because some people's skills sets and abilities allow them demand a higher wage while others do a job that the employer wants them to realize is important (paying more to garner reverence for the position) and to set up a sort of stratified workforce pitting employee against employee keeping the masses of proletariats' eyes off the proverbial grand prize, which the employers generally possess.
... then again i'm butting in the conversation so....
You're not butting in bruh.... everyone is welcome to discuss this here. Please elaborate on what you've said above.... I'm interested.
I think we're in agreement on that, the competitive realities lie in the amount of value a potential employee can bring to an operation.
If minimum wage is set at $7/hour, what happens if someone with no skills / no experience, is worth only $4/hour? Well, currently, since there is competition for jobs (9% unemployment) they get screwed and don't receive a job. This could be viewed as a discriminatory law because it denies people the oppurtunity to work & be productive if they don't have the necessary skills. If they could just get a job at $4/hour then they could acquire the skills / experience to work their way up, increase their value & accumulate capital. The monetary system must also be stable but thats another thread.
Why do you think we no longer have full service gas stations? Because pumping someone's gas is an extremely low value service, and it isn't worth it to the gas company to pay minimum wage to hire an attendant. It might be a worthwhile competitive advantage for a gas station to hire someone at $2/hour to perform the service, but the gas station isn't a charity and has to value the cost of labor versus the benefit it will receive. The only places we have people pumping gas for you are places where State law mandates that you cannot pump your own gas!
My point is still; You can not mandate a wage because you can not productivity / the value an individual adds to a job. I've yet to see how a minimum wage could be viewed in a positive light.
Here's the thing Lamarr.... when we're talking about minimum wage we have to take for granted that we're talking about the lowest-skill jobs. Flipping burgers, wiping toilet seats, bussing tables etc etc... by their very nature these jobs command the lowest wages, require the least skill and generate the least productive capacity. It's important to be clear about this. From a business standpoint perhaps an owner decides that flipping a burger is really worth $2.75 an hour. Now, when talking about these (admittedly) very low skill (and let's face it... undesirable jobs) there is an element of power wielded by business to set wages that are exploitative.... I mean can anyone live on $2.75 an hour? Who can really argue that in fact "NO!! flipping a burger is really worth $6.65... $1.95... $3.33" etc etc? Perhaps the job is really worth $4.45 but the owner decides that $3.65 is better for his top-line even when his burger flipping employees are flipping the hell out those burgers with extreme precision and due diligence
lol
.... what then? This notion that employers are cheated out of productivity by setting a floor on wages in this country is patently absurd. The truth is that we need to have this wage floor to prevent exploitation (which, contrary to your textbook econ comments, happens to be a historical reality in this country) and ensure that people aren't living like slum denizens in Calcutta.
Again the idea that "hey unemployment is high if we eliminate the minimum wage employers will start hiring for roles that they couldn't afford due to oppressive gov intervention and low skill workers can earn some kind of income!!!
" is unreasonably optimistic and assumes a level of good faith and honest dealing from businesses/corporations that strains credulity. Remember, I have history on my side.... you have theory.
In terms of the self service example you gave I'm afraid it misses the mark. I had to read up about this because I was unfamiliar with the specifics but it appears that two states mandate against self service. In one (New Jersey) the self service ban was actually lobbied for by gas station owners
eek
and in another (Oregon) full service is seen as a unique cultural institution which voters were unwilling to give up. No big-bad government narrative here.
Hey Sharkbait, Libertarianism Is Not Stupid As Fuck.
To understand libertarianism, you must realize why the initiation of coercive force is never an option to affect social change.
Sorry Lamarr I have to disagree. I understand Libertarianism just fine.... infact I could argue convincingly on it's behalf. I just happen to think it's really...
really dumb.
In your estimation government is the only "power" capable of "coercive force" and "social change". This is a really incomplete analysis. Corporate power is another equally coercive locus of power. One in which we have no say. To exclude this reality from the equation is hopelessly naive... and it's one of my biggest beefs with Libertarianism as a political philosophy.
I have no problem with business, capitalism, freedom or liberty but I understand government has it's place too.
Every relationship is about power the question is where does power originate. The belief that 'all Men are created equal endowed by our Maker with inalienable rights' has to be a scientific fact or the Founding Fathers wouldn't have went to war for the belief.
Interesting point. Please elaborate.
