The Minimum Wage: What's the Big Deal?

[tumscalcium]

Not a bad answer, but there are many people who believe that one of the duties of having wealth is to provide assistance to those less fortunate. Some of these same people are willing to pay more in taxes to achieve that goal.

No one is stopping anyone from electively paying more in taxes. Forcing others to give up more of their money because something they can afford to is my issue.

 

[Persian Vol]

Distribution of wealth is brought under the idealistic premise that there is enough money within our economy that poverty can potentially be eradicated if we narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

Many skeptics to this idealistic solution to income inequality state that it is morally wrong for individuals who do not work to take another individuals money who has worked for it. I disagree with this.

First off, all impovershed worker are theoretically working in this scenario. Income wouldn't be supplied to individuals who do not have a job.

Second off, not all wealthy people are inherently working harder than all poor people. An individual who makes 300x as much as a poor individual is clearly not working 300x as hard. I constantly see the argument that rich people work harder for the money, and that is why they deserve the money.

Yet, many proponents to that argument also believe that our free market economy does not equate wealth of a job to "hard work", but that it is simply dependent on supply and demand. If we acknowledge that our job market is based off supply and demand (which it is), it does not make sense for us to use this "morally" subjective argument that low income workers deserve their wealth because they do not work as hard.

 

[1972 Grad]

Do you believe that everyone, regardless of profession should receive the same amount of money at the end of the day?

Sounds fair to me. That would also solve the cost of higher education. There would be no need to go to college.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sounds fair to me. That would also solve the cost of higher education. There would be no need to go to college.

Or work. I'm down with an early retirement.

 

[tumscalcium]

Distribution of wealth is brought under the idealistic premise that there is enough money within our economy that poverty can potentially be eradicated if we narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

Many skeptics to this idealistic solution to income inequality state that it is morally wrong for individuals who do not work to take another individuals money who has worked for it. I disagree with this.

First off, all impovershed worker are theoretically working in this scenario. Income wouldn't be supplied to individuals who do not have a job.

Second off, not all wealthy people are inherently working harder than all poor people. An individual who makes 300x as much as a poor individual is clearly not working 300x as hard. I constantly see the argument that rich people work harder for the money, and that is why they deserve the money.

Yet, many proponents to that argument also believe that our free market economy does not equate wealth of a job to "hard work", but that it is simply dependent on supply and demand. If we acknowledge that our job market is based off supply and demand (which it is), it does not make sense for us to use this "morally" subjective argument that low income workers deserve their wealth because they do not work as hard.

What does working "hard" have to do with anything? Are you talking just physical labor or what?

You can hammer a rock to dust all day until your hands bleed. That's hard work.

You can oversee companies and/or thousands of employees to ensure growth and a future for said company and employees and to enrich nearly everyone within that company through tireless negotiations, mergers, R&D, etc... For 18 hrs a day.

Both are hard work, on more physically laborious, which did more?

Before we get derailed I'm not advocating for gazillion for CEO's and other managers. Just bringing up another point.

 

[hog88]

That is not necessarily true. People want good jobs that pay a fair wage. They want to be able to support their family on a single income like they watched their parents do. They want to be able to afford a college education. They don't like the massive tax bill that is necessitated by years of overspending by the government. They are sick and tired of watching executive pay rise many times over while the average worker's pay remains stagnant.

All but the bold is controllable by the individual.

 

[n_huffhines]

It's also like complaining that racism, hatred, lust, envy, murder, rape, brutality, and bigotry exists. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be viewed as good or even normal. I've always hated that argument for greed. Greed is not a proper motivator or a trait that should be encouraged and rewarded....but it is.

No. It's not. Greed is a character flaw, not an action.

It's not that greed is encouraged, it's that it exists and we have to deal with it. Unlike racism and hate, greed can result in good and bad...the point is to create a system where it results in more good than bad.

 

[Persian Vol]

What does working "hard" have to do with anything? Are you talking just physical labor or what?

You can hammer a rock to dust all day until your hands bleed. That's hard work.

You can oversee companies and/or thousands of employees to ensure growth and a future for said company and employees and to enrich nearly everyone within that company through tireless negotiations, mergers, R&D, etc... For 18 hrs a day.

Both are hard work, on more physically laborious, which did more?

Before we get derailed I'm not advocating for gazillion for CEO's and other managers. Just bringing up another point.

Well, I agree with your example that an individual who manages a company has accomplished more as a whole than a single physical laborer, but that was not what I meant by working hard. Working hard is simply putting time into your occupation, and yes there are indeed rich people who put more time into their job than some poor people. But my argument is that the difference of personal effort doesn't equate to a 1000 fold difference in income.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well, I agree with your example that an individual who manages a company has accomplished more as a whole than a single physical laborer, but that was not what I meant by working hard. Working hard is simply putting time into your occupation, and yes there are indeed rich people who put more time into their job than some poor people. But my argument is that the difference of personal effort doesn't equate to a 1000 fold difference in income.

You'll first need to establish that, morally and ethically, people all deserve proportional income based on time/effort/whatever.

Your logic depends on it, but you haven't established the premise. If it's just a personal preference, that's fine, but you'll have problems convincing others who disagree.

 

[hog88]

Distribution of wealth is brought under the idealistic premise that there is enough money within our economy that poverty can potentially be eradicated if we narrow the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

Many skeptics to this idealistic solution to income inequality state that it is morally wrong for individuals who do not work to take another individuals money who has worked for it. I disagree with this.

First off, all impovershed worker are theoretically working in this scenario. Income wouldn't be supplied to individuals who do not have a job.

Second off, not all wealthy people are inherently working harder than all poor people. An individual who makes 300x as much as a poor individual is clearly not working 300x as hard. I constantly see the argument that rich people work harder for the money, and that is why they deserve the money.

Yet, many proponents to that argument also believe that our free market economy does not equate wealth of a job to "hard work", but that it is simply dependent on supply and demand. If we acknowledge that our job market is based off supply and demand (which it is), it does not make sense for us to use this "morally" subjective argument that low income workers deserve their wealth because they do not work as hard.

It really boils down to value, how valuable you are to your employer is in direct relation to your income.

BTW I put in 18 hours yesterday and was back in the office at 7 this morning. That's a little over 2x the work any of my yahoos did yesterday.

 

[n_huffhines]

went back and read it. and while it does argue that I don't think it is still a fair point to make it. No minimum wage think of the retards. hyperbole on my part but that is what it boils down to. [/b]

We are thinking of the handicapped. They can't do the same job a capable person can do, thus minimum wage laws hurt them. I think enough of them not to insult them and not to take choices way from them.

minimum wage was put in place because Huff's utopia of whatever wage the market would take lead us to this.

It's dishonest to frame my position like this. I don't think a utopia can be achieved. I could easily flip that same argument on you. You think you can use rules to create a utopia of fairness. But I'm not a douche bag so I don't insult the handicapped and I won't frame your argument that way. I understand that you are saying you think you can achieve more fairness, not perfect fairness, just like I think we can achieve more total social welfare, not perfect TSW.

 

[n_huffhines]

Well, I agree with your example that an individual who manages a company has accomplished more as a whole than a single physical laborer, but that was not what I meant by working hard. Working hard is simply putting time into your occupation, and yes there are indeed rich people who put more time into their job than some poor people. But my argument is that the difference of personal effort doesn't equate to a 1000 fold difference in income.

It's not about labor, it's about value.

 

[Persian Vol]

You'll first need to establish that, morally and ethically, people all deserve proportional income based on time/effort/whatever.

Your logic depends on it, but you haven't established the premise. If it's just a personal preference, that's fine, but you'll have problems convincing others who disagree, and I'm not sure "personal preference" is something to define widespread public seizure of assets on.

I'm not establishing entirely that wealth is based entirely levels of hard work, because that simply isn't always true. Like I said, the reality is that wealth is based off supply and demand. I brought this up because many opposition to a theoretical redistribution of wealth tend to use the "rich people work harder" argument, which I find flawed.

I didn't discuss on how redistribution of wealth should be enacted, I simply brought up the theory.

 

[05_never_again]

I brought this up because many opposition to a theoretical redistribution of wealth tend to use the "rich people work harder" argument, which I find flawed.

I don't really see that argument much at all. It tends to be more of an argument of why does the government have the right to take your property and give it to someone else by decree. People against redistribution would argue against the government redistributing anyone's money, rich or poor, hard worker or loafer.

It's irrelevant how hard the person worked to earn the property. The fact is that it is their property. If a person didn't work as hard for their money, would that make it more OK to take it?

 

[Persian Vol]

It's not about labor, it's about value.

Yes i am aware of what dictates income for an individual in this country. I brought this up because many people believe that a redistribution of wealth is morally wrong because the poor do not deserve the wealth from the rich because the rich "work harder", and I wanted to show that' it was a flawed argument.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not establishing entirely that wealth is based entirely levels of hard work, because that simply isn't always true. Like I said, the reality is that wealth is based off supply and demand. I brought this up because many opposition to a theoretical redistribution of wealth tend to use the "rich people work harder" argument, which I find flawed.

I didn't discuss on how redistribution of wealth should be enacted, I simply brought up the theory.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just point out that you're referencing something to support your argument that is in question. You're arguing as though some sort of standard of proportion is agreed upon, but it's not. It's every bit as flawed as the opposite standard that you are arguing against--that those who work harder (rich) deserve more.

 

[n_huffhines]

The irony is the thing that makes minimum wage undesirable is the same ****ing thing that makes protectionism undesirable....we are distorting the market, specifically higher prices for everyone, so that some people can have higher pay.

Rs tend to hate on the former and are now embracing the latter, but they are the same damn thing.

 

[hog88]

Yes i am aware of what dictates income for an individual in this country. I brought this up because many people believe that a redistribution of wealth is morally wrong because the poor do not deserve the wealth from the rich because the rich "work harder", and I wanted to show that' it was a flawed argument.

For most "rich" people (such a relative and hard to define term), they at some point in their life worked harder than most poor people.

 

[luthervol]

As to the bolded, then you're blind. I clarified with very simple logic in the first quote of this response.

To conflate between charity and forcible seizure is a brain fart so sever that Freak may have to open the windows in all major forums just to air them out.

It's not as black and white as charity vs. forcible seizure. The simplistic nature of your views is the source of that odor you're picking up on.

All religion has reward and punishment at its roots. You indoctrinate someone from birth to believe that if you do x, y, and z and don't do a, b, and c then you will receive some great reward in the afterlife. Conversely, if you don't do x, y, and z but you do a, b, and c, then your afterlife will be eternal damnation. Now you make the choice on how much you want to tithe.

What if a member of the church feels as if their money that they have "willingly" donated should not be used to give the youth minister a raise or support a mission in Uganda? The elected officials of the church will make the decision on how to redistribute that wealth.

What if a share holder in company X feels that employee bonuses should not be paid? They're thinking is "this is partially my company so that is partially my money that they are giving to other people against my wishes." The elected board will make that decision on how to redistribute that wealth.

The view that taxing a person is forcibly taking their money at gunpoint is about as intellectually lazy as it gets. Do you think there should be any taxes? If you answer yes, then I guess you're for forcibly taking someone else's money. If you answer no, then we'll have a completely different debate.

 

[orangeluvr]

It really boils down to value, how valuable you are to your employer is in direct relation to your income.

BTW I put in 18 hours yesterday and was back in the office at 7 this morning. That's a little over 2x the work any of my yahoos did yesterday.

Where would you be without your yahoos,they're a dime a dozen huh.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's not as black and white as charity vs. forcible seizure. The simplistic nature of your views is the source of that odor you're picking up on.

This will be good.

All religion has reward and punishment at its roots. You indoctrinate someone from birth to believe that if you do x, y, and z and don't do a, b, and c then you will receive some great reward in the afterlife. Conversely, if you don't do x, y, and z but you do a, b, and c, then your afterlife will be eternal damnation. Now you make the choice on how much you want to tithe.

That's a mighty huge brush you're painting with. A;ll, huh? Do you read the Bible?

Jesus said that every action for the christian should be defined by love for God and others. As a matter of fact, He said that the entirety of the law is upheld by these two things, both of which is love, which He defined and exemplified as a series of personal decisions.

His closest disciple (John) wrote in his first epistle that we love because He (Jesus) first loved us.

In other words, our every decision is to be based in love, and the basis of the decisions is the love that Jesus gave us by dying for us.

Again... In other words, our every decision is expressly NOT an escape from eternal punishment, nor an effort to gain credit in eternity since jesus' love has already liberated us from punishment and given us all grace and mercy. It's just a response to Jesus' example and decisions of love toward us.


So.. Once again you are wrong.

What if a member of the church feels as if their money that they have "willingly" donated should not be used to give the youth minister a raise or support a mission in Uganda? The elected officials of the church will make the decision on how to redistribute that wealth.

Actually, you are wrong.

First, the tithe is not taught for the church in the NT. Christian love giving is. The Bible says literally and explicitly in 2 Corinthians 9:7 that the Christian should only give if they want to, and shouldn't give out of compulsion (being forced or coerced). That they should give out of love, and that if they aren't happy about what they give, they shouldn't give at all. Period.

This completely invalidates your comparison. Completely.

Further, I'll explain this as a pastor that has to wade these waters you think you know about.

If a person wants to give to a specific budgetary line item (missions, etc...) they can list it on their donation or check, and we as the church are required to apply it toward that budgetary item. If they list something that we don't have as a budgeted item (i.e. we will not be spending on that), then we approach them and tell them so, returning the check/money.

What if a share holder in company X feels that employee bonuses should not be paid? They're thinking is "this is partially my company so that is partially my money that they are giving to other people against my wishes." The elected board will make that decision on how to redistribute that wealth.

That share holder has a choice as to whether to continue to own that share of company. It's not their money. They just own a share. They signed up for that agreement when they bought into the company.

The view that taxing a person is forcibly taking their money at gunpoint is about as intellectually lazy as it gets. Do you think there should be any taxes? If you answer yes, then I guess you're for forcibly taking someone else's money. If you answer no, then we'll have a completely different debate.

A person in my neighborhood threatened to stop paying property taxes until the county repaired some roads. The response was that he is free to do so. After two years, the police will show up, forcibly evict him, take his home, and sell it at auction.

There is nothing at all lazy about my thinking. Just your ability to reason.

I do believe in some limited taxation. Basically I believe in enough taxation to pay for common infrastructure. That is a far cry from your ideal of redistribution of wealth. It's just us corporately paying for what we use as a society.

As to your next questions, I'm not the one that said:

[The argument that greed exists is] also like complaining that racism, hatred, lust, envy, murder, rape, brutality, bigotry, and murder exists. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should be viewed as good or even normal. I've always hated that argument for greed. Greed is not a proper motivator or a trait that should be encouraged and rewarded....but it is.

While also promoting redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of wealth is wanting what someone else has and acting on that desire. It is LITERALLY the definition of greed acted upon.

You claim that greed is not a proper motivator, but it's the primary motivator for your ideal.

You claim that greed is not a trait that should be encouraged, but you encourage it with your ideal.

You claim that greed is not a trait that should be rewarded, but you encourage rewarding it through your ideal.

It's indisputable to any rational person. You are a hypocrite and tour own words self-incriminated. Stop fighting it. Just admit it, or soften your ill-conceived post above.

I don't care which, actually.

 

[05_never_again]

The view that taxing a person is forcibly taking their money at gunpoint is about as intellectually lazy as it gets.

So taxation is voluntary?

I personally differentiate between taxes used to fund public goods (police, fire, roads, courts, military, etc) from more redistributive, social engineering types of taxation (Social Security, Medicare, money that goes to most of the administrative agencies, the Obamacare "tax," etc). I also differentiate between consumption and income taxes (I prefer the former). It doesn't change the fact that neither "category" of tax, nor method of collection, is voluntary.

An anarcho-capitalist would take huge issue with this and call them distinctions without a difference, but I'm not willing to go as far as they are.

 

[JC61]

Yes i am aware of what dictates income for an individual in this country. I brought this up because many people believe that a redistribution of wealth is morally wrong because the poor do not deserve the wealth from the rich because the rich "work harder", and I wanted to show that' it was a flawed argument.

I don't think redistribution of wealth is morally wrong - it is more a flawed economic and social concept.

In general, people earn what they're worth - some more and some less. If you want to earn more money, obtain the skills and ability that translate into higher pay.

What is flawed is the welfare system. When folks can sit idly at home, and still eek out a living (albeit not much of one), there is a fundamental issue of whether the government is truly looking out for the poor. Education and opportunity is a better answer than increasing the stipend to do nothing.

 

[hog88]

Where would you be without your yahoos,they're a dime a dozen huh.

Office yahoos, yes. Most are.

 

[n_huffhines]

The view that taxing a person is forcibly taking their money at gunpoint is about as intellectually lazy as it gets.

WTF? This makes no sense. If it's not force, then what is it?