Both sides have valid points. If nobody is willing to pay a minimum wage for a job, then that wage isn’t right for that job. Take, for instance, the task of answering phone calls and jotting down information. Let’s say I get 5 to 10 calls daily, spanning from 9 am to 9 pm. I’m not prepared to fork over minimum wage multiplied by 12 for this work, and I doubt you are either. It just doesn’t seem fair compensation. However, if folks are offering to do the job for $20 a day and I can’t match that, then maybe my business isn’t sustainable and I should bow out. The point is, each job is unique and should be compensated accordingly. There’s no one-size-fits-all wage. The market and the law of supply and demand are the closest thing we have to a fair system. Let people determine what they’re willing to work for and what they’re willing to pay for that work. People aren’t dumb; they can decide if a dollar an hour or a hundred works for them.
Personally, I’m a proponent of Universal Basic Income. Instead of fussing over minimum wages and social benefits, let’s switch to UBI and support each other as a society. Sure, we should tax the wealthy, but relying on minimum wage as a fix? That’s a misguided notion. Minimum wage was a band-aid solution for inequality that’s stuck around longer than it should have. If you’re in favor of it, you’re essentially backing the status quo. We need fresh solutions for inequality, ones that break free from the usual narratives pushed by the media and society. It’s not easy, I get that. But let’s dare to think beyond the confines of convention and consider the future generations. Society seems stuck in a loop, and frankly, I’m fed up. Aren’t you?
I’m willing to consider the idea that minimum wage is a bandage and shouldn’t be relied on solely to fix society, but we would have to pass some serious workers’ rights laws before we touched that system.
The market might regulate wages, but the market under capitalism is also more than capable of conspiring to make sure that wages are lower across the board. The minimum wage is more a bandage over that than a solution to keep workers afloat.
market under capitalism is also more than capable of conspiring to make sure that wages are lower across the board
So, you’re saying the job market tends to favor employers over employees? I’m not entirely sold on that idea. The market works both ways! Workers do have options, like forming unions (as legal entities or just as formal agreements) or negotiating for better wages and conditions. If a job doesn’t pay enough or isn’t fair, you can always look elsewhere or demand more. Plus, if there are people willing to work for less, isn’t it their choice? I’m completely okay with the idea of educating them, trying to persuade them that working for scraps is not okay, but why stop them if they’re okay with it? Why exactly are we stopping employers who can only afford that much, and workers who are willing to work for it, from meeting each other?
It’s not as simple as “Why not just let employers pay what they want?”
First of all, union laws are exactly the kind of laws I’m talking about. Without explicit protection of those groups, employers will literally just fire everyone and hire new people. That’s exactly what worker protection laws are for.
Secondly, once you hit a critical mass in the job market, there will always be those who do the same job for less. This takes negotiating power directly out of the hands of workers without any recourse, and leads to driving wages lower while living costs rise.
Thirdly, we already do allow employers to pay what they want and negotiate how they want so long as they don’t pay what we define as poverty wages (a definition 20 years outdated by the way), and look what that gets us. Jeff bezos is the richest man in the world and turnover in Amazon warehouses is almost the entire staff in 3 months. Walmart manipulates the market to put mom and pop shops out of business by ushering their workers to take advantage of government subsidies to lower their overhead, then they gouge their prices. Mcdonald’s has doubled their menu prices since 2018 but only pays their workers $10/hour, which is not a liveable wage in 2024.
All of these are examples of the free market colluding under capitalism exactly how you describe that it should be and creating a wealth inequality that ultimately screws workers with no recourse.
When you say things like “why shouldn’t we let an unadulterated and unregulated free market just determine everything?” You are advocating for the biggest flaws in the current system without even realizing it.
Preach! I hate all this bullcrap about the ‘free market’ and the ‘invisible hand’.
Sure, letting employers and employees have freedom for what they want is nice, but not everyone knows how much they’re really worth. Thats exactly why some people keep getting jobs with lower pay and employers keep getting away with it!
Its like we’re letting ourselves get scammed and somehow thats supposed to be fine
Why do we keep focusing on stopping scammers instead of teaching people about scams? I think it’s important for everyone to know their true worth, but just banning scams doesn’t solve much. On the other hand, if people can recognize scams, they won’t fall for them.
It’s a lot harder to teach people en masse than stop “scammers”. Also, the “scammers” you’re describing are capitalists acting legally. You think that education alone will stop predatory market practices? That’s incredibly naive.
Why do we keep focusing on stopping scammers instead of teaching people about scams
All of these are examples of the free market colluding under capitalism exactly how you describe that it should be and creating a wealth inequality that ultimately screws workers with no recourse.
All of these are examples of attempts to control billionaires in their field through bureaucracy and law. I’m advocating for a change in strategy. You’re attempting to enforce more rules because it seems like a good idea, and it is… in the short term. But we’ve seen countless times that controlling, forcing, and policing never work! After all, corporations will prevail again if we don’t redirect our energy elsewhere. Instead of focusing on controlling the rich, we should educate the poor. We should offer them choices and options rather than attempting to seize control from the wealthy. All you (and almost everyone else) are doing is repeating, like a mantra, “tax the rich” and providing examples of corporations utilizing options WE provided. I believe that you genuinely want better for all people, but from my perspective, it’s you who advocates for strategies that haven’t worked and will not work, without realizing it. I don’t think so, but I genuinely hope that you (and everyone else here) are right and I’m wrong because it appears that your agenda is gaining popularity, while my opinion is very unpopular. Your “plan” simply has a greater likelihood of being implemented and finding supporters. Because if you’re all wrong… we’re doomed, guys.
All of these are examples of attempts to control billionaires in their field through bureaucracy and law.
Yes, this is the free market at work. These billionaires exist in spite of regulations not because of them.
Lifting regulations on corporations solely motivated by raising their profits is like pouring gasoline on a fire and hoping it goes out. It’s clear that there’s not a right answer, but enabling corporations to just do what they want because the current solution isn’t perfect is the exact wrong answer.
Instead of focusing on controlling the rich, we should educate the poor.
Stop arguing like these are mutually exclusive. Both can be done and both are part of the solution. But yes, we have a problem in the short term, and we require a short term solution before we can begin talking about overhauling the system.
Absolutely, I’m totally with you on this! And obviously, they’re not mutually exclusive. Right now, though, it seems like there’s zero effort being put into the latter option. I’m just feeling a bit frustrated, hence the stronger words and arguments than I probably should be using. My bad if it came off like I was saying these choices can’t coexist.
Now you can take that offer to the market and see if there’s anyone willing to work for you at $100 an hour. It’d be great if there’s someone interested! If not, you could think about raising the pay or improving working conditions. If that’s not possible, maybe your business isn’t sustainable, and you might need to consider other options. Whatever you decide, I believe you have choices and can determine what’s best for you on your own. You’re smart enough to make your own decisions without needing someone else to do it for you!
Both sides have valid points. If nobody is willing to pay a minimum wage for a job, then that wage isn’t right for that job. Take, for instance, the task of answering phone calls and jotting down information. Let’s say I get 5 to 10 calls daily, spanning from 9 am to 9 pm. I’m not prepared to fork over minimum wage multiplied by 12 for this work, and I doubt you are either. It just doesn’t seem fair compensation. However, if folks are offering to do the job for $20 a day and I can’t match that, then maybe my business isn’t sustainable and I should bow out. The point is, each job is unique and should be compensated accordingly. There’s no one-size-fits-all wage. The market and the law of supply and demand are the closest thing we have to a fair system. Let people determine what they’re willing to work for and what they’re willing to pay for that work. People aren’t dumb; they can decide if a dollar an hour or a hundred works for them.
Personally, I’m a proponent of Universal Basic Income. Instead of fussing over minimum wages and social benefits, let’s switch to UBI and support each other as a society. Sure, we should tax the wealthy, but relying on minimum wage as a fix? That’s a misguided notion. Minimum wage was a band-aid solution for inequality that’s stuck around longer than it should have. If you’re in favor of it, you’re essentially backing the status quo. We need fresh solutions for inequality, ones that break free from the usual narratives pushed by the media and society. It’s not easy, I get that. But let’s dare to think beyond the confines of convention and consider the future generations. Society seems stuck in a loop, and frankly, I’m fed up. Aren’t you?
I’m willing to consider the idea that minimum wage is a bandage and shouldn’t be relied on solely to fix society, but we would have to pass some serious workers’ rights laws before we touched that system.
The market might regulate wages, but the market under capitalism is also more than capable of conspiring to make sure that wages are lower across the board. The minimum wage is more a bandage over that than a solution to keep workers afloat.
So, you’re saying the job market tends to favor employers over employees? I’m not entirely sold on that idea. The market works both ways! Workers do have options, like forming unions (as legal entities or just as formal agreements) or negotiating for better wages and conditions. If a job doesn’t pay enough or isn’t fair, you can always look elsewhere or demand more. Plus, if there are people willing to work for less, isn’t it their choice? I’m completely okay with the idea of educating them, trying to persuade them that working for scraps is not okay, but why stop them if they’re okay with it? Why exactly are we stopping employers who can only afford that much, and workers who are willing to work for it, from meeting each other?
It’s not as simple as “Why not just let employers pay what they want?”
First of all, union laws are exactly the kind of laws I’m talking about. Without explicit protection of those groups, employers will literally just fire everyone and hire new people. That’s exactly what worker protection laws are for.
Secondly, once you hit a critical mass in the job market, there will always be those who do the same job for less. This takes negotiating power directly out of the hands of workers without any recourse, and leads to driving wages lower while living costs rise.
Thirdly, we already do allow employers to pay what they want and negotiate how they want so long as they don’t pay what we define as poverty wages (a definition 20 years outdated by the way), and look what that gets us. Jeff bezos is the richest man in the world and turnover in Amazon warehouses is almost the entire staff in 3 months. Walmart manipulates the market to put mom and pop shops out of business by ushering their workers to take advantage of government subsidies to lower their overhead, then they gouge their prices. Mcdonald’s has doubled their menu prices since 2018 but only pays their workers $10/hour, which is not a liveable wage in 2024.
All of these are examples of the free market colluding under capitalism exactly how you describe that it should be and creating a wealth inequality that ultimately screws workers with no recourse.
When you say things like “why shouldn’t we let an unadulterated and unregulated free market just determine everything?” You are advocating for the biggest flaws in the current system without even realizing it.
Preach! I hate all this bullcrap about the ‘free market’ and the ‘invisible hand’.
Sure, letting employers and employees have freedom for what they want is nice, but not everyone knows how much they’re really worth. Thats exactly why some people keep getting jobs with lower pay and employers keep getting away with it!
Its like we’re letting ourselves get scammed and somehow thats supposed to be fine
Why do we keep focusing on stopping scammers instead of teaching people about scams? I think it’s important for everyone to know their true worth, but just banning scams doesn’t solve much. On the other hand, if people can recognize scams, they won’t fall for them.
It’s a lot harder to teach people en masse than stop “scammers”. Also, the “scammers” you’re describing are capitalists acting legally. You think that education alone will stop predatory market practices? That’s incredibly naive.
There’s no reason we can’t do both.
All of these are examples of attempts to control billionaires in their field through bureaucracy and law. I’m advocating for a change in strategy. You’re attempting to enforce more rules because it seems like a good idea, and it is… in the short term. But we’ve seen countless times that controlling, forcing, and policing never work! After all, corporations will prevail again if we don’t redirect our energy elsewhere. Instead of focusing on controlling the rich, we should educate the poor. We should offer them choices and options rather than attempting to seize control from the wealthy. All you (and almost everyone else) are doing is repeating, like a mantra, “tax the rich” and providing examples of corporations utilizing options WE provided. I believe that you genuinely want better for all people, but from my perspective, it’s you who advocates for strategies that haven’t worked and will not work, without realizing it. I don’t think so, but I genuinely hope that you (and everyone else here) are right and I’m wrong because it appears that your agenda is gaining popularity, while my opinion is very unpopular. Your “plan” simply has a greater likelihood of being implemented and finding supporters. Because if you’re all wrong… we’re doomed, guys.
Yes, this is the free market at work. These billionaires exist in spite of regulations not because of them.
Lifting regulations on corporations solely motivated by raising their profits is like pouring gasoline on a fire and hoping it goes out. It’s clear that there’s not a right answer, but enabling corporations to just do what they want because the current solution isn’t perfect is the exact wrong answer.
Stop arguing like these are mutually exclusive. Both can be done and both are part of the solution. But yes, we have a problem in the short term, and we require a short term solution before we can begin talking about overhauling the system.
Absolutely, I’m totally with you on this! And obviously, they’re not mutually exclusive. Right now, though, it seems like there’s zero effort being put into the latter option. I’m just feeling a bit frustrated, hence the stronger words and arguments than I probably should be using. My bad if it came off like I was saying these choices can’t coexist.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. I’ve decided a hundred dollars an hour works for me. Now what?
Now you can take that offer to the market and see if there’s anyone willing to work for you at $100 an hour. It’d be great if there’s someone interested! If not, you could think about raising the pay or improving working conditions. If that’s not possible, maybe your business isn’t sustainable, and you might need to consider other options. Whatever you decide, I believe you have choices and can determine what’s best for you on your own. You’re smart enough to make your own decisions without needing someone else to do it for you!