My mom thinks I hate the poor and don't want to to help them and just care about myself because I am against minimum wage. Any ideas? Rember, the whole, "government doesn't ahve the right to do this" won't be a very convincing argument. I've already told her about the near unanimous economic support and the whole wage competition, but she won't budge? Ideas?
Tell her to read Cafe Hayek. -------------------------JA$ON Crasher-In-Chief
Tell her you think that people should have a right to make their own decisions personally or economically, and that the people should help others and not the government. Tell her you believe that the Federal Government shouldn't interfere in private issues. Tell her that you lose at least a 1/3 of your pay check to taxes that go to pointless and inefficient government programs... That should get you started.
Yeah, except those open up a while nother can of worms, a can I could obviously win, but I need something to just shut her down completely. People won't be convinced about not having the government intrude in their lives unless they believe that they are significantly better off...
I posted this elsewhere, it's a short and incomplete critique of the minimum wage designed to appeal to leftists. It analyzes the negative impacts on workers.
It's from another forum (which is hidden to non-members, so I cant link it, sorry.) But here it is:
We need to focus on something they cant oppose on principle. It's not about "producers vs. employees". I think we should target the economic arguments in such a way that we come to the conclusion that it hurts the workers, because, ultimately, they are hurt the worst by it.
Any price control will ultimately hurt most those it is supposed to help, we can exploit(hehe) that.
Thus, let's turn the arguments typically used against the minimum wage around:
"Wages are a price, why should producers more than the workers are worth? Why should a consumer pay considerably more for a bag of flour?"
Consumers, the ones who ultimately derive utility from the labor, are merciless. They will not pay more than the products are worth. If they dislike the price, they wont buy. Thus, the best way to increase the number and wages of workers hired is NOT to artificially increase the price paid. Taxes and price controls run counter to the objective of increasing wages and decreasing unemployment. Increasing capital invested per worker, as well as technology(through research and development) is the historically most effective way of increasing consumer and employee welfare. This can only be done if companies are run effectively and unhampered by price controls and regulations, which have, historically, been detrimental to both workers and profits.
"Workers are usually paid above equilibrium by businesses in developing nations""When viewing the purchasing parity of wages they need to be in the nation's currency, without inflation and relative to prices of goods in the nation, not the US." Workers in developing nations have their jobs due to one reason, a competitive advantage stemming from a currency devaluation. US companies are able to pay a wage that is cheap to them but valuable to the workers, this results in a win-win situation for them and the workers employed. Imposing a minimum wage on the workers would destroy their competitive assets, and would destroy the very jobs that they would otherwise benefit from.
"Not all workers productivity is the same" "Humans are naturally unequal, so why treat the inept ones as if they are? If they don’t like the wages then they should use some entrepreneur initiative." The minimum wage institutes a "one-size-fits-all" approach to a very varied labor market. It affects all workers, regardless of occupation or needs, at the same level. This harms each segment of them in a different way, due to the differences in productive ability. Teenagers are the largest demographic affected by the minimum wage. Most of them do not need the money to survive, but do need the jobs to learn life skills and to obtain a kind of education that cannot be taught in schools. Dealing with customers, bosses, and coworkers are all skills that are best learned hands-on, and artificially increasing the costs of hiring people will make it more difficult for these teens the experience they need. Those who rely on jobs to raise a family will either be employed at a level above minimum wage, and therefore unaffected, or they will be at a level at or below the legal wage. If this is the case, the increased costs and unemployment will affect them worst. Unemployment is an liability to getting hired, any job is an asset. Those with any job have a tremendous advantage in the job market. Those who are unable to get any employment will have considerable difficulty moving up in the world. They will be the ones most harmed by barriers to employment and increased costs to hire workers, of which the minimum wage is proven to be a significant cause of.
The most effective way to address the differences between individuals is to allow those individuals themselves to determine what they are worth. They are infinitely more qualified to judge their own lives and needs than any legislator or bureaucrat hundreds of miles away.
"All firms operate where diminishing returns have set in. When an increase by one employee results in marginal output decreasing (marginal output - the additional output produced by adding one new worker). This is due to fixed resources like lack of factory space, machinery and tools. So as more employees are employed, it makes sense to employ them at a lower wage rate (or lower all employees’ wages if you can’t tell who’s the most efficient)." We can use this same data to show that a minimum wage decreases the number of employees and decreases the average productivity per worker. Thus, it decreases the average wage(even as it increases the lowest wages), and increases unemployment.
Any price control will either create a surplus(price floor), a shortage(price ceiling), or have no effect at all(badly targeted).
Well, the situation is that a minimum wage involves the use of force against two people, the worker and the employer. It forces the employer to pay more than they want to, and it forces the employee to demand more than they want to.
Too often, capitalists allow themselves to be dragged into the "us verse them" class warfare argument, but the fact is that humans are rational beings. If people must be forced to do something, it is because it is (usually) against their best interests. A minimum wage harms everyone, not just the employer. The way to win this is to fight it on our terms and to not make it a "employer verse worker trade-off". It's not a trade off, no one gains, everyone loses.
[end quote]
Like I said...It's incomplete, but perhaps another crasher can refine them and put them in a form that cuttooth33 can present to his mom in defense of economic liberty on this issue.
If it helps, Ive found that supporters of the minimum wage tend to be receptive the what I refer to as the "one-size-fits-all" argument. Basically, a minimum wage treats all workers the same, when they are very different individuals. It purports to set the value of the worker's labor, when the setter of the wage level has no connection with the wage earner and no knowledge of their abilities and needs. A wage level that is just right for one person wont be for everyone else.
Also, the argument is often made, when you say that workers should be paid what they're worth, that then America would just turn into sweat shops like in China...I dunno...obviously this wouldnt happen but...
Actually, workers ARE paid what they're worth. They aren't "worth" any more than people are willing to pay them.
The reason American workers get paid so much is because they are the most productive in the world. This is caused, to a great degree, by higher amounts of capital per worker and higher levels of technology employed.
Both of these factors are made possible by economic profits, the thing that marxists would like to destroy.
hmmm, yes, that does bring up many good points. Maybe I'll just tell her to read John Stossel's book...?
Well, the link Jason gave to Cafe Hayek gives a good article about it.
Here are some other very good articles about it:
http://www.invisibleheart.com/Iheart/EconomyGlass.html
"
What proportion of the U.S. labor force earns the minimum wage or less?
It's a good question for Labor Day and one measure of how you think the U.S. economy treats people. Some people see the glass as half-empty. Others see it as half-full. And the minimum wage question is one way to find out which side of the divide you're on.
I've surveyed lots of different people on this question: law professors, Congressional staffers, law students, journalists, undergraduates. The answers I get back tend to be pretty similar. The average answer is around 20%. And a lot of educated people think it's 40% or higher. That's not half-empty, That's barely damp.
Get your guess ready, because I'm about to tell you the answer. Most but not all employers are required to pay the minimum of $5.15 per hour. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data on the 72 million Americans who are paid by the hour. They make up 60% of the labor force. In 2001, a recession year, the BLS estimates that three percent of that hourly work force earns the minimum wage or less. Three percent. You can make the number a little higher or a little lower depending on how you slice it. You can look at just full-time workers and the number falls to below two percent. You can look at just women and the number is four percent. But no matter how you slice it, most workers are much better off than most people think. In fact, half of the workers paid by the hour make more than $10 an hour, almost double the minimum.
Another good Labor Day question is why most workers make so much more than the legal minimum. Don't businesses try to pay their workers as little as possible? Why would they pay more than the law requires?
You might think that labor unions keep wages high. It's a tough claim to prove—less than 10% of the private work force is unionized. The same phenomenon appears if we look back in time. The proportion of the US work force that is unionized has been steadily falling for the last 40 years, yet America's standard of living is much higher than it was in 1960, even after correcting for inflation. How has that happened? Who's protecting the American worker? Why are wages and salaries in America so high?
Ironically, it's the profit motive, the so-called greed of corporations and business owners that protects the workers. That motive can lead to hardship when a company closes down a plant or lays off workers. But it's the same force that keeps wages high. Companies have to compete with each other to attract and keep workers. That means high salaries and benefits. Otherwise how do you explain the thousands of companies that pay well above the minimum? Are those the companies run by the nice guys?
I don't think most CEOs or business owners are any nicer or meaner than the rest of us. But to succeed in business you have to meet or surpass the competition. That imperative of the marketplace drives companies to improve their products and keeps prices down. And most of the time it protects workers. A company can't thrive if it has a reputation for being a lousy place to work.
So even though we have a minimum wage and labor unions, they don't have much to do with the high level of wages of the United States. It's hard to accept. You can't see the competition between companies that keeps wages up. And the system isn't perfect. Workers get laid off and left behind. Sometimes a company is run by a crook or a loser who treats his workers poorly. And our education system fails too many of our children and doesn't give them the skills they need to succeed in a competitive world"
http://www.invisibleheart.com/Iheart/TradeSeen.html
" Illuminating the Unseen by Russell Roberts
Illuminating the Unseen by Russell Roberts
The good effects of laws are often easily seen. The bad effects, unseen. So observed Frederic Bastiat 150 years ago. His basic insight remains true today. We live in busy times. Information bombards us. In such a world, even that which is seen is often overlooked. The unseen is that much more elusive.
If we are to make the case for economic freedom, we have to make these unseen costs come to light. Consider an increase in the minimum wage. What is seen: businesses give some of their low wage workers a raise. The direct effects of the minimum wage—more money for low-wage workers, less money for businesses who pay them—frame the entire debate.
People have trouble seeing the unseen, less obvious, effects of the minimum wage. But if Senator Bond of Missouri says the minimum wage is bad because it hurts small business—as he argued in his recent re-election campaign—then most people see the minimum wage as a tax on small business that helps the poor. No wonder many people think it's a good idea.
If we want to dent the consciousness of the average American, we have to bring the unseen to light. We have to talk about how the minimum wage doesn't just tax small business. We have to show how it bankrupts some firms that hire low-skill workers, putting them out of business. That means fewer opportunities for low-skill workers. But even the firms that survive will try to reduce the hours of low-skill workers and their numbers. In short, while the minimum wage helps some low-skill workers by giving them a modest pay increase, it has a devastating effect on others, pushing them out of the work force and into the street. The minimum wage thwarts human possibility among those it tries to help. And as Bastiat understood, it is easy to see those who are helped by the minimum wage. Those who are harmed are much harder to identify.
We've done a decent job explaining the hidden costs of the minimum wage. We've done such a good job, in fact, that proponents of the minimum wage have actually tried to argue that increases in the minimum wage have no effect on low-skill employment. To paraphrase Orwell, you'd have to be an academic economist to find that argument compelling. But in other areas, we have a long way to go if we wish to cast light on the unseen costs of government intervention.
Here's how trade often gets discussed in the media: should we destroy jobs in America in order to have cheap imports? That's like being asked how long you've been beating your wife. Why does it get discussed this way?
Opponents of free trade want the American people to think that trade is about destroying jobs in order to get cheap foreign goods. It makes free trade look mean-spirited and mercenary. But another reason is that these are the most obvious effects of free trade. If Americans buy from foreign suppliers, people understand that fewer Americans will be hired in the competing domestic companies. Unseen are the jobs created making the products we exchange with foreigners. Unseen is the impact of specialization and comparative advantage. Unseen is the power of foreign competition to induce our domestic industries to innovate.
Unless we can illuminate the unseen, making the case for free trade will be an uphill battle. Unfortunately, one of the best things about free trade is extremely difficult to see: free trade allows resources to flow to their highest use. But to make the argument compelling, we have to describe it in a way that allows it to be seen without a semester's worth of economics."
The problem with this stuff, is that without an open mind its hard to get anywhere at all really. I used to have the same ideas. Without mininum wage, welfare, taxes, and the FBI the US would descend into poverty and chaos.
At the same time my father had instilled into me a natural distrust for the government from a very young age. So I was willing to question these institutions that my teacher told me were necessary. The more I questioned, the more I read, the more I realized they were BS.
And Tuesday as far as labor unions... The family business is non-union, and yet most of the workers there work there until retirement. Why? Because the wages are good, and the benefits are even better. Healthcare coverage used to be 100%, and free to the employees, but after years of slow business they couldn't afford it anymore.
Another great article on minimum wages is The Ugly Truth About the Minimum Wage Law.
RushFan I Am I
Let's say that you own a small business, a restaurant for example.
The restaurant business is cutthroat, you need to really work at it to stay open. Most restaurants fail in their first year. You're not going to get rich at this, but you can make a living.
Now let's say you can afford to pay two teenage kids $4.50 an hour to wash dishes. It's not much, but it's a little bit of pocket money for them, and it's all you can afford. They get paid, you get your dishes clean, and everybody's happy.
Now the government decides to set a minimum wage of $6.00 an hour. Your business can't afford to pay that to your dishwashers. So what do you do? You fire one of them and pay the other one the minimum wage. Now he has to work twice as hard, and the other guy is out of a job. While the one who's still employed might be making more money, he has to work twice as hard for it. Whether it's really worth the increased stress is a matter of personal preference, it depends on the individual. He may or may not be better off. However, the guy without a job certainly isn't reaping any kind of benefit from this. He's worse off than he was before, because instead of making $4.50 an hour, now he makes $0.00 an hour. The most likely scenario is that everybody's worse off. The one who's still employed works too hard and probably hates his job as a result, one doesn't have a job, and you, the business owner, have an unhappy employee.
Some people will say, well what about the big corporations? They can afford to pay more than the minimum wage. Well, yeah, most of them can, which is why they already do. The average worker at Walmart, not including management, makes about $8.00 per hour. One of the major complaints is that this "isn't a living wage." What they're not telling you is that it isnt' a living wage for a family of FOUR. Most of the people working in the Walmarts I've been to are either: high school or college students, the semi-retired, or the spouse of somebody who also has a job. Why a high school or college student needs to make enough to support a family of four I don't know. From where I stand, $8.00 an hour sounds pretty damn good. I worked full time last summer for $7.00 an hour. I could have actually supported myself on that. I was saving for college, so I didn't, but I could have.
A minimum wage doesn't really help anybody. It puts people out of work, makes others work harder for not much more, and causes a lot of grief for business owners who have to lay off employees.
Wow, very good stuff there.
I actually just compromised with my mom and she just said she wants to talk to someone more well informed on the issue. I'm fine with that.
I'm just sick of people thinking if you don't believe in minimum wage you hate poor people
