Honestly: the minimum wage does need to go up

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

This post got me thinking.

I am firmly in favor of:

A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics

While the OP I linked to is not exactly dishonest, it's not exactly honest either.
And this is not to put flak upon the poster there, but it's an example of political rhetoric that is used to leverage one side of a conversation, ignoring nuance.

the graphic in the linked to OP:

1) Doesn't seem to take into account state laws that raise min wage over fed laws
2) Doesn't take into account the vast difference in housing throughout a state

My objection is more with 2 than 1. 1 is easy to take care of, but 2 is not easy.

New York City is WAYYYY more expensive than Rochester or Buffalo, NY; or a large number of other places within the state I could name. Yet, this graphic gives us a number, presumably an average. But that average is way skewed. But how else should they do it? Give us on graphic for NYC and another for the rest of NY State? That wouldn't work either, because then you'd need to break it down for other cities and so on. So what do we do?

We must talk about things in the big picture without getting bogged down in details, otherwise we will have to talk for eons before we can understand what needs to be done. So while I agree that the min wage needs to go up, across the US, I have a problem with the info-graphics created to support that argument. They lack nuance, and as such, are deceiving. Even if they don't mean to be, and are honestly doing the best they can to compile and sort the data, the inevitability of misleading data is going to doom us all.

That said.
Happy saint patty's day.
Was I drunk when I wrote this? You decide.

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You know, if we were all unionized, I might agree that we wouldnt need a min wage. But without unionized workplaces, the balance of power is in favor of the employer. That means that negotiations would end with people get less than they need to survive, cause hey, its better to miss one monthly bill then all of them.

You are empowering employers to fuck over their workers.
I am not in favor of that.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You know, if we were all unionized, I might agree that we wouldnt need a min wage. But without unionized workplaces, the balance of power is in favor of the employer

As it should be! But you don't understand, either, that the type of legislation that the labor movement goes for and advocates end up hurting their own numbers and the workers who do not want to be unionized.

That means that negotiations would end with people get less than they need to survive, cause hey, its better to miss one monthly bill then all of them.

Yet that's what union-advocated policies are doing now. Unions are in favor of minimum wages, and in favor of not empowering individual workers in favor of supposed collective need. Imagine if, instead of being lumped in with all workers of your type, you were able to make your individual case that you're more valuable, your work is more valuable, and that you're able to provide more benefit to the company?

You are empowering employers to fuck over their workers.

I'm in favor of empowering workers to be able to dictate their terms. You are not in favor of that.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

ME: the balance of power is in favor of the employer

YOU: As it should be!

we are done here. that's who you side with,. THAT is the problem.
you side with employers, I side with workers.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

No, he sides with whichever point would earn him the position of a devil's advocate. For shits'n'giggles.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, I believe what I'm saying here.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

If you say so.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

we are done here. that's who you side with,. THAT is the problem.
you side with employers, I side with workers.

Except you side with employers by taking away the negotiation table from the poorest workers. Strange, that.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What?!!

No worker is barred from asking for more money because of the min wage. That would be stupid.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But there's no reason to do so, because the wage floor has been set. There's no negotiation left or available. Thanks to the minimum wage, they're already paying out more than they might need to under more sane circumstances, so they're having to account for all the costs and limited payroll hours available. Sure, you can ask at the interview, but they're going to say no.

Now, consider if there was no minimum wage. This means that it's possible to negotiate lower and/or higher depending on your need, your value, and the needs and costs of your employer. It may mean that if you're someone who's just looking for a few extra bucks on the weekend, you need not negotiate high, and if you're looking to create a lot of value, you can negotiate higher.

Instead, it's just assumed that everyone's the same. Bad policy.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

that is complete and total bullshit.

the reason the company says no to a higher wage is always the same reason. what the min wage does is prevent the workers from being undercut by other workers who are more desperate--so desperate that they will take an unfairly low wage. Something that doesnt put much food on the table, but again, some is better than none.

So you and I are in a fairy world with no min wage.
I have a family to feed and you don't.
We apply for the same job--where there is only one position. We are equally skilled.
They offer you the job at $10.hour, but they tell me I can get it if I take it at $7/hour. Assuming a tough job market, I will take the job, even though it's worth more than 7/hour to the employer.

This is why I am against the scales being balanced in favor of the employer.

If a company wont hire you at 10/hour, it won't do that regardless of min wage.
But if min wage is 10/hour, they must find a way to make it work or go out of business.

And again, some places need to go out of business. Slave-wages (NOT SLAVERY) is unhealthy for the planet.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

the reason the company says no to a higher wage is always the same reason.

A company doesn't always say no to a higher wage. Odd you'd think that.

what the min wage does is prevent the workers from being undercut by other workers who are more desperate--so desperate that they will take an unfairly low wage.

If someone's willing to take a lower wage, it's not unfair. It's actually the fairest possible wage - the wage that someone is willing to pay and someone is willing to accept without coercion. Your idea of "fair" is not based on anything concrete.

They offer you the job at $10.hour, but they tell me I can get it if I take it at $7/hour. Assuming a tough job market, I will take the job, even though it's worth more than 7/hour to the employer.

Wrong. It's not worth $10/hr anymore, as you've now demonstrated that it's worth $7. The market at work - they can either hire you at $7, or I can counteroffer, or I can explain why I'm worth more than $7/hr to them and their company.

If a company wont hire you at 10/hour, it won't do that regardless of min wage.
But if min wage is 10/hour, they must find a way to make it work or go out of business.

So you'd rather no jobs at $10/hr than multiple jobs at less?

And again, some places need to go out of business. Slave-wages (NOT SLAVERY) is unhealthy for the planet.

Define "slave wages" if you're unwilling to accept that slavery is the only thing that can offer slave wages.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"A company doesn't always say no to a higher wage. Odd you'd think that."
I never said that.
I said that when they say no, its always the same reason--the budget.

The history of labor shows how little workers will get when there are no safeguards in place.
You want to return to the sorts of conditions that led to the Triangle Shirtwaist fire; Oh? You don't like the conditions? THEN JUST QUIT.

It's not that fucking easy and you really are speaking from a position of privilege. Your faith in the free market accurately determining value is as absurd as a fundie Christians faith that God will protect the good and virtuous.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I said that when they say no, its always the same reason--the budget.

That's not the impression I got, but perhaps I did misunderstand.

And if so, yeah - and? Are companies not supposed to have a budget?

The history of labor shows how little workers will get when there are no safeguards in place.

A history of labor might show that. I'd argue that the history of labor post-labor movement has harmed us on a whole, based on cost and the way workers are no longer empowered.

It's not that fucking easy and you really are speaking from a position of privilege. Your faith in the free market accurately determining value is as absurd as a fundie Christians faith that God will protect the good and virtuous.

You're not going to win any arguments that way. It doesn't have to be easy, it merely has to be fair.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I'd rather live in an unfair world where workers are protected than a fair world where workers need to choose between a doctors visit for their kid and dinner.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But the world of the former has resulted in the latter, thanks to the desires of the labor movement.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

uhhh, you realize you just called the labor movement responsible for a fair world, right?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

And you're not addressing the point:

you have faith that the market will provide in much the same way a religious person believes god will provide. are you unable to see the similarities in those two faiths?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not at all. One is fact-based, the other a story created by a bunch of people thousands of years ago.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Go back a 112 years. Was the market providing? Are those the facts you are using to back this shit up?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

How is an untested theory fact-based?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Also, when was the ideal time to be a worker, in your worldview?
Pre labor-movement right? So what, you wanna go back to 1900 style work conditions?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure there's been an "ideal time," nor should there be one to look back on. No two eras are alike enough to make such a statement.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Why unionize when you got a base level of pay?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What?

Because work is about more than just pay. Unions help protect workers from all sorts of things, not just bad pay.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

You name a problem, I'll name a gov't body that works to protect it.