stinnett@plains.UUCP (M.G. Stinnett) (04/11/90)
In article <2692@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jdb9608@ultb.isc.rit.edu (J.D. Beutel) writes: >In article <3994@plains.UUCP> stinnett@plains.UUCP (M.G. Stinnett) writes: >>Labor is just another raw material. > >Labor is human beings. Labor is you and I, our lives. >When you put a price on that you pervert the meaning of our lives. I pervert the meaning of your life? (Since I haven't perverted the meaning of my life, you're the one left.) But I can't do that. Only YOU can pervert the meaning of your life. As for putting a price on it, how else should we do it? I've a production schedule to meet, buddy, and I'm paying you to help me meet it. I'd love to sit around and cherish your contribution, but I have work to do. >>You can dictate the price to a certain >>extent, but if you go too far you will screw up the demand and everything >>will break down. The new minimum wage probably won't affect too many jobs; >>say a few million teenagers will loose out. Inflation has helped mitigate >>the impact. But if you raise it to, say, $6 per hour, you'll put a lot >>of business and people out of work completely. Then you can expect the >>black market to take over and fill in the gaps, but then you won't get >>the tax revenues to pay for all the other makework programs. > >This cost analysis is beside the main point, but unfortunately >it is the main point to most people today. >Humanity cannot be measured in terms of dollars. > Who is talking about humanity? I'm talking about buying your time and skills. If I offer the right price (and of course, other things besides money are involved) you'll sell. If not, I'll either raise the price or find someone else who will work for it. >>Finally, your comment about those evil corporations enslaving people at >>$4 per hour to flip burgers: You know, no one has to work for McDonalds. >>They are free to sell their labor to the highest bidder. But for many >>teenagers and others, that $4 per hour job is the first step on the way >>to bigger and better jobs. > >If wages are allowed to fall to what the market can get away with, >people working those jobs will not be able to earn a living. >Well, they're free to not earn a living, one may say, if nobody who'll >pay more wants them and the job they have won't pay them more. >Actually, people are not free to just not earn a living. >People must earn a living; that's a constant which conflicts with and >must take precidence over market demands. You seem to have no concept whatsoever of the market. Or of basic economics. Labor is an imput which is in finite supply. There are not an unlimited number of people. I have to pay what the market demands. If there are enough people willing to work for $3.80/hour, then that's what I pay--otherwise my competitors will beat my prices, because they're not going to pay more. If there's not enough people willing work for that price, then I must raise it. On the local level, that won't hurt me, because my local competitors must pay the same wages. However, if someone in say, Texas, doesn't have to pay more than $3.80, and can economically ship his product here, he may kill my business--unless I can afford to move my plant. On the other hand, I have a worker named Cheryl who can or will do twice what any other worker does. If I want to keep Cheryl, I'll pay her more than double (same fixed costs) because I know that she's worth it. Or, I could offer Cheryl a health club membership, or stock options, or a longer vacation, or all these and more. Cheryl knows this, too. She could walk across the street and my competitor will pay her well, too. In effect, we're bidding for her labor--her brains, talent and initiative--and the winner is the one who offers her the best price in her mind. Many misguided people just think all we have to do is raise the minimum wage--shoot, then everyone has to pay it so it's fair, right? Except that the Koreans don't. What's more, I'm not going to lose my investment just to please you. I have to raise my prices to recover the higher costs. If people won't pay the higher prices, then I will close the doors, and instead of 400 people earning $3.80, we have zero people earning $5.00. Which is better? What's more, you seem to think that there's a lot of families living off the minimum wage. A study last year showed that nearly all the people earning the minimum were not the sole source of support for the family. >I'm not an economist, and I'm not claiming that our lives are better >with or without a minimum wage. I'm complaining about the >overall way Mr. Stinnett is approching the whole issue of labor. I make no apologies for this. I'm investing my skull and physical sweat for me--not anyone else. If I'm smart and do well, you may be able to tag along by investing yours in the same direction. Or you can do it your own way. But don't do me any favors, because I'm not doing any for you. I'm the best person to decide what's best for me. I've worked for the minumum wage several times in my life--but never for long, because I either worked hard enough to earn a raise, or I found a more profitable way to use my skills and time. Right now I'm sharpening those skills by going to school. I even get grants from the government to do so. Of course, the government will get the money back many times over in the increased taxes I'll pay on my higher wages. Pretty selfish on the part of society, don't you think? Rest of the article followed up separately. --M. G.
ryan@umb.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) (04/12/90)
In article <4071@plains.UUCP> stinnett@plains.UUCP (M.G. Stinnett) writes: >[stuff deleted] >>with or without a minimum wage. I'm complaining about the >>overall way Mr. Stinnett is approching the whole issue of labor. > >I make no apologies for this. I'm investing my skull and physical sweat >for me--not anyone else. If I'm smart and do well, you may be able to >tag along by investing yours in the same direction. Or you can do it >your own way. But don't do me any favors, because I'm not doing any >for you. I think this discussion boils down to what you think we owe each other as human beings. If you take the position that we owe each other nothing then you won't feel cheated if you get in an auto accident and become permanently brain damaged and society refuses to help you. Your attitude might change if you were physically and mentally incapable of earning huge sums of money. Could you imagine yourself flipping hamburgers at McDonald's because that is all that you are capable of? If on the other hand you believe, as I do, that we owe it to each other to make sure that all of us live above the poverty line then you won't mind paying more for labor. I don't think we should throw out the minimum wage because other countries have cheaper labor or are not responsible enough to see to it that their citizens are living above the poverty line. There are other ways to address economic problems without hanging the underclass out to dry. Dan Guilderson UMass Boston