Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

I read a report recently that raising the minimum wage to $15 has proved counterproductive in one city as far as helping people have a livable wage. A bunch of negative stuff resulted, including employers cut back on work hours. I don't know what the answer is, because it makes sense that people need a livable wage in order to be self-supporting. As it is, what happens is that the employer either doesn't want to pay or (especially in the case of small businesses) cannot afford to pay a livable wage, so the rest of society needs to pitch in to make up the difference with subsidized housing, food stamps, subsidized health care, child tax credits, and so on.

https://vtdigger.org/2017/10/17/david-f ... e4a1TtrzLA

The proponents of this "livable wage" theory seem to assume every job should pay a livable wage, whatever that means. As a former small business owner I can confirm that salaries are a major expense, and in most cases the major expense.

Expecting employers to pay a livable wage to people with little education & no jobs skills is unrealistic. Entry level jobs are necessary & an important element in the job market. What employer is going to pay a 16 year old kid $15 hr to sweep floors & empty trash. The fast food industry is the target in this livable wage debate.

The industry has already started to address the problem by automating their restaurants and that eliminates jobs. The free market place determines wages for specific jobs. If employers are required to pay a living wage for entry level jobs or unskilled workers they will find a way to eliminate those jobs.

The answer is for workers to obtain a job skill. I think some kids are obtaining meaningless college degrees when they should have attended a tech school so they could obtain a good paying blue color job. Plumbers, electricians, auto/airplane mechanics, computer techs, heat & air tech are just a few blue collar jobs that pay well.

An old joke. A new family moved in to the house next to a lawyer who lived in a $500,000 home. The new neighbors home was even more expensive, with expensive furniture, & a Mercedes, Porsche, & a Jaguar in the driveway.

The lawyer went over to meet his new neighbor and commented that his neighbors must have an extremely high paying job. Then he added, I'm a lawyer & even I can't afford a lifestyle like yours. His new neighbor smiled and replied, "I understand I couldn't afford this lifestyle either when I was a lawyer, that's why I went into the plumbing business!"

Cootie wrote: I think some kids are obtaining meaningless college degrees when they should have attended a tech school so they could obtain a good paying blue color job. Plumbers, electricians, auto/airplane mechanics, computer techs, heat & air tech are just a few blue collar jobs that pay well.

Good point. So maybe the focus should be more on affordable and useful education, rather than on a livable wage, as such.

I also think that some kids don't have school-type skills (sit quietly, take notes, etc) but could do well in a hands-on tech environment. But the program would need to start early, maybe in fifth grade, before kids drop out of school in frustration. The kids who drop out tend to choose a path outside the law for their future, which is more costly in the long run for society than providing affordable, timely tech education.

Cooties comments are spot on. The last 20 years of my career I was a plant manager with 1,000 + employees. My budget the year I retired was $62,000,000. So I know a little bit about the subject. You can only pay so much for certain tasks to be performed. It is just common sense that if you raise your operating costs your selling prices will have to be adjusted upwards. Therefore there is only a temporary positive benefit to the employee. Soon they will need another adjustment to make a "livable wage". It will be a never-ending upward spiral. As Cootie said, this isn't the solution.

And whether we like it or not, there will always be a stratified socio-economic scale. There will always be those on the bottom rungs. I have very mixed feelings about societies obligation to take care of them. Our current wellfare system is a result of our effort to fulfill this supposed obligation and I don't like what I see. I believe we should help provide the opportunity for those on the lower rungs to improve themselves but I'm not for "taking care" of them.

I am not disagreeing with tarheel or cootie. What I do want to share is a couple of observations.

One, several of these places with the $15 minimum wage have state income taxes. In Texas businesses have to pay their income tax at least four times a year. With a little research from the state you should be able to see easily what these businesses can afford and what they cannot statistically speaking. Of course they are not going to be able to name names of individual businesses or what they are bringing in but state government can collect information from the mass of these tax reports and have a good idea what businesses can actually pay. .Second, I wonder if this cutting back on hours claiming it is because of the $15 an hour minimun wage is really the truth. Business people get together and come up wth all kinds of dishonest plans to further their goals behind the scenes. They may be getting together and cutting back hours and so forth not really because they have to but because they want the money coming to them they would still have if the minumum wage was $7.55 or $8 or whatever. They may still be very profitable but just not as much money coming to the owner as they want. They think if they cut back hours or don't hire the people who passed the law will be forced to give in and lower the minimum wage back down. It may be some sort of planned subversion or it may not be. Again, I simply do not see the law being passed about the $15 minimal wage if the people making it in government did not have evidence most businesses could afford it.

And whether we like it or not, there will always be a stratified socio-economic scale. There will always be those on the bottom rungs. I have very mixed feelings about societies obligation to take care of them. Our current wellfare system is a result of our effort to fulfill this supposed obligation and I don't like what I see. I believe we should help provide the opportunity for those on the lower rungs to improve themselves but I'm not for "taking care" of them.

What do you think we should do then?

B.H. wrote:

And whether we like it or not, there will always be a stratified socio-economic scale. There will always be those on the bottom rungs. I have very mixed feelings about societies obligation to take care of them. Our current wellfare system is a result of our effort to fulfill this supposed obligation and I don't like what I see. I believe we should help provide the opportunity for those on the lower rungs to improve themselves but I'm not for "taking care" of them.

What do you think we should do then?

Adhere to the principle that force is wrong. Physical force or force of law that compels an individual to do something against their judgement is fundamentally immoral. Governments should create laws that respect those principles. When individuals are free to choose without regard to how the government will impose on those decisions with taxes, penalties or regulations then this concept of a livable wage will be a thing of the past. If all are truly equal in the eyes of the law (not ability) then no individual or government should be allowed to force a person to live on minimum wage for most of their life. Then creativity can flourish and be rewarded.

Really, why would a talented young lady in Mississippi need a license to "do hair" if she is very good at braiding hair and can get paid well to do it? The government is using force to regulate competition and picking the winner because those who can afford to go to school and get the license are only "legally" able to provide that service. This has since been changed but that type of discrimination happens across the board of all types of services people want to provide.

gordie91 wrote:

B.H. wrote:

And whether we like it or not, there will always be a stratified socio-economic scale. There will always be those on the bottom rungs. I have very mixed feelings about societies obligation to take care of them. Our current wellfare system is a result of our effort to fulfill this supposed obligation and I don't like what I see. I believe we should help provide the opportunity for those on the lower rungs to improve themselves but I'm not for "taking care" of them.

What do you think we should do then?

Adhere to the principle that force is wrong. Physical force or force of law that compels an individual to do something against their judgement if fundamentally immoral. Governments should create laws that respect those principles. When individuals are free to choose without regard to how the government will impose on those decisions with taxes, penalties or regulations then this concept of a livable wage will be a thing of the past. If all are truly equal in the eyes of the law (not ability) then no individual or government should be allowed to force a person to live on minimum wage for most of their life. Then creativity can flourish and be rewarded.

Really, why would a talented young lady in Mississippi need a license to "do hair" if she is very good at braiding hair and can get paid well to do it? The government is using force to regulate competition and picking the winner because those who can afford to go to school and get the license are only "legally" able to provide that service. This has since been changed but that type of discrimination happens across the board of all types of services people want to provide.

Part of the reasons for the licensing is revenue generation on the state and local level. The other part is regulating professionals which I have no problem with. I am also a CPA and I don't want just anyone to be able to hold them-self out as an accounting professional. Same for physicians. I do think that in some cases regulating the "professional" aspect has been taken a little too far.

I think the minimum wage should be $9 for part time and $19 an hour for full time. And businesses are only allowed to have 20% of staff be part time. Also a person can only remain part time for up to 18 months until they are offered a full time job or they have to leave unless they choose to remain part time willingly. This allows the entry level, teenagers, and the unskilled to at least get a start in life by getting a part time job but then not to be held back forever once they prove themselves capable. No payroll taxes should be taken on the first $15,000 of gross earnings.

tarheel wrote: Part of the reasons for the licensing is revenue generation on the state and local level. The other part is regulating professionals which I have no problem with. I am also a CPA and I don't want just anyone to be able to hold them-self out as an accounting professional. Same for physicians. I do think that in some cases regulating the "professional" aspect has been taken a little too far.

Revenue for what? More rights violating laws and regulation and people to enforce and dream up? Government needs only to have an army to protect the citizens from external forces, law courts to settle disputes between individuals and police to protect citizens from each other using force.

Contracts can stipulate voluntary actions by which each party must adhere to and if there is a violation of the contract the law courts can come into play. One possible way to pay for the law courts is to agree to a certain percentage of the contract to be paid to the courts in the event of a dispute. If no dispute, the courts have just made some dough.

I contract with an accountant to account for my money, if he fails in honoring the contract I will have standing with the court. I do not need him to help me get all my deductions on my taxes because there wouldn't be any. If he is good and deals honestly he should profit well, if not he shouldn't profit. Why does some government entity that receives taxes (received by force of law) have the right to regulate and create rules by which to prevent some from working as an accountant?

J.D. Rockefeller wasn't a CPA, he started as an accountant apprentice at sixteen, would he be a good accountant to hire? My son, who is a CPA, stated to me recently that his Masters Degree was worthless and that he learned more working at a large firm than he had in the class room of a major university.

Just a thought from a mean ole objectivist