kiessig@idi.UUCP (Rick Kiessig) (07/14/84)
I was watching an interesting program on the tube the other
night. A professor from George Mason Univ. made some interesting
(and I feel very responsible) observations. His premise is that
this country's minimum wage law is largely responsible for our
large unemployment problem - especially among minorities and the
poor. He pointed out that many people simply aren't capable
of putting out $3.50/hr. worth of work. And although they would
be happy to work for less, the law doesn't allow it. This wage
it too expensive for movie theaters to be able to hire all of
the ushers they used to, for example. It's not that people don't
like to be walked to their seat, it's that it's not worth $3.50/hr.
to the theater - it might well be worth $2.50/hr., but they can't
legally pay that.
Also take the case where a black and a white apply to
an employer for the same job. They are equally well
qualified. The employer will likely hire the white simply
because he is probably better educated. Under the normal laws
of the free market, the black could simply underbid the white -
say by offering to work for $3.25/hr. instead of $3.50/hr.,
and he would surely be hired. That sort of competition is
inhibited by the current system.
He also made the point that entry barriers in existing
industries have really gotten out of hand. It takes $65,000
to get a taxi license in New York City, for example. 50 years
ago, all you had to do was to hang a sign on your car, and
you were in business. He also pointed out how the "qualification
exams" for certain things like beauticians is prejudiced
against minorities. One black lady passed the practical
part of the exam just fine, but couldn't handle the written
part because of her poor education. She didn't get her license.
She's now unemployed, when she is perfectly qualified to work.
They had a black congressman from NY on after the
presentation to discuss the situation. I was totally
amazed. He said that he felt the minimum wage was perhaps
too low, and that he felt the solution was more education
and government subsidization. He also pointed to the "targeted
jobs credit", which he said serves to lower the effective
minimum wage, and is hardly used. The reply was that it
only provides a 15% credit, and that it has some nasty
complications, like you have to certify that no existing
employee will loose their job to someone getting the credit.
No wonder it's hardly used!
I brought up these same points with a Democrat
running for congress in my district (Martin Conroy). I
was equally amzed at his response. He also said he thought
the minimum wage was too low (i.e. full time work at that
wage leaves the employee at poverty level). When I
pointed out that having an income guaranteed by the
government (welfare) was not an insentive to work,
he disagreed! He said he believed that people on
welfare had a strong incentive to work. One saving
grace was that he advocated a national work program -
which I think is better than welfare, but it's still
not the answer. Why not just let the market determine
how much a person's skills are worth? Why does the
goverment feel it has to intercede? The only thing
I can think of is that they are trying to "fix" something -
poverty, perhaps? If the minimum wage were a cure to poverty,
couldn't we just set it at $5/hr. in Pakistan and instantly
cure their horrible poverty? No.
A more cynical perspective is perhaps that it's
a politically expedient thing to do - for both the minium
wage and for "entry barriers". I can't see how anyone
could possibly justify them, except on the grounds that
it would get politicians more votes from the people effected
in a positive way.
Just some food for thought,
--
Rick Kiessig
{decvax, ucbvax}!sun!idi!kiessig
{akgua, allegra, amd70, burl, cbosgd, dual, ihnp4}!idi!kiessig
Phone: 408-996-2399david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/16/84)
[This sentence is false] Some thoughts on Richard Kiessig's thoughts about minimum wages: > Also take the case where a black and a white apply to >an employer for the same job. They are equally well >qualified. The employer will likely hire the white simply >because he is probably better educated. Under the normal laws >of the free market, the black could simply underbid the white - >say by offering to work for $3.25/hr. instead of $3.50/hr., >and he would surely be hired. That sort of competition is >inhibited by the current system. Two comments: (1) If one were more educated than the other, than they could no longer be called "equally well qualified", and if the employer ASSUMES the white is more educated, then that is racial discrimination. (2) In the case where two workers can freely underbid one another, why do we assume that the black is more likely to underbid the equally qualified (or unqualified) white? > He also made the point that entry barriers in existing >industries have really gotten out of hand. It takes $65,000 >to get a taxi license in New York City, for example. 50 years >ago, all you had to do was to hang a sign on your car, and >you were in business. He also pointed out how the "qualification >exams" for certain things like beauticians is prejudiced >against minorities. One black lady passed the practical >part of the exam just fine, but couldn't handle the written >part because of her poor education. She didn't get her license. >She's now unemployed, when she is perfectly qualified to work. This is not germane to a discussion of regulation of WAGES. Here you are objecting to a high (exorbitant!) license fee. License fees are meant to benefit holders of licenses, not the population in general. >............... Why not just let the market determine >how much a person's skills are worth? Why does the >goverment feel it has to intercede? The only thing >I can think of is that they are trying to "fix" something - >poverty, perhaps? If the minimum wage were a cure to poverty, >couldn't we just set it at $5/hr. in Pakistan and instantly >cure their horrible poverty? No. Certainly, you cannot arbitrarily set a minimum wage and expect that poverty will disappear. However, setting a minimum wage can be an effective way for producers (the population) who collectively possess a monopoly of a product (labor) to set the price (minimum wage) through collusion (government action) that maximizes their profits (total real wages). Viewed in such a fashion, it is clear that individual producers can gain by "cheating" on their cartel by working for subminimum wages, but the destruction of the cartel will prove detrimental in the long run to all producers. Such a practice is certainly not in keeping with a competitive market, but I do not subscribe to the assumption that labor is just another good that must be treated in the same way as steel or dishwashing detergent. I am willing to admit that the minimum wage may not actually be set for maximum utility, which leaves the question of level quite open. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
bwm@ccieng2.UUCP (Brad Miller) (07/19/84)
If the minimum wage were a genuine solution, why not make it $100.00/hour and then everyone would be rich!! BAH, HUMBUG! The minimum wage is yet another in a long series of Democrat sponsored welfare packages (endorsed by unions) that fall on their face in the light of reality. Not only is welfare a disencentive to work, but it lowers the quality of life to those who accept it. At least people who survived and were poor one hundered years ago had a feeling of self-worth; they were survivors. What do the poor have today but an intimate knowledge of the correct government agency to apply for money to? Brad Miller -- ...[cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/20/84)
[money is the / of all evil...] Brad Miller seems to think that poor people would be better off without welfare: >........................Not only is welfare a disencentive to work, but >it lowers the quality of life to those who accept it. At least people who >survived and were poor one hundered years ago had a feeling of self-worth; >they were survivors. What do the poor have today but an intimate knowledge >of the correct government agency to apply for money to? Most people know what is in their own best interests, and this includes the poor, too. Most who are eligable for welfare accept it, demonstrating their judgment that they are better off with it than without it. Now, it may very well be that welfare is unwise, wasteful, or whatever, but to maintain accepting it lowers the quality of life implies those who so state are either condenscending (i.e. they know what's best for the poor, even if the poor don't) or unrealistic (i.e. those poor folks are really upset over getting that welfare check). Brad Miller should have stated, that for him PERSONALLY, welfare lowers the quality of life rather than asserting his feelings were the Truth; however, until he is eligable for welfare, I will take his protestations at being so demeaned as being hypothetical. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
kiessig@idi.UUCP (Rick Kiessig) (07/23/84)
The point isn't that people don't know what's better for them -
given a choice, people will nearly always choose an easier path
over a more difficult one. Re: welfare, the choice is either
to get a job or collect free money from the government. From
an individual's point of view, they will clearly accept the
free money if getting a job is more difficult. In their minds,
that is "better". However, in the long run this may not at all
be true. It's my opinion that if people were forced to work
for a living, we would be on the road to eliminating poverty
in this country. As long as there is a path that allows people
to exist without working, it will be used. The argument that
taking away welfare somehow takes away one's freedom of choice
is simply stupid. That's like saying that taking away drugs
from an addict interferes with their freedom to choose
what's right for themselves.
--
Rick Kiessig
{decvax, ucbvax}!sun!idi!kiessig
{akgua, allegra, amd70, burl, cbosgd, dual, ihnp4}!idi!kiessig
Phone: 408-996-2399wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/23/84)
spot As far as getting people off welfare is concerned, we might start with the welfare workers. New York welfare workers are compensated according to their case load. That is, the more cases that they handle, the more they are paid (above a certain number of clients of course). This is part of their contract with the bureau. Thus, there is NO incentive to get people off welfare. In fact, in New York, you can get your head in hot water for trying to bring down the number of welfare clients as quite a few workers have found. Retraining of welfare clients is a joke in New York. There is a new Pilot project dreamed up every 6 months. If it works, it is dumped and blamed on the current administration. If it doesn't, it is dumped and balmed on the current administration. Welfare in New York, at least, is a catch 22 proposition. Thanks to the union, there is no reason to cut the recipient load. If you want to help people, get the assinine mountain of freeloaders off their backs and get a real program going. T. C. Wheeler
mwm@ea.UUCP (07/24/84)
#R:idi:-21500:ea:10100064:000:1106 ea!mwm Jul 23 18:30:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / fisher!david / 6:16 pm Jul 20, 1984 */ >........................Not only is welfare a disencentive to work, but >it lowers the quality of life to those who accept it. At least people who >survived and were poor one hundered years ago had a feeling of self-worth; >they were survivors. What do the poor have today but an intimate knowledge >of the correct government agency to apply for money to? Most people know what is in their own best interests, and this includes the poor, too. Most who are eligable for welfare accept it, demonstrating their judgment that they are better off with it than without it. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david /* ---------- */ Dave, you missed a *very* important phrase "those who survived". The poor are demonstrating what you claim - they think they're better of on welfare than dead. I don't know whether this is true, but I don't blame them for thinking so. I do think that Bryan is correct, in that those poor who hacked it without welfare would be better off than they are now. Also a lot less numerous. <mike
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/24/84)
I did not say that removing welfare as a possiblity was taking away
anyone's "right to choose"; I only suggested that welfare receipients'
willingness to accept welfare was prima facie evidence that they
considered it in their own interests to do so.
Rich Kiessig now argues that, though it may be in their short-term
interests to accept welfare, in the long-run it is not. I again
disagree; if it really is in their long-run interests not to accept,
why not make your case to them?
The people whose interests are harmed by welfare are not the
receipients, but the underwriters. As a society, I agree welfare is to
our COLLECTIVE detriment, but I will not agree to Rich Kiessig's
thesis that welfare is also to the INDIVIDUAL detriment of the
receipients.
Moreover, I do not agree the best solution (from our society's
collective viewpoint) is the elimination of welfare. It would be
better to replace welfare with either workfare (all able receipients
would perform some service in exchange for the check) or, more
radically, a negative income tax (quite a subject in itself). Both
would remove the disincentive to work, while still protecting those
who cannot find work.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (07/26/84)
[]
Just for grins, I'd like to know how many of the folks who are stumping
for all the poor people to get off their behinds and work
for were ever forced to live in poverty (being poor while going to college
don't hardly count).
Also, where are the fems? Nothing has been said about the fact that most
of those on welfare are mothers with young children. Who typically could
not find a job that would cover the cost of child care.
Also, how about the insane? We have charitably thrown them out of the asylums
to sleep in the streets. Should we also take away their sole means to eat?
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307kiessig@idi.UUCP (Rick Kiessig) (07/29/84)
One question that this brings to mind is where to draw
the line. The current system says that EVERYONE in the country
is entitled to some minimum amount of money every month, whether
or not they work (although the minimum is larger if they DO
work). We currently don't enforce this thinking outside of the
country, although from what I've heard from our politicians, they
would enforce it elsewhere if they thought they could get away
with it. So how long do we keep doing this? Do we start taking
away money from those who already have it? Do we let the
government collapse under its own weight? Or do we adopt a more
reasonable approach and let people again fend for themselves,
and compete with each other on a free-market basis?
I suppose there are advantages to the minimum wage laws.
They encourage companies into more and more automation, which
requires some interesting innovations. Robots in factories.
Automated processing at fast food restaurants. Self-serve gas
stations (ever notice how self-serve didn't even exist before the
minimum wage?). Etc. Of course the fact that these new
innovations cost lots of people their jobs doesn't seem at all
important to the liberals. Actually, I'm convinced that the
people behind the minimum wage really don't want more poor
people. They just honestly don't understand how business works
in America. If you make something more expensive, whether it's
people or buildings, machines or raw materials, every effort will
be made to use fewer and fewer of the expensive items. This was
very clear when gasoline went from .70/gal to $1.50/gal. in the
seventies - people used a lot less (suprised?)! So why are people
suprised that there are more people out of work than there
were when the minimum wage was $1.65/hour, when it has since
doubled to $3.35/hr.?
--
Rick Kiessig
{decvax, ucbvax}!sun!idi!kiessig
{akgua, allegra, amd, burl, cbosgd, decwrl, dual, ihnp4}!idi!kiessig
Phone: 408-996-2399mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/03/84)
The point of the minimum wage is to reduce the cutthroat wage competition, which does not benefit ANY worker. I reject the idea that the conflict is between middle-class workers who are making a middle-class income and working-class people who are struggling to get by. Who is served if the wages of the middle-class are reduced to distribute a few more crumbs to working-class people? Hint: who sits above this whole conflict? One writer suggested that black teenagers would be better served if they could bid for jobs at $2.50/hour. Well, why not $2? why not $1.50? why not 25 cents a day? Jobs that don't pay a living wage aren't worth having. Do you realize what $3.55 an hour means? It means $142/week, $568/month, $6816/year. Before taxes (and,yes, they have them -- FICA, state and local). But that's too much, our free marketeers tell us. Instead, let's pay $2.50/hour ($100/week, $400/month, $4800/year). The unions that you like to rail against have also fought mightily for a jobs program that would provide jobs for the unemployed at living wages, not the slave wages the anti-minimum wage advocates would like to see. Many of the unions have also fought to organize those workers to gain real benefits. Don't forget that most people working at minimum wage do not get the paid vacations, health benefits, pension and other things that we all take for granted. One final point. This consumer vs. workers thing. Do you know any consumers? How many people, when you ask them "what do you do?" say "Oh, I'm a consumer." My point is that we're all BOTH. We work and we buy with what we make from working. These interests are not in conflict, either. There are always those who want to divide us: black teenagers vs. white union workers; white unionists vs. black unionists; consumers vs. workers. The point of the minimum wage and trade unions in general is that if we fall into that level of competition, we all lose. Even non-unionized workers, because they get the benefits that the unions win; management passes it along because they're afraid of spreading the union. Mike Kelly
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (08/06/84)
[4 August 1984]
What kind of living standard does $2.50/hr for a 18-22 year old
represent? Not bad at all, if spent properly. While in college,
I lived in a fraternity-type arrangement. We were not a recognized
fraternity, but a self-run cooperative. We rented a small apartment
building, paid all the bill (oil, electric, maintanance), and ordered
our own food (28 people were enough to order by the case from food
distributors). Cooking and cleaning jobs were rotated among the
residents. Everyone had separate rooms of about 150-200 square feet.
It was co-ed, much more civilized than single-sex frats.
We had some 'luxuries' such as a library and cable TV with all
the optional channels (only $1/person/month, much cheaper than going
to movies). The costs were $1800 per year room, and $1200 per year
board. This works out to $1.50 per hour for a 40 hour week. If you
made more, presumably you could afford to buy stereos, eat out at
restauraunts, etc.
Note, this does not allow for owning a car, which runs over $1000
per year counting gas, maintenance, insurance, etc. If the worker
lives with relatives, the room component drops to zero and the
discretionary income would be greater. I went to school at Columbia
University, in New York City, thus rental of the building was more
expensive than most other parts of the country.
Dani Eder/ Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!ederbillp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (08/06/84)
--------------------- > The point of the minimum wage is to reduce the cutthroat wage > competition, which does not benefit ANY worker. BULL! The point is that persons about to enter the workforce (like teenagers with no experience) can do so only through union and federal jobs programs. > The unions that you like to rail against have also fought mightily > for a jobs program ... What a coincidence! :-) I once worked at a TV service shop, when someone applied for a job as a service technician. This person had just finished a TV service course, apparently had a good grasp of the theory, but had zero work experience. We tried him out for 2 days, but it was obvious that his skill at that time was worth much less than minimum wage. If we had kept him, constantly losing money, he probably would have gradually built up his experience. In order to recoup our losses, we would have had to pay him less than his worth for some time after. However, as soon as he could have found a better paying job elsewhere, he would have left immediately, leaving us permanently with the loss. The only way to makeup for these losses would have been to raise the repair rates to the customers, but because of intense competition, this was not possible. So, sorry about that, but we don't have a job for you! Bill Pfeifer {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp
kiessig@idi.UUCP (Rick Kiessig) (08/07/84)
Well, there are really several things going on here. It
is true that unions have had some influence on the minimum wage.
However, remember that unions were extremely effective before
there ever was a minimum wage law. They achieve their
effectiveness by creating in effect a monopoly on their services.
If they don't get what they want from their employer, they simply
stop working. Even without a minimum wage law, it may well be
impossible for a company to go out and hire enough sufficiently
skilled people if a union were to strike. This is also called
blackmail. Do what we want, or else.
After talking with and listening to several politicians,
I think their reasoning behind the minimum wage goes more like
this: Earnings below some (arbitrarily decided) level are not
acceptable. If you earned less than $3.35/hr., for example, that
would be barely enough for you to live on. Therefore, what we
(government) will do is to declare that no one can work for less
than $3.35/hr. We can then say to our constituency that we are
doing a good thing: writing into law that each and every one of
us is worth at least $3.35/hr. On the surface, that looks like a
good thing. I.e. it implies that if you have a job, you can earn
enough to live above the "poverty level". No more
"exploitation". The problem is that they are ignoring the side
effects. We don't have guaranteed employment in this country.
Just because someone has to pay you at least $3.35/hr. doesn't
mean that he actually has to hire you. So if what you were doing
isn't worth the government-declared minimum, you lose your job.
In other words, what the minimum wage law says is that
it's better to be unemployed than to have a job that pays "too
little". It's better for black teenagers to hang out at the
local park than to have them be able to work.
An interesting statistic from Dr. Williams: before the
days of the minimum wage, black teenage unmployment was about 9.5%.
Today, after the law which was supposed to protect them from
poverty and exploitation, the unemployment rate has climbed to 50%.
--
Rick Kiessig
{decvax, ucbvax}!sun!idi!kiessig
{akgua, allegra, amd, burl, cbosgd, decwrl, dual, ihnp4}!idi!kiessig
Phone: 408-996-2399ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/07/84)
-- >> ...In other words, what the minimum wage law says is that >> it's better to be unemployed than to have a job that pays "too >> little". It's better for black teenagers to hang out at the >> local park than to have them be able to work. >> An interesting statistic from Dr. Williams: before the >> days of the minimum wage, black teenage unmployment was about 9.5%. >> Today, after the law which was supposed to protect them from >> poverty and exploitation, the unemployment rate has climbed to 50%. >> -- >> Rick Kiessig That statistic, of course, ignores the drastic changes in most every important socio-economic variable this country has come up with, and is therefore silly. After all, Black teenage "unemployment" in the Antebellum South was pretty low, too. Not much crime, either. But that's capitalism, Rick. An industrializing country that succeeds soon prices itself out of the market. It happened to the US, and it's happening now to Japan. But go ahead, try offering a ghetto kid $1 an hour--he'll spit in your face. You may blame an insidious dependency on the welfare state; I call it the fair price of civilization. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 06 Aug 84 [19 Thermidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/07/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / tty3b!mjk / 5:16 pm Aug 2, 1984 >The point of the minimum wage is to reduce the cutthroat wage >competition, which does not benefit ANY worker. It merely benefits ALL consumers. Whatever the "point" of the minimum wage, it undeniably makes it illegal to work for a certain wage, which might be freely agreed upon otherwise. >I reject the >idea that the conflict is between middle-class workers who >are making a middle-class income and working-class people who >are struggling to get by. Who is served if the wages of the >middle-class are reduced to distribute a few more crumbs to >working-class people? Hint: who sits above this whole conflict? Why, those unions, of course! They need not compete with the working class if they can legislate against it. >One writer suggested that black teenagers would be better served >if they could bid for jobs at $2.50/hour. Well, why not $2? >why not $1.50? why not 25 cents a day? Jobs that don't pay a >living wage aren't worth having. Quite true. What you don't seem to realize is that nobody would take jobs that don't pay a living wage if they were freely offered.... Why bother? On the other hand, the minimum wage means that the "taper" of wages is sliced off. If you can't make minimum wage, you DON'T have the option of making less -- you make ZERO. > >Do you realize what $3.55 an hour means? It >means $142/week, $568/month, $6816/year. Before taxes (and,yes, >they have them -- FICA, state and local). But that's too much, our >free marketeers tell us. Instead, let's pay $2.50/hour ($100/week, >$400/month, $4800/year). Indeed, we "free marketeers" tell you that's too much -- TOO MUCH in TAXES. We aren't saying that people SHOULD work for $2.50/hr, we're saying that they SHOULD BE ABLE TO. You're the one supporting a law making a certain sort of voluntary transaction illegal. Do you wonder why job bills are desirable? It's because people CANNOT hire on for under minimum wage and work up -- their most likely "opportunity" is to become wards of the state -- via government jobs, or government welfare. > >The unions that you like to rail against have also fought mightily >for a jobs program that would provide jobs for the unemployed at >living wages, not the slave wages the anti-minimum wage advocates >would like to see. Once again, I deny that I want people STUCK at $2.50/hour. Merely that they should be free to make such deals as seem fair to them. You've got quite a nerve, condemning people to unemployment and humiliating welfare, and then referring to honestly-agreed-upon wages as "slave wages". >Many of the unions have also fought to organize >those workers to gain real benefits. Don't forget that most people >working at minimum wage do not get the paid vacations, health benefits, >pension and other things that we all take for granted. I wonder why you use "many" as the first word of this sentence, rather than "most". Could it be that "most" unions have more political/power priorities. Understand, I've no objection to people forming unions -- so long as they do not initiate force or fraud (pass legislation, for example) to dictates the behavior of others. >One final point. This consumer vs. workers thing. Do you know any >consumers? How many people, when you ask them "what do you do?" say >"Oh, I'm a consumer." My point is that we're all BOTH. We work and >we buy with what we make from working. These interests are not in >conflict, either. Give it a little thought. Those interests are CONTINUOUSLY in conflict. Milton Friedman pointed out that we all produce one thing, and consume many things. We're ALWAYS more interested in what we produce (our jobs) than in what we consume (the availability of a particular brand of toilet paper). That's why American car workers will tell you that they're all for "free enterprise", but that they're REALLY CONCERNED about "unfair competition" from the Japanese. Those people will vote FOR quotas. Steel workers will vote FOR tariffs, even though they'll tell you that they're also for free enterprise. It's worth emphasizing by an example. If Congress passes steel-import tariffs, the steelworkers win big, but the rest of the country loses in many small ways (all things built with steel in this country go up in price, our steel products compete less successfully in the world market, perhaps a few steel-product-makers get laid off. In general, the costs, though large, are spread throughout the economy. If those effects go far, another bill will be introduced putting tariffs on steel items made in foreign countries (sound familiar?). Perhaps each person in the country loses $20.00. ON THE OTHER HAND: Local steel industry booms! It can raise prices until it competes with the (government) inflated price of foreign steel. Each steelworker gets perhaps $1000. Each steel union rep gets $3000. Each steel mogul gets $100,000. Each steel company gets $100,000,000 (over a few years). Each steel company finds it worth its while to spend up to $100,000,000 or so to lobby, bribe, cajole, and subvert the lawmakers. Each CONSUMER (all the rest of us) experiences the cost of a few calls to Washington. Question: Who will the congresscritters hear the most from? Especially in a steel making area. Still convinced that "these interests are not in conflict, either"? Wanna buy a bridge?
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/07/84)
So you can't own a car. So you can't go to the doctor. So if you get
sick you starve. Other than that, $2.50/hr does sound like good money,
doesn't it?
As for living with your relatives to save expenses, suppose THEY make
only $2.50/hr?
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidmjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/08/84)
Rick Kiessig writes: >"[Unions] achieve their >effectiveness by creating in effect a monopoly on their services. >If they don't get what they want from their employer, they simply >stop working. Even without a minimum wage law, it may well be >impossible for a company to go out and hire enough sufficiently >skilled people if a union were to strike. This is also called >blackmail. Do what we want, or else." If 11,000 highly-skilled air controllers can be fired en masse and replaced, this argument just doesn't hold water. Which, of course, was the point of the firing: it sent a message to labor of what to expect from the Reagan Labor Department. There are far too many other examples of labor being squashed. Further, the law is always on the side of corporations in these disputes. The police -- who's salary the workers help pay -- are brought in to enforce the corporation's "right" to bring scabs into the plant. Striking workers are barred from receiving normal subsistence aid, such as food stamps and welfare. Tell me who's blackmailing whom, Rick. My big question to those who rail about labor's power is, why aren't they millionaires like their bosses, then? These unions show an incredible amount of self-restraint, settling for middle-class incomes if they are capable of getting whatever they want. >"We don't have guaranteed employment in this country. >Just because someone has to pay you at least $3.35/hr. doesn't >mean that he actually has to hire you. So if what you were doing >isn't worth the government-declared minimum, you lose your job." "Worth" in what sense? For years, the work that blacks did on the plantations was "worth" exactly nothing. In many companies, the work of women is "worth" less than the work of men, even though they have exactly the same responsibilities. What you are paid has very little to do with what your work is "worth". Most people work for whatever they're offered. The difference between what your work is worth (i.e. the value of the products of labor) and what you're paid is called "profit" (but not for you). The point missed here is that the issue is not pay. The issue is jobs. We are not a poor country that has no alternative but to force our unemployed to scape by on bare survival wages. We are the richest country in the world. Ronald Reagan tells us that there is no military item we can't afford. We are going to spend $1.8 trillion on weapons in the next few years. At the same time, the streets of our cities are crumbling. Our public transportation is feeling the result of years of postponed maintenance. Half of the nations bridges are structurally deficient. Much of the interstate highway system will have to be replaced unless repairs are begun soon. We are told that we can't afford to do anything about this; that we can't afford to feed children; that taking care of the elderly is "too expensive"; that providing jobs for those who want to work is none of our business. There is no lack of work to be done, and there is no lack of money to pay a living wage to those who do it. What is needed is a change in priorities, a shift away from the appeals to the meanest part of people, exemplified by Ronald Reagan's attack on labor, to appeal to the best in people. Debates on the minimum wage and the value of trade unions are over. We fought those fifty years ago; the old "solutions" didn't work then and they won't work now. It's time to move on to the real issues we have to face. Mike Kelly
ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (08/08/84)
> One writer suggested that black teenagers would be better served > if they could bid for jobs at $2.50/hour. Well, why not $2? > why not $1.50? why not 25 cents a day? Jobs that don't pay a > living wage aren't worth having. It is nice of you to offer to decide for other people which jobs are worth having, but don't you think some people might like to make that choice for themselves? How would you feel if the minimum wage were suddenly changed to an amount substantially more than you make, with the result that you found yourself out of a job? -- Dave Seaman My hovercraft is no longer full of ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags eels (thanks to my confused cat).
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/09/84)
>From: ags@pucc-i (Seaman) >It is nice of you to offer to decide for other people which jobs are >worth having, but don't you think some people might like to make that >choice for themselves? How would you feel if the minimum wage were >suddenly changed to an amount substantially more than you make, with >the result that you found yourself out of a job? (a) I am not deciding for anyone; the Congress has passed this law and working people are not mobilizing to oppose it. Perhaps you believe that people should have the "freedom" to "choose" slavery, or the "freedom" to buy unsafe products -- that's a common libertarian line. It's not my concept of freedom. If there are people dying for the "freedom" to take a job at sub-minimum wages, to me that just reflects the utter desperation to which unemployed people have been driven. Also an interesting contrast with Reagan's idea that none of those people want to work anyway. (b) Your second question only points out the inadequacy of the minimum wage to really solve the problem of unemployment. That doesn't mean we should abandon the minimum wage. It means we must go further. Certainly if capital has the ability to move across borders without abandon, and if dictatorships that oppress trade union organizing are around, there will be low-wage havens ("a good labor market", in the corporate lingo). The question is whether we should allow the world wage to float to the lowest level (which is the current trend) or try to counteract that and maintain a high world wage. That would take some work. One thing it takes is restrictions on the ability of corporations to just pick up and leave at will. That doesn't mean preventing them from leaving. It just means having them to consider the costs of leaving and factor those into the decision. For example, U.S. Steel is about to abandon its South Works plant in Chicago. Doing so will put a few thousand people on the unemployment rolls; that's a cost, but one borne by the community. U.S. Steel should take that cost into account. Businesses around South Works will go under in the shockwaves; that's a cost that should be taken into account. Perhaps after taking these costs into account, it will turn out that abandoning South Works doesn't look so attractive after all. Remember that in many cases the abandoned plants are not losing money; it's just that the low-wage havens are so attractive that the corporados can't stand to stay. "Why pay $9/hour when I can get it in the Phillipines for $3/hour?" The obvious long-range effect of this will be to drive wages in the U.S. down, which means a cut in the standard of living for most Americans. I'm sure no one is really for that; they're just caught up in these myths about the infallibility of corporate decisionmaking. The other side of this, though, is world development. I believe that it is both in our own interests and in the interest of humanity to help other countries with development. One way to do that is to stop supporting dictators that destroy trade unions and stop any effort by average people to better themselves; supporting dictators isn't in the long- range interest of Americans. Another way is to provide development assistance but in appropriate forms. Too often our development assistance is really just a way of creating overseas opportunities for U.S. corporations, not really part of an effort to encourage long- term development. I think we're talking about an effort really directed at long-term development with substantial amounts of money involved. As Willy Brandt, ex-Prime Minister of Germany, has pointed out, we can give it or they will sooner or later take it. A system that involves wide disparities in wealth is not stable. Africa, Asia and South America are not going to put up with that forever, and the threatened repayment boycott is only the first step in a rebellion. Well, I've gotten way off track and given everyone a huge target to shoot at. My basic points, though, are contained in the first two paragraphs. The rest is expansion. Mike Kelly
ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (08/09/84)
> So you can't own a car. So you can't go to the doctor. So if you get > sick you starve. Other than that, $2.50/hr does sound like good money, > doesn't it? Compared to $0.00 an hour, $2.50 sounds pretty good. It also looks better in terms of job experience. When a job opens up at $3.50 an hour, who has the better shot at it? The guy who has been getting $2.50, or the guy who has been getting $0.00? If no applicants can be found who have work experience, the $3.50 job may never be filled. -- Dave Seaman My hovercraft is no longer full of ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags eels (thanks to my confused cat).
ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (08/10/84)
Mike Kelly, defending the minimum wage, says: > I am not deciding for anyone; the Congress has passed this law and > working people are not mobilizing to oppose it. Perhaps you believe > that people should have the "freedom" to "choose" slavery, or the > "freedom" to buy unsafe products -- that's a common libertarian line. > It's not my concept of freedom. Of course working people are not mobilizing to oppose minimum wage laws; working people are precisely the ones who have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. If the "freedom to choose slavery" includes the freedom NOT to choose slavery and the freedom to define for oneself exactly what constitutes slavery, then I do consider this a freedom. I am not advocating any changes in the laws on product safety. > If there are people dying > for the "freedom" to take a job at sub-minimum wages, to me that > just reflects the utter desperation to which unemployed people have > been driven. Also an interesting contrast with Reagan's idea that > none of those people want to work anyway. Say, whose side are you on, anyway? -- Dave Seaman My hovercraft is no longer full of ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags eels (thanks to my confused cat).
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/11/84)
>> So you can't own a car. So you can't go to the doctor. So if you get >> sick you starve. Other than that, $2.50/hr does sound like good money, >> doesn't it? >Compared to $0.00 an hour, $2.50 sounds pretty good. It also looks better >in terms of job experience. When a job opens up at $3.50 an hour, who has >the better shot at it? The guy who has been getting $2.50, or the guy who >has been getting $0.00? If no applicants can be found who have work >experience, the $3.50 job may never be filled. Job experience? I am confused. What highly skilled jobs are we talking about at this level which require experience, anyway? {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/13/84)
[]
I beleive that we should be paid what we're worth. What brings this to
mind is reading of a company president who was paid ~500K/year for running
his company into bancruptcy. I feel secure that I could run a company
into bancruptcy just as well, and hereby offer my services to any company
that wants them for only half the going rate: $250K. Consider the bargain:
I can probably do it in only half a year, so I'll only cost $125K.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307german@uiucuxc.UUCP (08/14/84)
#R:idi:-21500:uiucuxc:34700003:000:817 uiucuxc!german Aug 13 16:53:00 1984 >Compared to $0.00 an hour, $2.50 sounds pretty good. It also looks better >in terms of job experience. When a job opens up at $3.50 an hour, who has >the better shot at it? The guy who has been getting $2.50, or the guy who >has been getting $0.00? If no applicants can be found who have work >experience, the $3.50 job may never be filled. Job experience? I am confused. What highly skilled jobs are we talking about at this level which require experience, anyway? {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david /* ---------- */ Job skills may not be the important factor in getting a job at this level, however a worker who has a record of good attendance and hard work (even if earned at $2.50) would have a better shot at a job than someone with no work history. {pur-ee|harpo}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!german
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/14/84)
#R:idi:-21500:ea:10100083:000:1579
ea!mwm Aug 13 21:06:00 1984
{ if (!fork()) execv("libertarian-argument", "-", 0) ; }
> /***** ea:net.politics / tty3b!mjk / 12:08 am Aug 10, 1984 */
> (a) Perhaps you believe in the "freedom" to buy unsafe products.
As a matter of fact, I do. Unsafe products like mind-altering drugs
and mind-altering literature. Of course, that doesn't mean that I
use either one, only that I'd like a choice to do so.
> (b) Your second question only points out the inadequacy of the minimum
> wage to really solve the problem of unemployment. That doesn't mean
> we should abandon the minimum wage. It means we must go further.
You're right - we have to go further. Of course, you're also suffering
under the delusion that "a job" is the only way to stay fed, clothed and
sheltered. It isn't.
The "further" we need to go to is to eliminate jobs completely, and let
everybody live on government handouts (large ones, like personal computers
on the lines of a VAX 11/790). Of course, that level of government support
means that the government has to own most of the large production
facilities in the country. That means that either everybody is a slave to
the government, or that we've automated to a large degree. Getting to the
point were we can automate to that extent is going to require some
technological advances. Getting those advances installed and working is
going to require some incentive for the people with the production
facilities, like "profit" and "competition" for that profit. Gee, sounds
like I want a free enterprise system until society has evolved for a while,
doesn't it?
<mikemjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (08/14/84)
Response to afo@pucc-h (sefton) and ags@pucc-i (Seaman): Seaman: "Of course working people are not mobilizing to oppose minimum wage laws; working people are precisely the ones who have a vested interest in preserving the status quo." I used "working people" as a general term. As we all know, about 8 million working people aren't. My real point here was that there is no clamoring for elimination of the minimum wage from below; it comes from above, which says a lot about who is going to benefit from its elimination. There is not, for example, much support among blacks for elimination of the minimum wage. I find this "it's for their own good" argument coming from people who have never shown any concern for anything other than their own profit margins pretty laughable. Laurie Sefton did a good job of sketching "a 'worst-case-scenario'" based on "an extrapolation upon the effects of removing minimum wages." What Laurie probably realizes, but left unsaid in her article, is that her "worst-case scenario" is a pretty good history lesson for those who forget what life was like back in the good old days before the big, bad unions and minimum wages came along. The advocates of abolishing the minimum wage have no answer to her argument, other than to say that it's OK for people to be starving if that's what the market produces. Their position was rejected 50 years ago and is about to be rejected in its more recent incarnation. Mike Kelly
ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (08/15/84)
>> So you can't own a car. So you can't go to the doctor. So if you get >> sick you starve. Other than that, $2.50/hr does sound like good money, >> doesn't it? >>Compared to $0.00 an hour, $2.50 sounds pretty good. It also looks better >>in terms of job experience. When a job opens up at $3.50 an hour, who has >>the better shot at it? The guy who has been getting $2.50, or the guy who >>has been getting $0.00? If no applicants can be found who have work >>experience, the $3.50 job may never be filled. > >Job experience? I am confused. What highly skilled jobs are we >talking about at this level which require experience, anyway? Nothing was said about "highly-skilled" jobs. It is a simple matter of demonstrating one's ability to get up in the morning, get to work on time, and do what is required (whether one enjoys it or not) that is going to impress that prospective employer. -- [This is my bugkiller line. It may appear to be misplaced, but it works.] Dave Seaman My hovercraft is no longer full of ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags eels (thanks to my confused cat).
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (08/15/84)
[] >As we all know, about 8 >million working people aren't. My real point here was that there is >no clamoring for elimination of the minimum wage from below; it comes >from above, which says a lot about who is going to benefit from its >elimination. Oh boy, here comes the old "anything that benefits the rich hurts the poor and vice versa" line. Any proof? If someone gets a job at subminimum who otherwise would not work at all, is that person not better off by the amount s/he actually is paid? >There is not, for example, much support among blacks for >elimination of the minimum wage. I find this "it's for their own good" >argument coming from people who have never shown any concern for anything >other than their own profit margins pretty laughable. What they are saying is that jobs will exist if they can be paid at subminimum that would not exist otherwise. And why the implication that corporate management is unconcerned with anything but their balance sheets? What should they do; operate businesses as social welfare agencies, and if there's a profit here and there, well, that's nice too??? Seems too many folks get their business education by watching "Dallas". Subminimum jobs would serve one purpose: to allow persons chronically unemployed to experience the shift from an orientation around despair and hopelessness, to productive use of time and exposure to the work environment. Those who are alert can then move up as their talent and experience grow. >..."worst-case scenario" is a pretty good history lesson for those who forget >what life was like back in the good old days before the big, bad unions and >minimum wages came along. Unions have made a valuable and necessary contribution to the well-being of the worker. By offsetting the imbalance of power that once was held by the owners and managers of business and industry, the unions have accomplished enormous improvements. But the power balance can often swing in unusual and destructive ways. Union leaders have of late fostered the image of worker and management as adversaries, breeding animosity and contempt on both sides that in the end hurts both. Ownership, management and labor together make a business run, and you cannot improve the lot of one by hurting the others. It is the prosperity of the unit that creates the prosperity of the individual components. >The advocates of abolishing the minimum wage have >no answer to her argument, other than to say that it's OK for people to be >starving if that's what the market produces. If that's "what the market produces" then nothing in the world will keep people from starving. What the market produces is goods and services that people are willing to pay for. Labor is required to create those goods and services. The only way that anyone is ever employed is that *first* a profit-making entity exists that is able to sell whatever the worker produces. This is not by design, nor is it an example of heartless capitalism, it is as much a fact of life as gravity. Therefore, given that through various means, workers can assert their demand for a just part of the benefits of their employment, only prosperous businesses can employ. If you want the "market" to keep people from starving, do it by advocating policies that promote a vigorous marketplace. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
graham@convex.UUCP (08/16/84)
#R:idi:-21500:convex:40500032:000:328 convex!graham Aug 16 08:36:00 1984 > Job experience? I am confused. What highly skilled jobs are we > talking about at this level which require experience, anyway? > {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david We're talking about coming to work every day, and on time every time. Marv Graham; Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!graham
ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (08/16/84)
Early on in the minimum-wage discussion, it was pointed out that if minimum wages actually solved anything, you could instantly cure poverty in Bangladesh by establishing a minimum wage of $5.00 per hour. Putting it another way, it's really a shame that 17th century economists never thought of establishing minimum-wage laws, thus causing so many people to endure poverty needlessly for all those centuries! Even the minimum-wage advocates have not claimed that minimum-wage laws can cure poverty. Attempting to hide this gaping hole in their logic, they have lately taken to making a slightly different claim: If we abolish the minimum-wage laws in the United States, our standard of living will revert to that of the 17th century. This argument is not EXACTLY the same, of course, but I can't see why anyone would think it carries any more validity than the first one. -- [This is my bugkiller line. It may appear to be misplaced, but it works.] Dave Seaman My hovercraft is no longer full of ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags eels (thanks to my confused cat).
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (08/20/84)
************************************************************************** >Just for grins, I'd like to know how many of the folks who are stumping >for all the poor people to get off their behinds and work >for were ever forced to live in poverty (being poor while going to college >don't hardly count). Yes, I grew up poor on the wrong side of the tracks. And yes, I did get off my behind and work for what I've got. And yes, I'm plenty pissed when someone comes along and takes what I've worked for to give to someone who won't. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Nothin' ain't worth nothin' Denelcor, Inc. but it's free" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/21/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / tty3b!mjk / 6:36 am Aug 10, 1984 >Rick Kiessig writes: > > >"[Unions] achieve their > >effectiveness by creating in effect a monopoly on their services. > >If they don't get what they want from their employer, they simply > >stop working. Even without a minimum wage law, it may well be > >impossible for a company to go out and hire enough sufficiently > >skilled people if a union were to strike. This is also called > >blackmail. Do what we want, or else." > >If 11,000 highly-skilled air controllers can be fired en masse and >replaced, this argument just doesn't hold water. Which, of course, >was the point of the firing: it sent a message to labor of what to >expect from the Reagan Labor Department. An interesting example. Do you know of anyone besides the government who could have done this to their employees? If governments can fire people for striking, shouldn't private citizens be able to? >There are far too many >other examples of labor being squashed. Indeed there are -- for example, it is difficult to find work as an electrician, hairdresser, truck driver, doctor, or any of dozens of other professions without being part of the guild or union. Oddly, this sort of thing does not hold up well when there is not legislation to back it. Oddly, labor is always behind such legislation. >Further, the law is always >on the side of corporations in these disputes. The police -- who's >salary the workers help pay -- are brought in to enforce the >corporation's "right" to bring scabs into the plant. How intriguing. When somebody refuses to work, and somebody else would take the job for the same pay and the same risks, it is somehow not the employer's right to hire the other person. This is true if the employers agreed it is true with the original employees (with neither side under duress), but false otherwise. >Striking >workers are barred from receiving normal subsistence aid, such as >food stamps and welfare. An intriguing question: should workers be paid to strike by the state? isn't the fundemental trade between the worker's labor and the employer's money? Shouldn't welfare (if it must exist at all) be reserved for those UNABLE to make a living? >Tell me who's blackmailing whom, Rick. A hard question. The employers are offering a certain wage for a certain job. The strikers are threatening force and legislative retaliation unless they can keep their jobs on their terms. Who's blackmailing whom? >My big question to those who rail about labor's power is, why aren't >they millionaires like their bosses, then? These unions show an incredible >amount of self-restraint, settling for middle-class incomes if they >are capable of getting whatever they want. Poor, middle class laborers. Union wage earners are paid MORE than most people. Milton Friedman points out that 80% of the total national income of the United states goes to pay wages, salaries, and fringe benefits of workers. More than half the rest goes for rents and such, and after taxes, we're left with profit (about 6%). In other words, "That hardly provides much leeway to finance higher wages even if all profits were absorbed. And that would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs." (Friedman, "Free to Choose", pg 224.) > >"We don't have guaranteed employment in this country. > >Just because someone has to pay you at least $3.35/hr. doesn't > >mean that he actually has to hire you. So if what you were doing > >isn't worth the government-declared minimum, you lose your job." > >"Worth" in what sense? "Worth" in the sense that you'd rather have a job done, and give somebody X dollars, than not have the job done. >For years, the work that blacks did on the >plantations was "worth" exactly nothing. No! It was "worth" something. That the slaves got PAID nothing is something else entirely -- their labor was STOLEN. They were PRISONERS. Autoworkers are not chained up at night, and they are not kept from defending themselves when asked to work, and they can get another job if they like. To compare union employees with slaves is the height of silliness. >In many companies, the >work of women is "worth" less than the work of men, even though they >have exactly the same responsibilities. What you are paid has very >little to do with what your work is "worth". Most people work for >whatever they're offered. The difference between what your work >is worth (i.e. the value of the products of labor) and what you're >paid is called "profit" (but not for you). Ho ho. The work of women doing a job identical to that a man would do is with EXACTLY the same (given that their performance is the same). >The point missed here is that the issue is not pay. The issue is >jobs. We are not a poor country that has no alternative but to force >our unemployed to scape by on bare survival wages. We are the richest >country in the world. Not per capita. Look it up. >Ronald Reagan tells us that there is no military >item we can't afford. We are going to spend $1.8 trillion on weapons >in the next few years. At the same time, the streets of our cities are >crumbling. Our public transportation is feeling the result of years of >postponed maintenance. Half of the nations bridges are structurally >deficient. Much of the interstate highway system will have to be replaced >unless repairs are begun soon. We are told that we can't afford to do >anything about this; that we can't afford to feed children; that taking >care of the elderly is "too expensive"; that providing jobs for those who >want to work is none of our business. Intriguing. All these things you'd rather spend money on are public projects. Paid for by taxes extracted at (metaphorical) gunpoint. Doesn't it strike you as tacky to threaten people with guns to make them pay you to improve bridges and highways? As long as these things are done by government, there will be shortages and political bickering about how they should be done. When, though, was the last time you heard of a candy-shortage? Of a grocery shortage? Of an orange juice crash? Of public complaints about how poorly movie theaters are maintained? There are instances of these things, but they tend to cancel out. Why? Because fixing them is not a political issue, decided by congressmen dealing with strong special interests. >There is no lack of work to be done, and there is no lack of money to >pay a living wage to those who do it. What is needed is a change in >priorities, a shift away from the appeals to the meanest part of people, >exemplified by Ronald Reagan's attack on labor, to appeal to the best >in people. Much as I'd love to appeal to the best in people, I'd find it insecure. Who would dig ditches because they "should"? Who would do laundry because it is "for the masses"? If you really want to appeal to the best in people, make it so that nobody can regulate WHAT it is that that others agree upon. Don't worry -- those others will conspire to sell you services and goods, as opposed to "a bill of goods". >Debates on the minimum wage and the value of trade unions >are over. We fought those fifty years ago; the old "solutions" didn't >work then and they won't work now. It's time to move on to the real >issues we have to face. Well, that's real nice of you to try and tell people who disagree with you that they are behind the times, but I beg to differ. The "old 'solutions'" gave us industrial society. The trade unions want import restrictions. Which is more worthwhile? P.S. Just a note to the flamers: I LIKE trade unions -- so long as they exist for collective bargaining, not as a "protection racket".