The Almighty Unions

[Seth]

Well, except for the fact that labor unions don't redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor; they redistribute wealth from stockholders, who are largely retirees living on limited income, and poor nonunionized employees, to affluent unionized employees. If anything, they are redistibuting wealth from the poorer to the richer.

Have you noticed that in today's economy, about the best return you can get on a savings account at a bank is 2 percent or less. Pretty tough for those poor widows and orphans to get by on such a meagre return, after a lifetime of working and scrimping and saving.
Yet, when they wanna borrow from the same bank, they're charged 29% credit card rates!

29% credit card rates? Where? Maybe if you pay consistently late...

You're concerned about the meager return on capital gains? Where are you on the capital gains tax? Ought it be raised?

Capital gains ought not be taxed at all. Reducing capital gains taxes stimulates investment of that money in the economy. Raising capital gains taxes cause that money to be withdrawn from the capital investment markets, to the detriment of the economy, because that's where investment capital originates.

And don't get me started on capital gains on real estate, which shouldn't exist at all. I paid my property and income taxes on my ranch every year, so why should I pay capital gains tax on the appreciated value when I sell it? The land is my 401K retirement fund, and I should be able to sell it tax free.

[.Morticia.]

[Seth]

I knew you were fibbing about ignoring me....

[egbert]

For example I would support unionization of all restaurant wait staff, who are paid below minimum wage, if their demand was that they be paid at least the same minimum wage as everyone else. The same is true for agricultural workers. While I strenuously OBJECT to minimum wage laws, I also strenuously object to ANYONE being left out of a minimum wage structure if it's in place. If ANYONE is entitled to a minimum wage, then EVERYONE should be so entitled. That's fundamental fairness.

Typical rightwing fascist doublespeak. Minimum wages should apply universally, so why shouldn't EVERYONE be forced to unionize? You're so consistent!
Here's today's wisdom for the Limboists -

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the idea behind the wait staff in restaurants in the US not being "guaranteed" a minimum wage is that typically they make way more than the minimum wage when tips are factored in. I know other countries don't have a culture of tipping like we do here, so it's different.

But, I doubt many waitresses and waiters have too hard a time far surpassing the minimum wage.

It's really the rare job that only pays minimum wage, and typically they are jobs that are filled by high school and college kids. That's the reality.

[egbert]

Well, except for the fact that labor unions don't redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor; they redistribute wealth from stockholders, who are largely retirees living on limited income, and poor nonunionized employees, to affluent unionized employees. If anything, they are redistibuting wealth from the poorer to the richer.

Have you noticed that in today's economy, about the best return you can get on a savings account at a bank is 2 percent or less. Pretty tough for those poor widows and orphans to get by on such a meagre return, after a lifetime of working and scrimping and saving.
Yet, when they wanna borrow from the same bank, they're charged 29% credit card rates!

29% credit card rates? Where? Maybe if you pay consistently late...

I guess ALL of Sears card holders consistently pay late, since as far back as I can remember, they charge 28.8% compounded monthly.

Right Wing BS always reminds of

[Seth]

I think the idea behind the wait staff in restaurants in the US not being "guaranteed" a minimum wage is that typically they make way more than the minimum wage when tips are factored in. I know other countries don't have a culture of tipping like we do here, so it's different.

But, I doubt many waitresses and waiters have too hard a time far surpassing the minimum wage.

Right, but that's beside the point. The system is unfair because it assumes that they get tips, which they may not, and it also discriminates against them by violating equal protection. And then there's ag workers.

It's really the rare job that only pays minimum wage, and typically they are jobs that are filled by high school and college kids. That's the reality.

More importantly, every time the minimum wage is imposed or increased, entry-level employees like high school students, and particularly uneducated black youth, lose their jobs because employers aren't willing to pay unskilled employees more than they are worth, so they hire more experienced employees instead.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, except for the fact that labor unions don't redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor; they redistribute wealth from stockholders, who are largely retirees living on limited income, and poor nonunionized employees, to affluent unionized employees. If anything, they are redistibuting wealth from the poorer to the richer.

Have you noticed that in today's economy, about the best return you can get on a savings account at a bank is 2 percent or less. Pretty tough for those poor widows and orphans to get by on such a meagre return, after a lifetime of working and scrimping and saving.
Yet, when they wanna borrow from the same bank, they're charged 29% credit card rates!

29% credit card rates? Where? Maybe if you pay consistently late...

I guess ALL of Sears card holders consistently pay late, since as far back as I can remember, they charge 28.8% compounded monthly.

You act as if over the last 25 years I've never had a credit card. I've NEVER paid 28.8%. Maybe it's a Britain/US thing. My credit card rates have generally been from 6% to 12%, depending. Store credit cards are routinely higher, but Citibank, who runs Sears' credit cards, was being lambasted for raising the rates to 21% and 25%, depending on credit score, back in 2009. Not 28.8%....and certainly not on all cards - your credit would have to suck ass or you'd have to be deadbeat to be saddled with 28 or 29% interest.

And, a higher interest rate on store cards can be explained by their programs that are "no interest if paid within 12 and sometimes 18 months" - ergo, if you don't pay in 12 months, they're going to sock you with a higher interest rate thereafter.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the idea behind the wait staff in restaurants in the US not being "guaranteed" a minimum wage is that typically they make way more than the minimum wage when tips are factored in. I know other countries don't have a culture of tipping like we do here, so it's different.

But, I doubt many waitresses and waiters have too hard a time far surpassing the minimum wage.

Right, but that's beside the point. The system is unfair because it assumes that they get tips, which they may not, and it also discriminates against them by violating equal protection. And then there's ag workers.

It doesn't violate equal protection, at least not according to the Supreme Court. Economic regulations can make distinctions based on a rational basis, and the rational basis is that wait staff are supposed to earn their money via tips, and they do get tips, in reality. If they didn't get tips, then the analysis might be different, but they do.

Lots of exemptions are given to different kinds of labor laws. For example, "companions for the elderly" are exempt from minimum wage. Children who work for their parents are exempt from child labor laws. Newspaper delivery boys are exempt from minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws of the FLSA. Many others too... Administrative, professional and executive employees are exempt from the overtime requirements, as are taxi drivers, pieceworkers and many other types of workers - IT professionals, outside sales people, retail salespeople, etc. Equal protection is not violated by making these distinctions.

There is also a distinction made between independent contractors and employees. Independent contractors are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act at all.

It's really the rare job that only pays minimum wage, and typically they are jobs that are filled by high school and college kids. That's the reality.

More importantly, every time the minimum wage is imposed or increased, entry-level employees like high school students, and particularly uneducated black youth, lose their jobs because employers aren't willing to pay unskilled employees more than they are worth, so they hire more experienced employees instead.

I'm not opposed to minimum wages, in practice. I think the minimum wage must be above zero, for example. Otherwise, we have peonage, serfdom and slavery. Even "voluntary" slavery, I think, ought to be prohibited. How high the minimum wage should be, however, ought to be more nuanced than it is today.

Some libertarians think that the minimum wage should be BELOW zero, allowing employees to pay to work there first in order to gain experience or education on the job. I disagree with that as a matter of policy.

[Seth]

I think the idea behind the wait staff in restaurants in the US not being "guaranteed" a minimum wage is that typically they make way more than the minimum wage when tips are factored in. I know other countries don't have a culture of tipping like we do here, so it's different.

But, I doubt many waitresses and waiters have too hard a time far surpassing the minimum wage.

Right, but that's beside the point. The system is unfair because it assumes that they get tips, which they may not, and it also discriminates against them by violating equal protection. And then there's ag workers.

It doesn't violate equal protection, at least not according to the Supreme Court. Economic regulations can make distinctions based on a rational basis, and the rational basis is that wait staff are supposed to earn their money via tips, and they do get tips, in reality. If they didn't get tips, then the analysis might be different, but they do.

This is a cart-before-the-horse conundrum. Do wait staff earn their money through tips because that's how they are supposed to earn their money and therefore they can be denied an equal minimum wage, or do they earn their money through tips because the government has FORCED them to do so by discriminating against them with economic policy? I say it's the latter, and the proof is that in most other countries, wait staff are paid the prevailing minimum wage, and tips are gratuities intended to encourage exemplary service. One construction of the term "tips" is "to insure prompt service." Another is the very word "gratuity," which means a payment beyond what is required.

Lots of exemptions are given to different kinds of labor laws. For example, "companions for the elderly" are exempt from minimum wage. Children who work for their parents are exempt from child labor laws. Newspaper delivery boys are exempt from minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws of the FLSA. Many others too... Administrative, professional and executive employees are exempt from the overtime requirements, as are taxi drivers, pieceworkers and many other types of workers - IT professionals, outside sales people, retail salespeople, etc. Equal protection is not violated by making these distinctions.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. The point I'm making is that "minimum wage" is an inherently socialist (Progressive, actually) concept that ought to be done away with entirely, but if it's to be imposed, there should be NO exemptions for anyone. Minimum wage laws are political expedients, not sound economic policy to begin with, and they are cynically manipulated by politicians to pander for votes. Note, for example that those who don't vote are exempt (children) and those who have little political power are exempt (taxi drivers). Minimum wage laws are designed to apply to the vast majority of workers who presumably vote Democrat.

There is also a distinction made between independent contractors and employees. Independent contractors are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act at all.

Which is how everyone should be employed.

It's really the rare job that only pays minimum wage, and typically they are jobs that are filled by high school and college kids. That's the reality.

More importantly, every time the minimum wage is imposed or increased, entry-level employees like high school students, and particularly uneducated black youth, lose their jobs because employers aren't willing to pay unskilled employees more than they are worth, so they hire more experienced employees instead.

I'm not opposed to minimum wages, in practice. I think the minimum wage must be above zero, for example. Otherwise, we have peonage, serfdom and slavery. Even "voluntary" slavery, I think, ought to be prohibited. How high the minimum wage should be, however, ought to be more nuanced than it is today.

Why? Peonage, serfdom and slavery are all LEGAL conditions, not economic ones. If I, as a retired cop, want to go to work for my local police department on a part-time basis, but I want to get paid something so that I'm covered under the insurance, why shouldn't I be allowed to negotiate whatever salary is acceptable to me?

Is it better for people to be unemployed, and therefore a burden on the public purse, because they do not have sufficient skills to make them worthwhile employees, or is it better for them to hold some position and get paid for it, which allows them the opportunity to learn and make themselves more valuable to their employer, and to the market generally, so that they can advance themselves economically? Legions of black youth wander the streets of our urban slums precisely because they have neither the skills, education or work ethic to make them worth seven bucks an hour to McDonalds for flipping burgers. But if McDonalds could employ them at two dollars an hour to start, it might be worth the time and trouble of educating and training them in a useful skill, and they would be benefiting the economy at the same time. So long as they are free to move on to other jobs, it's not serfdom, peonage or slavery. Their economic success becomes dependent upon their willingness to learn and work hard.

That's what apprenticeship was all about. The master craftsman selected a young man who showed talent in the trade and gave him room and board, and perhaps a small stipend, in return for being taught the craft. A fair and reasonable quid pro quo relationship that is now essentially illegal in the US. Now, an apprentice has to be paid at least minimum wage, and often more than that in a unionized trade, which makes it too costly for the employer to afford, so he doesn't hire unskilled labor with the intent to educate them into the trade, he hires semi-skilled workers who have experience. And the new worker, no matter how skilled he might be, has to fork over money he doesn't have, or which he gets from the government, to go to "trade school" to learn the basic skills that an apprentice used to learn on the job, while having a place to live and food to eat. Thus, we have an entire trade school industry that costs both the public (through direct tax support and other government benefits) and the student inordinate amounts of money that could be avoided simply by allowing individuals wishing to learn a trade to freely negotiate with a master craftsman for an apprenticeship position that is beneficial economically to both.

Some libertarians think that the minimum wage should be BELOW zero, allowing employees to pay to work there first in order to gain experience or education on the job. I disagree with that as a matter of policy.

Actually, as I've outlined above, that's pretty much what we have right now. Trade schools bury their students in debt, often subsidized by the federal government, and they end up paying much of their salary right back to the government or school merely to meet the entry-level skill requirements. I'd much prefer to see classic apprenticeship, which requires the business to invest only a minimal amount in a new, untried, unskilled employee...meaning room and board...while allowing the company to select through training the best of the potential apprentices and send those who are not making the grade packing.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the idea behind the wait staff in restaurants in the US not being "guaranteed" a minimum wage is that typically they make way more than the minimum wage when tips are factored in. I know other countries don't have a culture of tipping like we do here, so it's different.

But, I doubt many waitresses and waiters have too hard a time far surpassing the minimum wage.

Right, but that's beside the point. The system is unfair because it assumes that they get tips, which they may not, and it also discriminates against them by violating equal protection. And then there's ag workers.

It doesn't violate equal protection, at least not according to the Supreme Court. Economic regulations can make distinctions based on a rational basis, and the rational basis is that wait staff are supposed to earn their money via tips, and they do get tips, in reality. If they didn't get tips, then the analysis might be different, but they do.

This is a cart-before-the-horse conundrum. Do wait staff earn their money through tips because that's how they are supposed to earn their money and therefore they can be denied an equal minimum wage, or do they earn their money through tips because the government has FORCED them to do so by discriminating against them with economic policy? I say it's the latter, and the proof is that in most other countries, wait staff are paid the prevailing minimum wage, and tips are gratuities intended to encourage exemplary service. One construction of the term "tips" is "to insure prompt service." Another is the very word "gratuity," which means a payment beyond what is required.

They were earning their money by tips before the FLSA was passed in 1938, and the exception from the minimum wage provisions was included because of that.

Lots of exemptions are given to different kinds of labor laws. For example, "companions for the elderly" are exempt from minimum wage. Children who work for their parents are exempt from child labor laws. Newspaper delivery boys are exempt from minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws of the FLSA. Many others too... Administrative, professional and executive employees are exempt from the overtime requirements, as are taxi drivers, pieceworkers and many other types of workers - IT professionals, outside sales people, retail salespeople, etc. Equal protection is not violated by making these distinctions.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

Everything is a matter of opinion to some extent, but the US Supreme Court agrees with me on this one.

The point I'm making is that "minimum wage" is an inherently socialist (Progressive, actually) concept that ought to be done away with entirely, but if it's to be imposed, there should be NO exemptions for anyone.

That's a matter of opinion. I see perfectly good reasons why I don't have to pay someone I hire to fix my plumbing in my house a "minimum wage" and that I can instead pay them what they charge to fix the job on a flat rate. There are lots of rational bases for making legal distinctions. Equal protection has never meant that there can't be any legal distinctions made - if that were the case, then there hardly could be any laws at all. If there is going to be an income tax, must everyone always pay the same rate? Is it a violation of equal protection to allow child credits or mortgage interest deductions on tax returns? Just because I have a house and someone else doesn't I can pay less in taxes?

Minimum wage laws are political expedients,

To some extent, yes. Most laws are political expedients.

not sound economic policy to begin with,

I guess that depends what your policy goals are.

and they are cynically manipulated by politicians to pander for votes.

Politicians pandering for votes? Really? Can't be....my gosh...my world is shattered...

Note, for example that those who don't vote are exempt (children)

Not from minimum wage laws generally, although there have been times where the minimum wage was lower for 16 and 17 year olds than it was for 18 year olds. That makes some sense too.

and those who have little political power are exempt (taxi drivers).

It's because they're generally not paid by the hour and they also get tips.

Minimum wage laws are designed to apply to the vast majority of workers who presumably vote Democrat.

Like taxi drivers?

There is also a distinction made between independent contractors and employees. Independent contractors are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act at all.

Which is how everyone should be employed.

That's your opinion. There is a difference between "employee" and "independent contractor" under the law.

It's really the rare job that only pays minimum wage, and typically they are jobs that are filled by high school and college kids. That's the reality.

More importantly, every time the minimum wage is imposed or increased, entry-level employees like high school students, and particularly uneducated black youth, lose their jobs because employers aren't willing to pay unskilled employees more than they are worth, so they hire more experienced employees instead.

I'm not opposed to minimum wages, in practice. I think the minimum wage must be above zero, for example. Otherwise, we have peonage, serfdom and slavery. Even "voluntary" slavery, I think, ought to be prohibited. How high the minimum wage should be, however, ought to be more nuanced than it is today.

Why? [/quote]

Because of the 13th Amendment, for one thing, and because allowing slavery, peonage and involuntary servitude is, IMO, bad policy.

Peonage, serfdom and slavery are all LEGAL conditions, not economic ones. If I, as a retired cop, want to go to work for my local police department on a part-time basis, but I want to get paid something so that I'm covered under the insurance, why shouldn't I be allowed to negotiate whatever salary is acceptable to me?

Because overall policy is not all about you. It's about recognizing the economic realities and measuring policy against that reality. If a determination is made that eliminating the minimum wage would ultimately result in too many people working for too low wages under the circumstances, then setting a minimum wage will set a reasonable floor below which nobody will go. That will mean, of course, that some folks who are willing to work for free, or to pay to work for someone else, won't be permitted to do so.

Is it better for people to be unemployed, and therefore a burden on the public purse, because they do not have sufficient skills to make them worthwhile employees, or is it better for them to hold some position and get paid for it, which allows them the opportunity to learn and make themselves more valuable to their employer, and to the market generally, so that they can advance themselves economically?

That's a matter of opinion and depends on policy goals. Maybe it is better for some people to be unemployed so that a great many people can be employed at a higher wage.

Is it better that tons of people earn extremely low wages so that a few people who are excited about the opportunity to work for free to gain experience can do so? Might be - but, whether that's the law of the land depends on the outcome of the political process. The answer to that question is not something that is carved in stone for all time, for all reasons, under all circumstances.

Legions of black youth wander the streets of our urban slums precisely because they have neither the skills, education or work ethic to make them worth seven bucks an hour to McDonalds for flipping burgers. But if McDonalds could employ them at two dollars an hour to start, it might be worth the time and trouble of educating and training them in a useful skill, and they would be benefiting the economy at the same time. So long as they are free to move on to other jobs, it's not serfdom, peonage or slavery. Their economic success becomes dependent upon their willingness to learn and work hard.

It may also be that the legions of black and white persons well-qualified to staff McDonald's grills who are now making $8 an hour would then be reduced to $2 an hour. At the current minimum wage, McDonalds is not at a loss for qualified help. It's not like they're saying "shit man, we can't find qualified help around here - if only we could pay only $2 an hour, then we could afford to train the crackheads on the street to flip burgers..."

That's what apprenticeship was all about. The master craftsman selected a young man who showed talent in the trade and gave him room and board, and perhaps a small stipend, in return for being taught the craft. A fair and reasonable quid pro quo relationship that is now essentially illegal in the US. Now, an apprentice has to be paid at least minimum wage, and often more than that in a unionized trade, which makes it too costly for the employer to afford, so he doesn't hire unskilled labor with the intent to educate them into the trade, he hires semi-skilled workers who have experience. And the new worker, no matter how skilled he might be, has to fork over money he doesn't have, or which he gets from the government, to go to "trade school" to learn the basic skills that an apprentice used to learn on the job, while having a place to live and food to eat. Thus, we have an entire trade school industry that costs both the public (through direct tax support and other government benefits) and the student inordinate amounts of money that could be avoided simply by allowing individuals wishing to learn a trade to freely negotiate with a master craftsman for an apprenticeship position that is beneficial economically to both.

Or, we could have a completely free market where those people who have no money get presented with contracts indenturing them as apprentices for 7 to 10 years, wherein they are basically the servant of the master (hence the old terminology for the law of "Master and Servant" under English and American jurisprudence). So instead of paying to go to school for a couple of years, the Master will only agree to apprentice the Servant if the Servant agrees to extended periods of servitude. Which is better? That's a policy decision for the legislature.

Some libertarians think that the minimum wage should be BELOW zero, allowing employees to pay to work there first in order to gain experience or education on the job. I disagree with that as a matter of policy.

Actually, as I've outlined above, that's pretty much what we have right now.

Except that it's illegal for an employee to pay their employer to work there. Other than that, it's much the same.

Trade schools bury their students in debt, often subsidized by the federal government, and they end up paying much of their salary right back to the government or school merely to meet the entry-level skill requirements. I'd much prefer to see classic apprenticeship, which requires the business to invest only a minimal amount in a new, untried, unskilled employee...meaning room and board...while allowing the company to select through training the best of the potential apprentices and send those who are not making the grade packing.

Your preference is noted.

[.Morticia.]

meany

but still didn't read

[Seth]

This is a cart-before-the-horse conundrum. Do wait staff earn their money through tips because that's how they are supposed to earn their money and therefore they can be denied an equal minimum wage, or do they earn their money through tips because the government has FORCED them to do so by discriminating against them with economic policy? I say it's the latter, and the proof is that in most other countries, wait staff are paid the prevailing minimum wage, and tips are gratuities intended to encourage exemplary service. One construction of the term "tips" is "to insure prompt service." Another is the very word "gratuity," which means a payment beyond what is required.

They were earning their money by tips before the FLSA was passed in 1938, and the exception from the minimum wage provisions was included because of that.

Well, they were "earning money" from tips, but that was nothing more than a social convention. And if an employee is willing to work for tips alone, or for a small wage augmented by tips, what business is it of the governments? Why should they be discriminated against when it comes to minimum wage laws?

Lots of exemptions are given to different kinds of labor laws. For example, "companions for the elderly" are exempt from minimum wage. Children who work for their parents are exempt from child labor laws. Newspaper delivery boys are exempt from minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws of the FLSA. Many others too... Administrative, professional and executive employees are exempt from the overtime requirements, as are taxi drivers, pieceworkers and many other types of workers - IT professionals, outside sales people, retail salespeople, etc. Equal protection is not violated by making these distinctions.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

Everything is a matter of opinion to some extent, but the US Supreme Court agrees with me on this one.

Sadly true. But then this is a philosophical discussion, not a simple recitation of the existing law, isn't it? I'm more concerned with the moral and ethical arguments by which such discrimination is practiced than I am the fact that Progressives have managed to achieve an important Progressive goal, which is the insertion of the Executive State in to the private business relation and private contract between employer and employee. What are the moral and ethical justifications for such unconstitutional intrusions into the right of contract?

The point I'm making is that "minimum wage" is an inherently socialist (Progressive, actually) concept that ought to be done away with entirely, but if it's to be imposed, there should be NO exemptions for anyone.

That's a matter of opinion. I see perfectly good reasons why I don't have to pay someone I hire to fix my plumbing in my house a "minimum wage" and that I can instead pay them what they charge to fix the job on a flat rate. There are lots of rational bases for making legal distinctions. Equal protection has never meant that there can't be any legal distinctions made - if that were the case, then there hardly could be any laws at all. If there is going to be an income tax, must everyone always pay the same rate? Is it a violation of equal protection to allow child credits or mortgage interest deductions on tax returns? Just because I have a house and someone else doesn't I can pay less in taxes?

Yup, it is a violation. That's my point. When it comes to economic redistribution, such arbitrary classifications have as their sole purpose the effectuating of social engineering goals, which are inherently political in nature. A "progressive" income tax is the classic example of social engineering by economic discrimination, and was never considered to be valid by the Founders. The graduated income tax is a product of Progressive political policy, and was only passed on the promise that the maximum tax rate would never exceed seven percent. Of course, nearly the minute that the system was imposed, that promise flew out the window and Progressives began using the graduated income tax as a way of seizing and redistributing wealth to achieve political power.

Certainly the only fair and rational form of income tax, if income taxes themselves are moral, which they are not, is a flat tax with no exemptions for anyone. Everyone pays a fixed percentage of their income as their duty to support the necessary functions of government. THAT is "equal protection."

Better yet is a flat sales tax, which taxes consumption, not income production.

There is also a distinction made between independent contractors and employees. Independent contractors are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act at all.

Which is how everyone should be employed.

That's your opinion. There is a difference between "employee" and "independent contractor" under the law.

Why? The only reason there is a distinction is for the convenience of government. If you're an employee, your employer is required to withhold money from your paycheck, and he is required to contribute matching funds to FICA, Social Security and Medicare. If you're an independent contractor, all those expenses fall on you. And that's how it should be for everyone. The employer should not be made into an involuntary tax collector for the federal government, and individuals should be responsible for paying for their own retirement plans and medical care, just like independent contractors are.

It's really the rare job that only pays minimum wage, and typically they are jobs that are filled by high school and college kids. That's the reality.

More importantly, every time the minimum wage is imposed or increased, entry-level employees like high school students, and particularly uneducated black youth, lose their jobs because employers aren't willing to pay unskilled employees more than they are worth, so they hire more experienced employees instead.

I'm not opposed to minimum wages, in practice. I think the minimum wage must be above zero, for example. Otherwise, we have peonage, serfdom and slavery. Even "voluntary" slavery, I think, ought to be prohibited. How high the minimum wage should be, however, ought to be more nuanced than it is today.

Why? [/quote]

Because of the 13th Amendment, for one thing, and because allowing slavery, peonage and involuntary servitude is, IMO, bad policy.

Slavery is defined as "involuntary servitude." If it's voluntary, it's not slavery.

Peonage, serfdom and slavery are all LEGAL conditions, not economic ones. If I, as a retired cop, want to go to work for my local police department on a part-time basis, but I want to get paid something so that I'm covered under the insurance, why shouldn't I be allowed to negotiate whatever salary is acceptable to me?

Because overall policy is not all about you. It's about recognizing the economic realities and measuring policy against that reality. If a determination is made that eliminating the minimum wage would ultimately result in too many people working for too low wages under the circumstances, then setting a minimum wage will set a reasonable floor below which nobody will go. That will mean, of course, that some folks who are willing to work for free, or to pay to work for someone else, won't be permitted to do so.

Who makes the determination that a wage is "too low?" The government? Why? By what constitutional authority does the Congress presume to set wages? Where is it written that the Congress has such authority? Last I checked, "setting wages" was not included in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution. So where, exactly, does Congress derive its power to set a national minimum wage?

Is it better for people to be unemployed, and therefore a burden on the public purse, because they do not have sufficient skills to make them worthwhile employees, or is it better for them to hold some position and get paid for it, which allows them the opportunity to learn and make themselves more valuable to their employer, and to the market generally, so that they can advance themselves economically?

That's a matter of opinion and depends on policy goals. Maybe it is better for some people to be unemployed so that a great many people can be employed at a higher wage.

And should government get to decide this? What are the unintended consequences of vesting such vast economic power in Congress, pray tell? Should not the markets determine who is employed and how much they get paid?

Is it better that tons of people earn extremely low wages so that a few people who are excited about the opportunity to work for free to gain experience can do so? Might be - but, whether that's the law of the land depends on the outcome of the political process. The answer to that question is not something that is carved in stone for all time, for all reasons, under all circumstances.

The most fundamental question you have to answer, before you can even address your questions, is where Congress derives its power to meddle in the wage structure of the nation. I see absolutely no authority anywhere in the Constitution that permits or authorizes Congress to make laws regarding wages in the U.S. Do you? If so, where? If the Congress has no power to regulate wages, then the political issues you put forward are moot. And as I read it, and as the Founders intended it, Congress is strictly limited in its powers to those ENUMERATED powers found in the Constitution. Everything else, including regulating wages, is left to the states, or to the people, in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

Legions of black youth wander the streets of our urban slums precisely because they have neither the skills, education or work ethic to make them worth seven bucks an hour to McDonalds for flipping burgers. But if McDonalds could employ them at two dollars an hour to start, it might be worth the time and trouble of educating and training them in a useful skill, and they would be benefiting the economy at the same time. So long as they are free to move on to other jobs, it's not serfdom, peonage or slavery. Their economic success becomes dependent upon their willingness to learn and work hard.

It may also be that the legions of black and white persons well-qualified to staff McDonald's grills who are now making $8 an hour would then be reduced to $2 an hour. At the current minimum wage, McDonalds is not at a loss for qualified help. It's not like they're saying "shit man, we can't find qualified help around here - if only we could pay only $2 an hour, then we could afford to train the crackheads on the street to flip burgers..."

Which might get the crackheads off of crack and start them up the ladder to economic success. Flipping burgers should not be a career aspiration for anyone, it should be an entry-level foothold on the ladder to success, nothing more, and our newly-minted working class just out of high school should have ample access to such entry-level positions. It's a bad idea to reserve entry level jobs for experienced workers because it leaves nowhere for entry-level employees to start.

That's what apprenticeship was all about. The master craftsman selected a young man who showed talent in the trade and gave him room and board, and perhaps a small stipend, in return for being taught the craft. A fair and reasonable quid pro quo relationship that is now essentially illegal in the US. Now, an apprentice has to be paid at least minimum wage, and often more than that in a unionized trade, which makes it too costly for the employer to afford, so he doesn't hire unskilled labor with the intent to educate them into the trade, he hires semi-skilled workers who have experience. And the new worker, no matter how skilled he might be, has to fork over money he doesn't have, or which he gets from the government, to go to "trade school" to learn the basic skills that an apprentice used to learn on the job, while having a place to live and food to eat. Thus, we have an entire trade school industry that costs both the public (through direct tax support and other government benefits) and the student inordinate amounts of money that could be avoided simply by allowing individuals wishing to learn a trade to freely negotiate with a master craftsman for an apprenticeship position that is beneficial economically to both.

Or, we could have a completely free market where those people who have no money get presented with contracts indenturing them as apprentices for 7 to 10 years, wherein they are basically the servant of the master (hence the old terminology for the law of "Master and Servant" under English and American jurisprudence). So instead of paying to go to school for a couple of years, the Master will only agree to apprentice the Servant if the Servant agrees to extended periods of servitude. Which is better? That's a policy decision for the legislature.

Isn't that essentially what we have now? Don't students "indenture" themselves to the federal student loan program, or a private lender, and don't schools charge such high fees that students are essentially indentured for a decade or more? How is that substantially different from what you outline?

With an apprenticeship, the Journeyman or the Master and the apprentice come to a contractual agreement about the term of the apprenticeship, and if the teacher renegs on the contract, the apprentice has legal recourse against him. I see nothing for the FEDERAL legislature to regulate. Perhaps a state legislature might wish to set mandatory contractual conditions for apprenticeships to prevent fraud by the Master Craftsman, but that's a legitimate role of government, policing society to prevent the initiation of force or fraud.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is a cart-before-the-horse conundrum. Do wait staff earn their money through tips because that's how they are supposed to earn their money and therefore they can be denied an equal minimum wage, or do they earn their money through tips because the government has FORCED them to do so by discriminating against them with economic policy? I say it's the latter, and the proof is that in most other countries, wait staff are paid the prevailing minimum wage, and tips are gratuities intended to encourage exemplary service. One construction of the term "tips" is "to insure prompt service." Another is the very word "gratuity," which means a payment beyond what is required.

They were earning their money by tips before the FLSA was passed in 1938, and the exception from the minimum wage provisions was included because of that.

Well, they were "earning money" from tips, but that was nothing more than a social convention. And if an employee is willing to work for tips alone, or for a small wage augmented by tips, what business is it of the governments? Why should they be discriminated against when it comes to minimum wage laws?

In the absence of law, people entering into contracts is nothing more than a social convention too. So what? The law took into account the reality of the society to which it applied. That happens all the time.

You're on both sides of the ball here. One, if an employee is willing to work for tips alone, or for a small wage augmented by tips, what business is it of the governments? Well, any laws within the powers delegated to Congress to make laws for the General Welfare under Article I of the Constitution that are not otherwise unconstitutional are properly within the province of the Congress. It's the business of Congress to make laws that it deems are in the General Welfare. Arguably a minimum wage is in the General Welfare, and there can be rational bases to make exceptions to the general rule in given circumstances. On what basis do you claim that every law made by Congress must be universally applicable to all Americans under all circumstances?

Why should they be discriminated against when it comes to minimum wage laws? Because the reality of the society to which the law is applicable is that waiters and waitresses are compensated differently, because of their interaction with the public and receipt of tips for good service, that the Congress saw fit to make an exception to the general rule. The Congress made a determination that the wait staff profession didn't need a minimum wage because of their opportunity to make higher incomes through the tip custom. If you can convince enough Congressmen to change the law, that can change. I don't know what to tell you other than that. It's not unconstitutional. It has a rational basis. That doesn't mean that it can't be otherwise, or will never change.

Lots of exemptions are given to different kinds of labor laws. For example, "companions for the elderly" are exempt from minimum wage. Children who work for their parents are exempt from child labor laws. Newspaper delivery boys are exempt from minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws of the FLSA. Many others too... Administrative, professional and executive employees are exempt from the overtime requirements, as are taxi drivers, pieceworkers and many other types of workers - IT professionals, outside sales people, retail salespeople, etc. Equal protection is not violated by making these distinctions.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

Everything is a matter of opinion to some extent, but the US Supreme Court agrees with me on this one.

Sadly true. But then this is a philosophical discussion, not a simple recitation of the existing law, isn't it? I'm more concerned with the moral and ethical arguments by which such discrimination is practiced than I am the fact that Progressives have managed to achieve an important Progressive goal, which is the insertion of the Executive State in to the private business relation and private contract between employer and employee. What are the moral and ethical justifications for such unconstitutional intrusions into the right of contract?

You assume it's unconstitutional without having demonstrated that, and the right to contract doesn't mean that there are no regulations concerning contracts. The only constitutional provision is the "Impairing the Obligations of Contract" clause. It doesn't say "the right to contract shall not be infringed."

Yes - it's a philosophical discussion. But, it was you who responded "well, that's a matter of opinion." My response illustrated that saying that is really pointless. Everything is basically a matter of opinion. In this case, my opinion that the minimum wage law doesn't violate equal protection is shared by some fairly substantial legal minds who have expounded on the topic at length and you can read their justifications. I'll not repeat them here. You've not cited any authority for your proposition that the minimum wage law violates the equal protection clause - you've merely suggested that that in order to be constitutional there can be no exceptions based on a reasoned analysis of the needs of the community to which the law applies. Your philsophical argument on that point makes little sense - making exceptions is not denying equal protection, as I pointed out already.

The point I'm making is that "minimum wage" is an inherently socialist (Progressive, actually) concept that ought to be done away with entirely, but if it's to be imposed, there should be NO exemptions for anyone.

That's a matter of opinion. I see perfectly good reasons why I don't have to pay someone I hire to fix my plumbing in my house a "minimum wage" and that I can instead pay them what they charge to fix the job on a flat rate. There are lots of rational bases for making legal distinctions. Equal protection has never meant that there can't be any legal distinctions made - if that were the case, then there hardly could be any laws at all. If there is going to be an income tax, must everyone always pay the same rate? Is it a violation of equal protection to allow child credits or mortgage interest deductions on tax returns? Just because I have a house and someone else doesn't I can pay less in taxes?

Yup, it is a violation. That's my point.

Well, it isn't. In your opinion it SHOULD BE a violation. But, in present tense, it isn't.

Why is an income tax rate, after all, not a violation of equal protection? To be equal, shouldn't every person pay the same amount? By including a rate, it means I have to pay more than those making less?

And, isn't an income tax at all a violation? I mean - why should a rich guy who just sits on a pile of money pay nothing every year because he makes no "income" but I have to pay because I make "income?" Equal protection is violated because we don't each pay the same amount every year....that would seem to follow from your argument.

When it comes to economic redistribution, such arbitrary classifications have as their sole purpose the effectuating of social engineering goals, which are inherently political in nature.

So? And, so? As long as the Congress is acting for the General Welfare and within the powers delegated to it under Article I of the constitution and not violating a fundamental right, so what if they have a social engineering goal? And, all lawmaking is political in nature.

A "progressive" income tax is the classic example of social engineering by economic discrimination, and was never considered to be valid by the Founders. The graduated income tax is a product of Progressive political policy, and was only passed on the promise that the maximum tax rate would never exceed seven percent. Of course, nearly the minute that the system was imposed, that promise flew out the window and Progressives began using the graduated income tax as a way of seizing and redistributing wealth to achieve political power.

We have an amendment to the Constitution affording the power to Congress to levy and collect the income tax without apportionment. So, whatever the intent of the "Founders" (which was not a unified intent anyway) - that changed when the Constitution was duly amended. The Founders also intended that a census only count blacks as 3/5 of a person and refers to the Importation of persons - That, of course, changed when the Constitution was amended.

Certainly the only fair and rational form of income tax, if income taxes themselves are moral, which they are not,

In your opinion, of course. Morality is purely a value judgment on things or actions, and income taxes are not inherently immoral or objectively immoral. They are only deemed immoral by people. I don't think they are "immoral." But, then again, even if I did, that would say nothing about whether they are or should be legal.

Prostitution is legal in some places in Nevada, but lots of people there think it's immoral.

is a flat tax with no exemptions for anyone. Everyone pays a fixed percentage of their income as their duty to support the necessary functions of government. THAT is "equal protection."

Actually, it isn't. If everyone paid an equal AMOUNT, then THAT would be equal protection. An income tax rate at all, dependent on income, is plainly unequal and results in people who earn more money paying more in taxes. To be treated equally, everyone would pay the same fixed amount, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, or even age. Allowing children to not pay their share of the tax burden is a denial of equal protection adults, isn't it?

Better yet is a flat sales tax, which taxes consumption, not income production.

That discriminates against the spendthrifts, and the "early adopters." All of these things discriminate.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is also a distinction made between independent contractors and employees. Independent contractors are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act at all.

Which is how everyone should be employed.

That's your opinion. There is a difference between "employee" and "independent contractor" under the law.

Why?

Because the two things are different. An independent contractor is a person who performs services for another person under an express or implied agreement and who is not subject to the other's control, or right to control, the manner and means of performing the services. An employee is a person who performs services for another who is subject to the other's control or right to control the manner and means of performing the services. Different things can be treated differently.

The only reason there is a distinction is for the convenience of government.

Not at all. It's convenient for people, too, like when I hire a roofer to put a roof on my house - he does the job, I pay him. If he misquotes the job and spends more on supplies and equipment, so he takes a loss on the job, then that's tough on him.

If you're an employee, your employer is required to withhold money from your paycheck, and he is required to contribute matching funds to FICA, Social Security and Medicare.

Something I'm glad I don't have to do when I hire a plumber.

If you're an independent contractor, all those expenses fall on you. And that's how it should be for everyone.

Why? Why can't there be exceptions for situations when someone is hired to do a job and be subject to the control and right to control the manner and means of doing the job?

The employer should not be made into an involuntary tax collector for the federal government, and individuals should be responsible for paying for their own retirement plans and medical care, just like independent contractors are.

Why not? And, why?

It's really the rare job that only pays minimum wage, and typically they are jobs that are filled by high school and college kids. That's the reality.

More importantly, every time the minimum wage is imposed or increased, entry-level employees like high school students, and particularly uneducated black youth, lose their jobs because employers aren't willing to pay unskilled employees more than they are worth, so they hire more experienced employees instead.

I'm not opposed to minimum wages, in practice. I think the minimum wage must be above zero, for example. Otherwise, we have peonage, serfdom and slavery. Even "voluntary" slavery, I think, ought to be prohibited. How high the minimum wage should be, however, ought to be more nuanced than it is today.

Why?

Because of the 13th Amendment, for one thing, and because allowing slavery, peonage and involuntary servitude is, IMO, bad policy.

Slavery is defined as "involuntary servitude." If it's voluntary, it's not slavery.[/quote]

Never said it was. I'm also opposed to people selling themselves into slavery. Granted, however, that not all volunteered labor is that.

Peonage, serfdom and slavery are all LEGAL conditions, not economic ones. If I, as a retired cop, want to go to work for my local police department on a part-time basis, but I want to get paid something so that I'm covered under the insurance, why shouldn't I be allowed to negotiate whatever salary is acceptable to me?

Because overall policy is not all about you. It's about recognizing the economic realities and measuring policy against that reality. If a determination is made that eliminating the minimum wage would ultimately result in too many people working for too low wages under the circumstances, then setting a minimum wage will set a reasonable floor below which nobody will go. That will mean, of course, that some folks who are willing to work for free, or to pay to work for someone else, won't be permitted to do so.

Who makes the determination that a wage is "too low?"

Congress

The government?

Yes.

Why?

Because it is empowered to make laws for the General Welfare and within the powers delegated to it under the Constitution, so long as it does not violate a fundamental right.

By what constitutional authority does the Congress presume to set wages?

It hasn't presume to "set wages," but it has presumed to set a minimum wage under the Commerce Clause.

Where is it written that the Congress has such authority?

Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution.

Last I checked, "setting wages" was not included in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Check Article I, Section 1, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." And, Section 8,"The Congress shall have power to ....provide for the ... general welfare of the United States; [and] ... To regulate commerce .... and among the several states...;"

The FLSA is based on the Commerce Clause.

So where, exactly, does Congress derive its power to set a national minimum wage?

The Commerce Clause, although there are employers and employees who are not covered by the FLSA. Those that aren't are covered by State law. http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/scope/screen10.asp

Is it better for people to be unemployed, and therefore a burden on the public purse, because they do not have sufficient skills to make them worthwhile employees, or is it better for them to hold some position and get paid for it, which allows them the opportunity to learn and make themselves more valuable to their employer, and to the market generally, so that they can advance themselves economically?

That's a matter of opinion and depends on policy goals. Maybe it is better for some people to be unemployed so that a great many people can be employed at a higher wage.

And should government get to decide this?

Why not?

What are the unintended consequences of vesting such vast economic power in Congress, pray tell?

You tell me.

Should not the markets determine who is employed and how much they get paid?

They generally do, except there is a minimum wage applicable to most employees and overtime laws applicable to most. The markets should determine who is employed and how much they get paid within the legal framework set by state, federal and local government. I'd like to not pay an annual business tax to my City, but they've seen fit to charge me. Should they have that power?

Is it better that tons of people earn extremely low wages so that a few people who are excited about the opportunity to work for free to gain experience can do so? Might be - but, whether that's the law of the land depends on the outcome of the political process. The answer to that question is not something that is carved in stone for all time, for all reasons, under all circumstances.

The most fundamental question you have to answer, before you can even address your questions, is where Congress derives its power to meddle in the wage structure of the nation.

I've answered that.

I see absolutely no authority anywhere in the Constitution that permits or authorizes Congress to make laws regarding wages in the U.S. Do you?

Yes, in relation to commerce among the several states. So, employees engaged in businesses engaging in interstate commerce, sure. Just like States can set minimum wages - the federal government can if it is part of its regulation of interstate commerce.

If so, where?

Article I, Section 8 - I think it's clause 2.

If the Congress has no power to regulate wages,

Why wouldn't they have the power to set a minimum wage for businesses engaged in interstate commerce?

then the political issues you put forward are moot.

I've already stated the broad grant of authority to the Congress.

And as I read it, and as the Founders intended it, Congress is strictly limited in its powers to those ENUMERATED powers found in the Constitution. Everything else, including regulating wages, is left to the states, or to the people, in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

How about not claiming what the "Founders" intended without specifying who intended it and citing your source. It's a pet peeve of mine, this "Founders" nonsense. These were men, not gods and deifying them with this "Founders" nomenclature and pretending that they were all of one "golden age" mind that was pure and right in all things is silly.

The enumerated powers are very broad and general, sometimes, and it seems fairly clear that setting a minimum wage for those engaged in or employed by entities engaged in interstate commerce is not outside the realm of regulating interstate commerce.

Legions of black youth wander the streets of our urban slums precisely because they have neither the skills, education or work ethic to make them worth seven bucks an hour to McDonalds for flipping burgers. But if McDonalds could employ them at two dollars an hour to start, it might be worth the time and trouble of educating and training them in a useful skill, and they would be benefiting the economy at the same time. So long as they are free to move on to other jobs, it's not serfdom, peonage or slavery. Their economic success becomes dependent upon their willingness to learn and work hard.

It may also be that the legions of black and white persons well-qualified to staff McDonald's grills who are now making $8 an hour would then be reduced to $2 an hour. At the current minimum wage, McDonalds is not at a loss for qualified help. It's not like they're saying "shit man, we can't find qualified help around here - if only we could pay only $2 an hour, then we could afford to train the crackheads on the street to flip burgers..."

Which might get the crackheads off of crack and start them up the ladder to economic success.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe nothing will get the crackheads off crack, except themselves, and it seems to me very likely that a crackhead isn't going to hold down a job if you offer him $100 an hour. But, then again, this determination is ultimately for our elected officials to make.

Flipping burgers should not be a career aspiration for anyone,

Says you. And, me too, but then again I don't presume to speak for everyone.

it should be an entry-level foothold on the ladder to success, nothing more,

Oh, I don't know - some folks can't do much more. The baggers at the supermarket aren't going to be heading up the corporate ladder anytime soon.

and our newly-minted working class just out of high school should have ample access to such entry-level positions. It's a bad idea to reserve entry level jobs for experienced workers because it leaves nowhere for entry-level employees to start.

Assuming, of course, that we are in fact "reserving entry level jobs for experienced workers" by setting a minimum wage at like $7.25 an hour. I think most folks with any experience already got a raise.

That's what apprenticeship was all about. The master craftsman selected a young man who showed talent in the trade and gave him room and board, and perhaps a small stipend, in return for being taught the craft. A fair and reasonable quid pro quo relationship that is now essentially illegal in the US. Now, an apprentice has to be paid at least minimum wage, and often more than that in a unionized trade, which makes it too costly for the employer to afford, so he doesn't hire unskilled labor with the intent to educate them into the trade, he hires semi-skilled workers who have experience. And the new worker, no matter how skilled he might be, has to fork over money he doesn't have, or which he gets from the government, to go to "trade school" to learn the basic skills that an apprentice used to learn on the job, while having a place to live and food to eat. Thus, we have an entire trade school industry that costs both the public (through direct tax support and other government benefits) and the student inordinate amounts of money that could be avoided simply by allowing individuals wishing to learn a trade to freely negotiate with a master craftsman for an apprenticeship position that is beneficial economically to both.

Or, we could have a completely free market where those people who have no money get presented with contracts indenturing them as apprentices for 7 to 10 years, wherein they are basically the servant of the master (hence the old terminology for the law of "Master and Servant" under English and American jurisprudence). So instead of paying to go to school for a couple of years, the Master will only agree to apprentice the Servant if the Servant agrees to extended periods of servitude. Which is better? That's a policy decision for the legislature.

Isn't that essentially what we have now? Don't students "indenture" themselves to the federal student loan program, or a private lender, and don't schools charge such high fees that students are essentially indentured for a decade or more? How is that substantially different from what you outline?

With an apprenticeship, the Journeyman or the Master and the apprentice come to a contractual agreement about the term of the apprenticeship, and if the teacher renegs on the contract, the apprentice has legal recourse against him. I see nothing for the FEDERAL legislature to regulate. Perhaps a state legislature might wish to set mandatory contractual conditions for apprenticeships to prevent fraud by the Master Craftsman, but that's a legitimate role of government, policing society to prevent the initiation of force or fraud.

That's not what it was like when the "Founders" were around. The majority of workers back then were domestic servants, apprentices, temporary helpers, indentured servants, or slaves, and wage labor for a livelihood was the exception. The master-servant relationship was hierarchical and mutually obligatory and Masters were were allowed to impose harsh terms on the servant. When the servant failed to measure up to the norms or terms of labor, the servant might be disciplined, even whipped, by the master or imprisoned by a court. In colonial South Carolina (and Massachusetts, to a lesser extent), the master had statutory permission to put his servant to work for one week—not to exceed a total of two years—for every day the servant was absent from work without consent. In many colonies and localities, voluntary idleness was illegal, and a small number of the "indigent," "vagrant," or "dissolute" persons and criminals were bound to labor by law. We could go back to that way.