Comments on: Mythology Of The Minimum Wage

WS: Any Increase Likely To Hurt People Who Need The Most Help

Add a Comment See all 34 Comments
by kaffers-2009 August 17, 2006 6:31 PM EDT
You have a good point, Kronocide. But I would expect that if the least-skilled people in the work force increased their skills, their salaries would increase while newcomers to the work force would take over their minimum wage jobs. I realize that's overly simplistic and it does not always work that way, especially in a bad economy, but often it does.

I was partly just reacting to the "insulting and demeaning" comment, I must admit :)
Reply to this comment
by kronocide August 17, 2006 5:50 PM EDT
Kaffers, the problem with your argument is that it ignores that wages are a function of both skill and competition for employment. Ask yourself what would happen if the "least skilled" section of the workforce _all_ raised their skill level significantly. Would it mean that no one would work at minimum wage anymore? Of course not. Salary does not have a 1:1 correlation to skill. If some section of the work force must have the lowest possible salaries, then it's insincere to claim that everyone could increase their income by "trying harder." If everyone tried harder, some people would still be at the bottom, and receive minimum wage.
Reply to this comment
by kaffers-2009 August 17, 2006 5:38 PM EDT
Uh oh, Kronocide, off with your head!
Reply to this comment
by kronocide August 17, 2006 5:35 PM EDT
I don't understand why anyone works at minimum wage, it's so boring to be poor. Why don't they get a higher-paying job? (Or eat cake.)
Reply to this comment
by kaffers-2009 August 17, 2006 4:53 PM EDT
The moral value attached to paying a person a wage that is neither insulting nor demeaning? Oh, please. We are not a Marxist society. If you feel your wage is insulting, use your skills to find a higher-paying job. Most minimum wage jobs require minimum skills - people with good skills are paid more. People should be paid based on the skills their jobs require, not based on whatever salary will make them feel good about themselves. Read "Atlas Shrugged" if you think Marxism sounds so great. And as a few others mentioned, don't have children unless you can afford to support them. I was too poor to support children at one point in my life, so I waited until I gained more skills and could qualify (note - QUALIFY, not get for moral reasons) for a higher paying job. And my boss makes more than I do, because he was the one with the vision to start the company - why should his wealth as an "equity holder" be transferred to people who didn't take the risks and have the vision that he did?

By the way, I haven't made minimum wage since I was 17 because I learned and worked hard to get promoted - there is something wrong with an adult who can't find a job paying more than minimum wage. Even my local Sheetz pays its cashiers $8.50 - although you do have to have decent English skills, which many people lack.
Reply to this comment
by random_radar August 17, 2006 3:53 PM EDT
The underlying axiom of the minimum wage argument that is invariably invoked is that you can't support a family on minimum wage. I agree, but since when is it anyone's birthright to earn enough to support a family? Having a family is a personal choice, and it is your problem, not your employer's. If you can't support a family, don't have a family. Is that harsh? No, that is basic social responsibility.

Whose conscience should be bothered by starving children? How about the parents who brought them into the world without the means to support them? That sounds better to me than blaming the parent's employer. If anyone is feeling guilty about the poor, they are welcome to use their own money, time, and talents to improve the situation. It is pathetic to coerce someone else to do it (as in force employers to pay).

It all comes down to forcing other people to do what we want. That is the essence of tyranny and oppression. The supporters of minimum wage laws should own up to being tyrants and oppressors, not the benevolent altruists they masquerade as.
Reply to this comment
by decristo50 August 17, 2006 3:44 PM EDT
Whitney Blake makes literally NO case for keeping the minimum wage where it is currently. Beyond all the statistics, and beyond all the rationals, there is still the moral value attached to paying a person a wage that is neither insulting nor demeaning. The argument that raising the minimum wage encourages students to "drop out" is ludicrous. Chances are those students would have done so anyway. And whether or not people in the "service industries" who earn a minimum wage also have other jobs as well, (or have family members who have other jobs) is beyond the point. Blake is say that we shouldn't raise the minumum wage because someone's wife or child works too. Well, maybe that wife would be able to stay home more and look after her children if the wage her husband earned (or the other way around) was a better one. These arguments fall flat and make me angry. Michael in Los Angeles
Reply to this comment
by decristo50 August 17, 2006 3:43 PM EDT
Whitney Blake makes literally NO case for keeping the minimum wage where it is currently. Beyond all the statistics, and beyond all the rationals, there is still the moral value attached to paying a person a wage that is neither insulting nor demeaning. The argument that raising the minimum wage encourages students to "drop out" is ludicrous. Chances are those students would have done so anyway. And whether or not people in the "service industries" who earn a minimum wage also have other jobs as well, (or have family members who have other jobs) is beyond the point. Blake is say that we shouldn't raise the minumum wage because someone's wife or child works too. Well, maybe that wife would be able to stay home more and look after her children if the wage her husband earned (or the other way around) was a better one. These arguments fall flat and make me angry. Michael in Los Angeles
Reply to this comment
by Coolcal5420032001 August 17, 2006 3:33 PM EDT
As long as congress vote on their $50,000.00 raise a year all is fine with the American public who like to work three jobs at a time. Notice how the price of gas goes up and everything with it except your pay checks? Slavery is not dead as some may believe, just look at how many people working two to three jobs, how is raising the children? This is way the hiring of Illegals/Cheap Labors is so common and the lobbyist go to your congressman/woman and sale the idae that it is good for "America". I want that job but I want one job that will pay the bills,"Slavery is Out, America is In".
Reply to this comment
by coloradoz06 August 17, 2006 2:01 PM EDT
It's amazing that anyone could believe this garbage. I guess some folks will sleep easier tonight knowing that we are helping the poor by paying them less. This kind of crafty rhetoric is shameful.
Reply to this comment
See all 34 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Tempers Flare In Climate Change Flap

    (624 recent comments)

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: