US minimum wage map

[Emsworth]

I don't see why the government should be in the business of setting minimum prices for anything. Firstly, price controls (whether minimum or maximum prices) adversely affect the economy; such a distortion of the market ultimately leads to economic inefficiency.

Secondly, people should be allowed to work for whatever wage they please. The government has no business interfering with the liberty of contract, coercing both employers and employees.

[opebo]

I don't see why the government should be in the business of setting minimum prices for anything. Firstly, price controls (whether minimum or maximum prices) adversely affect the economy; such a distortion of the market ultimately leads to economic inefficiency.

Secondly, people should be allowed to work for whatever wage they please. The government has no business interfering with the liberty of contract, coercing both employers and employees.

Of course they do, emsworth, as the voters should expect it, for the simple reason that the vast majority of them will live in poverty without such interventions.

[Emsworth]

Of course they do, emsworth, as the voters should expect it, for the simple reason that the vast majority of them will live in poverty without such interventions.

Firstly, I disagree that a majority of the People will live in poverty. Such was definitely not the case before the U.S. established a minimum wage. And, it is not relevant if a few people live in poverty or not. The greater principle--opposition to coercion--is far more important.

[opebo]

Of course they do, emsworth, as the voters should expect it, for the simple reason that the vast majority of them will live in poverty without such interventions.

Firstly, I disagree that a majority of the People will live in poverty. Such was definitely not the case before the U.S. established a minimum wage. And, it is not relevant if a few people live in poverty or not. The greater principle--opposition to coercion--is far more important.

No, prior to the 'big-government' post-war Keyensian/liberal era, the great majority of Americans lived in poverty.

As for your 'principle', who cares?  Why should anyone accept abject misery and ruination of their brief human life based upon some nonsensical principle that really just serves the interests of their owners? 

Like so many concepts, what you claim is 'opposition to coercion' is really just embracing a different type of coercion that serves a different interest group in society - hence all the poor corralled in jail at the present moment.

[A18]

They are (mostly) in jail for coercion.

[Emsworth]

Like so many concepts, what you claim is 'opposition to coercion' is really just embracing a different type of coercion that serves a different interest group in society - hence all the poor corralled in jail at the present moment.

You are completely misrepresenting the issue. As A18 says, these individuals are in jail for coercion (stealing, for example). Laissez-faire capitalism is opposition to coercion.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Of course they do, emsworth, as the voters should expect it, for the simple reason that the vast majority of them will live in poverty without such interventions.

Firstly, I disagree that a majority of the People will live in poverty. Such was definitely not the case before the U.S. established a minimum wage. And, it is not relevant if a few people live in poverty or not. The greater principle--opposition to coercion--is far more important.

It is always relevant that people are living in poverty.  We will never be able to win the war on poverty, but we should always fight the battle to ensure that those who work hard are able to put food on the table for their families.

I strongly favor a minimum wage, though I believe it has to be balanced with the cost of living in any particular region, as well as the need to ensure that small businesses are not hurt by sharp increases in these wages.

A minimum wage would not be necessary if and when companies pay their employees an appropriate wage that they can live on.

[Emsworth]

It is always relevant that people are living in poverty.  We will never be able to win the war on poverty, but we should always fight the battle to ensure that those who work hard are able to put food on the table for their families.

With the greatest possible respect, htmldon, the fundamental purpose of government should not be to wage a war on poverty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would respond that any person who accepts a job does so voluntarily. Whatever wage the company pays is not forced upon him; rather, he signs a contract stipulating that wage entirely out of his own free will. This liberty, this freedom, is not something that the government should interfere with.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

With the greatest possible respect, htmldon, the fundamental purpose of government should not be to wage a war on poverty.

The responsibility of our government, as expressed at the time of its founding is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  When people are not able to pursue happiness because of rampant poverty, government has no choice but to act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What you describe is not freedom, it is indentured servitude.  You talk about a job as if you are entering into a contract to buy a sportscar or purchase a plasma screen TV.  Many Americans have not had the opportunity to think of a job in this way.  Far too many Americans work well over 40 hours a week, at jobs that many folks on this forum would never consider doing, just so that they can put beans on the table and cheap clothes on the backs of their spouses and children.  They do not have a choice in the matter, they simply have to take whatever job they can find.

[Emsworth]

The responsibility of our government, as expressed at the time of its founding is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  When people are not able to pursue happiness because of rampant poverty, government has no choice but to act.

In that case, we would have to agree to disagree. I am fundamentally opposed to coercive governments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government is not forcing anyone to enter into a contract to work. It is not punishing anyone for working or not working. Rather, any decision to work is purely voluntary, not the product of coercion by the government. They do not "have to" take the job; they choose to take the job.

Labor should not be regarded any differently than any other article of commerce. Just as the government should not control the minimum price of food or houses or cars, so too should it not control the price of labor. If someone wants to voluntarily sell his car for one dollar, he should be allowed to do so. If someone wants to voluntarily sell his labor for one dollar an hour, he should be allowed to do so.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The responsibility of our government, as expressed at the time of its founding is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  When people are not able to pursue happiness because of rampant poverty, government has no choice but to act.

In that case, we would have to agree to disagree. I am fundamentally opposed to coercive governments.

And I am fundamentally opposed to economics that promote poverty and indignity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The government is not forcing anyone to enter into a contract to work. It is not punishing anyone for working or not working. Rather, any decision to work is purely voluntary, not the product of coercion by the government. They do not "have to" take the job; they choose to take the job.

Labor should not be regarded any differently than any other article of commerce. Just as the government should not control the minimum price of food or houses or cars, so too should it not control the price of labor. If someone wants to voluntarily sell his car for one dollar, he should be allowed to do so. If someone wants to voluntarily sell his labor for one dollar an hour, he should be allowed to do so.

I appreciate your ability to think and discuss these things in such stark terms, but the world simply does not work this way.  Most Americans do not have the ability to think of labor as a commodity.  We are talking about human beings here, not cattle.

People have families to feed here.  They cannot "voluntarily" decide to sell their labor for whatever they choose.

We must work every day to lift our fellow man up and ensure that every human being has the decent standard of living and dignity that a good job offers.

[A18]

Why are the Democrats here more economically conservative than the Republicans?

[Emsworth]

People have families to feed here.  They cannot "voluntarily" decide to sell their labor for whatever they choose.

I beg to disagree. They make their decisions based on their own personal desires to improve their families. They do not do so out of fear of punishment or direct harm by the government or by anyone else. Thus, their action is voluntary, not coerced.

On the whole, I would say that no-one is "owed" a living. A company exists to make profits: that is its sole social responsibility (excluding legal responsibilities, of course, such as the responsibility not to defraud the consumer). Harsh as it may seem, a company is not responsible for providing people with a "decent living." It does not "owe" a decent wage to anyone; all it owes is profits to the investors.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you mean we as a society, I would not disagree. But if you mean we as in the government, I would.

[jimrtex]

If the federal minimum wage is $5.15, how is it possible that some states have a lower minimum wage or no minimum wage at all?

There aren't a lot of jobs that aren't covered by federal minimum wage laws,
Who is covered

Anyone working for a company making more than $500,000 with 2 or more employees is covered, plus people in other jobs.  Also people who engage in interstate commerce are included.  An example is a secretary who types a letter that is sent out of state.

Since most jobs are covered, many others are effectively covered for competitive reasons.   Someone you can trust to work without immediate supervision is not going to work for $4.00/hour.

Some of the blue states have $5.15 laws that extend the coverage of the federal law.  For example, Georgia covers any company with 6 or more employees.

The Kansas law is $2.65, which means for all practical purposes they are a yellow state, but have an old law that has never been updated.

The Ohio law has some step ups for very small companies.  If they had to pay more, they probably wouldn't hire anyone.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

People have families to feed here.  They cannot "voluntarily" decide to sell their labor for whatever they choose.

I beg to disagree. They make their decisions based on their own personal desires to improve their families. They do not do so out of fear of punishment or direct harm by the government or by anyone else. Thus, their action is voluntary, not coerced.

On the whole, I would say that no-one is "owed" a living. A company exists to make profits: that is its sole social responsibility (excluding legal responsibilities, of course, such as the responsibility not to defraud the consumer). Harsh as it may seem, a company is not responsible for providing people with a "decent living." It does not "owe" a decent wage to anyone; all it owes is profits to the investors.

No one is "owed" a living.  Thats why we talk about "working for a living", meaning that when people work, they should expect to be able to live.  A company has a responsibility to the community that it serves and has a responsibility to the individuals that work hard so that it can suceed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you mean we as a society, I would not disagree. But if you mean we as in the government, I would.

When society fails, someone has to step up to the plate.  Sometimes, the best agent for that purpose is government.

[Emsworth]

A company has a responsibility to the community that it serves and has a responsibility to the individuals that work hard so that it can suceed.

Again, we shall have to agree to disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Government involvement in the economy seldom helps. In most cases, it leads to inefficiency and to poor quality. The free market should be allowed to determine what the appropriate price of labor is. Coercive determination of prices by the government is not only unjust, but also harmful to the economy. On the whole, a laissez-faire attitude would be preferred.

[opebo]

Like so many concepts, what you claim is 'opposition to coercion' is really just embracing a different type of coercion that serves a different interest group in society - hence all the poor corralled in jail at the present moment.

You are completely misrepresenting the issue. As A18 says, these individuals are in jail for coercion (stealing, for example). Laissez-faire capitalism is opposition to coercion.

No, just the opposite, Emsworth.  The poor are denied access to 'property' by force - the owning/ruling class is defended by the State which serves them.  Anyway all of the property of the owning class was previously 'stolen', for whatever that term is worth, from others previously, such as Indians (directly), and Black people (through slavery). 

What you're failing to do is lift your perception from the status quo of class relationships and the principles and terms defined by them, and look at things a bit more practically.  If you have a society in which .5% of the population control everything and recieve all the benefits, what does it matter if you call it 'capitalism' or 'serfdom' or 'slavery'?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Interesting, although most of the higher than minimum wage law states were won by Kerry, Alaska has $7.15 an hour, and in addition is guaranteed at least $1 per hour more than the federal minimum wage. It ranks number 3, beating states like NY, MA, and CA.

[J. J.]

Interesting, although most of the higher than minimum wage law states were won by Kerry, Alaska has $7.15 an hour, and in addition is guaranteed at least $1 per hour more than the federal minimum wage. It ranks number 3, beating states like NY, MA, and CA.

Alaska has the unusual situation of having, in general, higher priced (due to transportation costs).  I'm not entirely sure that this is a "real" higher minimum wage.

[??????????]

Reading HTMLDons comments disturbs me. He certainly is not a Republican or Conservative. The best term to describe him would be a "moderate liberal".

[DanielX]

Why are the Democrats here more economically conservative than the Republicans?

Emsworth is a sort-of DINO - he sounds more like a Libertarian then anything else.  HTMLDon, on the other hand, is a Republican, albeit not a very conservative one (somewhat like Bush Sr., i guess).

[??????????]

Why are the Democrats here more economically conservative than the Republicans?

Emsworth is a sort-of DINO - he sounds more like a Libertarian then anything else.  HTMLDon, on the other hand, is a Republican, albeit not a very conservative one (somewhat like Bush Sr., i guess).

No, Don sounds a LOT more like LBJ then Bush Sr.

[Giant Saguaro]

I have no issues with a minimum wage, provided it doesn't get out of hand. No matter what side of the fence one is on, I don't think anyone wants to see the return of the Jimmy Hoffa days. Grinding poverty is probably worse overall for the country than the fact that there is a minimum wage, so a baseline wage on which people can get by until they can work there way up does not bother me at all. Should it be 8, 9, 10 $ an hour? Heck no.

BTW, if no one has seen the Jack Nicholson/Danny DiVito/JT Walsh movie Hoffa made around 1992 - it is a fantastic movie. Blistering performances.

[Emsworth]

I have no issues with a minimum wage, provided it doesn't get out of hand. No matter what side of the fence one is on, I don't think anyone wants to see the return of the Jimmy Hoffa days.

The problems associated with Hoffa would have been avoided if antitrust laws were enforced against his union.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Why are the Democrats here more economically conservative than the Republicans?

Emsworth is a sort-of DINO - he sounds more like a Libertarian then anything else.  HTMLDon, on the other hand, is a Republican, albeit not a very conservative one (somewhat like Bush Sr., i guess).

Thank you for comparing me to the father of my favorite President

Emsworth is just a radical libertarian, and like all radical libertarians has trouble finding a home in the two major parties. 

Keep in mind that I am not advocating any sharp raise in the minimum wage, I just advocate continuing the policy of having such a wage.

I am a big believer in Capitalism, but Capitalism will fail if left completely to its own devices.  There has to be a moderating implement on the wild pendulum swings between boom and bust.

The same could certainly be said of socialism.  Socialism, embraced wholly and left to its own devices, is a miserable failure because there is no opportunity for growth or reward for risk.