Society & Lifestyle >
Economic Values
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedMinimum wage: Is it fair?
Results so far:
| No | 59% | 513 votes | Total: 864 votes | |
| Yes | 41% | 351 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe concept of minimum wage is to protect unskilled employees from employers who might not otherwise pay that amount. It was established so that workers would be paid enough to have a chance to survive. The federal minimum wage is $5.85 per hour. Many states have minimum wage laws that require employers to pay more than the federal minimum, but five states have no such laws. Washington State has the highest minimum wage at $8.07 per hour.
Minimum wage is not only not fair, it is a cruel joke.
PROTECTION FOR UNSKILLED WORKERS TO BUSINESS STRATEGY
Despite minimum wage laws, many employers of yore paid their help well. It was a good for business to find top-notch, loyal employees, and compensate them well enough to retain their services. Customers enjoyed competent help from employees who took pride in, and enjoyed, their work. The companies with the best customer service expanded. More and more of these stores began competing against local companies that had to either offer lower prices, or match the customer service, to retain clients.
Somewhere along the way, consumers began placing less emphasis on customer service, and more emphasis on prices or the convenience of being able to alleviate two or three stops for one. As this began to manifest into business strategy, companies that paid employees well, and those that specialized, began losing clients to companies offering lower prices and greater selection. The companies that did not alter their practices went out of business, or were sold to larger companies.
Today, those entering the work force at minimum wage accept jobs with very little chance for financial growth. This may be fine for a high school student, or someone trying to work his or her way through college, but we are seeing more and more adults and retirees resigning themselves to minimum wage jobs. Without a secondary source of income, these people have little chance to survive. Often the secondary source of income is some form of stipend in the form of welfare, food stamps, and/or medical allotment. When it is calculated that way, consumers do not really save much money over paying higher prices so employers can compensate employees adequately to survive.
COMPARING THEN TO TODAY
I entered the work force in 1974. At that time the minimum wage was $2.00 per hour. I was able to buy a gallon of gas for about fifteen minutes work. I could have bought a house for about 1,250 hours of work. Today, someone making minimum wage must work for more than a half-hour for a gallon of gas, and 3,000 hours for a house.
The relative prices between gas and houses has not changed drastically. What has changed is the value of money. Money, like any commodity, goes down in value as its supply goes up. The way the money supply goes up is through spending for which there is no source of revenue. For example, the economic stimulus plan is estimated at about $170 billion. The money spent stimulating the economy did not exist until the government sent checks creating it.
We know this because there is a huge deficit between revenues the federal government will realize and what it spends. The budget was already in deficit when these checks were printed, so, aside from the small percentage of revenue the government will derive as people spend the money, the majority of it will simply add to both the deficit and the money supply. As a result, each check reduces the value of a dollar.
THE JOKE WE SHOULD NOT LAUGH AT
Certainly there are people whose pay substantially exceeds minimum wage. Most of these people have skills through education and experience that justify the greater wages. However, it is becoming more common that private employers are not able to match the wages public sector employers pay its employees. This is an unfortunate dynamic that ought to be of greater concern to consumers.
Not only does the growth in public sector jobs denote that the economy is shifting from capitalism to socialism, those who are not able to get those jobs are left in the private market while it is shrinking due to outsourcing of labor and corporate mergers.
Gravity is a universal law that is also elemental in common thought. As the number of people who are on the outside grows, so do the masses of thought of hopelessness and disdain for those holding public sector jobs. As both masses with conflicting ideals grow, so, too, grows conflict between the masses. This has had unfortunate results throughout history.
The problem, however, is that the government can do little about it. Only consumers and voters can make the difference. Since the solution is for consumers to pay more, and for voters to stop electing those who promise entitlements, it is highly unlikely for the problem to resolve itself. It is more likely that price increases will exceed wage increases, while minimum wage will more frequently become the going wage.
Learn more about this author, Tom Koecke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Minimum wage is more than fair in our society. Today, minimum wage rule is short of what we need to have a just society. Capitalism is generally perceived as the incentive we need to be hardworking and to be innovative. It is also instigating crimes and avarices. Though capitalsim is not bad in itself, capitalists must be checked and controlled because they are just exactly the same as 'slave masters'. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Human beings are generally greedy. They want all to themselves. With the abundance of land in the globe today, societies still fight each other, groups fight groups and individuals fight individuals in other to have the control of the land mass. Human beings want to acquire things that will not be common to others and that is where their values lie. Man does not only want to live, he wants a unique life. He does not only want to have a car, he wants to be chauffered around. No matter his comfort, if others are comfortable as him, the state of living which equates his own makes man's standard of living diminish. It is not man's fault, it is due to his brain level of development among other animals and that is where we need rigorous laws to guide our actions as human beings. Likened to other animals, all we need will be simple rules. If there is no minimum wage, organisations like Tesco and Asda will employ for free. There is child labour in China today because the children have less responsibilities and can afford to take lesser pay than adults. American and British organisations are not employing underage not because they are socially responsible but because there are legislations against doing that.
With increase in the take home of the rich, one will expect that it will shower down their class and the poor will partake in the largesse. But no! The human beings are generally oppressive. They will like to show off their affluence and will try as much as possible to protect their wealth except there are laws to ban them. The rich will like to confine their wealth among themselves alone because they realise that they are called rich because they have money. They want to leave some for their children and their children's children. Do not forget that the poor and the rich need the same basic things in life. These basics are food; shelter; clothing; transportation; good health; and education. Any other needs are secondary. The poor buy in the same society as the rich. Though their may be market differentiation, the difference in their shopping is quantity and not quantity. Without minimum wage rule, the rich will be kings and the poor will negotiate for food with them just to keep body and soul together.
A saying in a multinational office says "If you pay pea nuts to your staff, you will end up having monkeys as your workforce". This is a caption under a group of monkeys deliberating with a man as the leader of the group round a conference table. Another caption says "Who cares to have monkeys as the workforce, so far as they can deliver?". This is under a caption where monkeys are carrying loads and there is a man in suit holding can. The rich employers' motives of setting up an enterprise is not to help the poor in the society, it is to help themselves. They have invested so much time and risks in making sure that their ideas materialise into actions. The only incentive that motivated them was maximum profit. To a capitalist, 'competitive advantage' is being a monopolist. He wants to reduce production cost and increase sales cost so as to maximise profit and have enough to chase competitors away from the markets. If there is no law to guide them from paying zero wages, they will do just that. By the way, the minimum wage is just enough to keep you going. It does not give hope and people are contended. Anything less than the minimum wage will be okay for the helpless poor who only wants to live life anyhow.
Human beings are generally acquisitive. Given the chance, human beings will acquire other human beings and the pride in this wll be how much each can acquire. They are not thinking of how to help the employees and pay the minimum wage only because it is the rule. The minimum wage came into practice because employees were cheats! Today with most management and owners of most industrial sectors taking fat salaries and entitlements, they still pay the minimum wage. Human beings are generally inconsiderate and only show empathy to staff if they want to use them to achieve objectives of maximum profit.
Competition is the order of the day in a capitalist world that we are. If there is no law on minimum wage, human beings who are generally multi-territorial, that is, have the ability to control more than one territories, will not mind using other human beings for free, so far those human beings being used are still ready to work. Leaving employers to pay 'fair' wages and salaries to the employees will be suicidal! If human beings are generally fair, we would not have laws in the first instance. Will there be any need for governance, both corporate and national? No. we need gorvernance and rigorous laws because human beings are generally unfair. Unfair in the sense that everybody will either want to justify the justifiable and rationalise the unjustifiable. Nobody will agree that his action was wrong. If in doubt, ask a serial killer.
Government is the group of qualified people in a society that can do what ordinary individuals cannot do on their own. We chose government to provide a conducive environment for everybody to live in the society. Minimum wage, employees feedback and redistributive tax regime system are just some of the tools a responsive government need to function.
Learn more about this author, Olufemi Oyedele.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
