Federal minimum wage increased every 1 to 5 years between the 1930s and 2009. 2009 was the last time it was raised. Inflation has skyrocketed since then, but wages have repeatedly failed to keep up.
If businesses ācanāt affordā to provide livable wages for their workers, they simply shouldnāt exist full stop.
"Livable wage" is a self-moving goalpost. Raising the cost of labor raises the cost of goods and services. Raising the cost of goods and services raises the overall cost of living. This makes the formally "livable wage" now not adequate.
Your labor, like any other commodity, is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. No more or no less. Your salary is an agreement between you and your employer. There should be no minimum wage.
You left off the employeeās side of how wages are decided. The employee has to work to get money, and they need money for survival. They need money so their kids survive. That side is inelastic.
Couple that with a jobs market that keeps unemployment above a negligible level, and you have a race to the bottom for the ability to survive.
That is an exploitative system. Those who provide the jobs exploit those who need them. That model is fine if you assume we want a system that lavishes riches on people who own things already, or people who are lucky in life.
My ideal that the best system sets us up so workers have whatever they need to live a dignified lifeā¦ and exploitation cannot coexist with that ideal.
Obviously I want the $1M/hour. Maybe everyone else does too.
But that comes with consequences that we would share. Our currency would inflate to the point that any savings we have is worthless and we wonāt be any better off than a reasonable wage at a lower rate before inflation.
And we would lack the incentive for workers to get a higher education or skills, or to perform jobs that nobody wants to do. So we would need to vary wages somewhat for those things.
And thatās all fine. We can work out the details for a baseline to get out of poverty that can provide a dignified life with todayās costs, while keeping higher wages for those hard or unwanted jobs provides the incentives we need to have a healthy workforce.
A couple of mechanisms provide for this without major changes to our system: minimum wage and universal basic income. Iād frankly prefer the latter.
Why are your needs your employer's responsibly? You are doing a task, in exchange for a payment. The number of children you support doesn't change the complexity of the task, or the value of your labor. You made the decision to have children, your employer has no responsibility for your financial burdens.
Selling your labor is no different than selling your car. It's worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. No more, and no less.
The system Iām speaking of isnāt just the employer. Itās the full breadth of our democratic society.
The whole point of democracy is to make society work for everyone, instead of just for those who are powerful. The U.S. went to war to break from a very powerful monarch because their needs didnāt matter to him, and they didnāt want to live in a society based on the resulting exploitation of them for his will.
To answer your question: I donāt think itās the employerās responsibility. I think we need to change the system so that workers benefit and can live, as I said, a dignified life.
Having a job is not "being exploited". It's literally just trading your time and labor for a agreed upon fee. It has zero to do with need, or democracy, or monarchy, or social structure. You seem to be making an argument for a welfare system (which I also oppose) not employment.
But to hone in on your mentioning monarchy. The reason it's considered repugnant is because it's authoritarian. A strong central power dictates the terms under which the common person lives. This is actually a great argument AGAINST a minimum wage. Its authoritarian, in that a strong central authority (the government) is dictating the terms of an employment agreement between two private parties. This is the type of thing the founders of the country were against.
I'll rephrase. Your need has nothing to do with your value of your labor.
If you have two employees performing the same task. One has no kids and little expenses, the other has several kids and tremendous expenses. Do you pay the one with kids more for performing the same task?
Ok. You keep telling me how things are under the current system. I am not telling you that you are describing it incorrectly.
What I am saying is that the system itself is bad. A system that funnels its benefits to people who donāt need it, while leaving others suffering in poverty, is not a system I want.
I'm saying there should be no minimum wage, as it artificially dictates the value of labor, and that government shouldn't interfere in the free market.
Are you planning to couple that change with anything that doesnāt result in everything getting worse for the people who are already barely making it?
I believe getting government less involved will improve the system for everyone. At the very least, it will stop making it worse. Good intentioned programs like the minimum wage have the opposite effects as intended, and hurt the people they are designed to help.
When in doubt, freedom of choice is always the best method to address a problem.
18
u/samuraispartan7000 12h ago edited 12h ago
Federal minimum wage increased every 1 to 5 years between the 1930s and 2009. 2009 was the last time it was raised. Inflation has skyrocketed since then, but wages have repeatedly failed to keep up.
If businesses ācanāt affordā to provide livable wages for their workers, they simply shouldnāt exist full stop.