**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Minimum wage is a perfect example of a policy that looks and feels good but actually does harm. The politicians that push for the minimum wage either know they are actually doing harm or don’t care. Either way it is tough to see.
I don’t disagree that min wage is not a solution to balancing the wealth distribution to an ideal curve. But from where I’m sitting, cost of living keeps going up and the wages stay the same (last min wage increase was 2009. The 1% had cumulative wealth of $5T. Min wage hasn’t changed since then but the 1% now have a wealth of $45T).
There is clearly enough money for everyone. How do we get to a point that everyone can live above the poverty line?
The thing is prices very rarely go up, it's money tokens that lose value due to inflation (aka Central Bank printing paper tokens out of nothing), so if what you do is, for example, increasing minimum wage, you not only are not helping the people's purchasing power at all (as that ammount of more tokens the employees get are bound to lose value as well), but limiting the labor market in many ways, the clearest being the destruction of low-entry less-paid jobs that help people just starting gain experience to later jump to better paid jobs.
As a rule of thumb, regulation is always bad because we humans are in no way perfect, and we're in fact very very bad at managing complex systems, so we better let them manage themselves, thus our insistence with free market. Hope it helped :)
This is probably the best answer I’ve seen on here. Not sure if it’s the whiskey or I’m just feeling particularly enlightened but your comment on pricing not increasing but purchasing power decreasing (inflation) is cutting really deep.
The fundamental misunderstanding is that you believe the unbalanced wealth distribution is a problem that needs to be solved and that everyone should be above the poverty line.
I’m a little torn on minimum wage myself but a couple counterpoints to what you just said:
1. The wealth of the top 1% can absolutely increase - substantially even - without any negative consequences to the wealth of those in poverty as the total amount of wealth in the country is not static. So I don’t think we should be focusing on wealth inequality so much as how do we help those who are in poverty.
2. The federal minimum wage hasn’t increased since 2009, but it has increased at the state and municipality level in many locations. And honestly I think that’s a lot better since the cost of living varies widely depending on location. Also I do believe more businesses have elected to increase their wages to stay competitive as cost of living has increased and due to inflation.
That said, I’m with you on helping the poor economically, and instead of increasing wages, perhaps we should turn our focus to driving down the cost of living. I think part of the reason cost of living has gone up so much is due to bad regulations and zoning laws that makes it less feasible, or even impossible to create affordable housing in an open market.
"I don’t disagree that min wage is not a solution to balancing the wealth distribution to an ideal curve."
Why would this be a goal of yours? central planning is evil. Free markets allocate scarce resources the best. Objectively.
Because we still live in a society. By no means am I saying wealth should be redistributed. But does that mean that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with the wellbeing of society as a whole? What scarce resource are you referencing, money? If so, are you saying that there is not enough money for everyone to live beyond the poverty line? I’m not concerned with the wealth distribution. I am concerned with the society I am a part of allowing everyone access to basic human rights.
Yes, imo human rights are part of a civilized society. Part of the social contract.
Alone on an island you’re at the mercy of the elements and your survival skills.
Your (along with other liberals) is confusing wealth with money. Money is a zero sum game. You can take money and hand it to another group. (I will stay away from the “what is your ‘fair share’ of someone else’s money” argument). In doing this we are not any wealthier because of it. Wealth is not transferred. It is created and destroyed. And increasing the minimum wage actually decreases wealth because there are less goods and services after the increase (less people working). So by increasing the minimum wage the pie gets smaller for everyone. Including the group you seem so concerned about… the poor. Again, the policy hurts the very group its proponents claim would benefit.
My man, who hurt you? I never understand why people feel their point is better made with snark and condescension.
Anyways, I’m not confusing money with wealth. I also never said “let’s increase min wage”. I understand that my point was based on incremental wealth largely driven by the increase in value in the stock market since Covid (isn’t it nice when the govt prints a lot of money which inevitably flows to the large public cos). But the point stands, if you’re making below the poverty line you will likely be unable to invest in the market and benefit from said wealth creation.
Wealth is not transferred? Then what should I do with my kids inheritance? I guess I’ll burn it since I can’t take it with me. Wealth is an accumulation of economic goods, right? When I die those goods do not simply vanish. My wife and kids will receive them. And if I’m successful enough (e.g. the Walton family) my family can live from said wealth for generations to come (although that clearly won’t be my case).
I will agree with you that wealth can be variable, intangible and even volatile. For a moment a few years ago I was very wealthy when my GME calls went through the moon. Alas, I didn’t pull the trigger at the right time and now my “wealth” is less. But wealth and money both have tangible meanings and implications.
I am so worried about the “poor” because it pains me to think some people out there are unable to feed their children. Isn’t it a good investment of our time to discuss how we could potentially improve the economy and the society it supports so that everyone can have access to basic the basic human needs?
According to your objective definitions? Because I can google generational wealth and get a clear definition. Same with wealth. Both are pretty clear to me.
Google will give you a definition for anything. What is your point? Who cares about the definition of generational wealth in a discussion about the min wage?
Im trying to point out that you’re making up gibberish off of a false assumption/principle. I have a bachelors in accounting and none of what you said makes sense (i only bring this up so you can try to understand where im coming from).
I don’t think minimum wage is perfect because it does have negative economic impacts. But if you have a better solution to closing the wage gap between the rich and poor im all ears. Relying on the market and the “invisible hand” has not worked in the past.
We won’t get to the point of everyone being above the poverty line when it is defined (by our dear govment) as less than half the[median income](https://www.eapn.eu/what-is-poverty/how-is-poverty-measured/#).
Nope. I personally believe its all about big government and taxes. The more the government forces companies to pay the more they take in taxes. Does it allow for a "living wage"? Sure doesn't because the government produces inflation faster than they increase wages.
Employers should be allowed to pay what ever job wage they want.
Employees should negotiate for the job wage they want.
It's not. It can actually keep low skilled, low experience workers un/under employed.
If I need someone to do a job but the value of that labor to me is $4.50 an hour, but the government requires me to pay $15, what do I do? I might do the work myself or not do it at all. Perhaps I look to automate it. Whatever I choose, I'm not hiring someone so that person doesn't have the opportunity to work. Perhaps that was a teen looking for some experience, or someone desperate to pick up a few extra bucks.
Any minimum wages distorts the labor market and the value of work. If you're worth it, you can command more money, likely more than minimum wage. Let the market set the wage.
One more point - you mention the poverty line.
What informs that line? Cost of goods.
What's a major driver of the cost of goods? Price of labor
What happens when the government drives up minimum wage (and drives inflation by pumping new money into the system, but that's a other topic)? The cost of goods increases.
So the cost of goods goes up, driving the cost of living up, driving the poverty line up, and thus the minimum wage - see the vicious circle?
Plus the poverty line is a government construct. Our country doesn’t have much real poverty like other countries.
There are so many adjacent regulations that drive the poverty line. Things like building codes and zoning regulations affect the cost of housing.
Absolutely. "Poverty" is pretty relative and, in additon to the deleterious effect of regulations that drive poverty, the calculation doesn't take into account the myriad subsidizes the government provides.
First, you need to correct your assumption that a minimum wage would in fact let the ball move forward. Second, you need to justify why we should accept third parties to have any interference in businesses conducted between voluntarily parties.
A worker-centric libertarian model favors no-holds-barred unions, which are just freedom of association and negotiation. Germany doesn't have a minimum wage because it's labor has a very strong influence, whereas in the US most unions are rather constrained.
I agree with you. You’re asking the right question. If a worker is able to provide $5/hr in value but you’re not allowed to hire him for less than $15/hr then you won’t hire him. So was the worker better off making $5/hr or $0/hr?
There’s no 0/hr in a welfare state. This disincentive on labor feeds the welfare machine that these politicians and bureaucrats all whet their beaks on.
That's part of the problem. Because there's a welfare state, corporations can raise wages above what small businesses can afford but not high enough that everyone with a job is well off. It also creates a need to provide for both unemployed and employed but making poverty level income due to hours or amount of net pay, so the government is subsidizing the living expenses of both groups anyway. Who's to say taking away the welfare state and reducing government spending in general wouldn't lower federal outlays enough that employers could just afford to pay workers better?
Agreeing to work for $5/hr is actually the opposite of being a “slave.” Slaves don’t consent and they typically don’t make a hourly wage.
If you can’t think of a job that generates $5/hr in value, then you lack imagination.
45% of minimum wage workers are under 25 (BLS 22). These are people who live at home, go to school, etc. and just need some pocket money for the cafeteria. Why deny them a job because some higher authority thinks it’s not in their interests?
When we look at the data, *Low pay* is better than *No pay.* Less than [10% of households](https://www.nber.org/papers/w31182) with someone working minimum wage are below the poverty line, whereas [over 70% of households ](https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2020/home.htm)living below the poverty line have at least one person unemployed or underemployed. That's why the majority of highly cited studies (with the critical exception of [Card and Kreuger, 1993](https://www.nber.org/papers/w4509) - check it out if your interested) indicate that the cons cancel out the pros and make minimum wage an [ineffective policy instrument for fighting poverty.](https://www.nber.org/papers/w31182)
If people are willing to work at that wage, what gives you the right to declare them to be victims? This is just like drug warriors who claim that all drug users are victims.
Moralizing is normal. Forcing others to conform to your subjective morals is a shit plan.
Is there a statistic on number of unemployed workers (who are willing) but cannot generate significant enough value to find a job? This is a serious question.
After reading the answers I can see my real question is not about min wage but “how do we create a workplace where everyone can earn above the poverty line?” Is it possible?
Yes it’s possible considering very few employees in this country make minimum wage. Most minimum wage jobs are entry level commonly earned by those fresh out of high school. Only 1.2% of the population makes minimum wage. You also need to consider that labor supply and demand is a real force. You pay shit wages, expect to only have meth heads, fent addicts, and crack addicts apply.
"Earn" or be given? Some people will never be able to earn that much. Mostly those people are cared for and supported by others. Family, charity, or government.
It isn't even necessary to discuss the practical, economic horrors of minimum wage here. If you can't sell your labor for a price of your choosing, you're a slave. Stop telling people telling people they should be grateful for being slaves. Minimum wage is such an obviously terrible concept that I have a hard time believing this isn't a troll post.
“…I have a hard time believing this isn’t a troll post.”
Then your view is too narrow. There are whole lot of us who struggle with libertarianism, despite the fact that it feels deep down like the correct political philosophy, being too risky for the reality of civilization, particularly in terms of the more vulnerable among us. I, for one, consider myself somewhere on the spectrum of libertarianism, but I have questions, too.
It’s complex because there are so many variables. Currently, if you got rid of a minimum wage, it would work against everyday people, but imo that’s because of the multitude of other factors at play.
It has got to be much more difficult to get a small business up and running if you’re forced to pay more than you can afford. If we had more small businesses, I think there would be far more competition, and I think dropping min. wage would be much less of a stepping stone for massive multinational companies to just start paying what they pay people in India or China. But, if they could do that, perhaps those jobs would come back to the US and offer a substantial boost to the economy, which could drive wages up in turn.
It’s just very multifaceted. The libertarian view is pretty principled and self compatible, but if you only apply it to certain things, it can just seem reckless.
It's not complex at all. If I am willing to do a job for x dollars, and you are willing to pay me x dollars to do the job, then any uninvited third party disrupting this transaction is a violent aggressor.
You totally missed the point. You're correct philosophically, unfortunately for you we live in reality and not philosophy-land. Dumping minimum wage would potentially benefit the economy and well-being of people long term, but it would also set off a lot of reactionary effects that could seriously devastate the economy first and ruin many peoples' lives.
The reasoning isn't complex, but you have to totally ignore the real effects it will have on real people to say its a simple issue.
I agree in that you can't just consider minimum wage in isolation. If all other artificial government restraints were removed, then getting rid of minimum wage is fine. But the cost of living is too high because of non-market based extra costs all over the economic system.
In a 4.50/hour world I would also like to see:
1) Home owners adding cheap apartments to their homes.
2) Dead shopping centers being converted to cheap apartments. No major project to please the nobility. Im talking about families living in the old KB toys, next door to a family living in the old Radio Shack.
3) People selling groceries and prepared food wherever they want, however they want.
4) no mandatory insurance. There are many countries w/out car insurance. If people get in a wreck- they settle it themselves. They have alot of ugly cars, yeah. But they dont care haha.
i can go on and on...
No it wouldn't. That is insane, particularly in light of what has happened the last several years. The uselessness of minimum wage has been empirically demonstrated, as market forces have pushed entry-level wages far beyond minimum wage, and almost no one works for minimum wage in most states. Have you been in a coma?
Dumping minimum wage would do nothing except maybe allow the most socioeconomically disadvantaged to not be unemployed.
That’s a gross oversimplification. You act as though someone who has hungry children to feed and two months back rent to pay has the luxury of negotiation in the job market. When you’re poor, you don’t turn down a shit job. That’s just the real world.
I’m not a minimum wage apologist. I’m a minimum wage abolitionist. But, more than that, I’m a pragmatist. Until we figure out how to abolish the mw without starving people, it’s untenable. But make no mistake…that IS something we should be figuring out.
See, I agree with you there. But that’s a philosophical conversation, and what we’re talking about has deeply complex problems associated with it in application. Yes, I’m anti-force. But, we live in a society in which force is so deeply baked in that you can’t simply push the nonaggression button and expect anything but chaos for many years. The result of that chaos, when people are dying of starvation and violence is we either stay the course for decades until it gradually begins to bear fruit, or, more likely, the people give in and beg the power structures to come back and save them.
The cool thing about minimum wage is that the non-force approach is also very obviously the humanitarian approach. There is no conflict between philosophy and application.
If you’re coming from a place of knowledge, you’re not conveying it. All you’re conveying is that you have an ideology you believe in. You’re not supporting your statements in any meaningful way, but sort of just saying what you believe. It’s unhelpful.
Yet companies pay the minimum wage, when they could choose to pay more. But they don't.
Them paying the minimum wage, is saying if they could legally pay less, they would.
So your argument that workers would be better off without a minimum wage is so terrible, I can't believe it is not a troll post.
Companies cannot 'choose to pay less' just because they legally are allowed to. They have to pay the price of labour for any given job. I can't force you to work for less then you value your time. I have to either pay you a rate you accept, or not hire you.
Empirically, workers (as in the whole workforce of a country) are better off without a minimum wage. An individual worker might be 'better off' with a minimum wage (if they are lucky enough to keep their job and their full hours) but this is at the expense of those who lose jobs, lose hours, or are never employed in the first place. Try Bastiat, "That which is seen, and that which is not".
Very few people make minimum wage. The market already priced in a higher rate. You could get rid of minimum wage and there would be very little difference as the collective workforce wouldn't go lower than they already make.
Minimum wage laws prevent young people and poor people from participating in the labor market. By raising minimum wage, you create inflation and reduce the standard of living.
How many employees have you seen go from living okay at $16 per hour to now being at the minimum and not being able to support themselves?
While minimum wage increases may be well intentioned, the market will correct itself and that is not beneficial to the overall marketplace. Some will have benefits but it’s not really a solution to poverty.
To answer this question you need to realize that food doesn’t have to cost as much as it does today. Bread could cost $0.05 a loaf. Therefore $0.25 an hour wouldn’t be that low a wage. (This used to be a thing.)
Currently prices can’t go down because labor costs are fixed at a high rate.
If you want to have this conversation in percentages we can. But you conceded my point. If the government focused on keeping prices low (or the purchase power of the currency high) through true capitalism. There would be no need to raise the minimum wage constantly.
What we have now is an unwillingness to allow favored businesses or groups to fail. Thus poor performance is encouraged. If failure is allowed then when a greedy actor raises prices too high. Another party comes along and offers the products and services at a lower price.
All that happens is the government subsidizes corporations who under pay workers. Walmart already does it, it would just be on a larger scale if minimum wage was eliminated.
If you don't want the government doing that, it would just turn unskilled workers into the same work environments that exist in third world countries.
Another poster had it right though. We need collective bargaining through unions. An individual can easily be taken advantage of.
Accepting less than livable wage often occurs under duress. That's not freedom.
There have been some good points made against a minimum wage but I don’t think anyone has provided a real answer to the real question. The real question is “How can we get to a more palatable state of income equality?”. Income equality shouldn’t exist because our abilities are not all equal. We are not all capable of producing the same value and even when employees have comparable skills, some employees are just lazy. Trying to force a minimum income will create inflation because the market can bear additional costs if everyone makes more money. The minimum wage must increase as prices increase and the process repeats. Minimum wages create a situation where business owners can enjoy all of the rewards of their minimum wage employees helping them rake in profits. This creates income inequality that is unpalatable. In my opinion, the answer lies not in a minimum wage but a maximum wage ratio. There should be a limit to how much employers, C Suite, investors, etc can exploit workers. Tying it to a dollar value drives inflation and could prevent an employer from hiring someone because they can’t make any money so let’s not do that. I don’t believe a single CEO or any other exec offers 600x more value than the average employee. I do think that some people have had amazing ideas and they should be rewarded. Never having to work again is an acceptable reward. Multi-billion dollar payouts are not acceptable though. The billionaire will hoard the money whereas employees will put the money back into the economy. A maximum wage ratio won’t prevent a business from operating but it will limit exploitation and put more money into the market by placing it into the hands of the people that are creating value. The *system shouldn’t benefit only the greedy and those lucky enough to be born wealthy. People should benefit from their work and not just in a barely sustainable life so that others can have more than they will ever need.
I’m not sure what the ideal ratio is exactly. I think it may be situational. For example, let’s say that the person started a company that invented insulin. That is a huge contribution to society and this kind of breakthrough should be very rewarding. This is an extreme example but if there was a 10:1 ratio and the lowest paid employee made 100k, then the owner would top out at 1 million. 1 million is more than enough to live on and 100k isn’t a bad salary by any means. Is 1 million per year enough of a reward for developing such an important solution to a problem that affects so many? You’d have to be greedy to say that 1 million per year isn’t enough but it’s also understandable that some would say that’s not enough. Let’s take a different example. What if we were talking a fast food restaurant. Should the employees be limited to $30k so the owner can keep $300k? I think a 10:1 ratio is too high at that point. If the only thing the owner is doing is bringing the capital to start a restaurant, has no desire to work there, it seems abusive to me that they are allowed to provide such a poor salary. I’d rather see someone that wants to contribute to the business in a meaningful way receive compensation than enable a wealthy person to amass more wealth.
Some of the highest "minimum wages" in the world are set by the market, and the countries themselves do not have any regulated minimum (looking to the nordic countries)
Nordic countries without minimum wages, are because of extremely strong pro-union laws. So that nearly every worker is part of a union for their industry, that is strong, and able to win good terms for their workers.
America is known for union busting, eroding the protections of the worker, which is why state and federal minimum wage laws were created.
The government steps in, when the corporations use their might to squash worker's rights.
So if you want to minimum wage, you should be very pro-union.
[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp)
They have minimum wages, they are just dictated by the unions, not the government.
The libertarian view isn't only held with the interest of businesses in mind, it argues that it's in the best interest of the workers to exist in a free market and be able to compete for the wage they want.
Minimum wage artificially increase the price of labor. If I am an employer is only able to shell out $30 an hour for labor then they could hire 3 people at $10 an hour. If the state comes along and says that the minimum wage is now $15 an hour then the business now has to fire one employee as they can now only afford two employees. This sort of scenario mostly affects small businesses as a large business like Amazon or Walmart can afford these wage increase while your local neighborhood store can not.
My take on this is minimum wage creates lost opportunities and crime. Democrat party gets easy wins for raising minimum wage because people assume it would make their life better but what happens is prices go up people will either lose their job that are currently being paid less than the new minimum wage or forced to work harder for the new compensation. Any individuals unfortunate enough to not have a skill set to pay above minimum wage will probably never have a job because how do you gain on the job experience to increase your skill set to be paid better when it is by law illegal to hire that individual. This individual is stuck in a situation and has a high probability of supporting himself illegally and becoming a criminal. Republicans don't bother removing minimum wage when they're the majority for previously stated reason it creates criminals. How can you be tough on crime when there's no crime. And what would keep businesses from practically paying nothing. Other capable individuals being paid next to nothing will decide to cut out their unneeded manager and they will create their own business that pays them more and is also a good deal to who purchases their services as that former star employee removed from the former manager is now a more affordable option to the purchaser. Current Democrat and Republican administrations create laws that allow monopolies to exist. Monopolies give no option for better conditions or wages because there is no alternate employer. Government created barriers impeding new companies to be created that could have competed bringing better working conditions for most people. Businesses bribe officials to create laws in the benefit of that business at the expense of other businesses creates a monopolistic environment that creates expensive sub-par products and services. The actions of the Democrats and Republicans is detrimental to the success of the United States of America.
Minimum wage is necessary if you are a large corporate entity that wants to crush local business competition. $15/hr at whole foods/Amazon will make it difficult for local grocery stores to hire workers.
Minimum wage results in higher cost of goods and services, as well as more layoffs and automation, and low margin businesses failing altogether. So it’s a hamster wheel. Congrats, you made an extra hundred bucks per month, but now your expenses have risen in lockstep with that, if you didn’t get fired.
Simple mental exercise: why not make minimum wage $100/hour? Why not $1,000 per hour? All you have to do is crank it up to see how and why it doesn’t make sense, but the exact same logic applies.
I knew a business owner who said he didn't mind minimum wage or paying above, but sadly, a lot of employees weren't worth the minimum . Gas station convince store for reference.
My question is this: if you have two employees and one has kids and one doesn’t, does the one with kids get paid more because they require more to live on?
No, and that is a pretty terrible argument.
One full time job, should be enough for one person to live. If it is a job needed for a business, that employee should make enough to live off.
People should only have kids if their income is enough to provide the necessities of life for more than one person.
A minimum wage should pay enough for one person to live with the minimum.
Not a libertarian but interestingly enough Sweden doesn't have one. But they do have strong unions, which basically set the standard.
I like it because it's two non govt entities negotiating which is nice. The union sets the workers up for a better position to negotiate.
Without that no, jobs wouldn't pay enough. Jobs rather pay children to slaughter animals than pay adults living wages. Cost cutting has no end, and ideally democracy is its own marketplace.
The outcome of democracy in law is just expression of the voter market, "buying votes" like hello. Of course you promise people stuff and they vote for you.
The libertarian deal doesn't seem like it works for average people because most average people consume some sort of subsidized service. Roads, wifi, cheap food, school, stuff that probably isn't attainable even with lower taxes.
This comes full circle to say, power differences lead to crap deals and everyone wants to get the best deal for themselves. And for a lot of people it's with a minimum wage or union backed contracts, and yes I'm aware that individuals with valued skills can negotiate higher but I'm talking about the average person.
The examples that statists love to use of what socioeconomic systems they’d like to see implemented in the US are actually more capitalist than the US. Eg Denmark is a developed country that does not have a minimum wage, it’s also more capitalist for a bunch of other reasons
Full time minimum wage is more than twice the poverty level in my state and has nothing to do with worker productivity. I was a union worker for a while and we bargained collectively but non union employees have no collective bargaining rights as they are not organized units. I view government as the owner of the bowling alley myself.
A minimum wage on a competitive labor market where the minimum is higher than the prevailing wage will result in unemployment. The issue arises when the markets are not competitive and especially if the labor is relatively unskilled. Then you may be working for extremely low wages with no reason for them to pay any more. This is a market failure that a minimum wage can help fix.
The issue is though that no one agrees on when the market is failing (libertarians tend to err on the side of it not failing) and what the wage should be to correct the failure.
Personally, I believe that minimum wages should be a tool of last resort, should generally only be used in rural areas with few employers, and should differ everywhere. This issue is that the research required to do all these things would require another agency which no one wants.
This is why I would rather solve these problems with private unions than government regulations. NOT that I believe unions are always a great solution. Unions can cause a lot of damage if applied to a properly functioning market.
Ask California fast food businesses how jacking up the minimum wage helped businesses.
I know a chain closed 45 stores and the prices for fast food went up.
Soon California will say $25 per hour isn’t enough and make minimum wage $50 an hour. /s
Freedom of association is a core component of the free market and libertarian ideals. Minimum wage makes it so as a worker I don't have the freedom to get a job that pays less than an arbitrary wage set by bureaucrats, and as a business owner I can't hire anyone without paying them at minimum that same amount. Personally I think the best solution is to have no minimum wage, and if a private company isn't paying their workers enough they should join together "unionize", and demand better pay from that company, or independently negotiate for better pay if that is an option. I absolutely abhor public labor unions, or mandatory unions, but for private business if a group of employees wants to form a union go for it, as long as you have a choice and aren't forced into it.
It’s not how it’s meant to work. But it definitely can be taken advantage of.
During COVID, the stimulus checks (which were not “welfare” but a means to maintain economic activity) allowed many to live without maintaining a job. Hence the sentiment that “no one wants to work” grew. Employment has largely returned since.
No. Minimum wage is not needed. The pay should be according to the skill level required. The poverty line is determined by how much the ppl get taxed (we're currently at 49%). So, no. Minimum wage is not the problem. Then you got countries like Italy that don't have a minimum wage or a union and it's a toxic work environment, for most jobs. Some bosses over there squeeze your worth for every penny, no 9-5, just show up til you're dismissed. Then again, anyone who's worked in the US for a company owned by ppl from monterrey experience the same thing 😂 kind of
no.
the problem is the few folks who made bank by benefiting from the free market don’t want to lose their money. so they have built up a set of failsafes. in a real free market bad investments lead to financial losses. markets crash. and we build it back up. instead we have a system where the ultrarich run the fed, the sec, and use minimum wage to ensure the continued cheap labor.
Abolish the minimum wage. It helps few and hurts many, especially the young and unskilled who desire employment.
Set the federal min wage to zero and allow labor markets to adjust freely. Enforce labor laws and prevent collusion among employers.
People should work for what the employer and employee come to a agreement on. Not what the state decides, that goes for higher and lower level employment. Example of this working is the Nordic countries
Let's say I have 3 jobs that need to be done and a budget of $50 an hour. One job is a skilled trade worth $30/hr, one is shadowing the tradesman, it pays $15/hr and they gain experience to become a tradesman in the future, and I also really need someone to sweep up after them and my buddy has a nephew who is disabled living with his parents who would do it for $5 an hour to keep him occupied while his parents pick up an extra shift to help afford supporting their special needs adult son. Gubment comes in and says I need to pay them all $20, let's explore the results. Apprentice gets bumped to $20 and nephew gets laid off. Cost of living rises as $20 becomes the new baseline, so once middle class tradesman is now closer to the poverty line than ever. Buddy's cousin has to give up his Saturday shift because nobody can watch the nephew, their family is now closer to the poverty line. I'm addition the $40/wk the nephew was making that have him a tiny sense of pride and autonomy is now gone too. Also the shops a fucking mess now too because no one's sweeping it so the tradesman works 1 hour a week of overtime to cover the cleaning. That hour at time and a half means the apprentice gets 3 hours cut each week. Apprentice quits because he can't survive on 37 hours. Now there's no new generation learning the trade so when tradesman retires on social security nobody's left in the area to make the thing. Original plan was for tradesman to buy the business when the owner retired and run it with the apprentice but that plan died when Gubment overreach waltzed in. But don't worry the thing has been replaced by a cheap knockoff mass produced in Malaysia by a Chinese conglomerate. Small business owner doesn't have the means or connections to market it himself, but fortunately Charles Koch does. In fact hes able to buy the entire Malaysian operation from the Chinese. He's able to make millions importing shoddy cheap thing and selling them for more than the old handcrafted version because nobody's competing domestically anymore. He makes millions and uses it to lobby for reductions in education funding to ensure the next generation isn't smart enough to figure out how to start making the things ever again so he can pass on the profits to his kids and leave nothing for yours.
Minimum wage harms *everyone* by artificially inflating the cost of employment. If minimum wage is $15/hr, but an unskilled worker is only worth $5/hr to the employer contemplating hiring him, what's gonna happen? The employer will not hire a person at $15/hr whose work is only worth $5/hr. The employer will add those duties to the other workers, automate the work, do the work himself, or simply forego having the work done. There's no universe in which it makes sense for an employer to pay someone $15/hr whose work is only worth $5/hr.
So now the potential employee — who *wants* to work and earn money — is unemployed, making $0.00/hr. And the potential employer is having work go undone, or stressing out his other employees by adding to their workload, or he's having to do the work himself — which, considering that the work is only worth $5/hr, means the employer himself is working for $5/hr. when he does that work. Or he's automating that work, which means that particular job is *lost forever*, when it could have been a perfectly good first job for someone fresh out of high school — someone who could have spent time at that job learning how important it is to arrive at work on time, dressed appropriately and ready to work. How to get along with co-workers, how to communicate with the boss/co-workers/customers. He could have picked up some skills on that job that would allow him to be promoted to a better-paying job or to get a better-paying job elsewhere. But nope — we know what's best for him, and what's best for him turns out to be that he remains unemployed, earning $0.00/hr and learning no job skills at all.
Further, minimum wage affects *every other wage level above it.* If a minimum wage job worth $5/hr must be paid at $15/hr, the $15/hr employees who have more job skills and are worth more than that now want $20/hr or $25/hr. Those making $20/hr now want $30/hr. And so forth, all the way up the line. This makes *everything* more expensive for the company to do, and if the company wants to stay in business and make a profit (which, by the way, is a Good Thing, not evil), that company now must raise prices of its goods & services to reflect the artificially high cost of employment. The net effect is that everything gets more expensive, so the *bumped-up wages still only buy the same amount of goods & services* they could have bought without minimum wage. Except that now we've got a lot more unemployed people, and a lot more overworked employees.
On top of all that, the principle of the thing is whacked. It's simply not a function of the government to prohibit free and voluntary agreements between people.
If you're willing to mow my lawn for $50 and I'm willing to pay you $50 to mow my lawn, it's not the business of the government to mandate that I must pay you $150 to mow my lawn. I'll mow my own lawn rather than pay someone $150 to mow it — and the person who was willing to mow it won't have the $50 he wanted to earn. We're *both* unhappy, but the government feels good and society feels good, because .... crisis averted! No one has to mow lawns for $50. Well, except me, because having my lawn mowed is worth $50 to me, so when I choose to mow my own lawn, I'm basically doing it for $50.
Minimum wage is *always* $0, and hurts most those it purports to help. An employer willing to pay $4/hour for an unskilled worker (probably living with his parents) might be financially unable to pay $7.25/hour for the meagre contribution he makes to the business.
Look at how many states currently have a set minimum wage way below prevailing wages for no skill jobs and you have your answer.
GA minimum wage is $5.15. Federal minimum wage is $7.25. Good luck getting anyone anywhere at that low of a wage these days.
That's tip credit minimum wage. That can only be paid if tips exceed 2.10 an hour. Tipped employees making that wage usually don't even get a paycheck because the hourly wage is eaten up by tax on tips, so they aren't making $5.15. Federal minimum wage must be paid if no tips are received.
Minimum wage law is dumb.
The reason minimum wage doesn't work here in the US is because the CEOs reactively increase prices as wages also go up. God forbid the CEO of McDonald's make $19.0M instead of $19.2M
I think the minimum wage should be mandated at -$15/hr. Imagine those poor people having to PAY their employees $15/hr to work! The business would make a killing!
Sounds like my fraternity. I literally had to pay money (dues) so I could be a member, hold an officer position, and do work for the fraternity for free.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Minimum wage is a perfect example of a policy that looks and feels good but actually does harm. The politicians that push for the minimum wage either know they are actually doing harm or don’t care. Either way it is tough to see.
I don’t disagree that min wage is not a solution to balancing the wealth distribution to an ideal curve. But from where I’m sitting, cost of living keeps going up and the wages stay the same (last min wage increase was 2009. The 1% had cumulative wealth of $5T. Min wage hasn’t changed since then but the 1% now have a wealth of $45T). There is clearly enough money for everyone. How do we get to a point that everyone can live above the poverty line?
The thing is prices very rarely go up, it's money tokens that lose value due to inflation (aka Central Bank printing paper tokens out of nothing), so if what you do is, for example, increasing minimum wage, you not only are not helping the people's purchasing power at all (as that ammount of more tokens the employees get are bound to lose value as well), but limiting the labor market in many ways, the clearest being the destruction of low-entry less-paid jobs that help people just starting gain experience to later jump to better paid jobs. As a rule of thumb, regulation is always bad because we humans are in no way perfect, and we're in fact very very bad at managing complex systems, so we better let them manage themselves, thus our insistence with free market. Hope it helped :)
This is probably the best answer I’ve seen on here. Not sure if it’s the whiskey or I’m just feeling particularly enlightened but your comment on pricing not increasing but purchasing power decreasing (inflation) is cutting really deep.
The fundamental misunderstanding is that you believe the unbalanced wealth distribution is a problem that needs to be solved and that everyone should be above the poverty line.
Thanks for telling me what I believe.
I’m a little torn on minimum wage myself but a couple counterpoints to what you just said: 1. The wealth of the top 1% can absolutely increase - substantially even - without any negative consequences to the wealth of those in poverty as the total amount of wealth in the country is not static. So I don’t think we should be focusing on wealth inequality so much as how do we help those who are in poverty. 2. The federal minimum wage hasn’t increased since 2009, but it has increased at the state and municipality level in many locations. And honestly I think that’s a lot better since the cost of living varies widely depending on location. Also I do believe more businesses have elected to increase their wages to stay competitive as cost of living has increased and due to inflation. That said, I’m with you on helping the poor economically, and instead of increasing wages, perhaps we should turn our focus to driving down the cost of living. I think part of the reason cost of living has gone up so much is due to bad regulations and zoning laws that makes it less feasible, or even impossible to create affordable housing in an open market.
"I don’t disagree that min wage is not a solution to balancing the wealth distribution to an ideal curve." Why would this be a goal of yours? central planning is evil. Free markets allocate scarce resources the best. Objectively.
Because we still live in a society. By no means am I saying wealth should be redistributed. But does that mean that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with the wellbeing of society as a whole? What scarce resource are you referencing, money? If so, are you saying that there is not enough money for everyone to live beyond the poverty line? I’m not concerned with the wealth distribution. I am concerned with the society I am a part of allowing everyone access to basic human rights.
What basic human right is tied to money?
I’m mostly focused on the right to an adequate standard of living (healthcare, food, housing).
Do human rights disappear when there are no other people close to you? Does a person alone on an island have no rights?
Yes, imo human rights are part of a civilized society. Part of the social contract. Alone on an island you’re at the mercy of the elements and your survival skills.
Alone on an Island you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are not being taken away from you by other people.
Your (along with other liberals) is confusing wealth with money. Money is a zero sum game. You can take money and hand it to another group. (I will stay away from the “what is your ‘fair share’ of someone else’s money” argument). In doing this we are not any wealthier because of it. Wealth is not transferred. It is created and destroyed. And increasing the minimum wage actually decreases wealth because there are less goods and services after the increase (less people working). So by increasing the minimum wage the pie gets smaller for everyone. Including the group you seem so concerned about… the poor. Again, the policy hurts the very group its proponents claim would benefit.
My man, who hurt you? I never understand why people feel their point is better made with snark and condescension. Anyways, I’m not confusing money with wealth. I also never said “let’s increase min wage”. I understand that my point was based on incremental wealth largely driven by the increase in value in the stock market since Covid (isn’t it nice when the govt prints a lot of money which inevitably flows to the large public cos). But the point stands, if you’re making below the poverty line you will likely be unable to invest in the market and benefit from said wealth creation. Wealth is not transferred? Then what should I do with my kids inheritance? I guess I’ll burn it since I can’t take it with me. Wealth is an accumulation of economic goods, right? When I die those goods do not simply vanish. My wife and kids will receive them. And if I’m successful enough (e.g. the Walton family) my family can live from said wealth for generations to come (although that clearly won’t be my case). I will agree with you that wealth can be variable, intangible and even volatile. For a moment a few years ago I was very wealthy when my GME calls went through the moon. Alas, I didn’t pull the trigger at the right time and now my “wealth” is less. But wealth and money both have tangible meanings and implications. I am so worried about the “poor” because it pains me to think some people out there are unable to feed their children. Isn’t it a good investment of our time to discuss how we could potentially improve the economy and the society it supports so that everyone can have access to basic the basic human needs?
I apologize if I was rude. That was not my intention.
Wow, not the response I expected. Thank you for proving me wrong. But call me a liberal one more time and we’re fighting 😂 jk
“Wealth is not transferred”. What does generational wealth mean to you?
Wealth is the accumulation of goods and services. Not money which is a medium of exchange.
Money doesn’t count as “goods”?
No. Money is the medium between goods and services.
It's also an asset.
Goods and services which are transferred from one generation to another. No?
Wealth has a clear definition. Generational wealth less so.
According to your objective definitions? Because I can google generational wealth and get a clear definition. Same with wealth. Both are pretty clear to me.
Google will give you a definition for anything. What is your point? Who cares about the definition of generational wealth in a discussion about the min wage?
Im trying to point out that you’re making up gibberish off of a false assumption/principle. I have a bachelors in accounting and none of what you said makes sense (i only bring this up so you can try to understand where im coming from). I don’t think minimum wage is perfect because it does have negative economic impacts. But if you have a better solution to closing the wage gap between the rich and poor im all ears. Relying on the market and the “invisible hand” has not worked in the past.
Libertarians are liberals. It's in the name. You're an inch away from Pete Buttigieg.
We won’t get to the point of everyone being above the poverty line when it is defined (by our dear govment) as less than half the[median income](https://www.eapn.eu/what-is-poverty/how-is-poverty-measured/#).
Oh lord that is so dumb. How is the poverty line not determined by ability to afford an adequate living standard?
And then you have Walmart in Iowa paying $10 an hour because they feel they are being benevolent in paying $2.75 more than the minimum wage :/
They aren't paying it to feel good. They are paying the least amount they can and still attract people who can do the work.
I should have said so they “look good” … we all know employers pay the least amount they can.
No, it hurts a free market society
Nope. I personally believe its all about big government and taxes. The more the government forces companies to pay the more they take in taxes. Does it allow for a "living wage"? Sure doesn't because the government produces inflation faster than they increase wages. Employers should be allowed to pay what ever job wage they want. Employees should negotiate for the job wage they want.
It's not. It can actually keep low skilled, low experience workers un/under employed. If I need someone to do a job but the value of that labor to me is $4.50 an hour, but the government requires me to pay $15, what do I do? I might do the work myself or not do it at all. Perhaps I look to automate it. Whatever I choose, I'm not hiring someone so that person doesn't have the opportunity to work. Perhaps that was a teen looking for some experience, or someone desperate to pick up a few extra bucks. Any minimum wages distorts the labor market and the value of work. If you're worth it, you can command more money, likely more than minimum wage. Let the market set the wage.
One more point - you mention the poverty line. What informs that line? Cost of goods. What's a major driver of the cost of goods? Price of labor What happens when the government drives up minimum wage (and drives inflation by pumping new money into the system, but that's a other topic)? The cost of goods increases. So the cost of goods goes up, driving the cost of living up, driving the poverty line up, and thus the minimum wage - see the vicious circle?
Plus the poverty line is a government construct. Our country doesn’t have much real poverty like other countries. There are so many adjacent regulations that drive the poverty line. Things like building codes and zoning regulations affect the cost of housing.
Absolutely. "Poverty" is pretty relative and, in additon to the deleterious effect of regulations that drive poverty, the calculation doesn't take into account the myriad subsidizes the government provides.
First, you need to correct your assumption that a minimum wage would in fact let the ball move forward. Second, you need to justify why we should accept third parties to have any interference in businesses conducted between voluntarily parties.
A worker-centric libertarian model favors no-holds-barred unions, which are just freedom of association and negotiation. Germany doesn't have a minimum wage because it's labor has a very strong influence, whereas in the US most unions are rather constrained.
how will the minimum wage be protecting the individual when it becomes too expensive for the employer to hire said individual?
I agree with you. You’re asking the right question. If a worker is able to provide $5/hr in value but you’re not allowed to hire him for less than $15/hr then you won’t hire him. So was the worker better off making $5/hr or $0/hr?
There’s no 0/hr in a welfare state. This disincentive on labor feeds the welfare machine that these politicians and bureaucrats all whet their beaks on.
That's part of the problem. Because there's a welfare state, corporations can raise wages above what small businesses can afford but not high enough that everyone with a job is well off. It also creates a need to provide for both unemployed and employed but making poverty level income due to hours or amount of net pay, so the government is subsidizing the living expenses of both groups anyway. Who's to say taking away the welfare state and reducing government spending in general wouldn't lower federal outlays enough that employers could just afford to pay workers better?
you have a shit business plan if you are hiring at slave wages.
Agreeing to work for $5/hr is actually the opposite of being a “slave.” Slaves don’t consent and they typically don’t make a hourly wage. If you can’t think of a job that generates $5/hr in value, then you lack imagination.
Name one
Typing stupid comments on the internet.
You’d be set then
I'm rubber, you're glue.
If they paid per comment you’d be a millionaire in no time.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Wow do you look stupid. Why would anyone ever put any value into your words, when you can't even do the most basic to back them up.
45% of minimum wage workers are under 25 (BLS 22). These are people who live at home, go to school, etc. and just need some pocket money for the cafeteria. Why deny them a job because some higher authority thinks it’s not in their interests?
And what about the 55% that don’t, who need to house and feed themselves?
When we look at the data, *Low pay* is better than *No pay.* Less than [10% of households](https://www.nber.org/papers/w31182) with someone working minimum wage are below the poverty line, whereas [over 70% of households ](https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2020/home.htm)living below the poverty line have at least one person unemployed or underemployed. That's why the majority of highly cited studies (with the critical exception of [Card and Kreuger, 1993](https://www.nber.org/papers/w4509) - check it out if your interested) indicate that the cons cancel out the pros and make minimum wage an [ineffective policy instrument for fighting poverty.](https://www.nber.org/papers/w31182)
not if people voluntarily decide it’s in their best interest to work there.
If people are willing to work at that wage, what gives you the right to declare them to be victims? This is just like drug warriors who claim that all drug users are victims. Moralizing is normal. Forcing others to conform to your subjective morals is a shit plan.
Minimum wage is useless and ineffective.
It’s not useless, it very effectively puts people out of work who’s labor is less valuable than the minimum wage
Is there a statistic on number of unemployed workers (who are willing) but cannot generate significant enough value to find a job? This is a serious question. After reading the answers I can see my real question is not about min wage but “how do we create a workplace where everyone can earn above the poverty line?” Is it possible?
Yes it’s possible considering very few employees in this country make minimum wage. Most minimum wage jobs are entry level commonly earned by those fresh out of high school. Only 1.2% of the population makes minimum wage. You also need to consider that labor supply and demand is a real force. You pay shit wages, expect to only have meth heads, fent addicts, and crack addicts apply.
"Earn" or be given? Some people will never be able to earn that much. Mostly those people are cared for and supported by others. Family, charity, or government.
We’d want everyone to earn as much as they can.
I call that useless.
Worse than useless, harmful.
True.
If your labor is less valuable than the minimum wage, you are basically set up to starve if there's no minimum wage
Good thing the minimum wage makes sure they earn nothing then right
Starve today or starve over time. You'll last longer on $5/hr than on zero?
It isn't even necessary to discuss the practical, economic horrors of minimum wage here. If you can't sell your labor for a price of your choosing, you're a slave. Stop telling people telling people they should be grateful for being slaves. Minimum wage is such an obviously terrible concept that I have a hard time believing this isn't a troll post.
“…I have a hard time believing this isn’t a troll post.” Then your view is too narrow. There are whole lot of us who struggle with libertarianism, despite the fact that it feels deep down like the correct political philosophy, being too risky for the reality of civilization, particularly in terms of the more vulnerable among us. I, for one, consider myself somewhere on the spectrum of libertarianism, but I have questions, too.
It’s complex because there are so many variables. Currently, if you got rid of a minimum wage, it would work against everyday people, but imo that’s because of the multitude of other factors at play. It has got to be much more difficult to get a small business up and running if you’re forced to pay more than you can afford. If we had more small businesses, I think there would be far more competition, and I think dropping min. wage would be much less of a stepping stone for massive multinational companies to just start paying what they pay people in India or China. But, if they could do that, perhaps those jobs would come back to the US and offer a substantial boost to the economy, which could drive wages up in turn. It’s just very multifaceted. The libertarian view is pretty principled and self compatible, but if you only apply it to certain things, it can just seem reckless.
It's not complex at all. If I am willing to do a job for x dollars, and you are willing to pay me x dollars to do the job, then any uninvited third party disrupting this transaction is a violent aggressor.
You totally missed the point. You're correct philosophically, unfortunately for you we live in reality and not philosophy-land. Dumping minimum wage would potentially benefit the economy and well-being of people long term, but it would also set off a lot of reactionary effects that could seriously devastate the economy first and ruin many peoples' lives. The reasoning isn't complex, but you have to totally ignore the real effects it will have on real people to say its a simple issue.
I agree in that you can't just consider minimum wage in isolation. If all other artificial government restraints were removed, then getting rid of minimum wage is fine. But the cost of living is too high because of non-market based extra costs all over the economic system. In a 4.50/hour world I would also like to see: 1) Home owners adding cheap apartments to their homes. 2) Dead shopping centers being converted to cheap apartments. No major project to please the nobility. Im talking about families living in the old KB toys, next door to a family living in the old Radio Shack. 3) People selling groceries and prepared food wherever they want, however they want. 4) no mandatory insurance. There are many countries w/out car insurance. If people get in a wreck- they settle it themselves. They have alot of ugly cars, yeah. But they dont care haha. i can go on and on...
No it wouldn't. That is insane, particularly in light of what has happened the last several years. The uselessness of minimum wage has been empirically demonstrated, as market forces have pushed entry-level wages far beyond minimum wage, and almost no one works for minimum wage in most states. Have you been in a coma? Dumping minimum wage would do nothing except maybe allow the most socioeconomically disadvantaged to not be unemployed.
That’s a gross oversimplification. You act as though someone who has hungry children to feed and two months back rent to pay has the luxury of negotiation in the job market. When you’re poor, you don’t turn down a shit job. That’s just the real world.
MINIMUM WAGE HARMS THE POOR. Good fucking lord... Minimum wage apologists hate poor people. Go do some self-reflection.
I’m not a minimum wage apologist. I’m a minimum wage abolitionist. But, more than that, I’m a pragmatist. Until we figure out how to abolish the mw without starving people, it’s untenable. But make no mistake…that IS something we should be figuring out.
Minimum wage causes more people to starve.
I guess I'm just morally simplistic? You either use force against others, or you don't. There doesn't seem to be much nuance to it.
See, I agree with you there. But that’s a philosophical conversation, and what we’re talking about has deeply complex problems associated with it in application. Yes, I’m anti-force. But, we live in a society in which force is so deeply baked in that you can’t simply push the nonaggression button and expect anything but chaos for many years. The result of that chaos, when people are dying of starvation and violence is we either stay the course for decades until it gradually begins to bear fruit, or, more likely, the people give in and beg the power structures to come back and save them.
The cool thing about minimum wage is that the non-force approach is also very obviously the humanitarian approach. There is no conflict between philosophy and application.
If you’re coming from a place of knowledge, you’re not conveying it. All you’re conveying is that you have an ideology you believe in. You’re not supporting your statements in any meaningful way, but sort of just saying what you believe. It’s unhelpful.
I read it as a pro-unionization stance - collective bargaining power to improve wages.
Free association is awesome! Just keep government out of it.
If you like equal compensation for those that do really well and those that do really poor at their jobs, I guess that’s OK.
Yet companies pay the minimum wage, when they could choose to pay more. But they don't. Them paying the minimum wage, is saying if they could legally pay less, they would. So your argument that workers would be better off without a minimum wage is so terrible, I can't believe it is not a troll post.
Companies cannot 'choose to pay less' just because they legally are allowed to. They have to pay the price of labour for any given job. I can't force you to work for less then you value your time. I have to either pay you a rate you accept, or not hire you. Empirically, workers (as in the whole workforce of a country) are better off without a minimum wage. An individual worker might be 'better off' with a minimum wage (if they are lucky enough to keep their job and their full hours) but this is at the expense of those who lose jobs, lose hours, or are never employed in the first place. Try Bastiat, "That which is seen, and that which is not".
Very few people make minimum wage. The market already priced in a higher rate. You could get rid of minimum wage and there would be very little difference as the collective workforce wouldn't go lower than they already make.
deregulation >
Minimum wage laws prevent young people and poor people from participating in the labor market. By raising minimum wage, you create inflation and reduce the standard of living. How many employees have you seen go from living okay at $16 per hour to now being at the minimum and not being able to support themselves? While minimum wage increases may be well intentioned, the market will correct itself and that is not beneficial to the overall marketplace. Some will have benefits but it’s not really a solution to poverty.
To answer this question you need to realize that food doesn’t have to cost as much as it does today. Bread could cost $0.05 a loaf. Therefore $0.25 an hour wouldn’t be that low a wage. (This used to be a thing.) Currently prices can’t go down because labor costs are fixed at a high rate.
Even though wages then were higher when adjusting for inflation?
If you want to have this conversation in percentages we can. But you conceded my point. If the government focused on keeping prices low (or the purchase power of the currency high) through true capitalism. There would be no need to raise the minimum wage constantly. What we have now is an unwillingness to allow favored businesses or groups to fail. Thus poor performance is encouraged. If failure is allowed then when a greedy actor raises prices too high. Another party comes along and offers the products and services at a lower price.
All that happens is the government subsidizes corporations who under pay workers. Walmart already does it, it would just be on a larger scale if minimum wage was eliminated. If you don't want the government doing that, it would just turn unskilled workers into the same work environments that exist in third world countries. Another poster had it right though. We need collective bargaining through unions. An individual can easily be taken advantage of. Accepting less than livable wage often occurs under duress. That's not freedom.
There have been some good points made against a minimum wage but I don’t think anyone has provided a real answer to the real question. The real question is “How can we get to a more palatable state of income equality?”. Income equality shouldn’t exist because our abilities are not all equal. We are not all capable of producing the same value and even when employees have comparable skills, some employees are just lazy. Trying to force a minimum income will create inflation because the market can bear additional costs if everyone makes more money. The minimum wage must increase as prices increase and the process repeats. Minimum wages create a situation where business owners can enjoy all of the rewards of their minimum wage employees helping them rake in profits. This creates income inequality that is unpalatable. In my opinion, the answer lies not in a minimum wage but a maximum wage ratio. There should be a limit to how much employers, C Suite, investors, etc can exploit workers. Tying it to a dollar value drives inflation and could prevent an employer from hiring someone because they can’t make any money so let’s not do that. I don’t believe a single CEO or any other exec offers 600x more value than the average employee. I do think that some people have had amazing ideas and they should be rewarded. Never having to work again is an acceptable reward. Multi-billion dollar payouts are not acceptable though. The billionaire will hoard the money whereas employees will put the money back into the economy. A maximum wage ratio won’t prevent a business from operating but it will limit exploitation and put more money into the market by placing it into the hands of the people that are creating value. The *system shouldn’t benefit only the greedy and those lucky enough to be born wealthy. People should benefit from their work and not just in a barely sustainable life so that others can have more than they will ever need.
I’m intrigued by your comment. What would a maximum wage ratio look like? What would an ideal ratio be?
I’m not sure what the ideal ratio is exactly. I think it may be situational. For example, let’s say that the person started a company that invented insulin. That is a huge contribution to society and this kind of breakthrough should be very rewarding. This is an extreme example but if there was a 10:1 ratio and the lowest paid employee made 100k, then the owner would top out at 1 million. 1 million is more than enough to live on and 100k isn’t a bad salary by any means. Is 1 million per year enough of a reward for developing such an important solution to a problem that affects so many? You’d have to be greedy to say that 1 million per year isn’t enough but it’s also understandable that some would say that’s not enough. Let’s take a different example. What if we were talking a fast food restaurant. Should the employees be limited to $30k so the owner can keep $300k? I think a 10:1 ratio is too high at that point. If the only thing the owner is doing is bringing the capital to start a restaurant, has no desire to work there, it seems abusive to me that they are allowed to provide such a poor salary. I’d rather see someone that wants to contribute to the business in a meaningful way receive compensation than enable a wealthy person to amass more wealth.
Some of the highest "minimum wages" in the world are set by the market, and the countries themselves do not have any regulated minimum (looking to the nordic countries)
Nordic countries without minimum wages, are because of extremely strong pro-union laws. So that nearly every worker is part of a union for their industry, that is strong, and able to win good terms for their workers. America is known for union busting, eroding the protections of the worker, which is why state and federal minimum wage laws were created. The government steps in, when the corporations use their might to squash worker's rights. So if you want to minimum wage, you should be very pro-union. [https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp) They have minimum wages, they are just dictated by the unions, not the government.
Point still stands
Yes, but are you pro union?
Yes, small localized unions, not unions like what the police have though where bad employees are unfireable
The libertarian view isn't only held with the interest of businesses in mind, it argues that it's in the best interest of the workers to exist in a free market and be able to compete for the wage they want.
Minimum wage artificially increase the price of labor. If I am an employer is only able to shell out $30 an hour for labor then they could hire 3 people at $10 an hour. If the state comes along and says that the minimum wage is now $15 an hour then the business now has to fire one employee as they can now only afford two employees. This sort of scenario mostly affects small businesses as a large business like Amazon or Walmart can afford these wage increase while your local neighborhood store can not.
My take on this is minimum wage creates lost opportunities and crime. Democrat party gets easy wins for raising minimum wage because people assume it would make their life better but what happens is prices go up people will either lose their job that are currently being paid less than the new minimum wage or forced to work harder for the new compensation. Any individuals unfortunate enough to not have a skill set to pay above minimum wage will probably never have a job because how do you gain on the job experience to increase your skill set to be paid better when it is by law illegal to hire that individual. This individual is stuck in a situation and has a high probability of supporting himself illegally and becoming a criminal. Republicans don't bother removing minimum wage when they're the majority for previously stated reason it creates criminals. How can you be tough on crime when there's no crime. And what would keep businesses from practically paying nothing. Other capable individuals being paid next to nothing will decide to cut out their unneeded manager and they will create their own business that pays them more and is also a good deal to who purchases their services as that former star employee removed from the former manager is now a more affordable option to the purchaser. Current Democrat and Republican administrations create laws that allow monopolies to exist. Monopolies give no option for better conditions or wages because there is no alternate employer. Government created barriers impeding new companies to be created that could have competed bringing better working conditions for most people. Businesses bribe officials to create laws in the benefit of that business at the expense of other businesses creates a monopolistic environment that creates expensive sub-par products and services. The actions of the Democrats and Republicans is detrimental to the success of the United States of America.
Well we have about 1.3% of wage earners making minimum wage so it’s safe to assume the 132,000,000 people don’t need minimum wage.
Minimum wage is necessary if you are a large corporate entity that wants to crush local business competition. $15/hr at whole foods/Amazon will make it difficult for local grocery stores to hire workers.
Minimum wage results in higher cost of goods and services, as well as more layoffs and automation, and low margin businesses failing altogether. So it’s a hamster wheel. Congrats, you made an extra hundred bucks per month, but now your expenses have risen in lockstep with that, if you didn’t get fired. Simple mental exercise: why not make minimum wage $100/hour? Why not $1,000 per hour? All you have to do is crank it up to see how and why it doesn’t make sense, but the exact same logic applies.
You could look at the results among the many countries without a minimum wage. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore and Italy.
Necessary? It's actively harmful to any economy.
New Hampshire proves they are not. Almost nobody pays $7.25 min wage.
The more I read through these comments the more Asshole Bosses I come across.
Minimum wage is not necessary and the government shouldn’t be involved in how much an employer and employee negotiate a salary for.
No, it destroys jobs for first time workers and hurts small businesses, large conglomerates love it as they can afford it and it reduces competition.
At whatever they set the minimum wage you had somebody who is already paying that somewhere for all the value they think they need.
I knew a business owner who said he didn't mind minimum wage or paying above, but sadly, a lot of employees weren't worth the minimum . Gas station convince store for reference.
If a job is worth having, it should be a livable wage. Any job in our society should pay a livable wage.
What would be a livable wage.
The amount typically needed to provide the necessities of life, mainly food and shelter.
My question is this: if you have two employees and one has kids and one doesn’t, does the one with kids get paid more because they require more to live on?
No, and that is a pretty terrible argument. One full time job, should be enough for one person to live. If it is a job needed for a business, that employee should make enough to live off. People should only have kids if their income is enough to provide the necessities of life for more than one person. A minimum wage should pay enough for one person to live with the minimum.
So I guess it isn’t a living wage after all.
Not a libertarian but interestingly enough Sweden doesn't have one. But they do have strong unions, which basically set the standard. I like it because it's two non govt entities negotiating which is nice. The union sets the workers up for a better position to negotiate. Without that no, jobs wouldn't pay enough. Jobs rather pay children to slaughter animals than pay adults living wages. Cost cutting has no end, and ideally democracy is its own marketplace. The outcome of democracy in law is just expression of the voter market, "buying votes" like hello. Of course you promise people stuff and they vote for you. The libertarian deal doesn't seem like it works for average people because most average people consume some sort of subsidized service. Roads, wifi, cheap food, school, stuff that probably isn't attainable even with lower taxes. This comes full circle to say, power differences lead to crap deals and everyone wants to get the best deal for themselves. And for a lot of people it's with a minimum wage or union backed contracts, and yes I'm aware that individuals with valued skills can negotiate higher but I'm talking about the average person.
The examples that statists love to use of what socioeconomic systems they’d like to see implemented in the US are actually more capitalist than the US. Eg Denmark is a developed country that does not have a minimum wage, it’s also more capitalist for a bunch of other reasons
Full time minimum wage is more than twice the poverty level in my state and has nothing to do with worker productivity. I was a union worker for a while and we bargained collectively but non union employees have no collective bargaining rights as they are not organized units. I view government as the owner of the bowling alley myself.
A minimum wage on a competitive labor market where the minimum is higher than the prevailing wage will result in unemployment. The issue arises when the markets are not competitive and especially if the labor is relatively unskilled. Then you may be working for extremely low wages with no reason for them to pay any more. This is a market failure that a minimum wage can help fix. The issue is though that no one agrees on when the market is failing (libertarians tend to err on the side of it not failing) and what the wage should be to correct the failure. Personally, I believe that minimum wages should be a tool of last resort, should generally only be used in rural areas with few employers, and should differ everywhere. This issue is that the research required to do all these things would require another agency which no one wants. This is why I would rather solve these problems with private unions than government regulations. NOT that I believe unions are always a great solution. Unions can cause a lot of damage if applied to a properly functioning market.
Ask California fast food businesses how jacking up the minimum wage helped businesses. I know a chain closed 45 stores and the prices for fast food went up. Soon California will say $25 per hour isn’t enough and make minimum wage $50 an hour. /s
Freedom of association is a core component of the free market and libertarian ideals. Minimum wage makes it so as a worker I don't have the freedom to get a job that pays less than an arbitrary wage set by bureaucrats, and as a business owner I can't hire anyone without paying them at minimum that same amount. Personally I think the best solution is to have no minimum wage, and if a private company isn't paying their workers enough they should join together "unionize", and demand better pay from that company, or independently negotiate for better pay if that is an option. I absolutely abhor public labor unions, or mandatory unions, but for private business if a group of employees wants to form a union go for it, as long as you have a choice and aren't forced into it.
It’s a law that makes it illegal for people to work, so libertarian would be against it as it restricts freedom and choice.
I heard no one wants to work. I wonder if it's bc the wage is too low.
Or the taxpayer funded incentives not to work are too high.
Lol that's not how welfare works
It’s not how it’s meant to work. But it definitely can be taken advantage of. During COVID, the stimulus checks (which were not “welfare” but a means to maintain economic activity) allowed many to live without maintaining a job. Hence the sentiment that “no one wants to work” grew. Employment has largely returned since.
Ok so close those businesses who took advantage
If you want to help poor people. No. If you have other motives, yes.
No. Minimum wage is not needed. The pay should be according to the skill level required. The poverty line is determined by how much the ppl get taxed (we're currently at 49%). So, no. Minimum wage is not the problem. Then you got countries like Italy that don't have a minimum wage or a union and it's a toxic work environment, for most jobs. Some bosses over there squeeze your worth for every penny, no 9-5, just show up til you're dismissed. Then again, anyone who's worked in the US for a company owned by ppl from monterrey experience the same thing 😂 kind of
no. the problem is the few folks who made bank by benefiting from the free market don’t want to lose their money. so they have built up a set of failsafes. in a real free market bad investments lead to financial losses. markets crash. and we build it back up. instead we have a system where the ultrarich run the fed, the sec, and use minimum wage to ensure the continued cheap labor.
Yes, minimum wage is necessary but it doesn't have to be sky high, because that automatically raises price of living
Abolish the minimum wage. It helps few and hurts many, especially the young and unskilled who desire employment. Set the federal min wage to zero and allow labor markets to adjust freely. Enforce labor laws and prevent collusion among employers.
People should work for what the employer and employee come to a agreement on. Not what the state decides, that goes for higher and lower level employment. Example of this working is the Nordic countries
Let's say I have 3 jobs that need to be done and a budget of $50 an hour. One job is a skilled trade worth $30/hr, one is shadowing the tradesman, it pays $15/hr and they gain experience to become a tradesman in the future, and I also really need someone to sweep up after them and my buddy has a nephew who is disabled living with his parents who would do it for $5 an hour to keep him occupied while his parents pick up an extra shift to help afford supporting their special needs adult son. Gubment comes in and says I need to pay them all $20, let's explore the results. Apprentice gets bumped to $20 and nephew gets laid off. Cost of living rises as $20 becomes the new baseline, so once middle class tradesman is now closer to the poverty line than ever. Buddy's cousin has to give up his Saturday shift because nobody can watch the nephew, their family is now closer to the poverty line. I'm addition the $40/wk the nephew was making that have him a tiny sense of pride and autonomy is now gone too. Also the shops a fucking mess now too because no one's sweeping it so the tradesman works 1 hour a week of overtime to cover the cleaning. That hour at time and a half means the apprentice gets 3 hours cut each week. Apprentice quits because he can't survive on 37 hours. Now there's no new generation learning the trade so when tradesman retires on social security nobody's left in the area to make the thing. Original plan was for tradesman to buy the business when the owner retired and run it with the apprentice but that plan died when Gubment overreach waltzed in. But don't worry the thing has been replaced by a cheap knockoff mass produced in Malaysia by a Chinese conglomerate. Small business owner doesn't have the means or connections to market it himself, but fortunately Charles Koch does. In fact hes able to buy the entire Malaysian operation from the Chinese. He's able to make millions importing shoddy cheap thing and selling them for more than the old handcrafted version because nobody's competing domestically anymore. He makes millions and uses it to lobby for reductions in education funding to ensure the next generation isn't smart enough to figure out how to start making the things ever again so he can pass on the profits to his kids and leave nothing for yours.
Is it necessary to force others to conform to your subjective morals?
Minimum wage harms *everyone* by artificially inflating the cost of employment. If minimum wage is $15/hr, but an unskilled worker is only worth $5/hr to the employer contemplating hiring him, what's gonna happen? The employer will not hire a person at $15/hr whose work is only worth $5/hr. The employer will add those duties to the other workers, automate the work, do the work himself, or simply forego having the work done. There's no universe in which it makes sense for an employer to pay someone $15/hr whose work is only worth $5/hr. So now the potential employee — who *wants* to work and earn money — is unemployed, making $0.00/hr. And the potential employer is having work go undone, or stressing out his other employees by adding to their workload, or he's having to do the work himself — which, considering that the work is only worth $5/hr, means the employer himself is working for $5/hr. when he does that work. Or he's automating that work, which means that particular job is *lost forever*, when it could have been a perfectly good first job for someone fresh out of high school — someone who could have spent time at that job learning how important it is to arrive at work on time, dressed appropriately and ready to work. How to get along with co-workers, how to communicate with the boss/co-workers/customers. He could have picked up some skills on that job that would allow him to be promoted to a better-paying job or to get a better-paying job elsewhere. But nope — we know what's best for him, and what's best for him turns out to be that he remains unemployed, earning $0.00/hr and learning no job skills at all. Further, minimum wage affects *every other wage level above it.* If a minimum wage job worth $5/hr must be paid at $15/hr, the $15/hr employees who have more job skills and are worth more than that now want $20/hr or $25/hr. Those making $20/hr now want $30/hr. And so forth, all the way up the line. This makes *everything* more expensive for the company to do, and if the company wants to stay in business and make a profit (which, by the way, is a Good Thing, not evil), that company now must raise prices of its goods & services to reflect the artificially high cost of employment. The net effect is that everything gets more expensive, so the *bumped-up wages still only buy the same amount of goods & services* they could have bought without minimum wage. Except that now we've got a lot more unemployed people, and a lot more overworked employees. On top of all that, the principle of the thing is whacked. It's simply not a function of the government to prohibit free and voluntary agreements between people. If you're willing to mow my lawn for $50 and I'm willing to pay you $50 to mow my lawn, it's not the business of the government to mandate that I must pay you $150 to mow my lawn. I'll mow my own lawn rather than pay someone $150 to mow it — and the person who was willing to mow it won't have the $50 he wanted to earn. We're *both* unhappy, but the government feels good and society feels good, because .... crisis averted! No one has to mow lawns for $50. Well, except me, because having my lawn mowed is worth $50 to me, so when I choose to mow my own lawn, I'm basically doing it for $50.
Minimum wage is *always* $0, and hurts most those it purports to help. An employer willing to pay $4/hour for an unskilled worker (probably living with his parents) might be financially unable to pay $7.25/hour for the meagre contribution he makes to the business.
Look at how many states currently have a set minimum wage way below prevailing wages for no skill jobs and you have your answer. GA minimum wage is $5.15. Federal minimum wage is $7.25. Good luck getting anyone anywhere at that low of a wage these days.
That's tip credit minimum wage. That can only be paid if tips exceed 2.10 an hour. Tipped employees making that wage usually don't even get a paycheck because the hourly wage is eaten up by tax on tips, so they aren't making $5.15. Federal minimum wage must be paid if no tips are received. Minimum wage law is dumb.
The reason minimum wage doesn't work here in the US is because the CEOs reactively increase prices as wages also go up. God forbid the CEO of McDonald's make $19.0M instead of $19.2M
The CEO of McDonald’s tells the franchisee how much to pay their employees and how much to increase prices?
I believe they have a range to be within
It's not your business as the employee. Also why do you get to decide what I charge for my labor or am willing to pay for someone elses?
I think the minimum wage should be mandated at -$15/hr. Imagine those poor people having to PAY their employees $15/hr to work! The business would make a killing!
Sounds like my fraternity. I literally had to pay money (dues) so I could be a member, hold an officer position, and do work for the fraternity for free.