Posted on 01/22/2002 3:18:18 PM PST by parsifal
Recently I have been involved in several threads dealing with minimum wages, fair wages, and taxes on the wealthy. Somehow, even though I am pretty "conservative", I manage to be on the opposite side of most freepers on these issues.
So, for fun, and for a view of the "other" side, I present some links to the AFLCIO website.
Calculate your pay if your were a CEO
There are other fun things on the site. Browse around here and play the "Greed" game:
And if you are interested in "living wages" and have some questions:
No, not really. You keep focusing on the components of the living wage, how it would be calculated. My questions really go to other factors. I've stipulated that once the composition and location of the family are determined, it is a relatively trivial task (although frought with political difficulties) to determine the amount of money for that family to cover basic expenses. The real issues to me are at a higher level.
First, I think you will admit that a living wage for a family of four is not a living wage for a family of five. If a society insists that a job provide a living wage for the family of four, then why should it not also provide a living wage for the family of five? You've argued that the employer has an obligation to provide for the basic necessities of a family otherwise it is stealing the fruits of the employees labor. Well, why draw the line at a certain size? If the obligation exists for one family then it exists for all families, does it not? Isn't it just as immoral for the employer to provide the basics for one family without providing for all?
Second, if you agree that the employer has this obligation to provide the basics, then you must agree that wages are to be determined based upon the needs of the employee rather than the value of the employee to the employer.
I notice that you've gently accused me of trying to label you as a socialist. I've not used that term previously but I would point out the underlying foundations of your argument were first laid by Karl Marx. For example, you accuse employers of stealing the employees labor. And, you confuse the cost of labor (wages) with the needs of the employee.
I would like to add that you have, in effect, admitted my premise that the intent of the living wage is to raise wages and not to provide a living wage to all employees. When you dismiss the need to provide this living wage to all employees you abandon the high moral ground of fairness and enter the morass of wage negotiations.
"People are going to get the basics of life from one of two places - Their job, or their gov't. I think it better to get it from their job."
Well, sure, it would be better to get these basics from the job. But, the problem with your solution is this. You've not really placed the responsibility on the employer since you're relying upon the government to force the employer to meet these basic needs. This is, perhaps, worse than relying upon the government. Surely, you recognize that this is the argument of those who believe in the "Third Way". This is a varient of socialism, national socialism or fascism, where the government mandates that employers provide the services that would be provided by the state under other forms of socialism. IOW, employers are subordinated to, and controlled by, the state in order to provide for the "greater good of all".
"There is a component to wages that MUST cover the basics. .... The job of gov't is to set a lower limit, and there are sensible ways to project an overall fair amount of hourly wage. ... I am still amazed that the simple notion that an employer ought to pay his employee a fair enough wage to live meets so much resistance here."
In essence, you have said that there is a "right" to certain basics and it is the obligation of the government to ensure that employers satisfy these rights. The reason these ideas meet such resistance here is simple. Most conservatives belive that these are not "rights" and that it is the responsibility of the individual to satisfy these "basics".
One of the reasons conservatives object to this definition of rights is simple. When you arbitrarily limit the living wage to a family of three you are violating the rights of a family of four. You have said that the first child of a family has a right to live above the poverty level but the second child of that same family does not have this right. Rights, by definition, belong to all. If there is a right to live above the poverty level then that right, in order to be a right, must be extended to all. You cannot call it a right for the first child and deny that the second child does not also have this right. Consequently, this cannot be a "right". But this does bring us back to my earlier point that you have made the cost of the employee a function of the number in that employees family and have said that the value (or wages paid) of that employee to the employer is also a function of the number of the members of that employees family. I think you would admit that this becomes unworkable in a free society.
See this article for an interesting analysis of this emotionally-charged issue.
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/research/faculty/news_releases/edward.lazear/lazear.htm
Thank you for your kind words. The GOP is also real hot about responsibilty, for welfare mothers, and rightly so. They are not so hot for responsibility for corporations towards their employees, customers, and victims. But I'll keep plugging away! parsy.
]\ I think this is where you keep losing it. The employer has an obligation to provide a salary sufficient to cover basic living necessities. NOT, to provide a sufficient wage for whatever expenses an employee decides to incur. This really isn't hard. Let's move off family size to food. Maybe it will be easier for you to understand.
Assume, "food" is the only basic living expense an employee has. Pretend we have fur and live in a temperate environment. Pretend we all work within 1/4 mile of our bush we sleep under. My argument would be that the employer should pay a sufficient wage for "a" worker to buy enough food to stay alive. There are huge differences in the type and price of food. Assume most workers have a mate and one cub. Assume $100 will buy enough basic food for a family of three. The minimum livable wage should be at least $100.
If the worker has a mate and 7 cubs, I do not see this as the employer's responsibility. The employer should pay at least enough for "a" generic, normally situated worker to live. NOT, pay at least enough for "the" non-generic, not-normally situated worker to live.
By the same logic, the employer should not have to pay at least enough for "a" worker to eat caviar 4 times a week, filet mignons for breakfast, and fancy virgina hams for lunch. This is neither "normal" nor "basic." If the worker likes these foods, this does not translate to an obligation on the employer's part to support the habit.
"Second, if you agree that the employer has this obligation to provide the basics, then you must agree that wages are to be determined based upon the needs of the employee rather than the value of the employee to the employer. "
Not any more than you would say that an employer has the obligation to pay his "landlord" based on his landlord's needs, or his material's venders, based on their "needs." Have you never heard of Mazlow? Are you not aware that there is a structure to a wage, and that as the wage goes higher, basic needs are left behind? As I told you above, if it lights your bulb, or gives you some sort of pleasure, you can think of the basic survival componet of the wage as being "needs based", but the wage in excess of that is based on other stuff.
A livable wage is society's way of setting the "value" of a person's time, of setting the lower "value" of an employee to his employer. It the employer don't want to pay enough for a worker to live, he don't need workers, IMHO.
No. You've placed the "financial" responsibility back on the employer. The gov't has the responsibility to enforce the rules, not to pay the worker. This is the same as "using" the gov't via means of the courtroom, to collect a bill someone owes you. It's the defendant who will pay you. parsy.
True. And the way the individual satisfies his "responsibility" for these basics is by "working." And now lets have the other half. Let's ensure that employers meet their "responsibilities" by paying AT LEAST a fair and livable wage. parsy.
So an employer only has an obligation to provide for the employee, his wife, and first child. Why do you consider the second, third, etc, children luxuries but do not consider the wife and first child as luxuries? Are you saying the employee has a right to a wife and one child, but has no right to a second child?
"Not any more than you would say that an employer has the obligation to pay his "landlord" based on his landlord's needs, or his material's venders, based on their "needs."
No, I wouldn't say that but it is entirely consistent with your logic. After all, the landlord has a wife and children too. Why shouldn't the government mandate that those who use his services satisfy his needs as well too.
"Have you never heard of Mazlow? Are you not aware that there is a structure to a wage, and that as the wage goes higher, basic needs are left behind?"
Never heard of "Mazlow". I have heard of a guy named "Maslow". And it was a "hierarchy of needs" not of wages.
"A livable wage is society's way of setting the "value" of a person's time, of setting the lower "value" of an employee to his employer. It the employer don't want to pay enough for a worker to live, he don't need workers, IMHO."
Here's some more of that Marxist talk. Society cannot determine the value of an employee. It simply has no idea, cannot have an idea, of what an employee is worth since only an employer can make that determination. If society attempts to set this value, it can only price certain workers out of the market when the cost of their employment exceeds their value to the employer. Employers simply will not hire someone who costs them more than their value.
So you're saying that the employer is trying to pay the employee less than he is worth and that this is akin to someone attempting to skip out on a debt? Isn't this quite similiar to Marxs theory that profits were stolen from the employee?
Now, why don't you go to the next paragraph in my post where I explain why the living wage, as you define it, cannot be a "right".
If Bob knows the gov't is going to confiscate half of it while he is alive and most of the rest of it when he is dead, why would Bob bother?
Me? I'd go fishin'
I'll bet it's way more than I would be willing to work. And most of us here wouldn't want to make that sacrifice either.
In the 3rd instance, the children work in the business making quite good wages. Those who don't work hard make money, but get no power. The ones that work hard get it all.
Whether the parents "gift" the lazy ones with money out of pocket or as a salary is immaterial to me. The business is privately held.
Livable fair wages is analagous to the "objective" standard. The conclusory amount that a reasonable person would arrive at. You keep trying to deconstruct a "subjective" livable fair wage. For you, it varies from person to person, situation to situation. That is not workable for the very reasons that you so aptly analyze. But think of it as an "objective" amount. What would reasonable people conclude is a minimal amount for a worker to survive.
You said earlier that you are a research analyst. Suppose that a private foundation offered you a $100,000 grant to arrive a "reasonable minimum living wage hourly amount for your community." You get to work on it on your time off, and there is no rush deadline. Could you arrive at a reasonable sum? Would you throw your hands up and say that it was an impossible task? If not, how would you proceed to arrive at a reasonable number? Think about this and I think you will find that you are covering some of the same ground and asking the same questions that I am.
"Society cannot determine the value of an employee." True. That is why I want to keep gov't out of the upper part of the pyramid until the "rich rich" level. BUT, a society can determine (fairly reasonably) the minimum COST of an employee. Get it? Not VALUE, but COST. An accountant is probably worth more than a receptionist, but both of them has to eat, clothe themselves, put some sort of roof over their head. Livable wage is a starting point. You are free to add to it for your VALUE.
"If society attempts to set this value, it can only price certain workers out of the market when the cost of their employment exceeds their value to the employer." ---No, society will price certain EMPLOYERS out of the employment market. Employers who do not price their goods high enough to pay their costs will have to go bye-bye. This is a good thing. The other businesses in that industry who are likely more efficient or more intelligent, will not have to compete with looting goobers who do not even pay their employees enough to live.
And as a side note, my experience is that most employers do not know how to value their employees, or even gauge their productivity. They haven't got a clue. It is hard to do, and the result you get can be questionable. Certain jobs are more easily amenable to analysis than others {egs. sales, certain professions) but the average monkey who owns a business or manages one doesn't even try. parsy.
I am not sure that I disagree with you on this. I do not think that a job is "right", per se. A "living wage" is an obligation of the employer, IMHO. The same way that mandantory auto insurance is an "obligation". I really think that you are trying to force my arguments into some sort of Marxist mold so you won't have to really address them. It won't work. parsy.
LOL!! No they don't.
Irrelevant though. I don't believe in government interference in private buisness no matter what.
I'd love to stay and join you, I'm probably one of the few freepers who buys into voluntarily paying people a living wage and all that, but time is short and all.
Good luck, patent
I hear a lot of the old Gov't grabs half of it spiel, but I even have some problems with the accuracy of that. For example, a doctor (I think) was complaining that he makes $140,000 and the gov't gets 60 thousand or so. I'm not sure that is correct. I think it is possible that he is getting $140,000 because taxes are high. If taxes were only 10%, then I suspect he would be grossing $88,000, paying $8,000 in taxes and taking home the same amount or less. I think it is at least worth considering as a possibility. parsy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.