It's a barrier to entry. All minimum wage law does is says "If you are not worth at least $10/hr-$11/hr you don't get to work".
It's a harmful law, that harms low skilled people the most, who can't get a job that pays $7.25/hr, like mentally challenged people, unpaid interns etc. You don't think unpaid interns would love to work for $2-$3/hr? To bad, can't, if you do, you or your employer is going to jail, suck on it.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
theguardian.com
unvis.it
twitter.com
>You don't think unpaid interns would love to work for $2-$3/hr? To bad, can't, if you do, you or your employer is going to jail, suck on it
What is a stipend
You're an unpaid intern simply because labour supply > demand
>no minimum wage in Switzerland
>likely best country in the world, most definitely top 5
hmmmmmmmmm really gets them pistons banging
>Minimum wage should be 0
Why stop at zero? Why not make people pay for the privilege of working?
>Minimum wage should be 0.
*Minimum wage for non-whites should be 0.
Stop trying to exaggerate a sound suggestion into nonsensical hyperbole
>the only people employed will be pajeets
>Minimum wage for non-whites should be 0.
*maximum
why not make the minimum wage $200?
There's nothing logical about an adult working for $0.
>You're an unpaid intern simply because labour supply > demand
No, that's idiotic, there are lot of jobs where supply > demand, and people who have those jobs are paid very well.
You are unpaid because you are not worth $7.25/hr to the employer, so they have to pay you $0/hr. If we didn't have minimum wages, those interns would be making 1,2, or 3 bucks an hour.
not an argument
Well when I say minimum wage should be zero, I obviously mean get rid of the minimum wage law altogether. If an employee wants to offer someone -$5/hr to work for him, he should be able to do so.
yes lets step back into the dark ages when the working class were less than mechanical parts that should be grateful to even draw breath
>You're an unpaid intern simply because labour supply > demand
wrong
that is the nice squeaky clean cover story
the real reason is because this makes someone more money and they are simply able to do it
same reason for every bit of misery wrought by any system involving money when man's greed is not checked
listen, I got it. we make minumum wage 1 million dollars. everyones a millionare.
Why such emotional responses without even trying to address the argument with reason and evidence?
How do you not get, that what you "feel" is the best thing to do, sometimes is not the best thing to do.
Sure, employees are greedy, and employers are greedy. If that unpaid intern could get a job that pays higher, he wouldn't be an unpaid intern. He is only an intern because he is not worth 7.25 to an employer.
Unpaid intern isn't going to go work for an employer for free, out of the goodness of his heart, just and employer isn't going to employe someone for money than they are worth, out of the goodness of his heart.
bump. +Logic +reason, undeniable
The only caveat is govmnt. should enforce reasonable hours and prevent tricks like company stores.
>If you don't like your wage, you should seek another employer.
>If you want to work for an
amount of money lower than the minimum wage, you should be allowed to.
How's that dark ages?
>they are simply able to do it
And they're able to do it, because there is large supply of labor.
If it wasn't the case, then they would have to compete for employees, instead of employees competing for employers.
Unpaid internships are already legal welcome to america
>Why such emotional responses
various fallacies
>If that unpaid intern could get a job that pays higher, he wouldn't be an unpaid intern.
affirming the disjunct
>He is only an intern because he is not worth 7.25 to an employer.
mankind subjective defines value
>Sure, employees are greedy, and employers are greedy.
so then, lets do this:
sounds grand
>>If you don't like your wage, you should seek
another employer.
false dilemma fallacy
>And they're able to do it, because there is large supply of labor.
no
wrong
they are able to do it because no one stops them
same reason Mao's killing fields happened
still the same thing, just 10 billion x the misery
if charismatic market savvy psychopaths are not put in check they will not care what misery/death they cause and happily cause it for the sake of more money
Bottom line:
all of both of your arguments are just fine except that they never do anything to prevent misery of humankind and infact encourage it, as that is always the way to the most profit for those who find themselves able to place themselves at the top of economic food chains
Maybe there should be a minimum vertical post length.
I dunno stupid shit brain leftist... maybe because he will not come to work?
its fine
you will live
not if you force him at the end of a rifle
Will you force me to live at the end of a rifle?
i will not
but im talking of those that would
mao/stalin/pol pot/ etc
because as he said "people would not come to work" well that is not the end of it for psychopaths would dont give a shit
be it communist, capitalist, or any other manner of psychopath
I thought they would kill me at the end of a rifle. wtf I hate gunfags
I'd pay for the privilege of being a porn actor and fuck hot sluts.
Holy fuck...hello Noseberg.
Good idea.
Putting a "you must be this tall to ride" sign on an amusment park theme doesn't make people taller.
>various fallacies
Not an argument, nor does it justify emotional responses. If i have any fallacies, feel free to point them out, not PMS.
>affirming the disjunct
It's an exclusive or in this case, don't pull stuff out of your ass you don't understand. I have a formal training in logic, maths and philosophy of about 15 years give or take.
You either have a job offer for $10/hr (x)or you have a job offer for $20/hr xor you have a job offer for $30/hr xor etc...
You can only accept one job offer at the same time (if you want to take more than one than just merge + simplify), therefore they are exclusive.
p xor q
if p then not q
>mankind subjective defines value
by value i mean value you produce for your employer, as in a hard number,
Or I should rephrase that as, you either are working for your employer for $x/hr (EXCLUSIVE) or you are working for your employer for $y/hr, you cannot work for the two values at the same time.
therefore
p xor q
if p then not q
How the fuck is a white person supposed to get a job if employers aren't under obligation to offer minorities at least minimum wage?
I don't understand how paying someone the exact value of their labor makes you a totalitarian psychopath who murders people.
>Not an argument,
nor are purely fallacious statements
> nor does it justify emotional responses.
sophistry
> If i have any fallacies,
wikipedia has a list
>
It's an exclusive or in this case, don't pull stuff out of your ass you don't understand. I have a formal training in logic, maths and philosophy of about 15 years give or take.
appeal to authority
appeal to ridicule
holier than thou
etc etc
i.e. none of that immunizes your statements from being fallacies
>You either have a job offer for $10/hr (x)or you have a job offer for $20/hr xor you have a job offer for $30/hr xor etc...
not the issue
>You can only accept one job offer at the same time (if you want to take more than one than just merge + simplify), therefore they are exclusive.
no one said otherwise
>by value i mean value you produce for your employer, as in a hard number,
mankind still decides on that number
the worth of the work, time, etc
missing the point
you are merely describing the status quo
which does too little to prevent misery excused for profit
Let's say that you like eating chocolate.
You buy it for 4$ (idk how much stuff costs in US).
You are happy because you have nice chocolate, the producent of chocolate is happy, because he has your 4$.
Now, one day goverment introduces a minimal price for all goods purchased - 8$. Their argument goes like this - small buisiness is suffering due to small prices and can't make a profit. Let's increase them!
Now you won't buy a chocolate. You like the product, but you won't pay twice as many as before to get it.
Every other customer is doing the same for the same reasons.
Now chocolate companies are threatened to go out of buisiness.
But they have a plan. Give all customers a free 3 year trial, before they pay for their product a minimal price of 8$. Customers could've also influence what exact flavor the chocolate they want, so that chocolate will be worth 8$ for them.
The producents don't like this (giving stuff for free) but it's currently the only way they can make money (unless they respecialize), because demand is too low.
The customers love this, since they get free shit for 3 years.
Same exact thing happens with internships, since an employer is in essence a customer of an employee.
I'm very sorry for an abysmally long post. I'm a faggot and I should feel bad.
>nor are purely fallacious statements
Well no, calling something a fallacy without pointing out how it actually is is not an argument. Otherwise, your post is a fallacy. HAHA I WIN!!!!!111
>sophistry
Again, not an argument. Fallacies don't justify emotional responses.
>no one said otherwise
Glad you conceded that point. So since we established that that's not a fallacy in my argument, do you have anything else, other than ad hominems?
i never said that
i said its on the same scale
one is much much much (^10) more efficient at creating misery, is the only thing
> exact value
who decides this?
Humans.
The fact that the share is greater for bottom class of workers relative to the very beginning of the workers rights movement(or prior) is immaterial, i.e. does not at all mean it is enough.
You, and others, think it is enough, excusing any misery of the people in that class as "acceptable" or "entirely their responsibility" just as the leaders of industry/business/commerce have excused every level and bit of mistreatment/marginalization of them since it was first raised as an issue
their allotment is better, but not yet enough
That's the spirit, user
People are already paid the exact value of their labor, what are you talking about?
Obviously if a person accepts a job that pays $10/hr, he couldn't find a job that pays $11/hr, otherwise he wouldn't be doing a job that pays $10/hr.
>Well no, calling something a fallacy without pointing out how it actually is is not an argument.
again:
>>nor are purely fallacious statements
therefore i put us back at square one
especially given your expertise identifying them should have been a cakewalk
>Otherwise, your post is a fallacy. HAHA I WIN!!!!!111
and yet, you are the expert
>Again, not an argument. Fallacies don't justify emotional responses.
first of all:
>emotional response
proof by assertion
second:
if emotions didnt matter at all then slavery would never need to have been abolished
> So since we established that that's not a fallacy in my argument,
none in THAT one, not "none in all"
please.
>do you have anything else, other than ad hominems?
dont claim to be an expert and unable to see or not see the most abundant variety
further:
have you anything other than appeal to the status quo? as that is all you have described and substantiated
>People are already paid the exact value of their labor,
>exact value
according to who?
who valued it?
who decided the criteria?
who decided it was immutable, save for "market forces"???
>Obviously if a person accepts a job that pays $10/hr, he couldn't find a job that pays $11/hr,
perhaps, perhaps not
may he values less per hour to work with family, or in a field he more enjoys
many possibilities
>otherwise he wouldn't be doing a job that pays $10/hr.
negative
I do feel I am overpaid at times at my Walmart job. $14/hr, though thsts with over a decade of incremental raises should level that out in my head, but it hard to kick that way of thinking.
yeah ok lets just earn $1 an hour.
no
we should re institute slavery
after all, if they dont like it they can just kill themselves
this debate reached a logical low point.
i was making a point
"well if you dont like then go grow your own food and live in the woods"
oh ok so then if they have ANY choice then it makes it acceptable, no matter how reprehensible.
Nah we should the minimum wage 1000$/hour that way nobody would be poor
>who values the worth of someones labour
Employer influenced by price of commodity or service that is produced, supply and demand of labour, and to lesser extent employee by agreeing to the terms presented.
If you find this unfair, please, user, enlighten me.
What other forces should decide value of work?
>none in THAT one, not "none in all"
please.
Since the remainder of your post doesn't address or even try to address my actual arguments, i'm just gonna focus on this one.
Again, If you are claiming something is a fallacy, point out how it is or fuck off and shut up. Last chance.
>have you anything other than appeal to the status quo?
I don't see that all. Clarify.
>according to who?
who valued it?
who decided the criteria?
The person accepting the job offer?
>perhaps, perhaps not
No, not perhaps not. If you have two job offers, one for $10/hr and another $11/hr you will take the $11/hr (assuming you don't have any "hidden costs", like longer commute for example, or an area with higher rent, that would negate the extra $1/hr dollar earned).
>may he values less per hour to work with family, or in a field he more enjoys
Okay, so if you have two job offers that fulfill all those conditions and one offers $10/hr and another offers $11/hr, you will take the $11/hr one. You are just trolling with unecessary side issues, without focusing on the actual argument.
>negative
Negative is not an argument.
$1/hr is better than $0/hr. Oh btw this is a funny tid bit. Mentally retarded people ARE NOT subject to minimum wage laws
.Even Congress is not dumb enough that they don't realize that minimum wage is just a barrier to entry, and if you require mentally challenged people to be worth 7.25/hr to their employers, nobody is gonna hire them.
It's simple math, if I'm you produce $5/hr worth of goods for your employer's business. There is no employer in this world that is going to pay you $7/hr, because with ever hour he employs you, he loses $2 dollars (and it's more like $3-$4 due to taxes and regulatory costs).
>eliminating minimum wage laws
>unironically advocating for unpaid labor or slavery
This is why the sane world views Sup Forums as a joke or as dangerous extremists.
Causation doesn't equate to correlation. Just because a town raises minimum and the government measured unemployment doesn't increase, means nothing.
I use a deductive argument to prove how minimum wage law is wrong. In order to disprove a deductive argument, you either have to challenge one of the premises or show that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
Why?
Premise 1: Minimum wage is a law that says "if you don't produce $x/hr worth of value for your employer, you don't work", where x is between $10 and $20 atm (if you include all the taxes and regulatory costs + profit margin).
Premise 2: There are people who produce value that is less than x/hr. We know this because there are people working for $0/hr, and mentally retarded people who work for $2/hr-$3/hr, because they are exempt from the minimum wage law.
Premise 3: You don't have the right to say to those people, "you're don't have the right to work, just because you produce less than $x/hr"
Therefore, minimum wage law needs to go.
If you want prosperity you automate everything as much as possible to increase the number of goods produced. Minimum wage is a meme to to control the pool of labor at any one moment, increasing or decreasing it only changes the amount of tax being collected by (((currency regulators))).
>Yes goy, increasing the supply of payapa notes will make everybody rich! Don't warry about the supply of goods not growing or shrinking in proportion ta the currency pool!
Sup Forums doesn't like making shekels for MSM sites.
t. Mr. Goldbergwitz
not an argument
Speak for yourself. I'm here and I'm just as much Sup Forums as you are, and I don't mind the Guardian getting more money for my posting one of their articles here.
Let those who do want to avoid patronizing them do the work to post a unvis.it link -- which they did -- and I'll post links directly to the Guardian if I like.
Boomers unironically say and believe this
>"even though you have a college degree in a first world country and can't find a job in your field because we screwed your sector by allowing pajeet and achmed to take all the jobs, you should be THANKFUL that you can earn $7/hr at your wage cuck Starbucks job!"
Why is food so goddamn expensive in your country? Even domestic cheese is through the roof
Fuck poor people.
And how is getting rid of the minimum wage law, going to affect people working at starbucks? It's not like lowering the barrier to entry is going to decrease their wages, obviously they already have a job, hence they passed the minimum wage barrier to entry.
Fuck rich people.
Minimum wage only benefits the rich people.
Wages only benefit the rich people.
Sure they do. Rich people don't get their income trough wages.
The CEO of google has an annual salary of $1.
Not the CEO, the founder, Larry Page. Forgot that nigger is the CEO now.
Just wanted to jump in this thread. I currently work a crappy job, that had a minimum wage. But I've been there for a few years now so I earn more. The jobs helpin me keep the bills at bay, I'm grateful for that.
Now, I've never heard Peter Schiff before, because of reddit joerogan board said he was a shitty person. But the last couple months I've been upset with my situation in life. My eyes are a bit open toward the mindset of a businessman. And I heard this podcast. I pretty much agree with 90% of the shit he said. One thing I didn't like is the child thing. People have kids, I agree don't have kids, but it just happens.
Sorry I don't have much to add here. I just understand a lot of what he's saying. And I actually have been wanting to move to puerto rico too, I have family there, my uncle lives in dorado beach. I didn't know about all the tax shit, but I have some business ideas, I feel like I could learn spanish and start a life there.
Rich people get/stay rich by paying their employees less than the amount of value they get from the employees' productivity. The difference is quite simply stolen. The institution of employment is a form of slavery.
The same argument he made against butt coin you can say about gold
No they don't.
No it's not.
No it's not. The institution of a state is slavery.
Only if there's a maximum wage and the excess goes back to the public
sure, let's also have a law that make it illegal to have rainfall in excess of 10inches.
Why? fuck you, that's why. I don't need to justify my proposals.
points made: none
>No they don't.
Why would a business pay an employee as much as it gets in productivity from the employee? The whole point of a business is to make a profit. If Joe makes $100 worth of product per hour, the business won't make a profit if they give him $100 for each hour he works. They *have* to give him less than he's worth.
>No it's not.
Elaborate?
>No it's not.
Is too is too is too.
>The institution of a state is slavery.
Agreed. It should one day be abolished. But for now, it's still sometimes the best tool to wield against those who would oppress.
Minimum wage is a political ploy. You're exactly right and that is why they push it.
>establish yourself as fighting for the little guy
>your policy puts him out of a job
>problem is much more observable
>more support
Just ends with more left votes and more public spending to reduce unemployment/higher welfare.
Agreed. Minimum wage saws the bottom rungs off the work ladder.
Look at it this way:
- you can pay to do activities
- you can pay for education
- you can pay for certification testing
- you can volunteer to work for free
Jobs are not strictly exchanges of wages for labor. There are many benefits to being employed, particularly in regards to the potential for future employment.
For example, it used to be that you could go to a factory, auto repair garage, or other workplace with no skills, and they'd pay you some token amount just to sweep the floor and do other little no-skill chores. Then, when the other workers had time, they'd show you how to do other work. Then you'd get a promotion and a pay raise, and gradually climb the ladder to making a respectable living. And that's how you'd get your education not only for free, but you'd make a little money getting it.
It's like seatbelt and crash safety standard laws. How the holy fuck can you be required to wear a seatbelt, and can't buy a car without airbags and crumple zones, but you're allowed to ride a motorcycle?
look who's talking
The state should have not say in the wage, unions should be the ones who force stuff like that.
moron
>Why would a business pay an employee as much as it gets in productivity from the employee?
It wouldn't.
>If Joe makes $100 worth of product per hour, the business won't make a profit if they give him $100 for each hour he works.
Sure, so what's your point?
>They *have* to give him less than he's worth.
Why would anyone be willing to work for someone that is paying him, less than "he's worth"? A job is an economic transaction, for it to be successful it requires the consent of both parties.
>Elaborate?
Voluntary transactions aren't theft, what's there to elaborate?
>Is too is too is too.
Voluntary transactions aren't slavery either.
Minimum Wage is currently 0. No job = No wage.
>Why would anyone be willing to work for someone that is paying him, less than "he's worth"? A job is an economic transaction, for it to be successful it requires the consent of both parties.
That's facile thinking. The wage-dependent laborer didn't consent to become someone with no claim on the bounty of nature, or on the profits from artificial legal abstractions such as intellectual property, rather that's the default condition of anyone who lacks capital, and they can only take the best job option on offer.
It goes back to the most basic problem of unfettered capitalism: if one person or colluding group owns the only source of something needed for survival, how is it different from tyranny? Why should it be any more efficient than a command economy, once someone has achieved an unassailable position from which to deny anyone who does not obey him the necessities of life?
It's terrible philosophical incompetence to confuse a person with a person and their property taken together, or to confuse fruits of labor (arrangements of matter, private contract obligations) with claims on nature (land ownership, ownership of scarce elements) or special government favor (patents, copyright, licenses, fiat money). What a man deserves, and what incomes he can derive from his capital are entirely separate things. For free market trading to be reasonable and fair, the distribution of claims on nature and government favor must first be reasonable and fair (not necessarily equal). Men must have an inalienable claim on the bounty of nature and the freedom to transform it to be in a position to give uncoerced consent to other economic arrangements.
>That's facile thinking.
And that's not an argument.
>The wage-dependent laborer didn't consent to become someone with no claim on the bounty of nature
Everyone has an equal claim on nature. I mean he doesn't have to work, he can go hunting and fishing for his food. The reason why people choose to work, is because trading is easier than hunting and growing your own food.
>or on the profits from artificial legal abstractions such as intellectual property
IP is bullshit, no arguments here.
>and they can only take the best job option on offer.
Okay, and? What's the problem? "I can only date the best girl I can get, it's not fair some people are born with better looks! The government should force models to sleep with me at least once a month"
I mean if that job is the best you can do, then you should be happy for even having it in the first place. What the fuck do you actually want from society?
>It goes back to the most basic problem of unfettered capitalism: if one person or colluding group owns the only source of something needed for survival, how is it different from tyranny?
Oh okay, so you are against the government owning all of the roads then? Not to mention your scenario is pretty much impossible in the free market.
>It's terrible philosophical incompetence to confuse a person with a person and their property taken together
Yawn, philosophical incompetence is not an argument.
>What a man deserves, and what incomes he can derive from his capital are entirely separate things.
Sure, I deserve a hot model girlfriend. If a guy has a job for $10/hr, that means he couldn't find a job at $11/hr (assuming all other conditions equal), therefore he deserves $10/hr. He might have an ego, and think he deserves $15/hr, however if he did deserve that, then he'd making it - either by being self employed, or working for someone else.
>unpaid interns would love to work for $2-$3/hr?
actually we should ban "unpaid interns" just pay them you cheap kikes. If there was no minimum wage, employers would pay as little as possible. That's not fair. You need a worker? Then pay them decently.
Unpaid interns are already banned. You cant legally use unpaid interns if they are doing something that generates money. The common loophole is political campaigns like what Killary was doing.
I've heard of plenty of non-political unpaid interns...
You watched the Joe Rogan Podcast w/ Peter Schiff didn't you?
>actually we should ban "unpaid interns" just pay them you cheap kikes
Then, they would just be jobless, instead of being unpaid interns. What's the point of that?
>If there was no minimum wage, employers would pay as little as possible.
Employer's already pay everyone as little as possible. Why would an employer pay more than they employee is willing to accept?
>That's not fair
And me not having a model girlfriend isn't fair. Let's force models to sleep with me, once a month. Life isn't fair, get over it. Some people are born with better looks, some people are born with more money, some people are born with better intellect.
>You need a worker? Then pay them decently.
Have you actually ever employed someone. You do realize you cant just pay them, whatever you want, right?
Show examples. It is a very clear violation of federal law. I know its a common idea to talk about unpaid interns but they dont exist in business.
I hate this idea that people who sit in an office chair all day behind a computer believe they are more skilled and deserving of more money than someone slaving away in a factory all day. Labor is way harder than office work. Anyone can do office work with some basic training.
Isn't that what taxes are for?
The concept of minimum wage is as harmful and can be equated to the practice of rent control.
How do you type around such a huge schnozz?
Do you know how to design the machines that are used by unskilled labor in factories?
>I hate this idea that people who sit in an office chair all day behind a computer believe they are more skilled and deserving of more money than someone slaving away in a factory all day
Stop it with the marxist bullshit, please. Yes they are worth more, because they produce more economic value.
>Anyone can do office work with some basic training.
That's idiotically not true, because price of labor is a function of demand and supply. If everyone could do "office work" with basic training, then they wouldn't be paid more than manual labors.
Imagine if minimum wage was 0, you could skip University and go straight to gaining valuable experience in a JOB you like I stead of accumilation so much debt.
Can't have good things, can we? It would be too fucking good to be true.
I would hate to work for that place. Could you tell me the name of the of place so I could avoid it like the plague?