There shouldn’t even be a minimum wage, let the free market decide!
And it did, sadly. 2/3 of the US states still use the federal minimum wage as a guide, even though it doesn’t even purchase a cup of coffee these days.
There shouldn’t be a minimum wage! The free market should decide!
If everyone had a baseline standard of living, capitalists could pay whatever they wanted. And if their proposed wage wasn’t worth doing, then no one would do it.
Unskilled labor does not have the luxury to just “not do it”. The capitalists know this, which is why they depress wages as far as they can to keep an entire class of workers under water.
If I were to lose my job, which can happen at any time working in a non-union shop in an at-will state, I would not be able to go anywhere and receive comparable wages in my area. I am studying to get certifications in a different industry that would give me some amount of freedom. For now, I work at the mercy of my employer.
The free market is a scam. It will take massive changes, paradigm shifts, to create an environment where the workers are free to go work where they choose, and be given actually competitive compensation.
Unskilled labor as in, I do not have any degrees or certifications that I can simply take to a new employer to leverage anything above starting at the bottom. This will almost always mean making less money. At-will employment mixed with unequal application of company rules and policy means that any day at work could be my last. Unemployment checks are a joke, and would not even cover my rent.
But you’re only obligated to work under the threat of illegal homelessness. That’s not a free market, that’s coercion.
If your basic needs were guaranteed, then unskilled labour especially would dictate the value of work in a truly free market. And if you truly can’t find a job that will satisfy your desired lifestyle, you won’t die or be imprisoned or suffer from illness.
How would my basic needs be guaranteed? If the government is going to provide the social safety nets they owe to us, then why not have them regulate labor, providing basic labor needs being guaranteed? Unions would be great, but there will be plenty of businesses that will not have them. Why not provide a safety net to the workers who will inevitably fall between the cracks?
The government shouldn’t be providing safety nets, it should be maintaining the floor to ensure all citizens’ basic needs are met. There should be no “what ifs”.
The labour needs are already met, and would continue to be met in a free market where labour was optional for the labourer because people have wants. If you believe the government would need to ensure that labour needs are met, you’re believing the capitalist lie that foundational labour must be bought under threat of violence.
Capitalists make money by turning a free market into a market with entry barriers so that they get an oligopoly or monopoly and can rise prices.
The free market is the enemy of the Capitalist.
Capitalists rely on the unemployed to suppress wages by always having somebody desperate enough to do it for less. They use minimum wage to create barriers for competing job offers.
With minimum wage, many jobs don’t exist that pay less but could have better working conditions or pay by allowing employees to take home expired food instead of making them throw it away.
This leads to more unemployed and lower wages for all.
Of course many people don’t have the bargaining power to rise their wages to their value. That’s when minimum wage helps. But, unions would be the much more appropriate solution, and financial support between unions.
I think more power from having a free market outweights the shame of eating expired food.
If people can leave an abusive boss or toxic colleagues because they have another option then that is good.
That doesn’t mean that Walmart should be able to cut wages even further. That would mean that people would be more desperate, which doesn’t happen if there are more jobs and unions.
Why wouldn’t walmart cut wages further if allowed to?
If it wasn’t literally illegal they wouldn’t even pay real money. We know this because its what companies did in the past.
The existence of millions of sub-livable wage jobs isn’t going to make walmart increase its wages, I feel like you’re trying to bend reality to pretend removing restrictions on capitalists exploiting workers somehow helps workers.
We live in a Capitalist world with deep propaganda. The workers must long for the wrong things to keep them trapped. Opposing free markets is one of those traps.
Why wouldn’t walmart cut wages further if allowed to?
Either because unions force them or because better jobs are available.
If it wasn’t literally illegal they wouldn’t even pay real money.
True. But if you think of mining towns, there was no competition. Without competition workers were trapped and everything cost more than they earned. Minimum wage is like a soft mining town. Some competition is cut away.
The existence of millions of sub-livable wage jobs isn’t going to make walmart increase its wages
Sub-livable doesn’t help. But if sub-mimimum wage comes with a better package, e.g. child care or health coverage or short commute, then it creates a livable competing option that forces Walmart to rise wages.
The market must be turned to the advantage of the workers. The problem is not the minimum wage but the lack of jobs. With enough jobs nobody has to work for sub-minimum wage unless it’s to their advantage.
Either because unions force them or because better jobs are available.
And you think removing minimum wage would cause unions to become stronger and better jobs be made available?
The market must be turned to the advantage of the workers.
This is done by forcing the capitalists to operate on our terms, not letting them exploit workers with even less regulation wtf?
Sub-livable doesn’t help. But if sub-mimimum wage comes with a better package, e.g. child care or health coverage or short commute, then it creates a livable competing option that forces Walmart to rise wages.
A company giving its employees expired food instead of money isn’t going to make other companies increase wages.
With enough jobs nobody has to work for sub-minimum wage unless it’s to their advantage.
??? People are already forced to work for unsustainable wages and end up in debt or working while homeless.
It really feels like you started out with the assumption that capitalism is the best possible solution for everybody and then went backwards to figure out why this isn’t matching observations.
And you think removing minimum wage would cause unions to become stronger and better jobs be made available?
No. I think minimum wage makes people feel that they are protected enough while they are torn apart by the market dynamics. The job market must be so good that no minimum wage is needed. Minimum wage takes people out of the fight while they are still needed.
This is done by forcing the capitalists to operate on our terms, not letting them exploit workers with even less regulation wtf?
That fight is in supply and demand of jobs. Minimum wage masks the fact that there are not enough jobs. It feels like a weapon of the workers but it is one of the employers.
A company giving its employees expired food instead of money isn’t going to make other companies increase wages.
It comes down to a worker choosing between two jobs. If the food job doesn’t exist the other company can offer minimum wage and win every time. With the food job, their offer must be better than the other company.
With a shortage of jobs, minimum wage is needed to keep wages high because workers undercut each other. The important part is to turn the market around and create a shortage of workers. That’s where the fight must be. Union do that when they strike. Minimum wage hides that workers have that power.
??? People are already forced to work for unsustainable wages and end up in debt or working while homeless
Because the emloyers don’t have a shortage of workers and housing costs too much. Another market that the Capitalists control that can be changed. Free workers and not enough housing, how can that be in a country with plenty of land?
It really feels like you started out with the assumption that capitalism is the best possible solution
It does but I argue for free markets. That’s the opposite of capitalism. Capitalists control the markets and remove competition among employers to their advantage.
Competition among workers is bad for workers because everybody lowers their demands.
Competition among employers is good because they make higher offers.
Workers need to control the work market, not leave it to politicians who are bought by the Capitalists.
You argument is that I should take a pay cut, and all I have to do is lower my material conditions.
No. My first argument is that a job can have more benefits than wage and that a sub minimum wage job can lead to better material conditions than one with.
My second argument is that a surplus of job offers leads to better conditions for all and that minimum wage reduces that surplus to the advantage of the remaining employers.
You’re operating on the false premise that a decent wage and decent working conditions are mutually exclusive and that is the primary flaw in your entire argument.
But in an exploitive society where decent working conditions are not guaranteed for all, why limit the options for those who seek jobs?
But my main point is not that workers should work for less but that minimum wage masks the fact that market conditions are not to the advantage of the workers. Usually they would organize in unions to change that.
This is how Sweden works and why Sweden has been blocking an EU minimum wage. The unions are supposed to ensure reasonable wages and working conditions, which they have done for the most part.
Yeah, well, I’m no communist! There shouldn’t even be a minimum wage, let the free market decide!
— Temporarily inconvenienced billionaires at my workplace.
The free market assumes abundant choice and perfect information. And that’s why we have monopolies and massive marketing to counter that.
Just say the billionaires are communists
You, I like.
And it did, sadly. 2/3 of the US states still use the federal minimum wage as a guide, even though it doesn’t even purchase a cup of coffee these days.
There shouldn’t be a minimum wage! The free market should decide!
If everyone had a baseline standard of living, capitalists could pay whatever they wanted. And if their proposed wage wasn’t worth doing, then no one would do it.
Unskilled labor does not have the luxury to just “not do it”. The capitalists know this, which is why they depress wages as far as they can to keep an entire class of workers under water.
If I were to lose my job, which can happen at any time working in a non-union shop in an at-will state, I would not be able to go anywhere and receive comparable wages in my area. I am studying to get certifications in a different industry that would give me some amount of freedom. For now, I work at the mercy of my employer.
The free market is a scam. It will take massive changes, paradigm shifts, to create an environment where the workers are free to go work where they choose, and be given actually competitive compensation.
Unskilled labor is a myth created by the ownership class.
Unskilled labor as in, I do not have any degrees or certifications that I can simply take to a new employer to leverage anything above starting at the bottom. This will almost always mean making less money. At-will employment mixed with unequal application of company rules and policy means that any day at work could be my last. Unemployment checks are a joke, and would not even cover my rent.
What would you call that?
Labor
But you’re only obligated to work under the threat of illegal homelessness. That’s not a free market, that’s coercion.
If your basic needs were guaranteed, then unskilled labour especially would dictate the value of work in a truly free market. And if you truly can’t find a job that will satisfy your desired lifestyle, you won’t die or be imprisoned or suffer from illness.
How would my basic needs be guaranteed? If the government is going to provide the social safety nets they owe to us, then why not have them regulate labor, providing basic labor needs being guaranteed? Unions would be great, but there will be plenty of businesses that will not have them. Why not provide a safety net to the workers who will inevitably fall between the cracks?
The government shouldn’t be providing safety nets, it should be maintaining the floor to ensure all citizens’ basic needs are met. There should be no “what ifs”.
The labour needs are already met, and would continue to be met in a free market where labour was optional for the labourer because people have wants. If you believe the government would need to ensure that labour needs are met, you’re believing the capitalist lie that foundational labour must be bought under threat of violence.
Capitalists make money by turning a free market into a market with entry barriers so that they get an oligopoly or monopoly and can rise prices.
The free market is the enemy of the Capitalist.
Capitalists rely on the unemployed to suppress wages by always having somebody desperate enough to do it for less. They use minimum wage to create barriers for competing job offers.
With minimum wage, many jobs don’t exist that pay less but could have better working conditions or pay by allowing employees to take home expired food instead of making them throw it away.
This leads to more unemployed and lower wages for all.
Of course many people don’t have the bargaining power to rise their wages to their value. That’s when minimum wage helps. But, unions would be the much more appropriate solution, and financial support between unions.
What is this far right dreck doing in this com?
This is a person who thinks society would be better if stores gave workers expired food instead of money.
They meant the food as a bonus, not in place of living wages, which is what they want with unions and healthy worker benefits we all deserve.
I think more power from having a free market outweights the shame of eating expired food.
If people can leave an abusive boss or toxic colleagues because they have another option then that is good.
That doesn’t mean that Walmart should be able to cut wages even further. That would mean that people would be more desperate, which doesn’t happen if there are more jobs and unions.
Why wouldn’t walmart cut wages further if allowed to?
If it wasn’t literally illegal they wouldn’t even pay real money. We know this because its what companies did in the past.
The existence of millions of sub-livable wage jobs isn’t going to make walmart increase its wages, I feel like you’re trying to bend reality to pretend removing restrictions on capitalists exploiting workers somehow helps workers.
We live in a Capitalist world with deep propaganda. The workers must long for the wrong things to keep them trapped. Opposing free markets is one of those traps.
Either because unions force them or because better jobs are available.
True. But if you think of mining towns, there was no competition. Without competition workers were trapped and everything cost more than they earned. Minimum wage is like a soft mining town. Some competition is cut away.
Sub-livable doesn’t help. But if sub-mimimum wage comes with a better package, e.g. child care or health coverage or short commute, then it creates a livable competing option that forces Walmart to rise wages.
The market must be turned to the advantage of the workers. The problem is not the minimum wage but the lack of jobs. With enough jobs nobody has to work for sub-minimum wage unless it’s to their advantage.
And you think removing minimum wage would cause unions to become stronger and better jobs be made available?
This is done by forcing the capitalists to operate on our terms, not letting them exploit workers with even less regulation wtf?
A company giving its employees expired food instead of money isn’t going to make other companies increase wages.
??? People are already forced to work for unsustainable wages and end up in debt or working while homeless.
It really feels like you started out with the assumption that capitalism is the best possible solution for everybody and then went backwards to figure out why this isn’t matching observations.
No. I think minimum wage makes people feel that they are protected enough while they are torn apart by the market dynamics. The job market must be so good that no minimum wage is needed. Minimum wage takes people out of the fight while they are still needed.
That fight is in supply and demand of jobs. Minimum wage masks the fact that there are not enough jobs. It feels like a weapon of the workers but it is one of the employers.
It comes down to a worker choosing between two jobs. If the food job doesn’t exist the other company can offer minimum wage and win every time. With the food job, their offer must be better than the other company.
With a shortage of jobs, minimum wage is needed to keep wages high because workers undercut each other. The important part is to turn the market around and create a shortage of workers. That’s where the fight must be. Union do that when they strike. Minimum wage hides that workers have that power.
Because the emloyers don’t have a shortage of workers and housing costs too much. Another market that the Capitalists control that can be changed. Free workers and not enough housing, how can that be in a country with plenty of land?
It does but I argue for free markets. That’s the opposite of capitalism. Capitalists control the markets and remove competition among employers to their advantage.
Competition among workers is bad for workers because everybody lowers their demands.
Competition among employers is good because they make higher offers.
Workers need to control the work market, not leave it to politicians who are bought by the Capitalists.
You argument is that I should take a pay cut, and all I have to do is lower my material conditions.
You are trending toward slavery. Get your fucking head checked.
No. My first argument is that a job can have more benefits than wage and that a sub minimum wage job can lead to better material conditions than one with.
My second argument is that a surplus of job offers leads to better conditions for all and that minimum wage reduces that surplus to the advantage of the remaining employers.
You’re operating on the false premise that a decent wage and decent working conditions are mutually exclusive and that is the primary flaw in your entire argument.
No. Obviously many have that.
But in an exploitive society where decent working conditions are not guaranteed for all, why limit the options for those who seek jobs?
But my main point is not that workers should work for less but that minimum wage masks the fact that market conditions are not to the advantage of the workers. Usually they would organize in unions to change that.
This is how Sweden works and why Sweden has been blocking an EU minimum wage. The unions are supposed to ensure reasonable wages and working conditions, which they have done for the most part.