Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But we also have felonies for non-violent initiations of force, i.e. white collar crimes such as embezzlement, fraud, treason, etc. And what do these white collar crimes again have in common? They are all initiations of force, be it financial, contractual, privacy, etc against another person or group of people. And once again, we all pretty much agree that the initiation of the force is bad, while the retaliation (restitution, fines, punitive damages, etc) are all proper, as it should be with replying to an assault.
This is a really inconsistent and selective philosophy. Why should embezzlement be a crime, rather than falling under caveat emptor? Why can you force someone into virtual servitude by threatening the physical welfare of their family, and that's just "the market at work", but skimming a little money off the top deserves bringing the dreaded Initiation of Force to bear?
My only argument is for minimum wage to be the minimum amount needed for subsistence without taxpayer subsidy. We have economists to figure out the numbers as to what it would be.
My gut feeling as of now leans to $12-$14 / hour or so currently, but like I said an economist could figure that out better than me.
Why should the wage for a high school kid living at home with his/her parents be high enough to live on?
Then what does your gut say about the person living in Manhattan, Menlo Park/Palo Alto, or NW Washington DC? What if they have kids? Just tell me what your gut says. What's a liveable wage for them?
Why should wages have anything to with the family status of the worker? A single person and a parent of two doing the same job with the same skills should be paid the same.
Why should wages have anything to with the family status of the worker? A single person and a parent of two doing the same job with the same skills should be paid the same.
I get that. I was begging the question because the person I was asking seems to think a person's family life should force their boss to give them better wages. I argue against that, but was using a debate tactic to elicit a response. The person I was asking dodged it of course, since the answer would weaken their argument.
I get that. I was begging the question because the person I was asking seems to think a person's family life should force their boss to give them better wages. I argue against that, but was using a debate tactic to elicit a response. The person I was asking dodged it of course, since the answer would weaken their argument.
I don't think minimum wage is really the best tool for ensuring the welfare of children. I think a modest stipend per child would work better. But that is even less politically realistic than increasing the min wage, and requires people to buy into the idea that a society should care about children rather than punishing them for the sins of their parents.
This is a really inconsistent and selective philosophy. Why should embezzlement be a crime, rather than falling under caveat emptor? Why can you force someone into virtual servitude by threatening the physical welfare of their family, and that's just "the market at work", but skimming a little money off the top deserves bringing the dreaded Initiation of Force to bear?
It isn't inconsistent. Embezzlement is theft, it's just non-violent theft, as in it does not require physical force against a person to occur. And while your euphemism of "skimming a little off the top" tries to make theft sound like no big deal, it doesn't redefine the action, which is still theft. Only difference between a bank robber and an embezzler is the bank robber has the courage to do their stealing face to face.
Nobody is forced into virtual anything, and who besides the government is allowed to threaten the physical welfare of someone's family? We have a crime for that you know...it's called extortion (another crime the government is allowed to get away with that private citizens are not).
Setting a wage is not extortion because you are not required to take the job for the wage offered. Ever hear the term "you can't rape the willing?" Same thing here. If I agree to work job A for wage B, I am not being extorted because I always have the choice of saying no to the job and/or wage. And agreeing to a low wage does not entitle you to ignore laws against things like theft. The street mugger feels entitled to what you have and demands it at gunpoint. Does using that stolen money to buy food justify the action?
Nothing justifies theft. Nothing. It is initiation of force against someone against their will to do them harm, and is immoral no matter how you try to justify it. That's we have laws against it. Those laws are designed to punish thieves and thereby protect the individual against theft. Again, we care about theft if individuals do the stealing, but we somehow could care less if the government does it. Government should have no rights or privileges that the ordinary citizen they serve do not possess. Individuals cannot steal, therefore government should not be allowed to either. Same for every initiation of force under the Sun.
36144 =
after tax dollars necessary to live in NYC MINIMUM
salary
Don't move somewhere you can't get a job that will pay you enough to live, and if you can't afford to live in a place, move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen811
if your business has no business affording the city min wages then MOVE OUT.
You can't afford it.
If people wouldn't accept jobs that don't pay enough to live, that will force the company to either raise pay or move somewhere they can find employees.
Once again, this comes back to supply and demand. If the supply of workers goes down and the demand is high, it will force employers to pay more.
BTW, our open borders make it much easier for businesses to be criminals and hire illegal workers which undercuts wages for legal citizens. If we secure the border and send employers who knowingly hire illegals to jail, wages will increase a little through market forces.
I don't think minimum wage is really the best tool for ensuring the welfare of children. I think a modest stipend per child would work better. But that is even less politically realistic than increasing the min wage, and requires people to buy into the idea that a society should care about children rather than punishing them for the sins of their parents.
Because otherwise, unsubsidized adults to have to live on that wage wouldn't be able to do so?
Trashing the economy to the point unsubsidized adult workers have to take minimum wage jobs has unintended consequences.
But, just think of how clean the environment is now.
At least in the USA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
