If I were a Chinese voter, I'd have to be living in Taiwan where they have a minimum wage of $17,880 a month (Taiwan dollars, of course). You always try to personalize an issue that you are arguing poorly. It's not about me wanting to control anybody, what horseshit. I just don't agree with you. I wonder who does. Work is a matter you understand less than morality. I have offered volunteers paying internships under similar circumstances. But if he starts working for wages, he gets fair wages like the other paid interns and similar responsibility, as well. It does not change the fact that there are both volunteer and paid interns and both are happy with the arrangement. None are locked irreversibly into either mode. Black and white thinking again, martin. There are shades of gray here. No, I'd like French whores in SS uniforms to abuse me. Wouldn't you?
You are really Chico Marx. That is fine where collective bargaining exists. It does not exist in entry-level jobs, which is why the government was forced to establish a minimum wage. How are they going to work in the Taco Bell on College Drive , Einstein? Irrelevant argument. Hell, I win twice because I also own Apple. Why don't you win? But it is more irrelevance. I'd be happy to pay more for an American-made iPad. But outsourcing is a different argument from the US minimum wage. I pay them higher wages that make them happy here if they are valuable to me. So what? I don't try to exploit them by paying lower wages. I could, especially with foreign students who can't work off-campus. Try to pay better attention. I said . . . true equilibrium determined by market conditions.
i wouldnt. because unlike you i am not communist, nor am i racist/nationalist. little chinese fellas need jobs worse, thats why they work for less. the ethical thing to do is to buy from china. "buy american" is patriotic nonsense. unless you can buy higher quality things, which is often the case.
You don't even understand the terms, Gomer. Shazzam! Patriotism is not nonsense, except to unemployed, ego-centric, self-indulgent, psuedo-philosphers.
cost of living goes hand in hand with avg wages in particular areas. I had a Dr friend move here from new york city. bought an antebellum home, about 6500sq ft with tennis court, pool and guest house. paid $500,000 in bobo missisiipi. same house in new york? $2,000,000? $3,000,000? why? cost of living and wages go hand n hand. landlords know avg wage in area is 35000 yr he rents house for 500 a month maybe. if it's big union area and they're making $60,000- 100,000. rent triples. a 20oz coke here is $1.60 how much is it in beverly hills? new york city? employers should be able to pay a wage that justifies the work being done. lord knows uncle sam gonna make up for it anyway.
And you, like government, appoint yourself to determine what is good for other people. That's exploitation to you. To a high school student, it's money they can use. If people want to work for a wage that they agree to receive and the employer agrees to pay, your argument to disallow that amounts to nothing more than simple coercion. You happen not to like their freely chosen arrangement, and will end it. Any way that's sliced, that is authoritarian. Yes or no: Is the business tricking the job-seeker? Is the business forcing them into something? Is the job-seeker free to negotiate? Is any coercion taking place whatsoever in this negotiation? Which translates to them deciding what's fair and equitable. Which means that decision gets taken out of the hands of the affected parties, and put into the hands of a third party. That's coercion. You're not allowed to choose what's fair for yourself. The government has decided that, and you will conform. I don't understand. In the first sentence you said businesses (the market) ought not be allowed to set the equilibrium price, and then you said what's fair and equitable is the equilibrium price. Who in your example sets the equilibrium price? The market or the government? Furthermore, minimum wage protects the interests of neither the employer nor employee. It protects the interests of labor unions, who by its passage will see their competition put of our business. Who sets the equilibrium? Market forces or the government?
With a tennis court and a guest house in manhattan? Not sure if that is even possible. I have never heard of a private tennis court. Would probably need to be on the roof of a huge building. Even without the tennis court I am thinking 10 million. One bedroom places are near a million.
This is why the world isn't ten times more prosperous. Because stupid people want to control everything. Red does. He should dictate everything to everyone. He is white and rich and he knows what is best for low wage workers and their employers. Poor people are stupid can't negotiate salaries. But red is white and smart and rich.
Where do you get this nonsense.? Minimum wage has existed since 1938, long before I was born. I don't determine a goddamn thing. My opinions are my own, as are yours. I was once a high school student. Minimum wage was $1.35 and that was what I worked for. Working for less wouldn't even pay for gas money. My folks would pay me more than that for doing odd jobs. Expecting someone to work for less is exploitation, pure and simple. That's democracy. The government is US and our representatives established minimum wage because it is in the best interests of the nation for there to be an equitable pay scale. And you've got it backwards. I am not trying to end anything, you are advocating an end to something that has existed for many decades. No, the job seeker is not free to negotiate an entry-level job. That never happens. Unskilled labor has nothing to negotiate with until they get hired and establish a employee history and can demonstrate that they can be an asset to a company. A company can always find another applicant for an entry-level, unskilled position. The law states that there is a minimum wage to be offered. All wages above that are negotiable. Which is to say the vast majority of all jobs. Even fast food pays more than minimum wage these days. You are getting all worked up about a small part of the workforce. The lowest-paid part, mostly part-timers--about 2% of the workforce!. Almost everybody gets to negotiate for a wage, once they have experience and skills to offer. You really don't understand how democracy works, do you? The government is The People. We decide what is best for the nation and it overrides what is best for a business OR what is best for an individual. You don't understand what coercion is if you don't see that business would hold all of the cards if they got to regulate themselves. Geez, do you know what equilibrium means? NOBODY, neither government, nor business, nor the workforce get to set an equilibrium. Equilibrium is a balance point that is set by the economic numbers. And if the numbers change, the balance point changes. We need only arrive at a formula agreeable to all parties and then let the economic numbers establish balance points. Then nobody must work below equilibrium wage. It protects the bests interests of the nation to have a stable and equitable wage structure. It protects the individual employee from exploitation by giant corporations. It protects employers from discrimination charges if certain classes of people get higher entry wages than other classes of people, which inevitably happens. Everybody starts at the same wage which is barely above the poverty level. Plenty of incentive to perform well and get a promotion when you have established a track record as an employee. WTF is wrong with that?
