Let's Talk About Minimum Wage, Class Warfare, Wage Gaps, etc.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That's why I normalized to labor hours. Not perfect but you get the idea.

Just curious, why would you want to normalize work hours between 1920 and 2021? Is it not a good thing that we are trending towards a 30some hour work week, instead of the 60some hours worked back then, but have maintained our productivity gains? At some point growth for the sake of growth is not a a positive, economics has to be about increasing human wellbeing, and really personal leisure time well used is a good way to feel well.

Also I know you egg example spits in the face of this, but in the 20's they average family was probably getting by on +/- 70 hours of work / week. 60ish hours from dad and maybe a few hours from the kids paper route... Now the kids don't work but Mom does full time, and most families are seeing 75+hours of work. So really families are contributing the same amount of work hours to society to get by. We've just shift much of the burden from men to women.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by #-3

Just curious, why would you want to normalize work hours between 1920 and 2021? Is it not a good thing that we are trending towards a 30some hour work week, instead of the 60some hours worked back then, but have maintained our productivity gains? At some point growth for the sake of growth is not a a positive, economics has to be about increasing human wellbeing, and really personal leisure time well used is a good way to feel well.

Also I know you egg example spits in the face of this, but in the 20's they average family was probably getting by on +/- 70 hours of work / week. 60ish hours from dad and maybe a few hours from the kids paper route... Now the kids don't work but Mom does full time, and most families are seeing 75+hours of work. So really families are contributing the same amount of work hours to society to get by. We've just shift much of the burden from men to women.

This was a big contributor in my opinion to asset inflation. When one person worked you could spend 30% of your income on housing. When two people work you can now spend 30% of both if not more as your other costs don’t double by having two people working.

I think comparisons to the 50-80’s as probably a low point in terms of hours worked for family success.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by #-3

Just curious, why would you want to normalize work hours between 1920 and 2021? Is it not a good thing that we are trending towards a 30some hour work week, instead of the 60some hours worked back then, but have maintained our productivity gains? At some point growth for the sake of growth is not a a positive, economics has to be about increasing human wellbeing, and really personal leisure time well used is a good way to feel well.

Also I know you egg example spits in the face of this, but in the 20's they average family was probably getting by on +/- 70 hours of work / week. 60ish hours from dad and maybe a few hours from the kids paper route... Now the kids don't work but Mom does full time, and most families are seeing 75+hours of work. So really families are contributing the same amount of work hours to society to get by. We've just shift much of the burden from men to women.

The reason why we can trend towards shorter work weeks is because we can stretch out labour much farther with respect to our consumption. This is because of automation. If your labour hours buy you 5x groceries (in the case of eggs anyway), then you're richer. Spend your extra resources as you choose: more leisure, or more goods.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

It's not consensual when there is a power imbalance.

There is a power imbalance in every human relationship. Does that mean no choices are consensual?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Deegee

What the hell happened to this thread?

Someone is expressing an opinion that dissents from the majority. Which is pretty uncommon when it comes to social and political topics on CP these days. So yeah, feels weird.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There is a power imbalance in every human relationship. Does that mean no choices are consensual?

Yes, Cliff. You nailed it.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There is a power imbalance in every human relationship. Does that mean no choices are consensual?

Many in this thread who are pro-minimum-wage state that the power balance always lies with the employer. Which is obviously false.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Many in this thread who are pro-minimum-wage state that the power balance always lies with the employer. Which is obviously false.

Just because some employees can temporarily enjoy market benefits that give them more power, it's still a hierarchy.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

*wakes up, elbows braced against pillow. shudders.*

"Honey, wake up, you won't believe the dream I just had! A nightmare about a bunch of Masters of Business graduates having an argument about eggs."

*looks over his shoulder at Bob Newhart's wife from a previous series.*

"That settles it, no more Japanese food before you go to bed. Go to sleep, Dear, we all know that's not a real degree."

"You should really wear more sweaters."

Edit : (joking. just stopping into the last page to see why this thread is always at the top)

Eggs are great. They are delicious, nutritious, and a relatively cheap source of protein.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There is a power imbalance in every human relationship. Does that mean no choices are consensual?

Probably more than we should be comfortable with.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Someone is expressing an opinion that dissents from the majority. Which is pretty uncommon when it comes to social and political topics on CP these days. So yeah, feels weird.

It’s essentially been two people going back and forth with 5 word responses. The majority? Come come now Cliff, this is a conversation about eggs!

Speaking of, how do you like them?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Just because some employees can temporarily enjoy market benefits that give them more power, it's still a hierarchy.

It's not temporary.

The number of minimum wage workers in Canada is about 10% (it varies, but that's a reasonable number).

So 90% of the workers in Canada earn more than minimum wage. If the power balance of wage negotiations was universally held by the employers, then all employees would be driven to minimum wage. The fact that 90% of the workers in Canada can demonstrate either a little bit, or a lot of, pricing power for their wages confirms that employers don't have a hegemony.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's not temporary.

The number of minimum wage workers in Canada is about 10% (it varies, but that's a reasonable number).

So 90% of the workers in Canada earn more than minimum wage. If the power balance of wage negotiations was universally held by the employers, then all employees would be driven to minimum wage. The fact that 90% of the workers in Canada can demonstrate either a little bit, or a lot of, pricing power for their wages confirms that employers don't have a hegemony.

I think that people give up that power in exchange for shelter though. Once you have a mortgage without a year of survival money you have effectively transferred that power back to the employer.

Actually you dont even need a mortgage. If you don’t have 6 months - 1 year of living expenses then you have transferred that power back to the employer.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think that people give up that power in exchange for shelter though. Once you have a mortgage without a year of survival money you have effectively transferred that power back to the employer.

Actually you dont even need a mortgage. If you don’t have 6 months - 1 year of living expenses then you have transferred that power back to the employer.

Ok, but what's the solution to people making bad financial choices?

Legislating more money doesn't seem like the right fix to that problem.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think that people give up that power in exchange for shelter though. Once you have a mortgage without a year of survival money you have effectively transferred that power back to the employer.

Actually you dont even need a mortgage. If you don’t have 6 months - 1 year of living expenses then you have transferred that power back to the employer.

But there is a fundamental difference between being obligated to work, and being obligated to a particular employer.

The power for the employee comes from having more than one employer interested in their services.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

But there is a fundamental difference between being obligated to work, and being obligated to a particular employer.

The power for the employee comes from having more than one employer interested in their services.

But depending on the amount of time they can survive without employment substantially limits their power.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Ok, but what's the solution to people making bad financial choices?

Legislating more money doesn't seem like the right fix to that problem.

I don’t think it’s a minimum wage issue,

Labour standards and termination pay are likely the best solutions.

Or unions.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Ok, but what's the solution to people making bad financial choices?

Legislating more money doesn't seem like the right fix to that problem.

The answer used to be pensions. I have no idea what the answer is now.

[GirlySports]

You guys are missing the most important question? What goes with eggs? Ketchup? Salt and pepper? Do the prices of these commodities go up?


Btw, i have scrambled eggs with ketchup and all other forms of eggs with salt and pepper.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The reason why we can trend towards shorter work weeks is because we can stretch out labour much farther with respect to our consumption. This is because of automation. If your labour hours buy you 5x groceries (in the case of eggs anyway), then you're richer. Spend your extra resources as you choose: more leisure, or more goods.

I actually think the reason we haven't seen shorter work weeks, is that higher productivity & automation favors capital.

It's a little overly simplistic but Labour + Capital = Economic output.

Basically in a higher productivity world the same operation requires more equipment, more materials, more... to keep up with competitors, and automation leaves labour less and less specialized. So really the labour in general is negotiating from a weaker and weaker position over time, meaning they can't reap the benefits of higher productivity by receiving a comparable quality of life in exchange for less time.

The reason food specifically plays a smaller factor in all of this, is not because we are richer, but because of the green revolution, food is comparatively cheaper to produce now than it was 100 years ago, while land in comparatively more expensive to supply to everyone (because there are more people now), and the basic communication tools required to be a functioning participant in our economy are almost infinitely more expensive. So we spend more on shelter and communication, we have to travel further to reach our jobs (because jobs are more centralized and land is more expensive) so more on transportation too, as a ratio of income. But basically pump us full of some of the sweet sweet agrotech, and everyone can be fed now a days.

In order for labour to effectively reap some of the benefits of increased productivity we will need to see1 of 3 things. Massive collective actions (unions), Government Intervention, or labor shortages (which aren't too likely, because of those ever productivity increases). I for one have always hated the idea of Unions, playing to the mean and allowing small underqualified subgroups to negotiate on behalf of other peoples interests has always been ripe territory for abuse.

So I am generally in favor of robust government regulation, high minimum wages, strong worker protections regarding maximum hours and overtime pay. This doesn't come without it's own problems, the very people who need to enact these regulations are often supported the most by those who would be harmed by them. It drives a big incumbency advantage in business, because startups can't always pay the high wages and hire enough people to cover off all of those short hours. and it also requires collective action with other governments to make sure your jurisdiction is not hamstrung. But these problems are the type of things a functioning government would a long view could work on.