Smurf said:
:Okay, seriously though:
So the conservative position is that:
1. Minimum wage shouldn't be enough to live on
2. We recognize some people won't be worthy of making more than minimum wage
Thus,
3. Those people are not worthy of making enough to live on.
Can you please explain to me why someone would support this?
And I don't see the connection with "subsidizing mediocrity"...
Why? Because
not subsidising mediocrity encourages people to
choose NOT to be mediocre. It's the basic economics of supply and demand in a labor market. Motivation=demand. All people's motivation levels are different and if the government steps in and
gives people (or forces others to give - same diff) money they didn't earn, that reduces the motivation to earn it for themselves.
People make life-choices based on available wages all the time. The closest I ever got to minimum wage was when I was enlisted in the Navy and the military is a
perfect example of where motivation pays off. It was sad - pathetic even - the number of people who simply made no effort whatsoever to get promoted. For the lower ranks, all you have to do is get some training worksheets signed off and pass a test.
It applies to all levels, though: I have a friend who quit a job in advertising 3 years ago to work at the Camden Aquarium for 25% less money and no chance for upward mobility. He's turning 31 next week and has little chance of moving out of his parents' house in the near future. He's dissatisfied with his life, but too comfortable in his job to change.
Heck,
I'm a good example of lack of motivation. I have $24k from the GI bill that I can use to pay for a master's degree, but I haven't done it yet because I'm comfortable with my current life situation.
...why have a minimum wage at all?
In many parts of the country, it is utterly pointless to have a minimum wage. As others noted, not even 16 year old burger-flippers make minimum wage in many parts of the country. My first job (food service at a nursing home) paid $6.50 about 13 years ago and before I left high school, I was working as a temp for $9-13 an hour (job dependent).
Near as I can tell, the only economic basis of having a minimum wage in a market economy is just to cut off the bottom of the supply/demand curve, where things get a little chaotic. But the real reason we have it has nothing to do with economics: it's just something that politicians can make sound nice in a 30 second tv commercial.
Democratic candidates constantly proclaiming "raise the minimum wage!" in reality makes as much (little) sense as Republican ones who always proclaim "lower taxes!" Neither issue is anywhere near as straightforward as the soundbytes would lead you to believe.
arildno said:
Yes we are quite familiar of your celebration of the perpetuation and infliction of human misery.
Quite the contrary, arildno. The basis of my position is the acceptance of the reality that market economics is responsible for the economic growth in the world. I find it ironic and disturbing that so many people believe exactly the opposite about the conservative viewpoint from what it actually means: What I am celebrating is the
vast reduction in "human misery" caused by the successful implimentation of market economics.
The liberal viewpoint appears to me to be based primarily on oversimplification/shortsightedness. The logic is simply: raise the minimum wage and people will make more money. When is
anything ever that simple?
This is starting to seem political, but I wan to emphasize: the conservative position is based on
market economics. If ever there is a "correct" or "incorrect" position in politics (caveat: the evolution debate), this is it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage" has a nice article on it. The way economists describe it, it's a
price floor - the same as if the government artificially inflated the price of, say, produce (which it does). The difference is that an apple isn't capable of making itself bigger, redder, and shinier to improve it's value. But the bottom line is this:
The costs and benefits arising from minimum wages are subject to considerable disagreement among economists, though the consensus among economics textbooks is that minimum wage laws should be avoided whenever possible as the costs exceed the benefits. Indeed, a survey in the Winter 2005 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives reports that exactly two-thirds of academic economists at top universities agree with the statement, "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled."
My opinion differs slightly from the economists only in that mine is more focused on the detrimental effects it has on society and individuals in it. Overall, the economics of it has very little impact on our society as a whole because so few earn minimum wage, but the social impact for those in that situation is much larger. I simply hate to see people not live up to their potential and hate more seeing them rewarded for it. Its just bad parenting and everyone knows that spoiling your children makes them greedy and unmotivated. Right now, minimum wage increases have been so close to inflation that there hasn't been any data to show negative effects of increasing it too much. However, if we were to, as some imply we should, make the minimum wage a "living wage", that'd mean raising it above the poverty line. If we went on a sliding scale, the minimum wage for a single person would be about $4.50, while the minimum wage for a head of household in a family of four would be $9.20.
