The Living Wage Makes It Harder to Make a Living
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 янв 2025
- Support Out of Frame on Patreon: / outofframeshow
Watch our newest video, "The 1970s are back. Yaaaayyyy.": • The 1970s are back. Ya...
Check out our podcast, Out of Frame: Behind the Scenes: / @outofframebts
We take big risks with people's livelihoods when we make demand about what people should be paid. The reality is, people don't necessarily need a "living wage" to make a living.
why the repost?
Seamus noticed a flaw he wanted to fix. Not usually something I like doing, but we caught it early enough.
@Brian The Destroyer har har. But no. Not at all.
Living wage arguments clearly shouldn't only apply to full time workers if the point is for anyone working over 40 hrs a week to have a guaranteed minimum. And this example is more personal and helps showcase the point that wages are a function of value created in relationship to supply & demand for specific skills - regardless of whether or not you have one employer or ten.
@@FEEonline
Do you honestly think that workers and employers have the same amount of power in the relationship... Employers can better afford to find replacements for workers who seek decent pay and conditions. It's not a level playing field, and it leads to rampant wage exploitation and miserable working conditions. Look at the Gilded Age factories in the 19th century.
Government is therefore needed to put pressure on employers to provide liveable wages and safe conditions. This video misses that point completely.
@@sairamesh5521 as a hiring manager, I am essentially an employer and I can't simply replace anyone who works for me. That's a myth. Good people are really hard to find, especially once you need any type of specialization.
@@sairamesh5521 also... Check the actual history of the Gilded Age. It was a period of rapid upward growth in real wages.
American wages during that period were also considerably higher than those in Europe.
To answer your questions: He reuploaded the video because he misspelled the word salary as "sallary" in the original video
Thank you, because it was driving me crazy trying to figure out what may have been changed.
True story.
braden7180
What?
I dunno annotations make videos seem unprofessional to me.
@braden7180 They just did.
When I was working at McDonalds near closing time, some couple in the lobby tried selling me on $15/hour. I said it may work for places like McDonalds but not for Ma & Pa shops. The lady said that if you can't afford to pay employees, you shouldn't have any. I said I agreed to the wages McDonald's offered me, I'm not being forced to work here. I'm not hurting for money, this is just a seasonal job I do when I come off the road from truck driving. They were very pissed at me. I didn't get in trouble for it either because they accosted me while I was working. Plus I'm friends with the closing manager.
So dope, i hope the whole restaurant clapped for you
If you can afford (blank) you shouldn't have any(blank).
This argument can be used for just about anything.
If you can't afford kids don't have any kids.
If you can't afford a doctor you shouldn't have one.
If you cant afford a house you shouldn't have any.
@@I.C.Weiner-If you can't afford living expenses,you should stop living.
Of course you are friends with the manager!You just let him take more money from the restaurant's earnings.
I understand where you’re coming from, however the vast majority of employees work for mega corporations, and at the least companies with over 100 employees.
This is a simple law adjustment, as in most cases where health insurance is required, the wage can also be determined.
We can mandate large companies pay livable wages without ever touching the mom and pop shops.
Furthermore, the phrase “if you can’t afford employees, you shouldn’t have any” doesn’t imply massive job loss, but instead means these large corporations that have bought out the mom and pop shops should at least provide these same communities with livable wages or they shouldn’t be allowed to remain in that area.
Shut down the mega Corp and the mom and pop shops could return to supply the area with jobs.
However, we both know these brand empires will not leave, and instead will buckle to the will of the people and pay livable wages where it is demanded. As proved by their wages at locations in other countries that mandate such laws.
Valuing yourself and the wealth you provide the establishment is the first step towards liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What I would like to see is a decrease in the cost of living. Most apartments in my area cost so much i'd have to be working 60+ hours a week to make enough to qualify to get a room. As many now want proof of income and desire it to be 3x rent.
When I worked retail, our bosses kept us below 30 hours a week so we wouldn't classify as full time, and therefore be obligated to give us benefits.
Sounds like that job sucks. Good thing you have the liberty to apply elsewhere, start a business, or take on additional work at multiple jobs
@@ericb5328 Indeed! There's a reason I left!
I don't see the problem
That is a bit of a problem in of itself. Mandatory benefits for full time workers. On the one hand if you do get benefits you may end up chained to a bad job simply “because I need the insurance,” and on the other it makes it more profitable to employ three part timers over one full timer and those three part timers need three jobs each just to make ends meet because no job wants to give them full time hours because they don’t want to have to fork out the benefits by force of law.
What ARE exactly the benefits in this case?
A 'living wage' is so subjective depending on a number of different factors like where someone lives, if they have kids or not, if someone else is helping to support them or not, etc. anyways.
Yep, there's no such thing as a universal "living wage". It's one reason universal income cannot work since cost of living varies widely between regions
Precisely why jacking up the federal minimum wage to NYC/LA standards would massively damage the economies of low-COL (mostly conservative) states. That sounds strangely like a *political* move...
@RAYMOND NATERLIN wow. Very well said, and I can’t tell you how much i appreciate you putting those thoughts down. I believe the same things, that exploitation of a “lower class” (from entry level jobs to working immigrants) is crucial to the sort of profits corporations pull in. By hiking up the costs of housing, medical needs, and college tuition, you keep the youngest and most in need under subordination to your will. If they aren’t willing to work two jobs at minimum, well okay. Lose your apartment. Dont eat for a few days. Walk hours to get everywhere because you can’t afford gas. If u don’t want that then shut up and work. This to me is the most abhorrent abuse of our freedoms, when we are supposedly the richest country in the world. Its so sad theres so much push back to ANY and ALL ideas to try and make things a lil easier for people. We could start with chillin out our military during peacetimes for sure!
The idea of a living wage is so dumb it gives the impression if you work less that a living wage you will die
Yeah, we should cut the living wage rather than cause legal issues.
I started on way less than minimum wage (I’m a student) and my salary has doubled in just 2 years because I started low and worked my way up
Nice.
Yeah when your paid 2 dollars an hour 4 dollars is double that
Skyranger13 And when you have zero brain cells you post comments like that
U dont have to have brain cells to not want jobs that cant pay the bills.
@@skyranger1366 Then find a better job lol, we don't live in a communist state.
Many Millennials been having a hard time getting more than just a part-time job. Many of my friends are working multiple part-time jobs because their employer can’t afford full-time benefits for them all.
@Donald Smith no it's because government keeps making full time much much much more expensive than part time if it costs you the same to hire 1 person at 40 hours a week as it does to hire two people at 30 a week businesses will naturally get more value for their dollar
@Donald Smith here is a simple example if you go to the store and there's a 20 oz can of beans for $2 and a 15 oz can for $1 would you buy the 20 oz can, 1 15 oz can or 2 15 oz can? I can bet you won't buy the 20 oz because you could buy 2 15s get 10 oz more productive and not pay anymore
@Donald Smith Why should it be more expensive? If I pay a part time and a full time both $10 an hour why should I be able to hire two people at 30 hours each or one at 40? My cost should be $400 for the full time and for the two part times $600 but with regulation it drives that price up to $600 with none of that extra actually going to the employee it all goes to compliance with the enourmous employer law.
@Donald Smith It's not the market deciding part time work is more profitable, it's labour law. All it does is make it much harder to find full time, which is a huge issue because the main causes of poverty are unemployment and underemployment
Donald Smith why shouldn’t “part time” be livable? Who are you or any labor bureaucrat to determine what specific number of hours of my time is enough for me to be a good boy to earn my living wage v
In Australia there's this stupid rule that you can only claim the tax-free threshold from 1 employer. So if you have more than 1 part time job you automatically have to pay tax on any income you make from your 2nd job, even if your total income from none of your jobs individually surpassed the threshold.
They want to force you into the mold of their stupid plans.
Don't some businesses limit the amount of hours their workers can do so they classify as "part time"? These workers, who are already struggling to find well paying jobs or jobs that will give them hours, are forced to pick up mulitple small jobs at multiple places. Doesn't that alone affect the stats you pulled up?
@Donald Smith the problem with that is most full time workers at 40 hours a week and most part time workers at 30, typically make the same hourly wage. But when an employee is classified as full time there are mountains of paperwork, legal compliance etc etc costs that make them more expensive for the employer but the employee doesn't receive any benefit from that extra money being spent
Donald Smith Well if you make a bunch of regulations saying you have to provide certain benefits to full time employees regardless of how productive of course they are going to avoid hiring full time. This again screws over the lower skilled workers who can't get enough hours because their employer can't afford the mandatory benefits.
@Donald Smith ok your wages have been stagnet argument is just completely untre, average household income in 1960 was 6,691, and in 2017 it was $51,939. So yeah wages have been going up and this information comes from the us census bureau
+Donald Smith the best solution is to get the government to not be involved, no minimum wage and only some working condition rules
The problem, as usual, is the fact that the government keeps adding more regulations to businesses. If your full-time workers suddenly cost you 20% more, the best option is to cut their hours and hire more part-timers. You want it to stop? Cut back on the government.
You guys must love Thomas Sowell.
I do to...
Thomas Sowell & Milton Friedman FTW
@Donald Smith
I was under the impression that Reaganomics aimed to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce regulation, reduce the federal income and capital gains tax and reduce inflation (I'm Australian so apologies if I've got something backwards) . However, how is this socialism for the rich?
Yeah, rich people would profit from these things but that doesn't make them it 'socialism for the rich'. Could you explain what you meant by that?
Unless you're referring to, for example, his idea of negative income tax (however that would be socialism for the poor, I guess)?
I have a pretty poor / under developed understanding of Friedman so I'm open to anyone helping me out.
@Donald Smith
Are you a Keynesian? A welfare state advocate (fake socialist)? Because only a Keynesian believes that Supply side economics is "Welfare for the rich". In actual supply side economics, it is sink or swim for businesses. Keynesianism is the only welfare government. Keynesians believe on bailouts to save corporation. John Maynard Keynes was the originator of the idea that government intervention is necessary to prevent economic collapse.
Nice false attribution..
@Donald Smith
Next you are going to refer to it as "Trickle Down" just like every other Keynesian.
@Donald Smith
You don't know shit about economics so I wont cause your head to explode. Anyone who knows anything about economics would know that your position is incredibly ignorant and elementary level. "Social Democracy" is just another way of saying "Keynesian". Because you guys don't want real socialism, and you are stupid enough to believe Keynesian economics as being "socialist".
If only there were some political party, or movement, that was trying to reduce the barriers around entrepreneurship...
Libertarianism, is dat you?
Not everyone is an entrepreneur, what then?
Wait... Did Antifa buy Starbucks?
Agnosis Paradigm Whoooooooo! Libertarianism! But uh don’t let me tell you what to think cause you’re free to think whatever you want.
"reduce barriers around enterprenoeurship"
Isn't that just another way of say "businessmen should be allowed to screw over anyone they like" ?
I'm NOT making a living wage watching RUclips all day. FEE, PAY ME!
Lol but you're the product, the product doesn't get wages
Do you make Reaction Videos?
@jonathan I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but indeed you should be paid just for watching youtube all day, universal income ftw!!
(you should be paid more if you did something productive tho)
@@unkownstranger1176 You are giving revenue to youtube through watching ads! You are working for youtube by watching ads they provide! So they should pay you a small part of the revenue from every ad you watch.
Genius, isn't it?
@@CMADE there is actually a service that does that. Hago or something.
Actually, I think that raising the minimum wage would do the opposite that you’re arguing. If people get paid more, that would stimulate the economy much more. This incentivizes people to shop at small business which is how those small businesses flourish when the minimum wage is increased. The rich have only gotten richer and the poor have only gotten more poor. Especially during the Covid pandemic.
Several things:
1) The rich have gotten richer, it's true. But the poor have gotten richer as well, and the gains for the poor - while not as great in monetary terms - have been considerably greater in standard of living increases.
2) Increased spending does not drive real economic growth. Increased production of goods & services people value does. That's the only way standards of living increase over time and stuff becomes better and cheaper for everyone.
3) There's also no added incentive to shop at small businesses with minimum wage increases and there's no historical evidence that this would be the case. Moreover, mom & pop stores generally pay considerably lower wages than big companies (very much including Walmart, Amazon, etc.), and minimum wage increases would actually impact them significantly more on average. Most likely, any substantial increase to minimum wage will actually put far more small businesses into bankruptcy than it would ever even come close to "helping" in the form of a general increase in consumption spending.
4) There's a tremendous amount of research on this subject, and very, very little of it suggests that there is any kind of general "stimulus" effect with minimum wage. Most of the pro-minimum wage research that exists shows - at best - that modest increases to minimum wage do not cause an increase in unemployment rates over a short time frame. And these typically rely on self-reporting via surveys of certain types of businesses. Most empirical work confirms the logically coherent theory that significant minimum wage increases have disemployment effects - that is if employers are forced to increase wages, they account for the higher costs by hiring fewer people, reducing hours, and/or laying people off.
Ultimately, you're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
It's really one of the worst approaches to welfare anyone could attempt.
This hits close to home, anyone whose every made money on commissions or short term work knows how vital and frankly awesome that kind of work can be. Working for a political campaign can deliver a living wage, but working for multiple in the same party gives a pretty good chunk of change
Why should a kid working full time minimum wage not have enough for a living?
I see a lot of 1000 dollar cell phones, 200 dollar shoes and new cars at these minimum wage paying jobs. I think people have necessities and luxuries confused. Everyone wants to live like a king and put in no work.
Excellent video showing why modern businesses are shifting toward contracting work.
Interesting note, the government is also contracting out work for this reason as well.
I went to get skills after working over a decade in unskilled labor. Now that I have a degree I can't get any job.
Not all that unusual. The same has happened to plenty of people - usually because they got degrees that were in very low demand. If you get a degree to do something that nobody needs you to do, of course you'll have a hard time finding a job!
But if your degree was in something *in demand* like engineering, biotech, law, special education, nursing, or even a trade skill like welding, electrical, plumbing, HVAC... you'd definitely have a job by now.
What the hell were you doing that you didn't acquire skills? Even "McDonalds" is a skill, which is why some people are managers and others are lowly peons.
Got certification for hvac, EPA universal and still can't land shit. Back at walmart while working on my resume 🙃. It sucks and I feel your pain
If you're going to use an anecdote, why not argue against harder arguments, like big corporate monopolies?
The kind of companies that root out small local business through economies of scale, then employ only part of the left behind workforce and pay bare minimum (due to oversupply of workers)?
I think that's much more interesting problem: whether something should be done about that, or is it simply a drawback of a best available solution. As for now, it looks very much like a straw man.
Tom The Pragmatist I do agree on the straw man fallacy. He didn’t even dispute what the straw man said. He he said was, that there aren’t a lot who earn less then the hourly wage and that a lot of those are young. He never said that it wasn’t a problem. If you want to you could stretch it to say that it isn’t a big issue but that still doesn’t go against what the straw man said.
Your reasoning would've required him to form a more robust argument against a living wage. As I saw it, he was arguing for private contractors and subcontractors to not be liable to minimum wage laws, but conflating with an argument against the minimum wage in general. It's almost clever wordplay. Unfortunately, most others won't see through it.
Frank West ...but the groups mentioned neither earned nor "need" the magical $15.00/hr wage. They are young, they are working part-time. You don't get an awesome wage doing unskilled labor without experience, and certainly not while doing it part-time while in school or as supplemental income.
Wage fixing is socialist. Stop it.
@@StarWarsomania You are completely ignoring my question and just restating the video talking points. We all agree that there should be place for contract work and part-time employment. I would personally also exclude young companies and small businesses from strict minimum wage laws.
I will rephrase the question yet again: Should it be mandated for a person working a full-time job for a prolonged amount of time to earn enough to support him- or herself, or no and their situation is a by product of the optimal (most utilitarian) system.
then what's the '' living wage'' ? new yorks rants exede by 2-3x time that it cost to rent an appartement in rural area, should an apprentise be paid 2-3x time what a rural apprentise make ? even if its not for fair the rural to earn less for the same job ? or should someone now able to live in new york to simply move where rants are more affordable
and if you want to have a set limit for wage, then you are just giving up to big company who can pay those salaries
small business need quality staff at a reasonnable price to meet ends while competing with internationnal business who can abuse other country's slave wage to manufacture, ship and answer the clients
by putting limitation and rules you are only affecting small or self employed as big compagnies can and will find loophole and have entire departement dedicated into defending their practices and finding said hole to exploit, while the little guy has no time nor money to get into those holes
The idea of "living wage" is also completely bogus. They don't mean living, they mean extravagance. I lived off of less than minimum for eight years, raising two kids alone. I never missed a payment, never skipped meals, never really was in any sort of straights. Sure, a couple of times got tough, and when my car broke down, I relied on the shop letting me take my vehicle and make payments, where most I know won't, anymore. But half of my total monthly income was rent, and we did alright.
Why? Well we didn't subscribe to several services a month, didn't go out to eat, I didn't drink or smoke or any other costly addiction, my phone was "the cheapest one that worked" and kept it longer than two years, and so on and on. I had a car, food, cell phone, high speed internet, for me and my two kids, and we lived. Basic jobs should pay basic wages that allow you to live a basic life. It's moronic that the western world has obese people in the lowest rung of income, complaining about wages. In no other time of history or in any other people group in the world, are there obese people considered poor. Or poor people with hundreds of dollars a month in entertainment expenses. Yet that's what people who cry about living wages are doing.
Grandma and grandpa didn't buy a house at 22 because life was easy back then. They bought it because they both had been working for 6-8 years, didn't go backpacking across Europe or otherwise travel for nothing more than the sake of traveling, their weekend entertainment was playing cribbage with neighbors, and they kept their vices in check and to one or two.
The thing that bothers me, is I make more than minimum wage, then the minimum wage went up, but my pay didn't, but the cost of food and rent went up because it cost companies more to provide those products and services.
Furthermore, artificial increase in cost for the same services, artificially drives down the value of the currency, contributing to inflation and affecting cost of living across the board.
Long story short, increasing the minimum wage made my wage worth less.
But the current issue is that those events have happened despite minimum wage not going up and states like mine never attempt to raise it past federal
I sure hope that guy is happy with himself after sending FEE to prison and making that other guy homeless.
Nah, he's just looking for the next person whose life he wants to ruin.
A major issue is when large companies like Amazon (just an example) pay their full time employees below a living wage so the state ends up subsidizing that extra amount in benefits like rent assistance and food stamps.
I do like a living wage, but only for full time employees.
My tax dollars should not fund corporate greed in my opinion.
Amazon's starting salary is $18/hr.
And even if it wasn't, that argument is backwards. People aren't poor because they *are* working, they're poor and in need of subsidies when they don't work.
A lot of people aren't skilled or experienced enough to command high pay, and instead of cutting off the bottom rungs of the ladder, they need to be able to find work at whatever wage their skills warrant in order to get to a place where they can get better wages in the future. The more we cut off those lower tier opportunities, the fewer people will be able to gain the work experience they need to get out of poverty.
@@FEEonline I respect your answer and I will look into this issue further.
Btw love your show. If I learn something, then the day was not wasted.
Why should I have to pay for someone else's rent and food? Those programs should be eliminated entirely then we can talk about Amazon's wages.
Add on top of all of this, that so many people simply refuse to EARN more. Take this one friend I had as an example (had because I got sick of his complaints on various issues without effort towards improving) who struggled financially. I make good $ now but was looking for a dream job, essentially. As you can guess, none of them lined up with the criteria I had. Usually, that issue was pay though one was close yet required giving up more family time than I was willing to sacrifice. Anyways... my point is that most of these were great opportunities for my friend. Having struggled because I wasn't aware of other opportunities before, I sent him lists of these offers. He was making minimum wage (or pretty close to it) getting offers that would double or triple his income. "Pass, pass, pass." Then he complained that the minimum wage should be higher. Excuse me?
Now... I'm not going to be sympathetic to your plight if you insist on wallowing in it. (Another issue that kept coming up was dating... provide more value or shut up).
Raising the minimum wage was another major annoyance because I decided to start my own business. I'm trying to supplement my income so that I could take one of those other jobs and, hopefully, eventually transfer to just my own business. I'm not a "greedy capitalist pig", just a guy trying to take care of his family while spending some time with them. No, that wasn't acceptable. It didn't matter if I showed how his argument would force me out of business because there was no $ for me (just the employees) after all of the risk. I broke down the math, every dollar coming in and going out. There would be NOTHING for me if I was forced into following his ideas with the current price. I pointed out that I would have to raise the price to compensate thus canceling out the whole point of the raise in minimum wage... also, obviously not acceptable. Sure, raise the quality to make more income. That requires investment which would be crippled under that system.
So... I take all of the risk, do most of the work, can't grow, and keep struggle so others can prosper? Why bother? Why not just become an employee myself when there's more reward and less risk there?
I understand your point, but can you seriously say that the same applies to mega corporations that literally make billions annually in sales? Or CEOs who spend more time on the golf course than in an office? Jeff Bezos makes 142k every minute. Does he do more work than you?
Freelance/gig work is not the same as part-time. You just compared project-based pay to hourly pay. Also your comparison has somebody helping for five hours work for $50, which means he's making more than the federal minimum wage. But more importantly, increasing the minimum wage to a "living wage" would not effect the situation presented in this video at all.
Hasn't the minimum wage been raised in some states past that?
Also, is 'project based pay' some kind of loophole that allows you to pay someone to complete a project at less than min wage? The guy hiring is paying $50 for five hours work, that's $10/h, how is project based pay different from hourly pay in your eyes? Are you allowed to pay a freelancer less than minimum wage? The point of this video is that minimum wages not only prices certain people out of the market regardless of their personal consent, but also that smaller business/temporary freelance hires may not be able to afford paying what amounts to the minimum wage if it rises too far.
Yes - thirteen states have increased their minimum wage above $10/hour. Is that an honest question or a rhetorical argument? Because it didn't address what I specifically said was the "important" argument in my comment. Also, if it was an honest question: Google it. Do the research. Learn for yourself. I just did.
It doesn't really matter. There's no consistent or clear definition of what counts as a "living wage", and there never will be because it's a constantly moving goalpost.
$50/five hours is obviously less than the $15/hr. minimum many people are arguing for right now, so I think the example works just fine to make the point. As for the difference between freelance and full time, a couple points...
1) We didn't ignore that.
2) What difference does that actually make? Surely if people are working >40 hours a week, according to the living wage logic, they should be paid $X minimum for that time regardless of whether they work for one full time employer or 10 clients who need their services part time.
More importantly, it helps illustrate the point that income/wages are a function of value created and relative to supply of that particular skill vs the demand for it... As opposed to being just a number arrived at randomly or arbitrarily, or based on whatever anyone might *wish* to be paid. Seamus is making the point here that he (and his subcontractors) are negotiating for their pay just like anybody else but as a freelancer, he recognizes that if his services aren't valuable enough to be a paid a ton working just for one person, he has to find ways of being valuable to several people at once.
The same is true for people (like me when I was 20) who work at grocery stores or movie theaters. The skills necessary to do those jobs aren't that rare, and thus the supply of people with sufficient skills is quite high relative to the number of people seeking to employ people in concessions or shelf stocking roles. If we recognize this, we should realize that the solution for individuals is not to demand higher pay mandated by law, as this will mostly have the effect of reducing the opportunities and jobs available for entry-level workers, but rather to see those types of jobs as stepping stones to better paid work and opportunities to build skills and experience which can be parlayed into higher value positions elsewhere.
That, or like Seamus, people should expect to work more jobs to make up for the fact that none of the individual jobs are themselves valuable enough to support an independent living.
I think most people actually do understand this to some degree, as most of the lowest paid jobs are done by teenagers and first-time workers who don't yet have the skills necessary to command high pay. Then they gain skills and exit those roles, moving up in pay as they move up in experience.
This is a really good question. Project based pay is not a loophole, it is how service-based businesses run. Typically, the projects are priced at how many man-hours it will take to complete a task, whether it's 100 people working together to create a massive project or one person helping in the final stages of an animation. If a business takes a job and quotes $100,000, they assume they can get that job done, pay their employees, and profit in the end. If they miscalculated and have to pay their employees $120,000, thats a loss. The business owner just lost $20,000. Freelancers are business owners, not employees. It is as simple as that. You are never guaranteed to make money if you are the one making the decisions. If you want a guarantee to make money, work for somebody else. And you should have a guarantee that pays a living wage.
The minimum wage is a violation of our right to work for less than minimum wage!
@Drakilicious No halfway intelligent business owner would hire somebody for less than minimum wage unless they want to jeopardize the existence of their business. An underpaid employee could easily file a report with the labor commission and bury you in legal issues.
So, no, you don't have the right to work for less than the government minimum wage unless you can find somebody willing to break the law, which is committing a crime and not exercising a right.
@Drakilicious you're right you do have the right to work for less than minimum wage however businesses dont have the right to pay you less than that so they won't hire you for that
and private property is a violation of my right to trespass any "private" property
Are you seriously making a silly argument like that?
@@jorgerascon1212 Yes. Because it's true. Are you going to argue against it? What if someone wants to work for less than minimum wage? I remember one example of a guy running a food truck who wanted to hire his cousin for $3 an hour but couldn't because of minimum wage laws.
Also it hurts small businesses, which can't afford to pay their workers the higher wages and forces them out of the marketplace allowing for big businesses to either buy them out or take over their locations expanding their control of the marketplace.
So its a bad thing, according to you, that a successful business is taking over from one which cant pay their workers a proper wage and forces them to live in abject poverty. Well that makes a lot of sense.
@@kayejaye7508 you think corporate giants like walmart, amazon, mcdonalds, etc. started overnight with that $15 minimum wage? yeah, with the advent of newer things and better luxuries, the value of our money changes. our money could change to only afford an apartment suite, a rickety car, a cheap phone plan, spotty internet, and enough food to last us for the week or it could change to be more like a middle class citizen, owning a house, a nice car, a phone plan for everyone in the family, internet including wifi, and plenty of groceries to last. it's certainly the responsibility of employers to give their employees proper compensation for their work, but bear in mind that these employers are also working and they also need money too because without them, there wouldn't be a company to offer jobs.
and if you want an example of higher minimum wage biting entry-level workers in the ass, look at mcdonald's automating the drive thru. because it's so much more to hire a bunch of people to man the drive thru, it becomes much cheaper to implement and maintain technology that would have otherwise been more expensive if the minimum wage wasn't changed. and because that technology is implemented, the kids that just got out of school now have fewer jobs to choose from as their entry level jobs.
and to strike down the "livable minimum wage" rhetoric, even when you have to go out for a job, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to leave mommy and daddy at that point. If your parents did give a shit, they would help you by providing housing and food while you find and work at a job, saving up cash so that when you do find that one profession that you wanted to be in (THAT'S NOT FLIPPING BURGERS OR CLEANING FLOORS), you'll have a nice sum of cash waiting for you so that when you do move out, you can afford to live somewhere decent with a lot of the utilities you want.
So the company pays the employee the bare minimum they can legally get away with forcing the employee to get on government aid... which is paid by the taxpayers.
So the business get's supplemented so the person can live.
Jeremy Raymond d.. did you not watch the video the main group of people being payed minimum wage are people entering the work force for the first time and people doing part time work
I've been saying this for years, if we want to help low wage earners the most, take them out of tax.
*There is no such goddamn thing as a fucking living wage. Money has no fixed purchasing power!* Quick example: a studio apartment is $2000 in Seattle, but $300 in Detroit, because wages are higher in Seattle.
Having a minimum wage for work is like having a minimum cost for a product. It totally messes up the system of supply and demand.
Wouldn't it be more fitting if instead of minimum cost it was maximum cost?
Ah yes, you are cap on how far you can rise but not how deep you can fall
@@nandohenriques2975 minimum wage was added after world war II during the ending years of the great depression as a way to stabilize the economy. Couple that with decreased government spending less regulations on the private sector and adding in ways to lower the tax brackets and after a couple years everything was booming.
Minimum wage itself did next to nothing..however people always have the fear of if I do not keep up I get replaced etc...back in the day that was more of an issue since there are indeed very much needed good regulations which can balance that out.
the living wage argument isn't really for low skill jobs or gig economy jobs. its an argument for jobs like teachers in really expensive areas of the country to pay them an amount that is fair for the rent and cost of food.
Who decides how much money is livable?
I'm really not sure what argument this video is rebutting. I've never seen an argument that...part time work or contracting work should be illegal? Or that all employees must be full time, salaried positions? It seems like a strawman argument, unless someone is actually making those claims.
It's an argument against raising the minimum wage.
Technically speaking, “part time” work is used to conflate presidential statistics like if Obama says “I created X number of new jobs” and you dig into that claim you find out that he created policies or tax code or something that forced or incentivized companies to dissolve full time positions and fill them with two part timers. I mean the word part time itself is really subjective, at what time does someone work “full time” at a job? Different companies consider it anywhere from 32-40 hours, maybe more but I haven’t heard it. The distinction is based purely on benefits, which is what this video implies is bad because if you give people a fair wage that they deserve to have to afford the bare minimum in their state city or county, then it tends to imply they now earn benefits or make a wage that the company used to pay benefits.
He is using contracting and freelance work to show employees how the minimum wage laws affect a business owner. Regardless of whether I pay a wage, or contract, I have set profits and costs for products and services. If my margin is decreased due to increased cost of labour, and I cannot afford to pay it without losing profit margins, I have no ability to run a business and pay anyone.
It's arguably not _quite_ a strawman, but it's damn close. The argument seems to go something like:
1. Libruls want to raise the minimum wage so people working 40 hours a week in in dead-end jobs actually get a living wage.
2. It would be ridiculous to raise the minimum wage to a living wage for people at _any_ job.
3. Therefore, the librul plan is stupid.
@Timothy McLean and THAT comment WAS a straw-man. Not arguably. Not close to. Entirely a straw-man.
1. Does the minimum wage ONLY apply to full time employees working at least 40 hours a week or more? Or does it also apply to everyone?
2. Is profit margins, and business overhead not a valid factor in discussing the feasibility of being able to pay for labour? After all, that's exactly what he showed in the video.
3. Is it more intelligent to ignore everything said, and address a complete straw-man?
The problem with this is that for most full time employees, the company needed the work to be done. Even if the wage was very high, they have no choice but to hire someone
funny thing is, last time I checked, when an 'employer' controls and pays for entire livelihood, it tends to be called slavery. They should make a deal where if you want a living wage at mcdonald's, you have to sign a contract that you will never move, never ask for anything extra, and have to work every single day for 12 hours a day for the rest of your life.
That's absurd who wants to work for McDonald's their entire life? Working 12 hours a day is fine but be realistic
Tfw you argue for modern feudalism
@queen_simp3273 not even feudalism because the serfs would at least live on the employers land
Have people noticed Walmart going out of their way to avoid hiring lots of people via automated stocking robots, and an abundance of self-service check-outs? To avoid paying customers higher wages, they implement technology to replace a large amount of workers to save profits. The smaller buissnesses that can't afford to pay higher rates out right have to raise prices to balance it out, which is bad for consumers. This impacts finances for the buissness, which causes it to inevitably go bankrupt, and everyone employed there is then out of work. Implementation of technology isn't necessarily bad in itself, but the big corporations like Walmart are cutting jobs at a large rate simply because of minimum wage. Minimum wage is not good for job opportunity without experience.
Ah yes the old a bulldozer replaced the jobs of 50 men with shovels argument
Eh the anecdote of a “starving artist” doesn’t really help the case of livable wages. Hourly/salary is different from contract work. Plus what’s the point of having more jobs available when millions of Americans have 2 or 3 jobs?
Artists tend to live from commission to commission. Which likely means they have inconsistent salaries. Art should be something as a hobby you can sell, not a full time job. Plus, source please?
all of the americans unemployed... like that should be obvious
@@operleutnant7235 "Art should be something as a hobby you can sell, not a full time job"
every full time artist: am I a joke to you?
@@-hello6177
I say just let people pay what they want, most wont be paying minimum wage to an artist anyways.
-Hello. If it were a joke it would have damn poor punchline. Artists can make great work I don’t deny that, but as I said they work from commission to commission. So unless you have a steady employer to make art for, you should make it as a hobby and sell it on the side
@@operleutnant7235 people who cant earn a living from hourly work just quit that job. why should you get paid a living wage from a single job that any hobo can do?
As a digital artist and freelancer translator, I work based on commission, and not on salary. If my clients had to pay me a living wage, I wouldn't have been able to even START WORKING so I could amass experience in the field and get known in my areas of expertise. Now that I have that experience, I'm getting clients willing to pay more for my services, some of which can far exceed the cost of living.
Seriously, I earn more money when I don't work for a salary!
_“Liberals seem to assume that, if you don’t believe in their particular political solutions, then you don’t really care about the people that they claim to want to help.”_
- Thomas Sowell
As someone who still believes in left-wing economics, I think that this statement is all too true. I am perfectly capable of recognising that not wanting the government to help poor people has nothing to do with whether you personally want to help them.
@@professionalmemeenthusiast2117 Thank you. I wish more people understood that.
They think good intentions means good results. 10s of millions starving to death under Communism was all for nothing, or at least it would be if everyone thought like liberals.
0:50 if the employer is being forced to pay minimun wage then why dont they? does it have to do with that being to expensive or is it something else cause i feel like im missing the point
YES IT DOES, I just got out of minimum wage jobs, been working them for five years, if the minimum wage wasn't a thing, or at least lower, then the hard workers would actually have a chance to earn more, because the employers could afford it.
As someone living in a country with the highest minimum wage in the world, this argument is bullshit. 1. There will always be a minimum level of employment required. You can't outsource all the jobs overseas despite it being cheaper to do so. 2. Companies adapt to the higher level of salary by automating and streamlining, increasing the productivity of the nation as a whole, hence the country becomes wealthier. 3. Employment at the very lowest level of skill level are disappearing, combined with government subsidy on education, this increase the productivity of the workforce as a whole, which is, again, better off for the nation 4. Companies that can afford higher wages, but not forced to do so, ended up paying their CEOs and management and in some cases shareholders more. It is less about the deadweight loss in the economy, but the division of profit. 5. Nations with an unlivable living wage are privatising the profit, but socialising the cost since in the end, these people need government subsidies to survive despite working 40-80 hours week.
And then the guy walks into a store and wonders where all the employees are to assist him...
Gee... I wonder what happaned to them?
Freelancing is totally different.
Not from a business owner's perspective. And that's the point. Emplpyees fail to understand how minimum wage laws affect the business, and as a result, eliminate jobs.
I have costs and profits. And it doesn't matter whether I pay the worker as a contractor or employee. The point is to show that paying more money per hour for the same amount of work only hurts inexperienced and young people, and small businesses.
Wait. I already watched this a couple hours ago. What happened?
Same
It was upload in a different RUclips channel
See pinned comment.
It's a sign that you need to become a liberal, we need bigger gvt
I once had to pay employer's insurance on my small business, for the protection of my employees. I had zero employees.
"The true minimum wage is 0$/hr, because you are not entitled to a job"
It’s a lot harder to get an entry level job with a minimum wage too.
This video does put me somewhere to Eddie‘s but it still gives me “kicking the can down the road” type vibes. Why doesnt mcdonalds or other mom and pop shops higher 13/14 year olds? Why is there even a minimum wage? If young people are working half these jobs and they just want a little extra cash why not lower the barrier so they get paid $5.00 an hour.
I think the problem here is that earning a living wage (which in my state of N.Y.) is definitely above $15 has become a bit of luxury. The idea that a 20 year old should make something like $22 an hour working anywhere so he could atleast pay rent, food, health insurance, public transit, phone, and have some discretionary money sounds absurd because people go to school for 4 years to make that money.
People go to school for four years spending thousands of dollars or go to trade school for a couple years spending some money as well just so they can come out and live.
Again, I appreciate this video because it shows a different side of the story with some reason but something just doesn’t seem right. I’m interested to see what people say once people can’t live off the salaries they make from their job they got out of college.
"most minimum wage workers are young"
A) factually incorrect, less than half of minimum wage workers are 25 and younger look up the department of labor statistics table broken down by age
B) 1.3 million people work for less than the federal minimum wage, which mind you if you worked a 40 hour week every week with no vacation you would actually be earning 15,080 before taxes. Try affording basic necessities in Wyoming for 1256 a month before taxes, let alone anywhere else, let alone LESS than that.
C) the lowest wage you ought to be able to make and businesses be allowed to pay during a 40 hour week position is enough to afford (in your area, your cost of living, at reasonable prices) to put food in your stomach, transportation to and from your job, a roof over your head, bills/utilities, insurance, clothes on your back, and preferably save on top of that so you aren't living paycheck to paycheck.
D) What does them being young or inexperienced or not have a skill have anything to do with the fact that they still need to feed themselves? If we are in a currency based system, then as long as you are a tax-paying law-abiding job-working citizen with a full time job you should be able to afford basic necessities, full stop. If you are not able to in any area of the country, the system has failed and needs to be tweaked and addressed
E) Any position necessary to a business's business model will be filled regardless if it's a teenager or a 65 year old, and they're doing the same work so the age doesn't even matter to what they should be earning. The labor does, and the cost of living in that area does.
Minimum wage shouldn't even exist btw it should be determined by negotiations between unions and the companies. Empower unions to be a powerful force, don't penalize striking workers, and you get good benefits and good wages. You try to apply this blunt government tool called the minimum wage, it's going to fall flat of the nuance the invisible hand of free market necessitates.
Right now we don't exist in a self correcting system, so we need to design it better
minimum wage shouldn't exist... but unions only work when the employer either is willing and/or able to give them what they want and when the employer can't easily replace those on strike.
also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that businesses don't have unlimited funds to just pay people whatever.
the cost of living in any given area doesn't mean squat in relation to the value of the work you're doing 40 hours a week.
if i'm an average burger flipper who works 40 hours a week why should i be payed more than the average just because i work 40 hours a week?
if i'm a great burger flipper and can easily handle the chaos of busy periods without missing an order or making the wrong thing it's pretty easy to see why i'd be worth more pay.
if i'm a crappy burger flipper who gets orders wrong and misses parts or delivers too much and i cost the company money in the long term due to less repeat customers why am i worth the average pay?
if i'm taking orders and i'm average at my job but work it 40 hours a week why should i be payed more than average?
if i'm great at taking orders even during busy times and i'm capable of making sure the customer gets everything they've asked for and paid for then it's pretty easy to see why i'd be worth more pay.
if i can't get the orders right resulting is slow lines, am indignant, get offended when asked to check an order by the customer and as a result are actively running off customers why am i worth the average pay?
there are jobs people don't want for various reasons and those jobs tend to pay better regardless of skills involved simply because demand for the work is higher than the general supply for the work. garbage man for example.
just because someone works 40 hours a week does not entitle them to above average pay especially when the supply of labor for said job is abundant.
that just means more people are out of a job because a company isn't going to keep an average employee around at a high cost.
they may even be more likely to let go of average workers for the chance to find a good one.
reality can be harsh but it offers incentives to improve yourself.
there are also ways to lower your cost of living instead of saying "give me more money."
People shouldn't live constantly stressed and barely scrapping by? Preposterous! Why won't you think of the poor billionaires?
@pandu billionaires aren't the ones running or owning every business. i'd say most aren't owned or run by billionaires.
gonna tell a person who's a thousandaire but owns a business that they've gotta pay people more and they've gotta give up their higher salary to do so?
while there is some merit to limiting outrageously high salaries with high tax rates, overall income for billionaires isn't usually based on salary earnings rather than investment earnings and things like that.
and i could also be mistaken on this but don't billionaires tend to be ranked more for their net worth rather than how much they're making. it's an important distinction to make because a lot of that worth would include the worth of the companies they own meaning they don't actually have near the pile of cash in the bank you probably imagine.
in order to make a lot of money you generally have to do something that the populace considers worth more resources than the resources you're using up.
so all in all if someone starts a company and ends up a billionaire it's because the general populace liked what they offered.
realizing they've got a ton of money after they've offered something the populace wanted isn't a reason to demand they give up their earnings.
especially when you realize that the top tax brackets are already the only brackets paying more into the system than taking from the system and they have enough money to just move away leaving everyone else worse off.
*edit* there was a whole tangent i went off on here talking about how crappy higher education and education in general has become in helping you learn marketable skills which has just been replaced with the goal of graduating and getting a piece of paper rather than actually learning marketable skills but i deleted it since i felt like i was going off on a tangent. guess i missed the last line when i deleted it which you can see below *end edit*
they don't tell you this sort of thing because you're their cash cow and they can use all the young idealistic indoctrinated useful idiots to push their agenda they can get.
@Matthew Milone not penalized by the legal system. Rather there are no repercussions for businesses that choose to extort their union workers and fire them. if you want a great example of this take a look at the history of Hostess, the sweets company with regards to the shady stuff they did to destroy their unions.
I should clarify by stating that I am a small business owner myself, and I am aware of the stresses financially of a starting a small business.
The points I'm making might not have been worded properly so let me make a few clarifications.
1) I agree the minimum wage shouldn't need to exist state wide or federally. It's a blunt governmental tool and there are better ways of making sure everyone has enough currency to afford food and housing. But since the nature of capitalism is a profit focused one rather than a person focused one, we need to be careful, and we do need to be aware of standards and costs of living.
2) Capitalism has no real self correcting mechanisms for human well being. We need to make sure the companies are treating people fairly. It's a balance and a battle a lot of the time.
3) Most of my arguments have to do with the fact that larger companies use these valid small business appeals as justification to underpay their employees when they have the means to do so. If we legislate a minimum wage, most companies are going to pay only that which they are required, not what is conducive to health and well being of humans.
Making generalizations about a flawed system doesn't really help us to understand why we're in the disposition of people not having what they need in the first place. Settling for a lesser job as opposed to no job and demanding fair pay or no work are really two sides of the same coin, so either way you're screwed.
Donald Smith no they haven’t
If you think living standards for all Americans haven't gotten much better in the last few decades you probably don't know what poverty was like in the 70's.
Not exactly what you are talking about but does prove my point facebook.com/WeAreCapitalists/videos/452799228224958/
And the solution is driving businesses out of business and taking away jobs?
@Donald Smith you have already been corrected on this.
I live in California. Min wage increases next year to $14. My union has negotiated a $14.20 wage for the year...
I drive a short bus 40+ hours a day. I wish the min wage was reduced back to the federal min of 7.50 so I could feel like I wasn't a min wage worker all the time and actually be able to afford things.
But this IS California...
So you want other people to be paid less so you can feel like you make more?
And you believe a company that is agreeing to pay you .20¢ over minimum wage wouldn’t pay you $7.70 an hour if only obligated to pay you $7.50.
This is why you’re not being paid $18 an hour.
@@bravanator551you’re actually an idiot, if minimum wage was lower, they could afford to pay much more than minimum wage
Where do I find source material for the wage statistics you cited? I would really like to see those numbers for myself. Thanks.
Here, among other places:
www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2015/home.htm
I’m just trying to figure out what the crime was.
eliminating the minimum wage sounds good in theory but in practice it would cause a total chaos, you have to assume companies pay because they are forced, they wouldn't pay you anything if they could. without a minimum wage on the next day companies would reduce paychecks to $1 so they can say "hey, we pay, it's not free work, it's all legal" and they would get away with it "if you don't like it you can quit".
Incorrect Im 27 minuim wage job and u dont go up there a limit to a raises and manger's still don't make good enough money just because u go to college ur not garnented
Despite what this video is suggesting... there is very little evidence that a higher minimum wage decreases employment, and there is no consensus on this issue amongst economists.
So much hyperbole.
Firstly, this scenario doesn't even apply to minimum wage arguments. What we're seeing here is a commission and not employment. The FLSA's definition of what defined employment is pretty clear. An employee is someone who is economically dependent on the work provided by the employer. Unless the narrator is providing regular and steady payments to the animator he hired and that is their form of regular income, it's not the kind of employment which requires a minimum wage. In these cases, the contractor can negotiate their own pay. It's specifically designed this way.
Secondly, it also completely skews information in favor of the conclusion the narrator wants to draw. Like putting up a graph of 100 people to highlight 2 as people under the age of 25 who make exactly minimum wage (Note: Not just all people who make below a living wage). That makes it seem insignificant and petty, adding to the argument that most people who make minimum wage are very young, when another way of presenting that information is that about 50% of minimum wage workers are over 25. Meaning that they're fully grown adults, not kids trying to make a quick buck.
Which doesn't even matter because minimum wage wasn't designed for teenagers in the workplace. Teenagers absolutely did work when minimum wage was implemented, don't get me wrong, but no one was writing laws to decide how much pocket change they should make at their weekend gig.
Minimum wage was created to revitalize the economy and combat income inequality. It was created because very large businesses could intimidate workers into being paid far less than their labor was worth, forcing them to work more hours than was safe, and leaving families economically vulnerable when they still couldn't afford to survive. These laws were designed to protect workers because on both a human and economic level, letting big entities take advantage of desperate people is not a good thing. On one side, horrible business practices spring up when workers aren't protected, and on the other recessions and depressions tend to follow periods of heavy income inequality. It makes sense why. When a massive chunk of your economy can't afford to survive day to day, they can't contribute to economic growth.
Which is why minimum wage should more or less reflect what a person needs to survive when working a full work week. Otherwise we have the same issue of a growing lower class, a shrinking middle class, and an upper class with all of the resources.
I used to have a low paying job with an hour commute for about a year. It sucked and we had a lot of turnover. I saw potential though to grow further in the company so I did my work upkept all the equipment and did more. I directly knew that the people in charge really appreciated the hard work and I eventually was able to get a promotion with a huge pay raise. I ended getting my my time started from the moment I left my home and I didn't have to pay gas or the commute. My point is that working hard can show that you are valuable to the company and that sometimes you have to start somewhere. There was a reason I got the promotion vs other coworkers.
Also, If your doing extra work to help and the company or leadership doesn't care it's not worth doing because where is it going to get you. If there wasn't potential I would not have stayed.
"As they get older and gain more education and more experience they move up in income as well". Not really, this is definitely not a hard and fast rule. In fact I'm willing to be a lot of the animosity towards wages is exactly because this isn't true. What actually happens is young people are told this constantly, particularly while working their first jobs and in university. Then, when they enter the work force they find that all the positions they might move up into are filled by people who will hang onto them for dear life. They can't move up and can't start higher elsewhere because everyone else is more experienced than them. Isn't this why the whole livable wage thing started? I'm not talking about minimum wage complaints either, maybe thats a different thing, I'm talking about these 'educated and experienced' workers who are in an over saturated market with nowhere to go looking to make a wage they can live off. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
This is dumb. People who make more money usually have better lives. Arguing that point is like arguing that one leg is better for running than 2. Doesnt matter if its 9.00/hr going to 15.00/hr or 65k/year going to 80k/year , more money gives more options. Only liars and idiots can say thats a bad thing.
Did you somehow miss the entire video?
People are starving to death and dying of preventable causes while we make automatic flushing toilets. There is NO EXCUSE FOR SLAVERY. You dont simply "move up" unless you have the money to get an education, and you don't get an education if you dont have money. Its an endless circle so telling someone to "just get an education" is insulting.
@Mr Temporal And yet the list of self-made billionaires to college drop-outs is quite high.
Augh, I think I'm going to be sick! I thought you were going in the total opposite direction with this! Billions of people are dying from of things as basic as clean water and vaccinations, living in tinshacks barefoot, and you have the gall to say your human rights are violated because you aren't making $15 an hour!? No one is fucking starving on minimum wage in America, you can buy a loaf of bread at HEB for $1.28.
All of this is very true. However, it overlooks the fact that even if you make more than the minimum wage it may or may not be enough to support yourself. That's the real question. If it isn't, you may be working at a loss.
But that should be your choice to make, not the governments. I live in a right to work state. I felt in a certain job that the cost of commuting did not justify the wage I was earning, so I quit. I knew the employer could not afford to pay me more, and it would have been wrong to have the government force the poor guy to pay so he found someone who was more amenable to the job.
@@JohnPrepuce Perhaps. However, if you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage in a good economy, you'll be out competed by those who can. As a result, you won't be able to get or retain workers very long.
@@sppoitier1 - That is true. If a business cannot manage their employees and wages efficiently, they should probably fail. I just don't think the government should be in charge of choosing winners and losers. Let the (mostly) free market decide.
@@JohnPrepuce Free market capitalism isn't always controlled by ethic. I believe in Fair Market Capitalism. Free market capitalism doesn't make provisions for worker protections or family medical leave. It wouldn't be in their best interest. It also wouldn't allow for big corporations to politically bribe the government to shift laws in their favor (also know as crony capitalism). Much of our free market ideology focuses on the importance of the business and business owner and not the worker which most of us are. In fair market capitalism, both the interest of the worker and the owner are equally valued. The only way for either system to work (fair or free market capitalism) is for there to be a powerful government system enforcing those rules. That way everyone can have equal opportunity to the market. It isn't possible to have a free or fair market capitalist economy without laws and government enforcing those law. You can't get around that.
@@sppoitier1 - Of course government needs to exist, that's why I said (mostly) free market. I feel there should be as little government intervention as possible. Crony capitalism wouldn't even be a thing if government didn't have as much power as it does. They should exist precisely to prevent special interests from taking over a market place. Also "fair" is completely subjective and what is fair for one party might not be fair for another. That is why the best way to resolve the difference between what you and I think is "fair" is through the free exchange of ideas, goods and services with no middle-man.
ah yes, the working poor. what a lovely concept.
Better than having nothing
A nobleman of 300 years ago would trade places in the "working poor" of today in a heart beat given the opportunity. We will always have 'working poor' because we keep redefining poverty.
This argument doesn't make sense because private contractors aren't treated like full time employees.
The economics is literally identical. It doesn't matter how you categorize an employee. If the government mandates a wage that is higher than the value that employee adds to the business that employee will see hours cut or lose their job outright. And when a company is considering hiring more employees, they will look only at people who are more experienced, have more training, etc. because they're more likely to justify the expense.
We create all these legal categories of employee for whom different rules apply, but the fact is, the price we pay for labor is subject to the same rules as the prices we pay for anything else. And the effect of price controls is the same as well.
Set the mandated wage too high, and there will be a shortage of jobs because employers can't afford the cost, just as mandating a high price for cars would mean fewer people can afford to buy cars.
What a lazy poorly thought argument, that guy could just commit a crime and get walls too!
QUIET YOUUUU!!!!!!
I do agree that part time work obviously doesn't need a living wage ( not even sure how that would be calculated ) but for any full time position even something basic a living wage should be required because if that job needs to be done then the person doing it should be able to survive off of it without they're existence being miserable . Thoughts?
Not even arguing the ethics of that, if such a law was enacted, employers would just hire more part-timers and circumvent it entirely (they already do this to get around insurance requirements in many states).
That ending sums up labor unions
2:08 what about the fact that the average age of a college student is 18-24 which would put them on the under then 25 statistic. Those students need to pay for rent, food, college textbooks, and other basic necessities. Getting all of this stuff is incredibly difficult when you’re getting paid minimum wage.
Grants, scholarships, student loans, or working a trade before college to save up for it later. There's your answers.
"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"
I would if I had boots.
If only you lived in a country so prosperous that facilities offering free food clothing and footwear dotted every state and city...
The only problem I have with this is that there is a growing number of adults who have gone to college who can't find a job that can pay them enough money for their work (either because the job market in general is oversaturated with workers or their skills are not in high enough demand) and as a result, these people don't have any other choice but to work low income earning jobs, such as working in fast food. Quite frankly, a living wage for them would be great. Nice video otherwise, just didn't show the full picture.
High minimum wage is part of why there’s not enough job opportunities, also college being too expensive is another issue (also caused by the government)
So, because you as an contractor dont get paid enough money to actually complete a project, that means it's okay for any employees you have to work for scraps because 2 dollars is better than no dollars.
Sounds like you dont charge enough to cover your services and the cost to do business.
All minimum wage employees are only temporarily employed they move up and out of that work so why pay them enough to actually live on.
So then why has minimum wage gone up at all, by that logic you can pay 10 cents an hour, it's all temporary. Also because there are always positions available to move up into, 100 burger flippers make 100 CEOs at the end of the career path right?
This was financial ignorance of the highest order.
If a guy thinks his work is worth 2$/hour, who are we to say he can't work for that? It's his choice, his folly. It's up to the worker to manage his time and finances, not the government. So long as we don't live in labor camps and have the option to deny anyone our service, we should be able to work for as little as we want. If some idiot will work for 10 cents an hour, that's because he's an idiot who doesn't know how to make money, and that's not the problem of the government. If the 10-cent worker were smart, he would turn down the abusive job, and the business would crash, because it has no employees, because, again, only idiots would agree to work for 10 cents on the hour.
I hate to say it, but could one reason be the fact that we are simply spending too much?
I do not have the numbers on the development of leisure expenses over the last decades, but online entertainment, streaming services, videogames, smartphones, computers, gaming consoles - all of this is new. There wasn't much of these kind of expenses around, fifty years ago. And I kind of wonder, if we cut this out, if the wages suddenly would become much more livable.
The fact that most people can afford these luxuries shows just how much the affluence of the middle class and even the poor has risen over the past century, or even the past few decades. And yes, those luxuries shouldn't be considered necessities for low experience workers.
Overall all the things you listed have started coating less to us than forever ago a commodore 64 in 1982 was $585 and the next years dropped price to $250 to which adjusted for inflation is about $1,700/$800 now a modern ps5 costs 300-400 and since we've replaced satellite TV with streaming services I'd say that's a pretty even trade smartphones are a necessity due to how the modern world works
“I’m 18 and have no work experience. But I want a living wage so I can afford to live on my own in an apartment or house, with no need for a roommate, I want to have a new reliable car, my choice of hours, full benefits, daycare if needed, and any other perks I might think of.”
hah, literally what everyone else wants. I wonder what our ancestors would have thought about the modern entitlement attitudes.
@johnprepuce4682 yeah so entitled like what do you mean you want the same as your grandparents being able to afford a house a wife 2 cars and a kid all at the age of 25 how dare you good sir
@@bluespidergaming7719 - provide something that someone else wants in exchange for money. Either your labor, or your brain; sometimes both. Pretty simple, it's a transaction that has existed since the beginning of time. My grandfather busted his back to get what he had. So did my dad, and so do I.
The entitlement comes from people who think that they "deserve" those things without having earned them.
Yeah I’m sorry but your first argument completely misrepresents your opposition. No one is saying contract work should be illegal because everyone should work full time. "A few hours of extra work" is vague but 3 hours would be 16.60 which is more more then the proposed minimum, 4 hours would be 12.50, 5 would be 10, and 6 would be 8.70 which are all still varying degrees above the minimum wage. Even so contracted work is set buy an agreed to price before hand and even if minimum wage were to be raised wouldn’t be effected, a contractor has to estimate there own time put in and take the loss if if they end up putting more time then expected. I’ve done this myself with free lance work, ending up working for less then minimum wage because I miscalculated what it would take to finish the project to the clients satisfaction (I also was not paid at all and the promised money was to small to take to court but that’s another matter). Point being if you are going to make an argument make it against a point that someone is actually making. Any one can make themselves the voice of "common sense" if their opponent is a made up straw man with no basis in reality.
Your bias shows a bit too much. Because the argument in the video is pretty much a non-argument, but what gives it away is your main points. It's clear that the video isn't saying 'Living Wage isn't entirely a good thing' but 'Living Wage threatens my line of work'. This is rather obvious since what is pretty much your biggest point is how your line of work specifically is effective by minimum wage.
I'm not saying I'm on either side of the argument, but I'm just recommending that you think about this when you make a video. When you put too much of your specific situation on display when trying to discuss a broad topic, then your opinion starts to become invalidated. Arguments should be seen from both sides so that you can better justify why one may or may not want a change like this.
@Donald Smith Well I think it's awesome that you'd complain about the video straw manning an argument, by strawmanning the video.
"No one is arguing that everyone needs to be a full time salaried employee or that contract work should be illegal.
" -- this is your description of the video. The video was an argument on being paid a living wage, it used examples of part time work or contract work; but it's premise was about people making decisions for themselves, using the example if $50 was worth 5 hrs of work and that the government shouldn't be able to tell others what wage they can and can't accept. Taking the actual video against your description it becomes obvious your description is an oversimplification of the video in such a way as to make the original argument appear weaker and more ridiculous. Your description is not close to the actual argument of the video, thus you created a strawman of this video. You also claimed the video is based on a strawman, but people commonly argue that everyone should receive a living wage and that the government should make laws to force this. Therefore, you complained about the video strawmanning an argument, by strawmanning the video.
I totally get this video. I have a sister that use to mainly help with tax filing around the beginning of the year than showed up less during the rest of the year. But after the Obama administration put in new mandates for benefits they could no longer afford to employ my sister (and yes, she saw the businesses numbers and didn't blame them for letting her go).
I loved the Thanos video but the conflation of arguments in some of these other videos are ridiculous. You can ask multi-billion dollar companies to pay its employees livable wages without effecting the process/need for independent contractors, which is what your describing in this video. One of many issues are these multi-million/billion dollar companies hiring independent contractors to avoid pay certain rates, benefits, etc but giving them the workload of a full time employee. The government should reduce the regulations and obstacles for small business owners and budding entrepreneurs but they often use those groups as talking points to create loopholes that large cooperations use, which ultimately helps them eliminate small business competition. You’re overly simplifying a complex issue, both conservatives and liberals do this for some reason. Complex issues require complex answers and you get that from healthy debate between each “side” to bounce ideas off each other and come up with better and more efficient paths that help all people. I understand that the era in which moderates existed seems to now be dead.
The "some reason" you're talked about is greed.
@@denisl2760 Pretending everyone's a bad person while we who can realize this specific fallacy are free of sin is stupid. Or prideful.
Never said that I'm not greedy. Just pointing out that people are greedy in general.
@@denisl2760 Good point then.
The solution is anti-monopoly laws and breaking these bastards up. In an actual free market with real competition, businesses compete for competent labour. But this gaggle of cronyism corporatism we have right now is miles away from a free market. last time anti-trust laws were really enforced was the Seven Sisters back in the 70's.
"Will animate for food..." Nuts to that; with the boat I am in, it's more like "Will write for EXPERIENCE!" Because damn it, people would turn me away even if I literally work as a volunteer! This job situation fucking sucks!
I want to know if there's an incline with part-time work, a decline in full-time work, and maybe a long-term trend of jobs in general totally going away. We might be able to find out with 10 more years of collected analysis.
Plus, being an entrepreneur doesn't matter when everybody is selling but nobody is buying.
In conclusion, yes, the lowest rungs ARE getting taken away from the workforce. With the way I see trends going, it's kind of like a rising tide or flood: the bottom rungs are the first to become eternally submerged (since those like me just starting out have contributed the least to society, since "potential" doesn't count for shit, so those are the first to go), but don't worry...it'll reach the highest peaks of the corporate ladder, eventually...
couldn't have been copyrighted or anything already could it?
They corrected “sallary” to “salary”
I think the "living wage" argument mostly centers around people who are salaried employees but still don't make a "living wage." If you spend 12 hours a day at work and still can't afford to rent and apartment, pay for bills and feed yourself I can see how people might consider that a problem. It doesn't matter if this wage is from one job or multiple jobs. Jobs are a market too and considering the sheer quantity of people who are qualified for say, I don't know, working at MCDonalds is staggering. If you take that number of people as supply and the number of actually available jobs for that skill level as demand you can see how that might drive down wages. That's why I support minimum wage laws, though I believe they should be negotiated locally rather than at the state or federal level and then should be followed up by constant renegotiation. The fact that there is a federal minimum wage is just dumb. Though, having said this I'm generally not an advocate for increasing the minimum wage. People have a tendency to want more not less and the moment you set that minimum wage there's no taking it back and the only direction that minimum wage can go is up. Sadly this fact makes is so there is almost no way to change the policy based on an actual understanding of the local market trends.
So then what are those people, zombies? "Living wage" is meaningless gobbledygook.
This is such a strawman. I've not seen anyone who's arguing for a living wage say you should earn a full living from part time work.
That's not the argument here though.
The argument is responding to the idea that there should be some minimum for any kind of work that would guarantee a specific income at 40 hrs, but it's using a personal example to explain the core principles involved and what the tradeoffs actually are... And those tradeoffs exist no matter what.
Besides, if you think there should be mandated minimums, why would it matter to you if the person worked two 20-hr a week jobs or one 40-hr a week job? Don't both "deserve" to be paid a living wage?
The mistake here is thinking that there is a fundamental difference between the two. There really isn't. If you mandate a specific minimum wage that is above the level at which people are profitable to employ - whether or not they are part time, full time, contracotrs, freelancers, etc. - they will become unemployed.
@@FEEonline okay, how many hours should someone have to work to pay for rent, food, utilities, health insurance, etc? Things that are necessary fundamentals just to have a healthy existence.
@@mmdnso that's not a good question, tbh.
The state of nature (which is ultimately what we're always battling) doesn't provide you with anything. It doesn't matter how many hours you work, if you don't catch the fish, you don't eat.
The beauty of division of labor and trade (and money) is that people can work to create value in the ways that they're actually best at and trade with people for the stuff they're better at making. For example, if you are bad at catching fish, but can get good at making nets, you can do that and sell your net to the fisherman. This doesn't eliminate work because reality still requires that we actually produce if we want to eat... But what it does do is provide a way for human beings to drastically improve their productivity, efficiency, and reduce the time it takes to achieve survival and a rising standard of living over time.
But... The "over time" part is the key problem with your question.
There is no objectively correct number of hours it should take to pay for a house or food, etc., because 1) standards of living are constantly increasing, and people are constantly finding ways to make things more quickly with fewer resources, and thus it takes fewer and fewer hours to get those "basic necessities"; and because 2) what qualifies as "basic" is also a moving target.
As the world gets wealthier and wealthier, what qualifies as "basic" changes. When I was a kid, internet wasn't a thing. By the time I was in college, it was becoming a necessity but it was also really slow. Today, it's almost unthinkable to not have internet access.
Do you expect a 2 bedroom apartment for yourself with no roommates? That's what most studies claiming that people can't afford housing on minimum wage are assuming you should have... But it's certainly not what I could afford when I was younger and much poorer than I am today. A hundred years ago, it would not be uncommon to find multiple families living in one house... Or even one room. This is still common in other parts of the world.
Likewise... Do you expect to own your own car or share a car/ride a bus? Is it new car? Do you get new clothes every 6 months? Video games and consoles? New phones every year?
Do you expect to get groceries at Walmart or Aldi's, or Whole Foods?
And most importantly of all: What are you doing that creates value for other people?
These are all questions that you need to ask if you want to know how many hours you'll have to work to afford the lifestyle you want to live. If you do a job that creates a massive amount of value to a few people (like being a high level engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc.), or even a smaller amount of value for mlions of people (ie. athletes and movie stars), you'll be able to afford a pretty great life on few hours of work. On the other hand, if you create very little value for very few people, you'll have to work many more hours.
Again using myself as an example, my first real paid job was working as a detassler in corn fields. The gig is basically running up and down the rows as fast as you can, using your hands to pull the reproductive parts off the corn, so it doesn't replant itself in some other field that the farmer doesn't want. I was 15. I wasn't very good at it, and machines could do a lot of the job adequately and much faster. I was paid around $4.25 an hour, and only for part of the summer. It took me weeks to save up enough money just to buy a stereo. A few years later after I gained skills and experience and figured out how to do way more specialized, higher-value work? I could save enough for that same stereo in a matter of days. Now, it's probably more like a matter of hours.
And if you look at the number of hours worked at the average wage, you'll see that over time, what you can buy for the same amount of time has gone way, waaay up over the years. For example, in 1972, a refrigerator (a thing that barely even existed 50 years earlier) would have cost almost 90 hours of work at the average wage. By 2009, that dropped to less than 23 hours, and of course the quality dramatically improved over the same time period. This is true for most everything we're talking about.
www.coordinationproblem.org/2009/11/yet-one-more-on-things-getting-better.html
You could theoretically still live at the same standards of living people had a hundred years ago, but nobody wants to do that, so even though an hour buys way more than it ever has, people's expectations have gone up too, andeven those expectations are highly subjective.
So all that makes it really impossible to give you a one-size-fits-all, definitive answer. Such an answer doesn't exist.
@@FEEonline We don't live in nature, we live in a society so your initial premise is wrong. Honestly I think this is the root issue with people that buy this philosophy. You can't dissociate economics from humanity, they are inextricably tied. And the fact that you'll go through all this effort to show why it's "impossible" to determine what bare minimums people should be afforded therefore they shouldn't be granted anything is straight up crazy.
Also this advocacy for more "efficient" division of labor has only lead to wage stagnation for the average american.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
I don't know why you started explaining how specialization leads to increased wages. But if you need to lay that for someone you're arguing with, you're punching waaay below your weight class.
@@mmdnso you really didn't grapple with anything I said.
If you think I am disconnecting economics from humanity, you have gotten it entirely backward. Economics *is* human behavior. That's it. It's entirely human. It's *about* human action and we study it to better understand how to escape the conditions of poverty that are inherent to the natural world.
That's why I started there. It is important to understand the full picture.
As for wage stagnation, that's only true if you ignore the fact that wages are not the total sum of people's compensation and that most people have gotten increasingly large non-wage benefits on top of their salaries over the same period. And when you look at total compensation - not just "wages" - you see a parallel increase to the growth in worker productivity.
www.nber.org/digest/oct08/total-compensation-reflects-growth-productivity
when you say half are under the age of 25 to seem like a good thing but think about it. Half of people on minimum wage are over 25 that point debunks your point that most people on minimum wage are young and ok with part time
Was recently told that wages should be raised because of rising GDP and booming economy, but they won't because those greedy corporations want to maximize profits in spite of free market principles.
Thoughts?
In a free market people get paid close to the "real value" of their labor because of competition. I don't know where people get the idea that they need a government to force employers to pay them what their labor is worth when the vast majority already do so. Most Americans make many times the minimum wage and live in households that are among the wealthiest on Earth(even if you're poor or lower middle class).
Free market sounds goods. Too bad we hadn't had a free market in quite some time. Most Americans make many times the minimum wage? That's a little misleading. The average is right around $22/hr. Most Americans make less than that, $10 - $20/hr is the most common. The $22/hr average is inflated by a minority making $50/hr. and up.
@Donald Smith the reason they would pay more is because they want competent help. I work in hiring finding someone who will show up on time, ready to work, ACTUALLY does their job while they are here, etc as the basics is extremely hard to find. Let alone someone who can pass a background check in two months out of 10 applicants 8 of them failed a background check. So when I get someone who does awesome at their job I quickly move them up the pay scale and offer them promotions when I'm able because talent like that is scarce
@Donald Smith no people have been lazy for a long time and that number has not been going down people are getting more and more lazy. However the economy the last two years has finally been able to start showing actual gorwth in the workforce since the great recession. In the last two years more businesses are opening since 07 and more of those businesses are hiring than since 07. This creates a demand for labor so the people who have skills and a desire to want to work can move up in pay and position extremely quickly I went from cashier to store manager in 10 months. In the company I'm at if you aren't moving up it's directly your fault there is a high demand for store managers, assistant managers, corporate positions etc
And your teacher student analogy is perfect for years we have taught students that they don't have to do anything yet we keep moving them up each year no matter how horrible they are with the material. Now they're out in the real world and expect the same thing and I can't blame them on that because it's what they were taught for the majority of their lives
@Donald Smith there are so many things wrong in that last point I barely know where to begin. First off how do you define poverty exactly? Because according to the federal government most people living under the poverty line have: cable or satellite TV, airconditioning, internet, 2 TV's, a gaming console, and a laptop or pc. Now I know that obviously this isn't true in every case but the majority have these in their homes. Next if your household takes in more than $30,000 a year you are the top 1% of the world, and if you make more than 10,000 you are in the top 5% of the world. So people living in poverty are among the richest people not only on the planet today but have better living conditions than Kings did. Secondly if we have been paying unsustainable wages for 40 years and the majority of people's living standards have increased, corporate profits are up, unemployment currently is down. where exactly is the unsustainabilify at? If you want an unsustainable solution look at government social programs the goervment spends waayyyy to much andinstead of cutting spending more and more programs are being added, and is going to collapse eventually destroying all those social programs. Thirdly an economy isn't something any one group controls or decides what goes on in it, or a system people put in place to redistribute things. An economy is just the total flow of goods and services between people corporations etc. It's not meant to make sure everyone is being treated right and everyone has the newest Mercedes to drive and everyone has a boat and a fancy house etc. It's just the summary of what people are doing on their own. In such it self corrects if it's not working for someone they stop doing what they are doing and do something else it's that simple. If you can't get a job that pays for what you want in life then you need to do something else and find a way to bring value to others so you can get what you want. You can't take the selfish route and bend the world to your will because you don't have everything you want. Ask yourself why do corporations make tons of money? It's because they have goods or services that people want, and they are able to deliver those at a price point someone is willing to pay and they can make a profit off of. If no one bought anything from Walmart the company would go bankrupt. They only succeed by bring value to others. Lastly the reason we are in a country of debt is everyone is apparently too stupid to realize that if you make $800 and spend $1000 you are $200 short and have to take credit out for it. If people did a few simple things they would be able to immensely increase their life style. Budget yourself below what you make, second pay off your debts, third invest your money. After that you have no debt eating up your income and extra money from investments coming in to make you more money, it's really that simple
When they raise the minimum in places, the staff count goes down. Understaffing becomes a problem, which means jobs, and the equity they provide, are lost. Between not making enough, and not making anything at all, I'll take the former every time. I've been through both. I'm not making enough right now, but I've picked up shifts at a family place I used to work at to make ends meet.
Such a minuscule issue can ruin society by inflating the dollar and reverting the problem. They also make living more expensive, as people all around have to increase costs. Let things flow naturally.
Yes there is. You said it yourself. You *submit* yourself to the work. No one forced you to take the job. You willingly took it.
Damn can someone be so lazy as to prefer death over labor? Beats the hell out of me. Anyways, there's not exactly a chance of you dying, our welfare system is big enough to support even the most shameless of people. That's right. I know two people who have never worked a day in their life but live off of that safety net which some seen to want to bolster. One of which I might add, also uses child support to pay the rest of the bills. This is why I do t believe in the argument of a living when as people call it, I see people get by on a lot less, granted they are always complaining that their government isn't doing enough but still, I doubt anyone is going to die living on only 10 dollars an hour in say nebraka.
@Exocentric But you chose the type of job to do. Do you really think jobs aren't subjected to market forces and don't have to compete to please their workers? If that's the case, why does even Taco Bell pay $11.00 where I live when minimum wage is $7.25.
@Dennis-nc3vw that's because taco bell and most other jobs alike realize more people will work for them if they pay more of course the only people to complain about this is the beings who can no longer pay people less and act as if their doing them a favor
Paying a lower wage to part time workers is a different matter than what big corporations did back in the early 1900's before worker rights laws. They fought tooth and nail to be able to pay people dirt, or many in company credits, slaughtered people with militias for wanting to make unions to enforce their rights, and overthrew entire governments for profit. There has to be a line between paying people a fair wage and violating human rights in the name of the bourgeoisie
Prior to any laws from the 1900s, employers were already rapidly increasing worker compensation.
"This period of rapid economic growth and soaring prosperity in the North and the West (but not in the South) saw the U.S. become the world's dominant economic, industrial, and agricultural power. The average annual income (after inflation) of non-farm workers grew by 75% from 1865 to 1900, and then grew another 33% by 1918.[1]"
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1865%E2%80%931918)
@@FEEonline What does that have to do with slaughtering protesters for wanting unions?
@@HanumanOlam I think you'll find an equally violent and bloody history of unions, many of which were directly tied to organized crime (see also: Jimmy Hoffa).
The world is a lot nicer today than it was then, but you are only looking at one side of the equation right now, and you should be seeing both.
*Everybody* was willing to resort to violence more quickly a hundred+ years ago. But it's simply false to say that the companies you are talking about were paying people dirt. We saw the greatest expansion of wages in history during the period you are talking about - and it was a period that largely predated any significant union presence. That fact makes it impossible to credit unions for rising wages in the 1870s-1890s.
Bro, there's only 1 side of the equation: people in power will always fight to keep their profits and not lose power! Minimum wage was fought and lobbied against, repealed, and finally came back! Paying people a fair, lowest wage was fought against! Not because of the mafia, but because people didn't want to cut their obscene profits. Communism was fought against and sanctioned not because it was wrong, but because rich capitalists didn't want to lose their power! The US Governments attorneys jist argued in court that humans aren't entitled to a livable environment! In the name of power and profit! The world is not a lot nicer today, we've just finally been allowed to create "socialist" (read: humane) policies that help and benefit citizens vs the bourgeoisie. But we still haven't done enough, which is why they're arguing the fringes of these rights to the death. Humans aren't entitled to a living environment? Full time workers aren't entitled to a LIVING wage? These are literally the same kinds of arguments used to infringe on people's rights back then. Their motives haven't changed. They're not benevolent! They're not poor employers who can't afford to pay people enough to LIVE, they're selfish capitalists who will sacrifice the entire earth, it's population, and our rights for profit. Paying a LIVING wage isn't controversial, those in power have just always been against giving people rights
@@HanumanOlam boy there's a lot to unpack here.
1. Again, wages went up the most *prior* to the unionization and labor fights you are talking about. This renders your theory incorrect on its face. If we needed the state or some ultra powerful union action to force businesses to raise compensation, the historical facts would be completely different than they are.
Even after the 1890s, we've seen this in action repeatedly. Take for instance the 1940s when FDR made it illegal for companies to raise wages. The fact that he did this at all directly contradicts your worldview, but what's more, companies raised compensation *anyway* by adding benefits like health insurance to employee compensation.
They did this without any union pressure and against laws restricting wage increases.
This happens not because all the owners of these businesses are just magnanimous great folks, but because they are all competing with each other for better workers. Just as competition among businesses leads to lower prices and better quality for consumers, it also leads to higher wages as businesses want the best employees.
The evidence simply doesn't support your assumptions at all.
2. Communism fails because socialists cannot calculate economic value without competition and prices.
As a result, they end up radically over producing some types of goods and services (usually the ones politicians benefit from), and under producing others. Every single communist society in the history of the world has ended in horrifying poverty, famines, and mass murder as the communists' plans burn through the wealth of their nation.
There is no getting around this.
fee.org/resources/economic-calculation-in-the-socialist-commonwealth/
fee.org/articles/economics-and-the-calculation-problem/
3. "Socialism" has nothing to do with kindness or policies that you just happen to like. It has to do with who controls the economic decisions made by individuals - the people themselves, or a centralized authority making decisions for everyone (usually the state).
Repost? What happened?
The video makes no sense?? Me hiring someone to do one job is different than me employing them 40+ hrs/week. A FULL TIME JOB requires a LIVABLE WAGE. Its really not that hard to understand!
Not every full time job requires a living wage
This is a really stupid example you want to use gig work as an example for a living wage. This one gig this blond dude is doing isn't a full time job so it doesn't fit. If a company wants to be in business in the cannot afford to pay their employees big about a business they get shut down nobody works at that location. This is also ignoring the fact that the minimum wage was created to be a livable wage.
Another common misunderstanding is about raising the minimum wage. Functional economics is complicated, but if you go back to the core of everything and remember what money is, you realize that minimum wage sets the value of the dollar, not the other way around.
If you say the minimum wage is, say, 10 dollars, then what you are really saying is that 1 hour of basic, unskilled labor is now metaphorically represented by 10 dollars. 10 dollars is now another name for one hour of unskilled labor previously rendered to someone else. If you say 15 dollars is the minimum wage, then 15 dollars is just another name for one hour of unskilled labor. You haven't given unskilled workers more resources, you've just defined 1 dollar as being worth 50% less. In the short term, of course, before businesses catch up to the inflation, unskilled workers will have more money, but in the medium term many businesses -- especially small businesses -- will driven completely out of business (for most businesses, wages are by far the greatest consistent expense). At best you can hope for a net-zero change in the long term.
You literally had the guy say "I need rent money" as a reason against having a living wage, what? If he did have a living wage, he'd be able to afford rent without needing to take on extra work for a lower pay.
To be fair, although I don't share his views, in the video he was arguing that with the living wage in place the guy wouldn't get paid at all
Great vid. Controlling limits to how little a person can charge is just so wrong. If I wanna live in a shack behind my work and walk to work, have no kids and only eat beans therefore requiring much less income; I should be allowed to compete on a "price" basis.
If I want to strike up a deal with my employer and say, "hey, I'm kind of a LOW ambition dude, I want to work at about half pace (lets say I am packing merchandise for shipping) I will work for 7 bucks an hour" I should be allowed to.
Honestly the best solution for many folks is to LEARN HOW TO BE FRUGAL. not just make more money. Give one guy 10 bucks He will blow it on a fancy latte at Starbucks. While another will buy a 3 dollar french press at a thrift store and a pound of coffee. One just bought 1 cup of coffee. The other just bought about 80 cups. If you spend 8 bucks at Burger king and 20 bucks drinkin' in a bar; LOW Income ain't the problem. " LOW money IQ" is the problem.
You make an interesting argument. It does however seem that you've constructed a strawman to do it though.
How so? It's an argument against the people who want the Minimum Wage to be a "living wage".
yeah this was a really weak video
How is using an example of exactly what he does as an entrepreneur a straw man?
@Donald Smith he was using contracting freelance work as an example of showing the value of work from the perspective of a business owner. As a business owner, it doesn't matter whether I contract the work to a freelancer, or I pay it to an employee. The cost to me of the end result and the sale value, the profit margin, remains the read determining factor of whether I can stay in business.
Assuming that an employer shouldn't have a higher profit margin on something than what a worker makes is a fundamental failure to understand the leverage of risk necessary to succeed in business. What takes most business owners out is the lack of profit margin to save them when the inevitable setbacks happen...and they always do to everyone in business. If you don't have a buffer to get through that, you will fail, and your employees will wind up out of a job.
A better solution would be to negotiate with your employer an incentive based earning system. A base set wage, and a higher bonus paid out if growth metrics are achieved. This way, a business can maintain profit margins to pull through rough times, and still reward employees more when they have the profits to afford to do so.
0:45 $50 for less than 5 hours of work would be a livable wage your juat paying a small part of it if you paid $50 for 50 hours that wouldn't be because the hourly wage wouldn't be up to a livable amount when you add other clients this video is clearly just making a strawman acting like anyone wants people to pay a yearly salary for a few hours work
Look who's funding the channel
I showed this video to my mom and she got triggered and grounded me
Actually income mobility doesn't happen for the working class or the poor. Only for the middle class
The best example of a strawman argument I've seen in a while.
The living wage argument is more so for employees of corporations, not private contractors. As a private contractor, you set your own rate of pay. If you're ok with the 50 dollars, then take it. That's your right.
However the person accepting the 50 dollars is choosing the rate. He has deemed it acceptable, especially since it's a one time contract that he can somewhat do at his own leisure/at home.
The issue with this argument is that it's pulling away from the living wage argument by using this singular example of a private contractor. It's acting as if the customers or individuals paying for the service, are the ones who should pay the living wage. This is the disconnect.
The wage argument is made for large corporations who profit billions of dollars of of minimum wage, and norally unfair business practices.
Since the last time minimum wage was raised (2009) the cost of food, living, gasoline, practically everything has gone up. So over a decade of inflation to the economy has left us at this point.
The fact of the matter is, large billionaire corporations CAN afford to pay a living wage, and offer things like healthcare. They CHOOSE not to.
This argument honestly only works if the creator is looking at only his own specific example. Also, I dont think anyone is expecting a living wage off of a 1 to 2 week contract. And yes, making less early gives you time to improve your craft, if you HAVE one. Not everyone works for commission, and not everyone has a trade job. Most Americans work for corporations, and they should absolutely have the responsibility to take of employees.
Your comment should be highlighted and pinned at the top. Seriously, I don't see how anyone can argue against a living wage.
Nope your only paid as much as people are willing to pay for your time, effort, labor, service etc
Doesn’t matter who or what you are if your self employed, employee, business owner it works both ways
So your arguement is invalid because employees can negotiate a better wage, leave, or start their own business
To understand why a minimum wage increase would not be beneficial for anyone, you must ask yourself the question, "Why are engineers paid more than waiters?" Is it because the bosses of engineers are nicer than those of waiters? Of course not! It is because engineers produce more economic output than waiters do. The wage of a worker is directly connected to their productivity, not how little the boss wants to pay.
For that reason, minimum wage personnel like waiters, retail salespersons, and cashiers already make more money than the federal minimum wage. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly mean wage for a waiter is $15.87, $16.70 for a retail salesperson, and $13.81 for a cashier, and yet the federal minimum wage is $7.25. For waiters, that number can reach as high as $23 an hour in New York, even though the state's minimum wage is less than $15. Workers are already being paid fairly handsomely for their work, and by raising the minimum wage, all you do is make the least productive of workers who produce the least economic output lose their jobs. The workers with the least education and skills are the ones who will lose their jobs, despite the minimum wage intending the protect those individuals.
Eben MacDonald notes " The City of Seattle enacted a $13 minimum wage in 2016, resulting in a fall of 9 percent in hours worked among these jobs. The job turnover rate declined by 8 percent, and the city’s less experienced minimum wage workers saw no net increase in payment." and "reduced low-wage employment by 6-7 percent, and due to the reduction in employment, workers in this category actually saw a net decline in pay."
Not to mention small businesses would be crushed.
@@person3070"the wage of a worker is directly connected to their productivity" I mean productivity has increased faster than wages so this is simply false it's based on how easily replaced you are
@@teetehi
Supply and demand of workers is another factor in determining wages, as you stated, but it is true that productivity plays a role. "The Link Between Wages and Productivity Is Strong," by Michael R. Strain of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) found that "Net Domestic Product and Real Product Compensation per Full-Time Equivalent Employee," are very similar. This means that workers are getting nearly the exact worth of what they work for. That is on page 9 of the paper if you are wondering.
This is why so many "entry level" positions require work experience now. How is anyone supposed to get that first job?
Yeah higher wages means higher quality
Take an unpaid apprenticeship or volunteer. What exactly did you do in high school? Maybe if we didn't have so many illegals coming over there wouldn't be a glut of unskilled labor.
Hey I wanna say thank you for making videos, FEE. It has taken me a long time to find a channel, person, or politician that I feel is honest to goodness reasonable but with a different and yet constructive and positive perspective than mine. You are also more respectful of people who think differently than you in your depictions than most others out there and that counts for a lot. While I think some of your arguments or depictions are strawmen and not great representations of people who think differently than you, it means a lot that you at least try to put some of the nuances and true thought patterns into them. It is important to humanize everyone during these troubling times. Understanding and acceptance will lead to the best possible assimilation of everyone's ideas into a better economy, government, and society.
Thanks :)
The example here uses a commission or temp job to argue against full/part time minimum wage. Apples to oranges.
It's actually not apples to oranges at all. There's absolutely no difference in the economic calculations or the principles involved.
And in fact, part of the reason California and a few other places have tried so hard to ban or restrict freelance work is based on the same arguments people make for minimum wage in so-called full-time positions.
No matter what, if you mandate higher wages, then employers and potential employers will have to make the same kinds of choices regardless of whether or not they need someone to work for them every day or just need occasional help.