Doc Freemo 
Sure, as long as that rent is a shared room, and the groceries consist of chicken every night... which you can off a minimum wage job.
@freemo @MikeDunnAuthor Minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. Frankly, food and housing should be freely available to all, but at an absolute fucking minimum, a person working full time should be able to afford their own place and decent food, which is completely impossible at min wage in the US right now. Fuck the protestant work ethic and the religious fanatics it rode in on.
> Minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage
and it shouldn't be, thats the point. It disproportionately harms the poorest least skilled of the work force, it shouldnt exist at all, let alone act as a living wage.
> Frankly, food and housing should be freely available to all
Absolutely agree it should be, and minimum wage should also be abolished.
> but at an absolute fucking minimum, a person working full time should be able to afford their own place and decent food
Only if that full time is **worth** decent food and your own place. People deserve food and an education to be able to gaint he skills to be worth a home and decent food, it is not the obligation of anyone paying someone money to do a task to provide that. It is the governments responsibility to create a healthy economy and valuable workers through access to free education, training, and sometimes welfare.
> which is completely impossible at min wage in the US right now
Entirely possible, for people who are skilled enough to be worth the income needed to afford these things. The fact that many people exist who do not have sufficiently marketable skills is the problem needing solving, not minimum wage.
> Fuck the protestant work ethic and the religious fanatics it rode in on.
Has nothing to do with work ethic, bother understanding a persons position first.
Because we already know from the data that minimum wage causes the poorest least skilled to not be able to find work, typically replaced by more skilled individuals. You can see the attached graph from a peer reviewed journal demonstrating this.
In addition to the data clearly showing this fact, its also common sense. Companies hire people based on the value they provide. If you dont provide enough value to be worth your wage, you wont get a job. Setting a minimum wage just makes it illegal to hire people who do not produce value great enough to be worth their hourly rate. The end result is you effectively make it illegal to hire the least skilled in society, forcing people who are already desperate and need work, and who dont make enough to loose their job entirely and be unhirable, effectively causing them to starve to death.
Obviously that is not a solution, it only makes their situation worse. Both the established scientific data, as well as just basic common sense clearly shows this.
Now how do you actually solve the problem, easy, the state pays to get these people an education or training to actually make their value high enough they are hireable at a living wage.
@freemo @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor Okay if you just increase the minimum salary and do nothing else, obviously that will lead to companies to not hire "less productive" people. But minimum salary by definition is just enough to sustain yourself. Just removing it won't help either. As you said, either people should be supported by the state to get "more productive" or maybe companies shouldn't profit outrageously from workers.
@aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
Absolutely, the underlying problem of having low-skill individuals whose skills are not marketable to sustain a living wage is a real problem. We know minimum wage makes this problem worse, so we can of course easily argue to abolish it, but while that wont make the problem worse, it also wont fix it.
As I stated elsewhere to truly address the problem then abolishing minimum wage is only the first step. The next step is to ensure people have access to high quality welfare programs that 1) keep them fed and healthy in the interim, and 2) provide good training programs to ensure their skill sets are marketable so they can make a living wage.
You cant start fixing a problem until you stop doing the things that contribute to the problem, so we cant really fix the problem until we take the minimal first step of abolishing minimum wage, though I absolutely support the fact that it isnt the only step that needs to be taken.
@freemo @aiono @MikeDunnAuthor
okay, so first off, the protestant work ethic is a very specific thing, which both has nothing to do with actual work ethic, and is, at least seemingly anyway, the exact ideology you're espousing. It grew out of the "if you don't work, you don't eat" shit that the early Virginia colonists believed, and is largely why many Americans believe "you'll get ahead through hard work" even though that is *demonstrably false*.
@freemo @aiono @MikeDunnAuthor
Secondly, do you recognize that *someone* still needs to do min wage jobs, and that those people deserve to not be living in squalor? Cause you can't have everyone upskill, there are only so many positions available. Like, if everyone becomes a coder, or a plumber, or an engineer, guess what, those stop being "high skill jobs" (which is a BS term btw, min wage jobs require skills too), and unless we automate them all away, min wage jobs still need doing.
I never claimed minimum wage jobs dont need to be done. No one is claiming those jobs should be abolished. The problem is when you have far too many low-skilled people then the laws of supply and demand dictate low-wage, everyone wants to to do it. When you have high skilled people most of them wont want to do low-skilled work, so the demand for doing the work goes down, and thus the pay goes up.
No one is suggesting **everyone** needs to be "upskill", only the people who are capable of it until you drive the wages up enough to not need to "upskill" people further.
No one is suggesting all people need to be coders and plumbers and engineers, just that more people need to be.
@freemo @aiono @MikeDunnAuthor
I didn't mean you believed in that part, you obviously didn't, It's why I specifically said it *grew out of it*. the modern iteration is about believing, effectively, that hard work brings good fortune, and focusing a person's worth on their employment, it's a pretty common thread throughout most American views on employment. It also tends to come with the whole "people who don't do {job i think is valuable} should have less to motivate them to work harder."
> didn't mean you believed in that part, you obviously didn't
Then its not the exact thing im espousing is it?
> the modern iteration is about believing, effectively, that hard work brings good fortune
Yet my stance is, again, the exact opposite of the mentality you keep trying mental gymnastics to fit me into.
Low-skilled workers are the hardest workers there are, they get paid very little, work huge number of hours, and usually do very hard work. You really think I'm claiming a mathematician, or an engineer is a harder worker than someone who cleans hotel rooms? Nothing I ever said had **anything** to do with hard work and in fact my stance, when considered with common sense, is the obvious, that people shoulder **not** work as hard as they do, they should work smarter (education) not harder. What matters is the value of your skill, not how much energy you put into your job.
You are trying so desperately to fit me into a mold so you can apply your same talking points you are so comfortable using, and its not working. If you want to have a productive conversation your going to have to stop trying to apply the same template you use when arguing this with any generic person and actually start addressing what I've actually said, and recognize my actual standpoint.
@rootfake @aiono @MikeDunnAuthor
So when I said you should bother to understand a persons viewpoint before making statements you just double down...
You said:
> the exact ideology you're espousing. It grew out of the "if you don't work, you don't eat" shit
And yet despite your claim it is the "exact ideology you're espousing" My own words explicitly say the exact opposite of that. My own words at multiple times. For example my exact words (in a response I tagged you) was:
> The next step is to ensure people have access to high quality welfare programs that 1) keep them fed and healthy in the interim
Funny that, the exact **opposite** your claiming my stance is.
Again, before you start slinging accusations or judgements bother reading the basics of a conversation first, otherwise your just wasting everyones time with faux offense over fantasies of arguments I never made.
@freemo @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor I don't think minimum wage is the problem here. It only looks like problem because job market as it functions works for the employer. In the end if you can make it so that everyone earns enough, minimum wage will never be an issue since by definition it's the minimum money that covers subsisting.
@freemo @aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
Wow, I had not known about this correlation.
I know that too-low minimum wage can serve as an excuse to pay people less than they actually need. I also think that not having minimum wage can get some people taken advantage of (if you're desparate enough you'll work for any amount).
So some of those extra employed with low MW are probably flippin' miserable.
Hypothesis: removing MW *while also providing means to meet basic needs for everyone* should make for a better solution. Removing MW *with no further support* may well create a (not so) new type of slavery.
> I know that too-low minimum wage can serve as an excuse to pay people less than they actually need. I also think that not having minimum wage can get some people taken advantage of (if you're desparate enough you'll work for any amount).
This is certainly true, if you have no minimum wage some people will be paid far below a living wage. But its important to understand that it isnt a companies obligation to pay you a living wage, its the governments responsibility to keep the markets and populace in a state where people earn a living wage. More importantly it isnt even about "who is responsible" so much as it is about what the reality is. As we covered when you raise minimum wage these people dont just get paid more, they just become unhirable. Have you solved anything by taking the people who would not earn a living wage and only earn, lets say, a nickle an hour, and now just forcing them to be fired and have no job at all? A nickle an hour is better than 0. Thats the problem, you arent actually making anyone get a living wage, your just making sure the people who cant get a living wage now have no job at all, how is that a step in the right direction?
> So some of those extra employed with low MW are probably flippin' miserable.
Less miserable than they would be without a job at all.
> Hypothesis: removing MW *while also providing means to meet basic needs for everyone* should make for a better solution. Removing MW *with no further support* may well create a (not so) new type of slavery.
We obviously agree the only real answer is ensuring people have good welfare before removing MW. However removing MW with no further support means now you have people who make 0 making **something**, sure its a shitty something, but something means they eat, nothing means they die. It may not be a great scenario but it is absolutely better than having minimum wage, or do you think just letting those people make 0 and starving to death is osmehow an improvement over a nickle an hour wage?
I think a lot of people arguing in favour of MW imagine it means that everyone previously below that threshold will get a raise, which I now understand is somewhat naive.
The graph you posted does not, however show that everyone below the threshold will be fired instead, and that would also be somewhat pessimistic.
Around here,, the idea that an employer has responsibility for employees has not yet fully been suffocated by US-based megacorporations, and it used to actually be pretty strong (and reasonable, if you assume that employees are humans, and employers too!)
In Germany, employers must pay health insurance, pension and a few other things for their employees. Minimum wage was introduced not too long ago, and unemployment is no issue
The graph shows that people loose their jobs and starve, some may keep their job. When many, and not all, suffer and starve it is still a defacto harmful policy, full stop. Arguing in absolutes are never useful.
@freemo @aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
...I'm afraid that's what you just did. Unemployment is not equal to certain death by starvation, except maybe in 1870 London.
I never said it was certain death for **everyone** so no it isnt what I just did. It is certain death for those effected however, which is a huge portion.
@freemo @Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor Abolishing MW can be better for the short term yes. But is it satisfactory? Hell no. Why spend arguing so much about abolishing MW if it doesn't even lead to sustenance? I think instead we can focus on more effective policies that would lead to livable wage for all.
Abolishing MW leads to the poorest people most in need with work and the ability to feed themselves more so than with MW in existent. It provides real, material, positive results, thats why.
That fact that it is only a **step** in the right direction and an improvement but not a full solution is a horrible reason not to promote this.
@freemo @aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
afaict abolishing MW will likely lead to most people who are currently on MW getting pay cuts. With some delay, it will then lead to some currently-unemployed people finding work at even lower wages.
How many "some" are, I can't tell, so I don't think there's a clear argument either way.
That could be different if it was certain that everyobe withkut a job is able to get by alright. Which would also increase the bargaining power of workers at the lower end of the payscale, thus increase wages, independent of minimum wage laws (and thus make this debate unnecessary)
> afaict abolishing MW will likely lead to most people who are currently on MW getting pay cuts. With some delay, it will then lead to some currently-unemployed people finding work at even lower wages.
No, because those people are paid that minimum wage because their skills make them give as much back as value. So no it doesnt work that way, nor is there any evidence to suggest it does.
> How many "some" are, I can't tell, so I don't think there's a clear argument either way.
The chart I provided shows exactly what that number is. A 50% increase in minimum wage would result in 50% increase in the number of people with no high school diploma being unemployed. You dont need to guess you have a peer reviewed study telling you. The relationship is linear, so when you double minimum wage you double the number of people who dont have a job (among those without diplomas). For those with a high school diploma the increase is only slightly smaller.
@freemo @Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
> No, because those people are paid that minimum wage because their skills make them give as much back as value. So no it doesnt work that way, nor is there any evidence to suggest it does.
A quick search led me to this
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001979399204600104
What exactly were you search terms that lead to this 40 year old paper? What made you think this 40 year old paper was a more credible source than the much more modernly sourced data I provided?
Do you know what its called when you search for something to agree with your biases and provide the first paper that seems to do so? Does that sound like someone trying to persue the truth, or trying to argue their agenda?
@freemo @Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor or you can do what Germany does. Provide unemployment wage so that people who have a job paid decently and people who don't can cover basic needs which forces companies to provide better working conditions because you won't starve to death if you don't have a job. You don't need to remove MW for this. And it's much better of compared to hypothetical US without MW.
You absolutely could, with the poor and middle class paying significantly more taxes, and with pay from highly skilled work a fraction (about 1/3 in my case as a technical expert) of what it is in the USA. I lived in the netherlands and germany as a middle class individual and with my pay being cut to 1/3 what it would be in the USA that is clearly **not** a good solution as far as I'm concerned. In fact the reason im agains the german system is because I lived it as a middle class individual and know just how horrific it is. Solves one problem, causes 10 others.
OR what you can do is exactly what I suggested, instead of giving people free money or relying on companies to be charities you can simply invest in making your populace highly skilled and then only supplement with welfare the few people who are incapable and actually solve the problem.
@freemo @Mr_Teatime @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor Paying decent wage is not charity. But I guess there is no point on arguing this I am sure we won't change our minds.
Paying a wage that is more than the market value for something is absolutely charity, almost by definition.
@freemo @aiono @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor
I'm careful to not praise tje German system too much because it sure has issues -- but the "taxes are immoral and companies must behave like psychopaths" argument is rubbing me the *very* wrong way.
I'm happy to pay my taxes, even if I think the current government's priorities are completely backwards. I'd be even happier if I knew that a larger part of it went towards being humane (instead of weapons and shit, and subsidies for super-rich idiots and psychopath companies whi are doing more than well enough for themselves)
In your world, everyone is forced to work fulltime just to stay miserable. In my world, you can say no to a bad job offer or quit an abusive work contract and go home without fear. You've no idea how good that feels.
> "taxes are immoral and companies must behave like psychopaths"
Considering no one said anything of the sort I would imagine it would bother you, figments of your imagination tend to do that.
When I argued education should be free and cover all levels of education and other forms of skill training (trade schools, educational degrees from bachnlors to PhD, etc) what part of that assumes I am against taxes when surely taxes would need to pay for this.
What I am arguing is instead of acting like true psychopaths and expecting companies to just be so altruistic they just give people money to live off of that is more than they actually earn for the company, that we actually make these people marketable so companies dont **need** to be charities, that they will pay them a living wage because the skills they bring the company is actually worth that living wage. Likewise reducing the number of people in low-paid jobs, thus decreasing the supply and likewise raising their wages out of need.
All of this would still need to be payed for with taxes, but instead of just handing out free money and causing actual **proven** harm to the very people you want to help Im suggesting actually helping them. No one said taxes are immoral, but **wasting** taxes to actually harm the people you are trying to help is.
@freemo
hoookay...
So, where we agree is that education should be free.
I just noticed you're living in the Netherlands. So how are you dealing with the taxes here when you found the German system too expensive? I've studied in Germany (no fees, plus government support for expenses!), worked there for some years, then the UK, and now the Netherlands. The UK is certainly much more social than the US (but eroding quickly, which is why we left), but everywhere employers are expected to care for their employees -- and that is right and proper for me because the only peoe who want to go back to Dickens' times are those who don't mind getting rich by making others miserable. And those are not my friends.
In dickens time did they have free education and generous welfare system? Stop with the nonsense rhetoric, **no one** here is suggesting we abolish worker protections and minimum wage and call it a day, so the fact you keep harping ont he same loaded language is getting tiring.
What I am proposing is a system of free education and job training **to the extreme** and a good welfare system to help people during the transition. Nothing remotely dickens about it, its about the responsbility being ont he government to create healthy economies and to be the "charity" and not companies, which is how it should be.
As to your question, I have lived in many places from egypt to the USA to the Netherlands, in fact I've lived in most major countries at this point, or at least most regions (europe, asia, americas, etc).I am not against taxes, as I stated before I'm against wasted taxes.. wasting it on minimum wage when it makes the problem **worse** rather than investing it in welfare and education that actually fixes the problem. In the netherlands they actually use their taxes for actual good, it covers (partly) education, it provides decent welfare systems, and that money is spent well on infrastructure and social works. Compare that to the USA where most of the taxes are completely wasted, I dont mind spending the extra money if i see those benefits actually being realized. Now they still waste a **lot**, and their system of minimum wage isnt helping. But overall they arent wasting all of our money on military or walls, so by in large it is spent on tangible things, more so than in the USA at least.
@freemo
Alright ... I think I'll call it a day.
I can't claim to understand your idea because I still sense a lot of contradictions, and the idea that enough education could remove unemployment or low-pay jobs (is that what you say? not sure!) sounds questionable, to say the least.
The correlation between mimimum wage and unemployment seems to be real (under what circumstances?), but I would not trust it to the extent you do. Everything else ... sorry, I find it hard to figure out what you even think without getting sidetracked, triggered or plain confused. You're probably not an idiot but I don't really want to invest the time and energy to figure it all out now.
Have a good day, and thanks for your patience.
No worries, disengaging, and recognizing your own tendency to get triggered and thus perhaps not having a fruitful conversation is a very matrue choice, and I respect that. Should you feel you want to understand my stance at some point you are always welcome back.
@aiono you’re arguing with someone who is presenting evidence from a vacuum—they’re pretending that taxes and other things like healthcare aren’t in budgets. Minimum wage is part of a bigger system that has been systematically destroyed so for many the next logical step is to remove minimum wage. They think they can hide puzzle pieces and still finish the puzzle without those pieces. IMO regression never solves anything.
A vacuum? I presented peer reviewed data/chart that shows clearly that it isnt "in the budget" and that actual real world harm occurs to the poorest and least skilled as minimum wage increases. Thats pretty much the exact opposite of arguing from a vacuum.
@aiono they’re also ignoring the real fact that salaries and such were based upon minimum wage. The government set the limit for unskilled labor so then they had to create skilled wage brackets. The private sector then has to compete with the public sector and they must offer more than what the government is offering right? I hate these let’s look at the data arguments that pretend policy doesn’t help create that data.
Whatever you might say doesnt change the undeniable fact. Minimum wages causes the least skilled people to become unemployed, and the higher minimum wage is, the more rampant the unemployment that explicitly effects these low-skilled workers happens to be.
inb4: I am not claiming the **overall** unemployment rate goes down, only the unemployment among the poorest and least skilled people, which is completely contrary to the purpose.
You can argue whatever mental gymnastics you want to try to make minimum wage sound like a good thing. But when all is said and done the undeniable fact is more minimum wage means the poorest least skilled people suffer more. We have the data that proves that.
Here’s an example. It’s 1975 you’re ibm and want the best computer coder. That person works for nasa earning a government paycheck & benefits package. You will have to offer a better deal than nasa AND compensate for the extra private sector stress of making sure the work is profitable to ibm—also the private sector lowers job security. Get rid of the government’s minimum standards just ensures that people will get paid less in the private sector.
And yet the peer reviewed scientific evidence clearly shows the exact opposite is true, that as minimum wage increases, those at or below minimum wage (those with the lowest education) **lose** work and pay.
The difference here is I am speaking from clear evidence, regardless of my personal views of how it would work. The evidence clearly shows us already what happens, we cant just make up our own fantasy and pretend thats the reality.
@freemo @rootfake @MikeDunnAuthor how abolishing minimum wage will amek the situation any better? Minimum wage doesn't limit employer from paying more but only paying less.