage is also a consumer, the resulting inflationary pressure actually prevents an increased minimum wage from increasing the actual earnings of anyone.

You’ve set it up so that it appears that the high school student is not worth his pay. Do you think you should have worked for less? Should your parents have subsidized Wendy’s by providing food and shelter to it’s employees? Who’s getting a better deal here?

I’ll grant you that if there were no minimum wage, low-skill workers would be working for less. But we ahve minimum standards in this country - there are certain activities we find abhorrent, and paying sub-living level wages is one.

Courtney makes a very good point - any business that cannot afford to pay a living wage should not be in business. What social good comes of that?

And finally, a bump in the minimum wage bumps all wages. Since labor is the source of wealth, that means that those who produce wealth get to keep more of it. I find it hard to think that’s a bad thing. We’re talking about workers getting a bigger slice of the pie - do you find that abhorrent?

“Namely, if an increased minimum wage creates strain on a business, they will pass that cost onto the consumer. Since the employee who enjoys the higher wage is also a consumer, the resulting inflationary pressure actually prevents an increased minimum wage from increasing the actual earnings of anyone.”

I wrote about this exact flawed line of reasoning at at Piece of Mind. It wasn’t a strawman after all.

What a curious notion: “Since labor is the source of wealth, that means that those who produce wealth get to keep more of it.” So, if you are out of a job and your home is going to be foreclosed, just go dig a hole. It’s hard work, you will end up sweaty and tired because it’s “laborious.” That should provide you enough money to pay your bills.
Except in real life, it doesn’t work that way. Could it be that your argument both here and at your site is too simplistic?
As to Courtney’s point, “if they can’t afford to pay minimum wage they should go out of business” she is right, except you need to change “should” to will. And exactly how many jobs does a failed business provide?
Your post at your site seems to equate all labor the same. You apparently discount experience, skill, training, or any other enhancement. If the question is, what is the value of the labor that is provided versus the value that is paid? If the value paid is greater than the value provided, you lose money, which, unless you are a government cannot be sustained. If the value provided is greater than the value paid, the employer risks losing the employee to another enterprise that will pay more. Both should seek an equilibrium that is at some point of maximum benefit to each other.

Steve - that’s the recipe for sweatshops - the modern stepchild of slavery. There is always a pool of low-skilled labor available to take jobs from people who might have the audacity to demand better pay. If we do as you wish, we race tot eh bottom, and our sneakers end up being made by people who barely scratch out enough to buy food and pay rent, if that, and who are abused and treated as chattel to boot.

Oh, wait, that’s already the case. Other countries don’t have minimum wage laws, and apparel manufacturers race to them.

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” (A Lincoln)

Mark can you define what a sweatshop is?

This is comical. In a piece I wrote on sweatshops, I claimed that the right had two defenses they fell back on for sweatshops - one that they don’t really exist, and two that they may exist but they really help people. I see you prefer the former, and I’m again amazed at how predictable (and alike) you all are!

A sweatshop is a working environment where workers have no control over thier working environment, and where conditions are abominable. Symptoms of sweatshops may include exposure to harmful materials, hazardous situations, extreme temperatures. Employees may be abused. Sweatshop workers often have to work long hours for little or no pay, and laws protecting workers, if they exist, are ignored. Children often work in sweatshops.

Questions, then?

and laws protecting workers, if they exist, are ignored

So, if we have such laws and they are enforced… a lower-than-you’d-like wage isn’t a prequel to sweatshops at all. In fact, it’s really an incentive to pick some some valuable skills and maybe avail yourself of a free education?

Conservative defenses in favor of sweatshops: 1) they don’t really exist, 2) they are really good for people. You know you’re on a slippery slope - it’s not a whole lot further down to claim that slavery gives people needed skills.

Free education? You are a curiosity!