Are you sure about this? Are you saying that no one at the "bottom" is productive or worth what you wish they were paid? If so, then you have made work at that level a form of welfare.
"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."
A couple of points. What is "rich rich level"? At what point do you think government should set wages? If the "rich rich" are the top 5%, then you've really set no limit, have you? Second, you make the common mistake of failing to remember that the value of the employee must exceed the cost of the employee. Otherwise, you've only created a form of welfare where the government mandates that companies hire a certain number of employees and pay them, not wages, but welfare. I must point out again that this is the "third way" where government mandates make companies servants of the state.
"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."
Again, two points. First, when you price an employer out of the market you have priced the employees out of the market as well. Second, forcing employers to raise the costs of their goods affect those at the bottom of the income scale more harshly than those higher up the scale. This is an "unintended consequence" that can result in much more harm than benefits. One is reminded at this point of the "luxury tax" leveled on yachts that resulted in many employees losing their jobs.
"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."
One is remind of Hillary during the health care debacle claiming that she "could not be concerned with every underfunded corporation". These underfunded businesses might be the source of jobs for many, but there's no reason to be concerned for them losing their jobs, right? This is a common argument of many liberals who attempt to blame the consequences of their well intentioned schemes on others who are "inefficient, dumb, or looting goobers". Isn't it interesting that these claims are most often made by those who've never had to make payroll?
"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."
Wonderfull, an employer can't determine the value of an employee but, somehow, the government can? Get real. Employers must know the value of their employers or they will go broke. That is a powerful incentive is it not? Now, where is the corresponding incentive that applies to government?
"At what point do you think government should set wages?" ---At the bottom, mostly.
"Second, you make the common mistake of failing to remember that the value of the employee must exceed the cost of the employee." ---Not necessarily. See all the CEO stuff above. Seriously though, at the very least we are setting - "Value of Employee" is greater than or equal to 'Minimum Cost of Employee."
"Otherwise, you've only created a form of welfare where the government mandates that companies hire a certain number of employees" --Gee whiz, where did I mandate a certain number of employees???. . ."and pay them, not wages, but welfare." --Dear Dug, we're having to pay them WELFARE now because these looters aren't paing livable WAGES. (You should love my proposals. Why are you being so recalcitrant? Oh, I forgot you are still addicted to certain conservative theories and not yet able to wean yourself from them. Oh well, I'll soon fix that by cracky!"
Second, forcing employers to raise the costs of their goods affect those at the bottom of the income scale more harshly than those higher up the scale." Oh this is kaa-kaa. The impact of higher minimal wages on prices has been discussed before. It has no merit.
"One is remind of Hillary during the health care debacle claiming that she "could not be concerned with every underfunded corporation". These underfunded businesses might be the source of jobs for many. . ." Actually, the only thing Hillary (barf, hack) ever said that I agreed with. If the cheap SOB's can't manage their businesses well enough to pay fair minimum wages, then "Exit, Stage Left" , "Gong,Gong" , "Good riddance to bad rubbish." It's called evolution, Duke. It improves the species. Some people ain't really meant to be in business for themselves. Let us end their suffering, and the suffering of their employees.
"Wonderfull, an employer can't determine the value of an employee but, somehow, the government can?" Guess not or they would pay them enough to survive without welfare.
"Employers must know the value of their employers or they will go broke." Geeeesh. They go broke anyway. Nine out of ten small businesses fail. You know why? Most of 'em are idiots. That's why. If we made the idiots pay a fair livable wage, less idiots would go into business. The smart folks would not have to contend with a pack of underfunded idiots constantly screwing up pricing structures.
Now, where is the corresponding incentive that applies to government?---Fairness. Equity. Political stability. A good economy. Re-election. Citizens who are not starving. A more union. justice. Domestic tranquility. Promoting the general welfare. {Gee, this sounds good! I think I am on a roll!) Securing the blessings. . .(You Freepers get off my back! Doris Kearnes Goodwin says this is OK.)...parsy.