The myths of a living wage

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Published on February 15, 2004 By Draginol In Current Events

If you want to dramatically raise unemployment with the poor, then by all means advocate for "living wage" laws.

Did you know that some cities already have living wage laws? The resultant unemployment amongst the poor in those cities is probably publicly available on the net somewhere. New York, for instance, has areas that have living wage laws.

And here's what happens:

Let's say I have a living wage law that says that you must pay at least $10 per hour. One publicized example was a big New York low income housing construction project. Lots of rennovations and building in that area. Lots of unemployed poor people wanted to be employed helping on this project. I.e. digging, moving debris, drilling, etc. But they weren't hired. Why? Because $10 per hour is too high to take a chance on someone without any experience. So the construction companies simply brought in people from other parts of town who had experience already and already proven reliability.

So if you really are interested in increasing poverty, by all means, support "living" wage laws. I don't, btw. have a problem with minimum wage as long as the wage is low enough not to affect hiring. It's already pushing the border line now though.

I have people at our company who started at barely above minimum wage because they had no experience whatsoever. They had to learn and be trained at what they do just like everyone else at some point does. But now, a few years later they make very good wages (well above the average salary in the United States). The free market is the best way to help provide opportunity to people.

Comments

Eric Hybner

on Feb 15, 2004

Gotta agree strongly here! I got my first job because I was volunteering in the organization and did good work. None of that good work would have done me any good at all, however, if the manager hadn't been able to convince the hospital's executive team to hire me at a ridiculously low wage (I was under age and had no prior employment experience). My move from customer support to R&D was similar. If the R&D VP was forced to pay me a certain rate because "that's what the position pays" then he would have had to hire someone with experience and I would probably still be in a customer-service management job somewhere instead of getting my own company off the ground. Go Free Markets!

Muggaz

on Feb 15, 2004

I like the cut of your jib Wardell...

I started where i currently am as a fresh faced youth with no experience whatsoever....

My friends thought i was an idiot, because i was doing a lot of work and still getting paid a pittance.

In 3 years i have more than doubled my original pay, and i have 3 years worth of valuable experience. People should be paid for what they are worth, not what the job is worth.

BAM!!!

Dark-Star

on Feb 16, 2004

It sounds good to me. It only makes sense to pay someone for what they are worth. Sounds like the honest thing to do for everyone. Why is it that some officials ignore this fact?

WiseFawn

on Feb 16, 2004

Exploring the Myth of the Free Market
By Marjorie Kelly "A truly natural free market would free all groups to compete equally, to have a chance to pursue their own self-interest, to have an opportunity for their voices to be heard and their needs considered. Real free markets are not about enshrining the self-interest of one group alone in law. Privilege like that has no place in a free market. Even in an imaginary one."

http://www.divinerightofcapital.com/newpage14.htm

Draginol

on Feb 16, 2004

Let's say the living wage was put up to $40,000. If companies were forced to pay that much, they would inevitably do one of two things:

1) Find Americans with more experience -- cutting out newcomers.

2) Farm it out overseas where such laws wouldn't apply.

Solitair

on Feb 17, 2004

I don't agree with a living wage but I do agree with a minimum rate.

What's the difference?

Well a living wage is a localised arbitary setting designed to ensure that someone can live where they want to live. As mentioned above, this creates all sorts of market skewing problems and doesn't actually fix any problems. It automatically makes that location less competitive compared to the rest of the country and will results in loss of jobs, jobs given to outsides (who don't mneed the same living wage) and maximising the experience for the wage (less 1st time jobs).

A minimum rate sets a national hourly rate which employers must pay their workers. It is designed to protect the lowest tier of workers by eliminating exploitation and making the hiring of immigrant or illegal workers as expensive as American workers. It has been shown (in many European countries) not to cause the loss of any jobs but to in fact encourage employment due to it's transparency for worker-employer relations. If set too high though it again causes market skewing effects and so should be at a fairly low level and at a national implementation.

Paul.

Wahkonta Anathema

on Feb 17, 2004

This is just plainly not true as presented Brad. The living wage is effective. The flight of capital to poverty in foreign lands is caused by NAFTA and GATT, the New World Order agenda, not Americans who support Americans. The living wage cancels out the need for welfare on such a massive basis, and all its services, thus cutting the tax burden on all. It is otherwise poor families doing for themselves, a argument you seem to support vehemently and consistently. It adds revenue and 'buying' power to a community, which then adds to opportunities to new business entering the community. Far more effective than a 150.00 check called a tax dividend, refund, whatever, as it adds revenue for all on a week by week basis(something banks can loan on), which you'd surely defend as a very good thing since Bush did it.

I hope you'll do more reading in this area as it is far preferable to the minimum wage system, which holds down revenue flow and 'institutionalizes' profit to the Corporate owners. Corporations can't control a living wage and so it is anathema, but it is definitely good for Americans. Coupled with a repeal of NAFTA and GATT, we could have a thriving nation of decreasing poor, instead of the precipitous increase as things are now. You want government out of peoples lives, then get the minimum wage eliminated and let people get their due. such people, as your supporters here attest, have no need for hand-outs.

I could go on, but hope you read on ths important social issue more as it will occur eventually, or we're all lost to the NWO as they plan for us to be equal slaves with the third world. Who sees it otherwise, as if things are going as they are with wages by chance and un-controlled market influences.

Draginol

on Feb 17, 2004

I don't agree with a living wage but I do agree with a minimum rate.

What's the difference?

Principle for one thing. A living wage pre-supposes that the government knows how much we need to live on. That's mommyism at its worst. Whereas, a minimum wage, as long as it is kept very low, simply provides a base amount that businesses can work from.

As for Wahkonta's rant: I hate to tell you this but there is no such thing as truth by proclaimation. Arrogance is not a substitute for facts, Wah. I always find it amusing when someone will come onto a pretty clearly written argument and dismiss it as "Oh you haven't done your homework, you're wrong, you're ignorant, you need to get your facts straight." Oh, how convincing.

Solitair

on Feb 18, 2004

That was a retorical question

but I agree with your answer. Minimum (to protect the workforce from unscupulous employer abuse) I agree with, 'living' (to set an accepted standard) I don't.

Paul.

messybuu

on Feb 18, 2004

I don't see the living wage decreasing the poor. If anything, it'll place more of the populace into poverty because corporations would do what Brad said (unless we have the government decide who corporations hire and fire). How else would they still remain profitable? Of course, they could always lower the wages of everybody else in their businesses so that everybody makes the same wage, despite the difference in jobs. That would be great when a high school dropout could make as much money as a janitor as somebody with a PhD.

Solitair

on Feb 19, 2004

In the UK many trademen (plumbers, builders, electricians) can easily make as much as a PhD. They don't need a high school education to become trademens. People seldom do a PhD to make money.

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!