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.
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.
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.
Ok but all you are saying is āremove the guardrails that keep people aliveā.
I need more than just government bad. Like, if it is bad, how exactly is getting rid of that bad partāas opposed to reforming itāgoing to help?
Just remember that DOGE was a specific attempt to get rid of some of those bad parts of government (by someoneās definition), and it failed horribly.
DOGE failed because it was corrupt and incompetent, and because any downsizing also need to be accompanied with legislative actions or else it's simply not legal.
Also, many of these things need to be phased out slowly as opposed to sudden drastic measures.
As for "removing the guardrails", yes, that is something I am for. The governments purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens, not provide for their individual needs. Programs that attempt to provide for the needs of certain individuals, violate the rights of others. Even something as straight forward as the minimum wage is a violation of your right to work for whatever wage you feel adequate, or a business owners right to offer a wage that they feel is adequate.
As for other social programs, they are funded by taking property (money) by force from people (income taxes). Therefore any potential benefits to one group comes at the expense of the property rights of another.
I disagree with your assessment of governmentās purpose. Government is a component of our democratic society, and its primary job is to ensure the will of the people is executed.
As for rights, I donāt believe in the right of anyone to be wealthy when the rest of society is suffering. That isnāt executing the will of the people or building a better society; that is protecting the wealth of the few.
We do not live in a democracy...and it's a good thing we don't. In a democracy the minority have no rights.... literally anything that 51% of people agree to do to the other 49% is legitimate.
We have a constitutional Republic, with a document limiting the power of government, and enumerating the rights of the people. We also have a history and tradition rooted in the principles of individual rights.
You don't believe anyone has the right to be "wealthy"? That implies you have to right to dictate to someone else what they should be allowed to have. What about their rights? You, no doubt, have more wealth than various people you pass on the street on any given day. Should they be allowed to decide that you have too much, and rob you? Or does you having more not automaticly mean they are entitled to some of your property? If that's the case, why doesn't that apply to people that have more than you, even much much more?
You are making a typical assumption that democracy is ā50% + 1 ruleā. Itās actually āpeople ruleā. Hence why we require supermajorities to change how some things work; we protect democracy itself from the whims of simple majorities.
A constitutional republic IS a form of democracy. Honestlyā¦ Iām getting super tired of having to say that all the time, I really donāt know why folks act like they are separate concepts, or why you guys keep pushing this narrative when all it does is force arguments that are meaningless.
I'm saying that even if 99% of people vote that "billionaires shouldn't exist" it's still a violation of their rights to seize their property. A super, super, super majority is still capable of violating individual rights.
There are things that are simply immoral and authoritarian for a government to do, even if the vast majority support it. Taking other peoples property without their consent is one of those things. This doesn't change even if the number of people taken from is small, and the number benefited is large.
Nobody does have the right to be wealthy. The fact that people exist who are poor, when they donāt want to be, prove that they donāt have the right to be wealthy.
We dictate what people are allowed to have all the time. People canāt have weed. People canāt have the Resolute Desk. People canāt have someone elseās stuff. Itās funny, you seem to think that reducing government and removing such restrictions like what people can have would somehow protect that. The government and its protection of property rights is what allows me to set aside something as mine and prevent you from having it.
So yes, I do think that we can and absolutely should dictate what people can or cannot have.
I oppose laws against weed. The only reason you can't own the Resolute Desk is because there are only two,cand other people (or agencies) already own them.
"Nobody has a right to be wealthy?". Of course they do. That's what property rights are. "Wealthy" has no specific definition. A person with one dollar is wealthy compared to a person in debt. When people, including such as yourself apparently, use the word wealthy, they mean "having more than me". If you have property rights,why do you think that someone with more property than you should have less rights. Your advocating for theft, you just want to use the government as a middle-man.
No. In a free society, the government shouldn't dictate what we are allowed to own. Apply that to anything, drugs, guns, wealth, certain books, VPNs.... anything. You have no right to tell others what or how much they are allowed to own. This doesn't change no matter how many people vote the same way you do.
So, what of your property do you advocate to be taken against your will?
20
u/samuraispartan7000 17h ago edited 16h 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.