matthew wrote:

Bob......would you please stop with this "magical mystical thinking", please?..........you have to leave such decisions up to employers. An ethical employer will compensate both according to market value, and in turn people will want to come to work for them.

You're making some pretty heavy generalizations here. Your argument relies on what you consider an 'ethical employer', which I think is a bunk term. You may consider this 'shrewd employer,' this 'business savy employer' ethical, but I don't. Your 'ethical employer' pays whats fair in relation to what everyone else is paying. Mine, and I assume that I'm speaking as just another leftie on the forum, pays what is necessary for food, shelter, and medical care. Remember, matthew, being right doesn't always mean being popular. You should have learned that in CCD.

Now, stay with me here. Let's work with your definition of what you consider to be an ethical employer.

You haven't considered the fact that, in a given market:

a) there could possibly be no ethical employers

This could be perfectly possible, say in a small town where the number of businesses has dwindled thanks to everyone's favorite discount nation wide chain. There is less competition for business, and thus less competition for labor.

b) that, in a given market there could be less ethical employers than unethical ones.

Now this question puts a loop in your shit---what if fair market value were too low? What if only a few companies (herein after to be called companies A) paid what what i would consider to be a just price for their labor, while everyone else (herein after companies B) didn't? You couldn't assume that people would just quit and go work with companies A, this is a job market, there are only a limited number of positions that these companies can hire. This is also what you don't understand about being poor. There world is not a one dimensional place, and there's a matter of scale that you're paying absolutely no mind to. A guy on wall street quitting his job with an unfair employer risks much less than a poor guy who decides to do the same thing.

Therefore, the poorer guy is much less apt to haul ass on a company who's fucking him because he needs the job more. Two or three weeks unemployment to a guy with a big savings account isn't the end of the world. It is to someone who doesn't have one. They end up at your soup kitchen, matthew, guys who you think weigh too much to be waiting in line for free food on christmas. What makes you think they didn't think the same thing, anyways?

As far as those employers who compensate way below market value (which is what an unjust wage is, to answer your question)....well....leave it up to the market;

Why leave it up to the market? Why leave it up to an uncontrollable, fragile thing? Why not just set a fair baseline? Remember, these are people, not penny stocks we're talking about.

A lot of people are obviously making an argument that you're not even prepared to examine. You admitting that there should be a minimum wage at all, however small, would make me very happy.

most people except mostly losers who have closed the doors on themselves jobwise will in turn gravitate away from such employers and their jobs.

This is a blanket statement, that given your proposed economic and social background, is ridiculous for you to make.

matthew wrote:And as for a person who attempts to live comfortably on an income which does not not permit such, well........GO GET SOME BETTER OR MORE DESIRABLE JOB SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS THEN!

This is not an answer to my question. I didn't say that people didn't have the chance to elevate themselves out of a minimum wage job.

So we can agree that they actually do have a chance, given a little ambition right?

Clocker bob's agreement that poor people can become not poor anymore doesn't mean anything matthew, and I don't see why you would even make a statement like that. However, your adding 'just a little ambition,' will not solve any poverty crisis, anywhere. And instead of you seeing that as a flaw with your own ideology, you see it as a flaw with an entire group of people. That you are right and millions of people are wrong. Your ego is catostrophically huge.

I said there will always be a wide sector of minimum wage labor in this country, some staffed by people who do the work for a short time...

As it should be in most cases since such jobs are not meant for supporting one's self. Are you going to play a 45 year old with a wife and three kids who is a crappy worker 22 and change per hour 40 hours per week to scoop ice cream cones at Baskin Robbins while you pay a 16 year old who is much more industrious $7.50 per hour? I'd walk if I were that kid.

Again, you're putting your own prejudices into arguments. Your employer's are always 'ethical,' its the worker's fault for working in poor condition because 'they could just quit.' Your 45 year old wife with three kids is a 'crappy worker,' and your little 16 year old (I'm guessing he's white, right) is much more industrious.
First of all, I would expect the kid to scoop a few more cones of ice cream per day. He doesn't have three kids! Of course he can work harder, he doesn't have to do it all day? Why don't you pay your 45 year old worker more so she doesn't leave the job? She's 45 years old and working at baskin robbins! If she's got that kind of balls then she definitely deserves more money. i'd like to see you do that now, matthew.
And if this little shitass kid thinks he can walk just because things aren't going his way, then fuck it, hell yes pay him less!

..some for a long time, but in either case, there is a population of people staffing these jobs. although not the same people, month in and month out. For those people, while they hold those jobs, are they deserving of a living wage or not?

They are deserving of whatever the market says their job is worth. We can both agree that they have an opportunity to advance themselves and move on, and in the event that they fall on genuine hardship, there are charitable people and institutions who will always be there.

Oh please, matthew, you're getting really weak here. Why not let the government take care of that? Fuck it! Its either them or the government, right? Well the government can put them on food stamps, just pay taxes! The government can give them transportation to work! Just pay taxes! Why even fucking worry about charities? Give them a fair fucking minimum wage and you won't have to donate to any!

You see, your theory that menial labor must be undercompensated

No. I have not said that. I've only said that menial jobs by legitimate employers generally are worth whatever the market says they are worth, which is not a lot in our economy.

If you could, please define what you mean by market I think you're falling back on the word a little too much "oh that'll just be fixed by the market." "oh that'll be determined by the market." That doesn't really fly, man. You're making these really simple observations that aren't really saying anything.

...to provide an incentive for people to leave menial labor is corrupt.

That's just a coincidental effect of economic realities. You wanna alter reality? Go ahead and try....the market will correct you in the end, and in the end.

See! You're not even christian! This market is a law of nature for you! There is no truth for you other than capitalism, its true. You're so weird, matthew! I love this! This 'market' is a magic word for you to dish out to all these other fucks, isn't? Economics is really hard for those with doctorates in the subject to understand, so its hard to understand for all these other guys, too, isn't it? No one can really argue with you about it because no one is really sure what it is! You will one day understand that the rich stay rich be keeping other people down, and themselves aloft. There is no good to having that much money.

It is not your right to cheat them in the present because you have the smug attitude that you can propel them into your hypothetical future by doing so. You must pay them what they are worth to their employer today.

And all ethical legitimate employers will compensate them according to the market value of their job.

I'm sure I said something about this above. Once again, your terms are really shakey.

Employers love this myth that their menial workforce is a transient workforce, so therefore, depressed wages are acceptable.

Generally it is a transient workforce because.......once again......THAT IS THE MARKET WORKING. The market says that most people who work such jobs don't stick around long- they are mostly teenagers/young adults, adults who lack basic job skills, and retired adults who want some supplemental income (my father is one example). The only people who flip burgers at McDonald's or pump gas for 20 years and try to make ends meet from such jobs are people with no ambition.

Don't bring your dad into this. I seriously doubt that he's a greeter in wal-mart. Be serious and don't try to play into something you're not. Once again, you're making huge blanket statements for a sector of the population whom you haven't dealt with on any real basis.

matthew wrote:Let me elaborate a little bit about why I don't believe in an ABSOLUTE STANDARD WAGE. Essentially it is because both the cost of living and the cost of running a business varies a great deal depending upon where you are, and strictly for businesses.

No kidding. That's why it's a state issue. You're hiding from your original statement again- why is matthew wauck, who wrote that the minimum wage should be $0.00, telling me the that it is difficult to make a minimum wage fit the region or the industry? You say make it $0.00. That's easy to fit into any jobmarket or region of the country.

Not only is it easy and non-invasive, it's a hell of alot more realistic than setting a wage standard according to some statistical abstraction!

"Some statistical abstraction?" Like your "market," perhaps?


I want to (re)elaborate that I see few parallels between your "market" and our actual capitalist job market. In fact I think your economic understanding goes as far as People Should Go to College and How to Write a Check.

Seriously, matthew, though your views do contribute to a National Problem, I am a softie at heart and admire the fact that you're so full of yourself that you've been dishing out bullshit left and right and haven't even flinched. The reamings Steve Albini have given you! Brilliant matthew! i hope one day you grow up and get your head on straight, and I hope that you learn to try to be a little more flexible and forgiving.

man, i am so happy someone finally voted "rush, rush i can feel you, i can feel you all through me!" i am really glad being a paula abdul fan has finally found its purpose on ea board. whoever you are, you rule. even if you are sourpants matthew who thinks trying to make an honest living for minimum wage is for losers and teenagers.

kenoki wrote:i am really glad being a paula abdul fan has finally found its purpose on ea board.

Yeah, well, unfortunately all being a Rush Limbaugh fan ever got you was this fourteen page cluster fuck. Why couldn't you just listen to music.

dipshit jigaboo wrote:

matthew wrote:Show me the destitute, starving masses in the country who are helpless victims, Steve! Or is it that your definition of poverty is one made up by government bureaucracy and exploited and twisted by the mainstream media? Come on! Show me!

You're right, there are no poor people, only lucky duckies.

thats the stuff

matthew wrote:An ethical employer will compensate both according to market value, and in turn people will want to come to work for them.

I've stayed out of this discussion until now, but, I feel compelled to ask:
What happens when the market crushes the ethical employer in favor a a behemoth that pays some other schlubs in a different country almost $0 to do the job and all the undereducated people are left standing around doing nothing?

rzs wrote: you will be lucky if you don't go insane by judging yourself as harshly as you judge others.

Ha ha! You don't know matthew very well at all, do you?

Rest easy; there's no need to worry about him judging himself as harshly as he judges others.

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:It is not your right to cheat them in the present because you have the smug attitude that you can propel them into your hypothetical future by doing so. You must pay them what they are worth to their employer today.

And all ethical legitimate employers will compensate them according to the market value of their job.

Let's think about this. First of all, what are the proper motivations of a business? In the case of a publicly-held business, the people who run the business have an obligation to shareholders to keep stock price up. You can call that an ethical responsibility or not, but that's what they have to do. This is, and has to be, the prime, if not sole, motivation of a business. This is why it makes sense to have the state regulate it, and not rely on the "free" market.

Let's say you have a potential employer and a potential employee. The potential employer values the work of the employee at, say, $15/hr. The potential employee values his time at, say, $3/hr. What we have, then, is a surplus of $12/hr. that's going to get divided up somehow between the two. For example, if the employer hires the employee at $9/hr., each party makes a $6/hr. profit on the transaction - each party keeps $6/hr. of the surplus. But who will get more of the surplus? That depends on the bargaining power of the parties, which largely depends on what other choices they can make. The fact that it is a lot easier for the employer to find another employee than it is for the employee to find another job (as is the case these days) means the price the two settle on is going to be a lot closer to $3 than to $12. In fact, it might end up being below $3, as the employee might find it better to take a small loss on the transaction than to not work at all and lose $3/hr.

What does it even mean when you say that an ethical legitimate employer will pay according to the "market value" of the job? It sounds like kind of a truism. After all, in my example, if the employer hires the employee at $3.25/hr., (keeping $11.75 of the $12 surplus), then can't you just say that that was the market value of the job, and all is well? Can't you say the same if the employer pays $14/hr., or $1.50/hr? To say that an employer will pay the "market value" seems utterly meaningless.

An ethical legitimate employer will perform its duties to its shareholders by paying the wage that will maximize share price. Often share price will go up when profits go up. Profits go up when costs go down. Labor is a cost. Therefore, an ethical legitimate employer will often pay as little as he can get away with.

But society has a problem when employers are allowed to get away with whatever they can get away with. Since you're not concerned with poverty for its own sake (and who says you should be, after all!), you should also consider that poverty is strongly correlated with crime, you should consider that (as Henry Ford figured out) poor people can't buy stuff, which depresses the economy, and so on. And there's nothing illegitimate about the government using its police power to tell people not to do things that are bad for society. They do it all the time - try driving drunk or starting a fight. (There's a federalism argument to be made, that this is properly done by the State rather than Federal government, but given the state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I don't think it's a winning one...)

So we have:
1. An employer will generally pay as little as it can get away with.
2. That number often puts the employee in poverty.
3. Poverty causes problems in society.
4. The state has the power to regulate behavior that causes problems in society.

So... where's the problem?

I think it's awfully nice that you, a vocal adherent of a religion that cares deeply about the poor, are not arguing for laws based on that religion*. If you (and your coreligionists) could only be as fair-minded about issues like gay marriage and abortion, maybe we'd get somewhere...


*e.g., a law based on Catechism 2434:

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Thanks to lars for quoting this back on p. 8. Thanks to matthew for ignoring it!

Linus Van Pelt wrote:*e.g., a law based on Catechism 2434:

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Thanks to lars for quoting this back on p. 8. Thanks to matthew for ignoring it!

I'm glad somebody noticed this.

matthew wrote:Bob......would you please stop with this "magical mystical thinking", please?

Priceless!

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

matthew wrote:

clocker bob wrote:It is not your right to cheat them in the present because you have the smug attitude that you can propel them into your hypothetical future by doing so. You must pay them what they are worth to their employer today.

And all ethical legitimate employers will compensate them according to the market value of their job.

Let's think about this. First of all, what are the proper motivations of a business? In the case of a publicly-held business, the people who run the business have an obligation to shareholders to keep stock price up. You can call that an ethical responsibility or not, but that's what they have to do. This is, and has to be, the prime, if not sole, motivation of a business. This is why it makes sense to have the state regulate it, and not rely on the "free" market.

Utter nonsense. Not all companies and public anyway. Besides, if you let the market work (which inherently requires ethical people for it's existence) more often it will root out the dishonestly and greed that might exist in businesses eventually, and in some cases the state might need to intervene (trusts, etc) to level the playing field. I've never said the state should not referee the market. It just ought to do it very carefully and not impose regulations (i.e. minimum wages, price caps, etc) which fly in the face of economic realities.

Let's say you have a potential employer and a potential employee. The potential employer values the work of the employee at, say, $15/hr. The potential employee values his time at, say, $3/hr.

Then that employee is an idiot for not doing his homework on the market value of the work he's interested in before negotiating with the employer. Besides, what reasonable person who does knows the market value of a given job is going to tell a potential employer "Oh no, 15 per hour is too much. Give me 3 instead"? LOL.

What we have, then, is a surplus of $12/hr. that's going to get divided up somehow between the two. For example, if the employer hires the employee at $9/hr., each party makes a $6/hr. profit on the transaction - each party keeps $6/hr. of the surplus. But who will get more of the surplus? That depends on the bargaining power of the parties, which largely depends on what other choices they can make. The fact that it is a lot easier for the employer to find another employee than it is for the employee to find another job (as is the case these days) means the price the two settle on is going to be a lot closer to $3 than to $12. In fact, it might end up being below $3, as the employee might find it better to take a small loss on the transaction than to not work at all and lose $3/hr.

What does it even mean when you say that an ethical legitimate employer will pay according to the "market value" of the job? It sounds like kind of a truism. After all, in my example, if the employer hires the employee at $3.25/hr., (keeping $11.75 of the $12 surplus), then can't you just say that that was the market value of the job, and all is well? Can't you say the same if the employer pays $14/hr., or $1.50/hr? To say that an employer will pay the "market value" seems utterly meaningless.

In light of what I said, the rest of what you wrote is a load of nonsense. Oh sure you'll say " But but but.....what about those people, those poor maligned people who are underpayed?" They're fools, and besides once they discover they're underpayed they can tell Joe Unethical Employer to go jump in the lake and go find better work.

An ethical legitimate employer will perform its duties to its shareholders by paying the wage that will maximize share price. Often share price will go up when profits go up. Profits go up when costs go down. Labor is a cost. Therefore, an ethical legitimate employer will often pay as little as he can get away with.

Sure, after all if I'm a business owner I'm risking my own ass by jumping into a competitve market. What's the problem here? Once again, if the market says that an employer is paying below the market value, people will gravitate away from said employer, unless you're a schmo.

But society has a problem when employers are allowed to get away with whatever they can get away with. Since you're not concerned with poverty for its own sake (and who says you should be, after all!), you should also consider that poverty is strongly correlated with crime, you should consider that (as Henry Ford figured out) poor people can't buy stuff, which depresses the economy, and so on. And there's nothing illegitimate about the government using its police power to tell people not to do things that are bad for society. They do it all the time - try driving drunk or starting a fight. (There's a federalism argument to be made, that this is properly done by the State rather than Federal government, but given the state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I don't think it's a winning one...).

Your point? So the state should prosecute theft. Paying wages below market value is not theft. The revenue I make from my business is mine to do what I like with, but if I want to stay in business I have an incentive to hire employees who are motivated to do the work I need done and thus ought to compensate them to the degree that will in turn give them an incentive to do such. If I don't then not many or no people will work for me. Sure you'll say, "well what about those people who DO work for you?" I say leave it up to the employer, because you can't quantify and thus legislate what is enough compensation because it is a market determination as well as a social convention. There's no magical, mystical inherent economic or monetary value to work There's no 11th commandment which says "Thou shalt pay thy employees x dollars per hour"! It's a quasi-Marxist notion to think there is (though a lot of people here are Marxists, so go figure).

So we have:
1. An employer will generally pay as little as it can get away with.
2. That number often puts the employee in poverty.
3. Poverty causes problems in society.
4. The state has the power to regulate behavior that causes problems in society.

However, as I implied both here and previously, the market value of work and indeed a "dignified livelihood" is so changeable and mutable than a state cannot possibly keep up with it.

*e.g., a law based on Catechism 2434:

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Thanks to lars for quoting this back on p. 8. Thanks to matthew for ignoring it!

The reason why I ignored it earlier is because it is evident that most if not all of you have no understanding of the role of Catholic social teaching or the infallibility of the Church. Social teaching is not binding nor is it infallible, and moreover alot of social teaching in the 20th century has the influence of socialism- hell, even the Pope is a bit of a socialist, but that doesn't mean that Catholics must be socialists. Infallibility only applies to fundamentals of personal morality and personal matters of faith. That said I think what I've said somewhat falls in line with the Catechism actually, specifically this line:

The Catechism wrote:"Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."

As we all know, "a dignified livelihood" changes alot. How then can we define it? Furthermore, if I'm flipping burgers at Mickeydee's or pumping gas, its obvious that I have a much more replaceable role and am less productive than a banker or an airline pilot or the franchisor of the Mickeydee's I might work at and thus my has a much lower market value than any of the latter, thus...an employer knowing "the state of his business" and the market value of the work his business requires, will renumerate according to these facts. Why's this so hard to understand?

As far as the last line in the excerpt goes, well, if collective bargaining or a contract between an individual employee and an employer is not an "agreement" over the value of wages, then I don't know what to say. Oh sure you'll say "oh yeah strongarming and greed", but that's crap....it's just the market working through haggling and a subsequent compromise- sure either party may or may not be completely happy with any given compromise but so the hell what? You think a labor union is immaculate and completely noble and free of greed? Ever had a union job? Ever dealt with union mooks? I have. Besides, both sides compromised in a binding agreement, didn't they? Anyway getting back to the text: The catechism is actually rather whishy-washy here because it's really saying nothing at all, to which I'm sure you'll say "YOU AREN'T A CATHOLIC BECAUSE YOU REJECT A FUNDAMENTAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH!!! HYPOCRITE!!!" However I've already addressed the role of Catholic social teaching.....it ain't binding. Do your homework if you think I'm lying or being dishonest........shit.

matthew wrote:Besides, if you let the market work (which inherently requires ethical people for it's existence) more often it will root out the dishonestly and greed that might exist in businesses eventually,

Hahahahahahahaha...

Oh, to live in a utopia where greed is minimal and the public isn't too stupid or lazy to look out for it. Keep reaching for that rainbow, matthew.