Wouldn't increased wage floor increase independence?

lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
I understand in a free market economy, supply and demand of labor would determine wage levels appropriately. However, we do not live in a free society. It is clear to anyone that can do math, $7.25 an hour just doesn't cut it and, even if someone works 40 hours, they would still be below 130% of poverty.

If we did increase the wage floor enough so that individuals are above the 130% poverty level, it would significantly decrease the amount of people on assistance. Around 42% of those on food stamps are employed, if those individuals got a raise due to minimum wage increase it would reduce or disqualify their food stamp allotment therefore making them more independent and less of a burden on taxpayers.

Increasing minimum wage (I believe at this point) would decrease government spending on safety net programs.

Thoughts?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
If we lived in a free society, some people wouldn't decide what other people will do and use force to ensure it happened would they?
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If we lived in a free society, some people wouldn't decide what other people will do and use force to ensure it happened would they?
Click to expand...
In a reasonable society, political adversaries are able to meet halfway and create reasonable policies. If we had a free market currency, you would not have to make such adjustments, but when the currency is constantly being undermined and inflated, people must have increases in wages to survive.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
In a reasonable society, political adversaries are able to meet halfway and create reasonable policies. If we had a free market currency, you would not have to make such adjustments, but when the currency is constantly being undermined and inflated, people must have increases in wages to survive.
Click to expand...

It depends on your definition of "reasonable". I consider it reasonable for people to make their own choices if those choices don't infringe on others. I think you are correct, that there are problems today, but you aren't going to solve them flailing around in the branches of the tree, you need to strike the root causes.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If we lived in a free society, some people wouldn't decide what other people will do and use force to ensure it happened would they?
Click to expand...

You have a good philosophical argument of course and this something that I struggle with. I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference between maximizing freedom in a closed society and living under strict principles in a completely free society. I would love to have this discussion.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
It depends on your definition of "reasonable". I consider it reasonable for people to make their own choices if those choices don't infringe on others. I think you are correct, that there are problems today, but you aren't going to solve them flailing around in the branches of the tree, you need to strike the root causes.
Click to expand...
I agree, the root causes are major and I believe it will take a philosophical revolution for this to occur. I do not believe we are mentally ready as a race to live in a volunteeristic society completely absent of force, though I believe it is the future. In the meantime, we should trim the branches my brother and support policies that allow people to be more independent.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
You have a good philosophical argument of course and this something that I struggle with. I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference between maximizing freedom in a closed society and living under strict principles in a completely free society. I would love to have this discussion.
Click to expand...
When I need guidance on considering my actions, or judging the actions of others, I refer to my core philosophy, which is based on the non-aggression principle. Society is a myriad of individuals, I don't think a central authority or a host of "leaders" making decisions about what others will or won't do is the best way for all of the various people to interact. I think the best way is to associate with those that wish to associate with you and try to leave those that don't alone.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
I understand in a free market economy, supply and demand of labor would determine wage levels appropriately. However, we do not live in a free society. It is clear to anyone that can do math, $7.25 an hour just doesn't cut it and, even if someone works 40 hours, they would still be below 130% of poverty.

If we did increase the wage floor enough so that individuals are above the 130% poverty level, it would significantly decrease the amount of people on assistance. Around 42% of those on food stamps are employed, if those individuals got a raise due to minimum wage increase it would reduce or disqualify their food stamp allotment therefore making them more independent and less of a burden on taxpayers.

Increasing minimum wage (I believe at this point) would decrease government spending on safety net programs.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way.

Minimum wage jobs are suppose to be for entry level positions that require a low skill level.
When I was putting myself through college, many of the jobs I had, started at or just above minimum wage.
Even then I didn't make enough to entirely live on my own, we had roommates to share rent, food and utilities.
Most of us went on to lead productive lives, it was just a stepping stone to get you into the workforce.
Why is it today that minimum wage jobs are suppose to support people?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
A good read on the unintended consequences of minimum wages is in the book, Healing our World by Dr. Mary Ruart. It's available in audio too.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
I don't see it that way.

Minimum wage jobs are suppose to be for entry level positions that require a low skill level.
When I was putting myself through college, many of the jobs I had, started at or just above minimum wage.
Even then I didn't make enough to entirely live on my own, we had roommates to share rent, food and utilities.
Most of us went on to lead productive lives, it was just a stepping stone to get you into the workforce.
Why is it today that minimum wage jobs are suppose to support people?
Click to expand...
The wage floor has always increased with inflation, right? So the question is, should we continue to increase it with inflation and reduce the amount of people on assistance?
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
A good read on the unintended consequences of minimum wages is in the book, Healing our World by Dr. Mary Ruart. It's available in audio too.
Click to expand...
I feel the benefits would outweigh the costs at this point. I was pointing out that reducing welfare spending is another benefit. I think if we pushed for an increase that is over 130% of poverty (not $15) it would reduce government spending.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
The wage floor has always increased with inflation, right? So the question is, should we continue to increase it with inflation and reduce the amount of people on assistance?
Click to expand...
Understand that there are lots of people on "assistance" that most people commonly don't consider to be "on assistance". Isn't the military industrial complex a form of assistance? Any time a person is living on money that wasn't willingly given to them, a case could be made that their "assistance" is an issue to be dealt with too. Trying to "correct" problems in a flawed system will not work. Repainting the rock will not make it fly. It is, after all, a rock.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Understand that there are lots of people on "assistance" that most people commonly don't consider to be "on assistance". Isn't the military industrial complex a form of assistance? Any time a person is living on money that wasn't willingly given to them, a case could be made that their "assistance" is an issue to be dealt with too. Trying to "correct" problems in a flawed system will not work. Repainting the rock will not make it fly. It is, after all, a rock.
Click to expand...
Exactly, increasing the wage floor will decrease those on assistance therefore decreasing the amount of people dependent on government aid. This will help works towards a more independent society.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
Exactly, increasing the wage floor will decrease those on assistance therefore decreasing the amount of people dependent on government aid. This will help works towards a more independent society.
Click to expand...
Not really. You don't increase independence by relying on an edict of government to determine how two consensual parties will interact. Not to be mean, but you are advocating two different things at the same time.
 
lifegoesonbrah

lifegoesonbrah

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Not really. You don't increase independence by relying on an edict of government to determine how two consensual parties will interact. Not to be mean, but you are advocating two different things at the same time.
Click to expand...

You aren't thinking practically. If we choose to no longer increase the wage floor, then we are allowing businesses to benefit over the people because they can take advantage of inflation by getting cheaper and cheaper labor. I think we should tie the wage floor to the inflation rate to maintain equilibrium.

We should also continue to advocate for monetary reform as well, the ultimate solution.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
You aren't thinking practically. If we choose to no longer increase the wage floor, then we are allowing businesses to benefit over the people because they can take advantage of inflation by getting cheaper and cheaper labor. I think we should tie the wage floor to the inflation rate to maintain equilibrium.

We should also continue to advocate for monetary reform as well, the ultimate solution.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring your own contradiction. You can't be "for freedom" and then use "unfree methods" and expect this will work. THAT is impractical.

"We" shouldn't allow or disallow business to do anything, as long as they aren't using coercive methods.

I think "we" should untie the market and untie people, so the parties involved can make up their minds how they will trade their labor. You are still trying to polish a turd and think it will not be a turd if you can just vote the stink away. It will not happen, coercion based "solutions" may appear to "solve" problems on the surface, but they bring unintended consequences and negate freedom. Monetary reform? How so?
 
B

beenthere

New Member
lifegoesonbrah said:
The wage floor has always increased with inflation, right? So the question is, should we continue to increase it with inflation and reduce the amount of people on assistance?
Click to expand...
I'm not much of a fan of minimum wage in the first place. Not that I'm for employers taking advantage of employees but I'm a firm believer in the market adjusting itself on wages. the same way it does on it's prices for goods and services.

I'd love to see less people on public assistance but hiking the minimum wage isn't the answer, IMO.

Temporary assistance is alright but that's not how it's set up, is it?
If I had to choose, I'd rather my tax dollars go towards putting people who cannot afford a degree or don't want one, through a trade school or some apprenticeship programs.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
beenthere said:
I'm not much of a fan of minimum wage in the first place. Not that I'm for employers taking advantage of employees but I'm a firm believer in the market adjusting itself on wages. the same way it does on it's prices for goods and services.

I'd love to see less people on public assistance but hiking the minimum wage isn't the answer, IMO.

Temporary assistance is alright but that's not how it's set up, is it?
If I had to choose, I'd rather my tax dollars go towards putting people who cannot afford a degree or don't want one, through a trade school or some apprenticeship programs.
Click to expand...
how are your apprenticeship/trade school programs set up for mature aged workers? is there an effort to draw these people into a new industry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top