What price minimum wage?

[Collin Li]

Coblin, it's not as though those factors wouldn't come into play if there were no minimum wage either.

Do you really think an employer would pick a more attractive employee at the minimum wage, over someone who will work for less than that, with pretty much the same skills (especially if it's not customer service)? I'm saying a minimum wage will magnify these trivial factors, because you have limited flexibility in the market. It is ethically compromised to say that we shouldn't allow people who will offer to work at lower wages, or to work harder and longer hours, and instead we should favour a system (where we have a limited number of jobs for an excess supply of labourers) that will ultimately magnify discrimination in trivial matters (since these are the only degrees of freedom the employer has left to choose from).

[Eriny]

Coblin, it's not as though those factors wouldn't come into play if there were no minimum wage either.

Do you really think an employer would pick a more attractive employee at the minimum wage, over someone who will work for less than that, with pretty much the same skills (especially if it's not customer service)? I'm saying a minimum wage will magnify these trivial factors, because you have limited flexibility in the market. It is ethically compromised to say that we shouldn't allow people who will offer to work at lower wages, or to work harder and longer hours, and instead we should favour a system (where we have a limited number of jobs for an excess supply of labourers) that will ultimately magnify discrimination in trivial matters (since these are the only degrees of freedom the employer has left to choose from).

I meant that discrimination will happen anyway to some extent. Also, there are other ways low skilled people can differentiate themselves if the proper safe guards (e.g. the welfare and retraining schemes I mentioned earlier) are in place.

[brendan]

I meant that discrimination will happen anyway to some extent. Also, there are other ways low skilled people can differentiate themselves if the proper safe guards (e.g. the welfare and retraining schemes I mentioned earlier) are in place.

and how are you going to fund welfare and these retraining schemes? money doesn't grow on trees. are you gonna pay for it yourself?

[Collin Li]

I meant that discrimination will happen anyway to some extent. Also, there are other ways low skilled people can differentiate themselves if the proper safe guards (e.g. the welfare and retraining schemes I mentioned earlier) are in place.

I said that the minimum wage magnifies it, I never denied it would not take place. It would be magnified because in a free market, employers would be rewarded by abstaining from discrimination because there is an incentive: cheaper or harder workers.

The more labour laws you install to "protect" workers, the less people will become employed. If an employer knows that unfair dismissal may make it nearly impossible to sack a sub-standard worker, then he or she will naturally be averse from employing. The unemployment figure becomes even worse with minimum wage plus these extra labour laws.

[Eriny]

Regardless of whether unfair dismissal exists or not, if people aren't doing their job properly, they will get fired. Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

And brendan, taxpayer money pays for welfare and retraining. The biggest percentage of government expenditure is on welfare payments and education makes up another significant slice also. The money doesn't grow on trees, but it's there.

[Collin Li]

Regardless of whether unfair dismissal exists or not, if people aren't doing their job properly, they will get fired. Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

I don't trust the bureaucracy to do its job efficiently here. I believe that if an employer has unfairly sacked a perfectly good worker, he or she will return to the workplace because his or her traits are desirable. It doesn't make sense for an employer to sack a good worker: but we should let the businesses decide that, not the government (which has no care in the world about the welfare of the business or the employee).

I'm not going to argue for or against welfare payments or retraining programmes, but if they exist, it is irrelevant to the case of the minimum wage. Retraining programmes may eliminate the entry-level problem, but it still makes no difference to the employer, who will continue to pick based on prejudice, rather than significant traits (such as the wage and the hours, where competition has been outlawed). Retraining programmes will just add more to the supply of low-wage workers, which would mean the worker wage would be even more overvalued, so the employer would feel even more justified in trying to pick his employees to suit the best characteristics possible (which will be limited to attractiveness, race and gender, after labour reform), or the employer may just decide it is no longer worth hiring as many workers as he or she once did.

[Eriny]

Regardless of whether unfair dismissal exists or not, if people aren't doing their job properly, they will get fired. Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

I don't trust the bureaucracy to do its job efficiently here. I believe that if an employer has unfairly sacked a perfectly good worker, he or she will return to the workplace because his or her traits are desirable. It doesn't make sense for an employer to sack a good worker: but we should let the businesses decide that, not the government (which has no care in the world about the welfare of the business or the employee).

I'm not going to argue for or against welfare payments or retraining programmes, but if they exist, it is irrelevant to the case of the minimum wage. Retraining programmes may eliminate the entry-level problem, but it still makes no difference to the employer, who will continue to pick based on prejudice, rather than significant traits (such as the wage and the hours, where competition has been outlawed). Retraining programmes will just add more to the supply of low-wage workers, which would mean the worker wage would be even more overvalued, so the employer would feel even more justified in trying to pick his employees to suit the best characteristics possible (which will be limited to attractiveness, race and gender, after labour reform), or the employer may just decide it is no longer worth hiring as many workers as he or she once did.

The government ought to care about the business and employee, because it's these groups that elect them in the first place! In a way, they are the business and the employee. And it's quite true that a good worker should find a good job again, but it's a bit more difficult in rural areas where many branches of businesses have closed. It's also potentially quite difficult for single parents as well. That's probably off topic though.

And I don't exactly understand your line of thinking in your second paragraph. How does educating people make the economy worse off exactly?

[Collin Li]

It doesn't, but it makes it harder for all the low-wage workers competing for a spot. Since the minimum wage sets a price floor on wages, the spots become more exclusive, and to justify it, you need to have good traits. Like I have explained, the traits are limited by restrictive labour laws, so it will just increase the degree of discrimination.

For employers it's great. They get a wider choice of applicants. They can hire an array of hot chicks for their checkouts, or a white team for the racist employer, since there can be no difference in terms of wages and working hours. Meanwhile, those who may not be white, or hot, will suffer. They don't even get the choice to offer their services at a lower price!

[brendan]

And brendan, taxpayer money pays for welfare and retraining.

It's taxpayer money? How are taxes collected? Can i not pay taxes and not receive anything?

Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

Why the hell not? If i have a business and I want to fire someone why the heck not? It's my god damn business. If you have unfair dismissal then to be fair you have to have unfair resignation as well?

[Eriny]

Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

Why the hell not? If i have a business and I want to fire someone why the heck not? It's my god damn business. If you have unfair dismissal then to be fair you have to have unfair resignation as well?

Technically, yeah. Many people have contracts or have to give ample notice if they decide to leave.

And brendan, taxpayer money pays for welfare and retraining.

It's taxpayer money? How are taxes collected? Can i choose to not pay it and not receive anything?

Do you propose not receiving street lights? Or a defence or police force? Do you propose letting people go homeless? Do you propose not paying for prision facilities for the increase in criminals due to homelessness?

It doesn't, but it makes it harder for all the low-wage workers competing for a spot. Since the minimum wage sets a price floor on wages, the spots become more exclusive, and to justify it, you need to have good traits. Like I have explained, the traits are limited by restrictive labour laws, so it will just increase the degree of discrimination.

For employers it's great. They get a wider choice of applicants. They can hire an array of hot chicks for their checkouts, or a white team for the racist employer, since there can be no difference in terms of wages and working hours. Meanwhile, those who may not be white, or hot, will suffer. They don't even get the choice to offer their services at a lower price!

Yes, but if people are given the opportunity to make there skills better and more catered towards their personal interests, differentiation will happen. The people who can't be bothered accepting the opportunity to have government funded retraining will be those who will compete for the minimum wage jobs.

[Collin Li]

I misinterpreted what you meant by retraining. Instead, I modelled a situation where there would be an increased number of low-wage workers. The opposite is true. Okay, the retraining will be beneficial, and will ease the discrimination (as there is now less choice of low-wage workers for the employer), but there is still a fundamental loss of freedom to bargain.

I continue to maintain that it is not any more justified to maintain a minimum wage regime, because all it does is prevents an unemployed unskilled citizen from offering his or her service for a lower wage in order to compete. If you removed the minimum wage, a retraining program would still be effective: it is irrelevant to the minimum wage. The only difference is that the low-wage worker has a choice: whether he or she wants to stay in the low-paid job, or seek retraining - this would be decided on an individual basis.

[brendan]

Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

Why the hell not? If i have a business and I want to fire someone why the heck not? It's my god damn business. If you have unfair dismissal then to be fair you have to have unfair resignation as well?

Technically, yeah. Many people have contracts or have to give ample notice if they decide to leave.

That's private contracts. They don't have an unfair resignation law imposed on them.

[costargh]

Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

Why the hell not? If i have a business and I want to fire someone why the heck not? It's my god damn business. If you have unfair dismissal then to be fair you have to have unfair resignation as well?

Technically, yeah. Many people have contracts or have to give ample notice if they decide to leave.

That's private contracts. They don't have an unfair resignation law imposed on them.

Actually you're wrong. I am on an award and as part of my award I am required to give 2 weeks written notice before I resign. If I choose not to then I will forfeit my annual leave (which is currently about 900 bucks worth)... slightly off topic though

[brendan]

Unfair dismissal is when someone is fired without a good cause, such as being dismissed for leaving work early because their child was taken into hospital or something.

Why the hell not? If i have a business and I want to fire someone why the heck not? It's my god damn business. If you have unfair dismissal then to be fair you have to have unfair resignation as well?

Technically, yeah. Many people have contracts or have to give ample notice if they decide to leave.

That's private contracts. They don't have an unfair resignation law imposed on them.

Actually you're wrong. I am on an award and as part of my award I am required to give 2 weeks written notice before I resign. If I choose not to then I will forfeit my annual leave (which is currently about 900 bucks worth)... slightly off topic though

But that's notice. I'm talking about unfair resignation laws analogous to unfair dismissal laws.

[costargh]

Well thats what is deemed to be "fair resignation". 2 weeks notice gives the employer ample time to start a hiring process to compensate for any inconvenience that arises from resignations in my example.