Please sir, may I have some more?
Chicago's city council couldn't muster the votes to over-ride Mayor Daly's veto on an ordinance that would force "mega-retailers" (see - Wal-Mart) to pay higher wages.
This outcome, which I favor, gives me a chance to talk out of both sides of my mouth.
First, my problem with mandatory wages, especially those above minimum wage. The problem is the potential for a lose-lose situation. If a person is willing to work do a job for a given wage, and an employer is willing to hire someone for that wage, but a law exists that says the transaction can't take place, then both the potential employee and the employer lose. You may be willing to work, want to work and able to work, but because you and a potential employer agree that you're services are worth less than the law, or a union agreement allow, you aren't allowed to work. If an employer want's to hire someone for a given task, but it is of only marginal worth, they cannot seek out anyone to fill that need unless the value is above the law, or union, stated wage. Both sides lose. Not because of any evil master-plan, but because some (well intentioned) third party has decided what's best for you.
Quick aside, sports unions have perfected this. They've acutally made it impossible for an athlete to work for less than the several hundred thousand league minimum. If I'm an aging vet willing to work for $100k, possibly the last big income year of my life, and I can't because of the veterans minimum, I'm not sure I'm real jazzed with my union. Anyhoo...
Back to the minimum wage. As it stands, it's way, way to low. Even if it's just used as a guide line (which it mostly is, no one makes the minimum wage for any length of time, but everyone know's how their pay relates to the minimum wage) it's not an accurate measure of income to survive. The minimum wage should be scrapped or brought to a more reasonable level. I like the idea of using it not as a legal floor, but as a national guideline.
But, I can't get my stomach to take the idea that Congress get's an annual pay raise, while the minimum wage stays stagnant. Yes, yes, Congressfolk always make noise about not spending the money of small business owners, but those same business owners are also tax-payers. Well, Congress sure has no problem spending that money on themselves. Jackasses. So here's my proposal. Link Congressonal pay increases to the minimum wage. Minimum wage goes up, so do Congressional salaries. No minimum wage increase, no Congressional pay increase. One further note one Congressional salaries, I think the state they represent should pay the salary, not the nation. Makes much more sense to me. Whether they choose the former or the latter, I'm happy.
And that's what this is really all about anyway.
Posts
7 comments:
I say eliminate both. The only intelligent solution.
A fine third solution.
But I still like the idea of a "theoretical living wage." Non-binding, but it gives both employer and employee a starting point. Employee may be worth less, or willing to work for less, but at least they have a baseline. From the employer's perspective, they can get an idea of what their wages should be.
I completely disagree. There is no such thing as a living wage, even in theory, and no possible way to determine one. A free man should be allowed to enter into a contractual arrangement without any coercion. The baseline is established free of charge and free of anyone's opinions in the marketplace. The problem has already been solved, why meddle?
Not to beat this to death, but I'm curious how you arrived at, "There is no such thing as a living wage."
Also, I think you missunderstood my point. I agree that a "man should be allowed to enter into a contractual arrangement without any coercion." I also think women should be allowed to work, but you can keep your opinion. First, I'm sorry if I was muddled. I never suported any type of "coersion" ofr either party. But more importantly, the more transparant a market, the more efficient it is. The more information both sides share, the more transparent the market. Absent a daily posting of all wages for a certain job, you will never have the marketplace you envision. Creating a starting point, that lacks coersion, helps both sides bridge that gap.
See, I don't hold that empolyers are all evil masters of capital, some guage of a minimum wage helps them as well. Is my business viable? How much should I be paying entry level employees. You'll find that most default to minimum wage, without really knowing if that's high or low for the market. Imagine a stock market that didn't post prices, everyone just bought and sold on their own. Some would pay higher for a stock, some lower (both taking full responcibility for their trade by the way), but he market would be far from efficient. Leading to problems for both the shareholders and the businesses. This also holds true on consumer goods, think apple prices.
Markets like information and efficiency. A minimum wage is a forced buy, but a non-binding guideline based on some standard of pay helps all involved.
"Living wage" as it is used in political discourse is an arbitrary value that provides some arbitrary standard of living. That is why it is not real. If you have your own definition, I'd love to hear it as then we might have a rational jumping off point and could treat the term seriously.
I can easily determine my value in the market place without some enlightened price list. I simply apply for the same job with several different employers. The going rate will emerge all by itself. This is true of any job I can think of (but I'm not a strong thinker, so feel free to show me the counter example).
When I try to rent a property I set the price I want and if no one comes I drop the price (sadly this just happened to me). The same works for employers. They offer the wage they want to pay and adjust it according to what people are willing to accept. There is absolutely no need for any outside interference or suggestions. An employer is the leading expert in the world of what his labor should cost him.
As far as high or low, the minimum wage is almost always high (again I think it is ALWAYS high, but I fear your impending counter example). That is why we have an influx of labor. It it were low, no one would accept it.
On the new Costello album (you'd do yourself a favor to buy it, he hates Bush just like you) there is a line by Toussant about his father working "for half of what he's worth". It is laughable. No one is worth anything. You are worth what you accept. There is no other reality. All attempts to value things are really attempts to impose one will over another...thus coercive. I know you didn't mean for your "living wage" to be binding, but it is still meddling, and that is just the little, weaker brother of coercion. And both should be deported to Venezuela...along with Danny Glover.
Wow, "All attempts to value things are really attempts to impose one will over another...thus coercive." I think your taking your handle a little to seriously.
There's actually some good work done on living wages, by area, by houshold, etc but I want to move on to economics, my real love.
What you've described in your example is a very inefficient market. An efficient market is where both the buyer and seller have loads of data points and share symetrical dissemination of information. In your example, the seller (employee) has only a few data points, while the buyer has many (assuming they hire and fire people on a regular basis and see many many candidates for any opening). Again, I'm not saying that this is wrong, or that "the man controls all" I'm just pointing out a fact. What we also know is that inefficient markets do not maximize value. I'll go back again to the stock market. Developing nations have inefficient stock markets. Yes, some investors will expoit those inefficiences to their advantage, but the market as a whole is not as large as it could be, thus potential wealth is excluded from the market. Some pockets may, intermittantly do well, and will also likely suffer, but all would benefit from a larger, more stable, or efficient market.
What you call "coersion" I call knowledge. The more knowledge, the more efficient the market, the larger the market, the more stable the market, and the more wealth is ulitimately created. Ideally (from an economic standpoint, and not something I would endorse)all wages for all jobs with all qualifiations would be posted and public. People would move to maximize their value, and companies could rationalize their payrolls. One advantage a large company has over a start-up is that the large company has a much larger database of salary information for skill set than a small one. Small companies often over pay, or underpay and lose key people because they don't "know" the market, thus their labor costs are higher, leading to lower margins or higher priced goods. This is why some companies pay for market information regarding salaries.
Since a public data base doesn't exist, some have made an honest attempt to create generic data points. I think they're helpful, you may not. So my suggestion to you, if a non-binding minimum wage ever comes about, is to ignore it.
Nice post. But could you please stop throwing in apostrophes whenever you write a verb that ends in 's'?
Post a Comment