Living wage?
I went to a CD5 debate Wednesday. One of the questions was whether the federal minimum wage should be raised. The green party candidate said he supported something greater - "A living wage", which he suggested to be at least $12/hour.
I have nothing against employers offering "living wages" for their jobs, but I just don't know about a government mandate.
People complain that corportations "outsource" jobs to reduce costs, so I accept that raising minimum wages will cause lower wage jobs to disappear.
Some low skill jobs, like janitorial work, or stocking shelves can't clearly be outsourced. But it can be reduced.
Overall I imagine the trade off is usually "reducing labor" in exchange for "increasing energy consumption" - the old "economy of scale" solution - rather than paying 10,000 people to do something by hand, throw the work into factory automation and distribution, creating "fewer, higher wage jobs". A win-win economic gain on the surface, but still ignoring the human factor of job satisfaction.
Overall, I must admit "minimum wage" seems too controlling - like "No, you may NOT let yourself be exploited by taking a job that makes less money than we say you're worth." EVEN if I LIKE the work, the money is sufficient, AND it is what the work is worth.
I know, I come from a world of education, and see I spend my time doing PRODUCTIVE work I get paid NOTHING. I can AFFORD this because I have other work I can get paid for.
Still extrapolating foolishly, you might equally make it illegal for me to "volunteer" my time without pay - because I'm getting exploited.
For me it can't be about strict rules of "minimum", or "fair" or "living" wages, but circumstances.
If I'm unemployed, and the only work available for me is only "worth" $1/hour, and my time is being "wasted" NOT working, then $1/hour is MORE than $0/hour, EVEN if I can't "live" on that, perhaps I live with a friend who doesn't ask rent, and helps me with food.
Obviously $1/hour work isn't going to hold employees if they have opportunity for more money elsewhere, so if such opportunity exists, the employer may have to raise wages.
Anyway, easy to talk abstractly. One side will argue abstractly it is no business of the government to interfere in financial agreements between citizens. The other side will argue for fairness for workers to earn money for their work.
I imagine minimum wage increases DOES help some poor people in the short term at least. I'm a socialist at least to say ultimately ALL WEALTH belongs to the collective over individuals, and the government has the right to limit individual wealth disparity in ways of wealth redistribution. I'm cautious, but I won't back down.
It is funny to me - we live in a country where young men can (potentially) be drafted and killed in combat, and that's okay for national defense. However if you talk of taking wealth or property from those on the top, it's an outrage against individual freedom. Even if you downplay this - that we have a volunteer army - the majority volunteer because they don't see opportunities elsewhere.
I'm not calling for a revolution, and I think fighting against the wealthy is counter productive, but ultimately I accept as individuals, our rights are fairly limited, however much we choose to believe otherwise.
Well, nonsense assertions, I know. Just bouncing around on the nature of things.
I imagine if I'm doing well, and a depression happens, how I could help others with no money or jobs. I could give money, food or time. I could even use my money to start a business, and PAY people without jobs to do productive work - even work without individual economic benefits - like perhaps paying community gardeners, or neighbors to patrol the streets to reduce crime, or whatever.
It's nice to imagine I could "help", but really if I had to pay "minimum wage" by law, I might forget it. I mean maybe it IS better for people to sit at home in front of the TV watching soap operas rather than paying them a small amount of money for useful work. A false division I'm sure.
I have nothing against employers offering "living wages" for their jobs, but I just don't know about a government mandate.
People complain that corportations "outsource" jobs to reduce costs, so I accept that raising minimum wages will cause lower wage jobs to disappear.
Some low skill jobs, like janitorial work, or stocking shelves can't clearly be outsourced. But it can be reduced.
Overall I imagine the trade off is usually "reducing labor" in exchange for "increasing energy consumption" - the old "economy of scale" solution - rather than paying 10,000 people to do something by hand, throw the work into factory automation and distribution, creating "fewer, higher wage jobs". A win-win economic gain on the surface, but still ignoring the human factor of job satisfaction.
Overall, I must admit "minimum wage" seems too controlling - like "No, you may NOT let yourself be exploited by taking a job that makes less money than we say you're worth." EVEN if I LIKE the work, the money is sufficient, AND it is what the work is worth.
I know, I come from a world of education, and see I spend my time doing PRODUCTIVE work I get paid NOTHING. I can AFFORD this because I have other work I can get paid for.
Still extrapolating foolishly, you might equally make it illegal for me to "volunteer" my time without pay - because I'm getting exploited.
For me it can't be about strict rules of "minimum", or "fair" or "living" wages, but circumstances.
If I'm unemployed, and the only work available for me is only "worth" $1/hour, and my time is being "wasted" NOT working, then $1/hour is MORE than $0/hour, EVEN if I can't "live" on that, perhaps I live with a friend who doesn't ask rent, and helps me with food.
Obviously $1/hour work isn't going to hold employees if they have opportunity for more money elsewhere, so if such opportunity exists, the employer may have to raise wages.
Anyway, easy to talk abstractly. One side will argue abstractly it is no business of the government to interfere in financial agreements between citizens. The other side will argue for fairness for workers to earn money for their work.
I imagine minimum wage increases DOES help some poor people in the short term at least. I'm a socialist at least to say ultimately ALL WEALTH belongs to the collective over individuals, and the government has the right to limit individual wealth disparity in ways of wealth redistribution. I'm cautious, but I won't back down.
It is funny to me - we live in a country where young men can (potentially) be drafted and killed in combat, and that's okay for national defense. However if you talk of taking wealth or property from those on the top, it's an outrage against individual freedom. Even if you downplay this - that we have a volunteer army - the majority volunteer because they don't see opportunities elsewhere.
I'm not calling for a revolution, and I think fighting against the wealthy is counter productive, but ultimately I accept as individuals, our rights are fairly limited, however much we choose to believe otherwise.
Well, nonsense assertions, I know. Just bouncing around on the nature of things.
I imagine if I'm doing well, and a depression happens, how I could help others with no money or jobs. I could give money, food or time. I could even use my money to start a business, and PAY people without jobs to do productive work - even work without individual economic benefits - like perhaps paying community gardeners, or neighbors to patrol the streets to reduce crime, or whatever.
It's nice to imagine I could "help", but really if I had to pay "minimum wage" by law, I might forget it. I mean maybe it IS better for people to sit at home in front of the TV watching soap operas rather than paying them a small amount of money for useful work. A false division I'm sure.
posted by Ares Olympus at 3:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home