John Stossel - The Minimum Wage and Consequences

[pstew0809]

Without the min. wage employers are forced to follow a liveable wage instead of a minimum wage. People can be more competative in a free market when employers are left to deal with what it costs people to actualy survive in todays strugling economy.

[pstew0809]

A craft or skilled labourer is equivalent to how many men they are worth. Say it takes a crew of 5 nonexperianced workers to lay the same amount of brick one seasoned mason can lay in an 8 hour day, their is a trade, or craft difference in relating to quantaty and quality of work expended in the same amount of time. Better quality and subtracting time that the five nonskilled workers could do adds value, so more profit. Also most employers offer insurance, they are saving money their also.

[pstew0809]

Minimum wage kills the bottom rung of the economic latter and deminishes skilled labor wages every time it goes up, eventually we will all be slaves to the system if we do not eliminate it. If a man pays some one to bag groceries and they are starting a buisness and can only pay someone 4 dollers an hour because of his profit margin, paying much more would cause him to go in the hole.In saying this; nonskilled labour is a cheap form of labour because it doent add value to product like a craft.

[pstew0809]

How can the worker be competative for good or better services for more money if all the company is responsible for is minimum wage.

[jeffiek]

@pstew0809 Why don't you ask the NINETY-FOUR per cent of workers that make more than the MW?

You know, the HIGHER than minimum wage that the companies aren't responsible for.

[pstew0809]

@jeffiek Only Unions today have the power of degotiating a wage in a dirrect fashon, I know because I have been a machinist for 14 years. I have worked in non union shops and their is no competativeness just a set price the employer gives you. You know, they base their rate of pay off of a shop price, in other words what the going rate is around town compared to a percentage of what the minimum wage is, devallueing skilled labour because entry level jobs being quoted more than their worth.

[jackiechan511]

Removing the minimum wage and paying peanuts (say $2 per hour) is the equivalent of slavery just like how the Republicans say that "spreading" the wealth is socialism. No one in America can live with a wage of $12 or less.

[Dethreid]

Honestly, so long as the minimum wage is applied evenly to every single employer in the country I think it works.

Here is the thing, if you can't afford to employ somebody for minimum wage, then did you really need that job anyhow.

If you can't expand your business because you can't pay a reasonable minimum, then obviously the demand was not there for the expansion.

I think this is a two sided coin, but it has to be applied to any business and applied evenly, even government contractors.

[fububalla]

Good fuck I hate when conservatives argument the asinine point of why not raise the MWage to $100 or to $10000.

As for killing off entry level jobs, this is a myth. You do not need an employer to WORK. Find where the money is, become skilled at something and make your SELF in demand.

Don't work for some company thats ran by dicks like Stossel that would pay you in beans and lint if he could.

[munkyusm]

@fububalla Why is the "why not raise the mwage to $100 or $10,000 an asinine point? I noticed you didn't bother going into anymore detail on this?

[fububalla]

@munkyusm Are you serious... I won't go into much detail because its stupid. That's really gonna bring economic stability huh? Just like dropping taxes to 0% or raising them to 70% would be inanely extreme.

[YoungTon22]

minimum wage has virtually nothing to do with employment being low right now. your low skill job is overseas where theyre paying someone 50-100$ a month. due to inflation MW hasnt changed much at all since its beginning. the nominal amount has raised but its purchasing power steadily declines. so how does this help the poor when making MW keeps them poor? and how do you explain the top 20% of americas steady increase in salaries and the bottom 20% decrease? sounds like greed to me

[munkyusm]

@YoungTon22 "your low skill job is overseas where they're paying someone..." You just echoed his point. It costs too much to pay low skill labor over here, so they take it overseas.

"due to inflation MW hasn't changed much at all..." It was $.25 in 1938...had it kept up with inflation, it would be at $3.83.

I like how you argue on behalf of the developing world like you know what they want. I'm sure they'd rather be working 16 hrs a day in a field, harvesting roots to eat huh?

[YoungTon22]

@munkyusm "You just echoed his point. It costs too much to pay low skill labor over here, so they take it overseas." so youre saying it would be okay for someone to earn 50-100$ a month here and abroad? good luck with that. and in 1968 at $1.60= $9.86 cent in 2010.

and as far as argueing for a developing world, i know they'd rather be better off financially like everyone else in the developed world does. im sure if there was a better option they would choose it. its about greed

[munkyusm]

@YoungTon22 It's not about fucking greed...it's about what something is worth. That's the whole point of the free market economy. Prices are suppose to correlate with supply and demand. Everytime you libs come up with your nice, caring ways to fix legitimate problems, you screw with the market system, which further puts people into poverty.

So if a job is worth less than minimum wage what happens? It gets sent overseas. Then you people bitch about how greedy they are for doing so. SMH

[YoungTon22]

@munkyusm why are you so excited? calm down angry youtuber. sometimes im liberal sometimes conservative depending on the issue. what do you think decides if a job is worth less than minimum wage? greed is exactly what sending jobs overseas is about. if i can cut labor costs i can make more money.the wealth gap has vastly increased and you say its not because of greed? what is it then?

[munkyusm]

@YoungTon22 No, if I use expensive labor, and my products cost more than my competition, I'm LESS COMPETITIVE and I go out of business (AKA: everyone loses their job). It's so easy to call seeking a profit greed...but it's intellectual laziness. Why not go read up on how the market place works? Anyone who talks like you clearly has no clue of how business actually works.

[YoungTon22]

@munkyusm lol. what is your definition of less competitive? seeking a profit isnt greed. making a business decision that negatively effects a large population of your native country that you sell most of your product too just for maximum profitability is a form of greed. excessive desire for wealth. youre right, nike sweatshops are okay because if they brought there factories here they would be "less competitive" same for walmarts factory/apartments. thats not greedy at all thats business

[munkyusm]

@YoungTon22 So you're telling me, that if you owned a business, you would be more concerned about the public of the united states, than your shareholders and your business? If you're given two options - 1) stay here and be raped by unions and eventually go under or 2) go overseas and keep your business alive, which do you do? Keep in mind, the entire time you're making this decision, you have about 2 million shareholders staring at you under a magnifying lens expecting a profit.

[YoungTon22]

@munkyusm i do own a business and i love it that my tags say american made. its not a corporation. we will agree to disagree

[munkyusm]

@YoungTon22 Just because you "love it" does not really answer my question. If you had to choose between closing your doors and going bankrupt or outsourcing jobs overseas to stay alive, which would you choose? I don't even think I should have to wait for this answer. We all know it's "I would outsource.". Just because you're a small business that makes it unfeasible to outsource jobs doesn't mean you're a patriot.

[YoungTon22]

@munkyusm of course!desperate times call for desperate measures but i disagree with my options.why does it have to be a desperate situation?in my small business it would be feasible to outsource production i just choose not to."less competitive" as far as revenue maybe, but still competitive enough to make a decent profit and keep a healthy business. also, big companies with mainly domestic consumers go under in bad economies so how is domestic production not a focus? ex. auto industry: GM

[ninuxy]

Supply and demand = if you are at the bottom, the business is going to exploit and milk you until you bleed to death. Why wouldn't they do it, because, after all, veryone wants to deepen their pocket, right? You run some place else? Some place else where they too, by design of system, in order to compete with other businesses, which have been exploiting these low skilled workers and bringing more profit in, are going to have their peanut wages cut?

We're talking about the bottom, not top John.

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy I'm sure those poor people overseas really feel exploited when they're offered a chance to quit working 16 hrs a day harvesting roots to eat and do something a little more productive. This is how a developing country DEVELOPS...through hard work! Everytime I see someone make this ridiculous argument, I see them spitting in the faces of their ancestors, who understood what hard work actually was. We have easy lives because of those that came before us, not govt laws.

[ninuxy]

@munkyusm First, you have no idea what their past or present work are/were or how much it was sustaining them and to what extent the external forces have/had made their lives worsen.

Second, by definition of "sweatshop," replacing one allegedly terrible working condition with another, despite the fact that the receiving end is a well-off corporations on this side of the pond, does not make the misery any less abhorrent but rather more exploitative.

[ninuxy]

You, and every other reactionary Reich winger who have exhaustively memorized a meme and a stock definition of certain ideology, cannot distinguish between a hard work, where the result is an improved live style for a worker in the long run, and slavery, backed by the hiring companies ripping benefits while ignoring working conditions, that will leave most workers with no protection and perpetuation of a never ending life cycle of poverty.

Now keep walking...

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy It's obviously not as terrible, or millions would be trying so hard to get those sweatshop jobs. Like I said, you don't care about them developing unless it happens overnite. Fuck these people learning the capitalist system and busting their ass to catch up with us, right? There's two ways to pull people out of poverty - capitalism, or we go to global communism and evenly spread the wealth around the world. Which do you prefer?

[ninuxy]

@munkyusm Yes, generations of slaves also kept accepting their role as subservient laborers for centuries.

Perhaps, reading comprehension is not your forte. A hard work where one side does not exploit the other is a fair trade. No one said they should climb up the ladder into the middle class overnight. The key word is "sweatshop" which constitutes an existence of terrible working conditions while the receiving end is profited handsomely.

Your false dichotomy is puerile. Take a hike.

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy Me with the false dichotomy? That would be you. You're assuming that everyone must be a "slave" to someone in capitalism. If it were actually easy to open and run a business, where corporations squashing competition didn't exist, and we had a sound dollar, there would literally be no reason for people to be stuck working for someone unless they wanted to. Your false dichotomy - Capitalism means "Everyone either wears a top hat or is dressed in garb, working for nickels."

[ninuxy]

@munkyusm Earth to dickhead: read my original post.

I know what free and "fair" market should or shouldn't be. You assume that under any condition, any trade satisfies the definition of "Capitalism." Capitalism does not exclude morality.

Once again, you confuse proportionality with equality. The keyword is "sweatshop." Try to digest what it means. You have a long way to go in life.

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy Any trade that is voluntary IS moral. If there is no force or coercion taking place, then how can it be immoral? Trade is mutually beneficial to both parties, otherwise there would be no trade. Whether you trade goods for money, or whether you sell your own labor for money is no difference so long as it is done voluntarily.

As far as sweatshops go - until their country develops, they will be "exploited". But the point is, their country WILL develop...it's inevitable.

[ninuxy]

@munkyusm You go tell that to the 15-year-olds selling themselves to your kind in the third world countries to provide for their families. Morality has no meaning in your world. Libertarian zealotry has become a disease that needs to be cleansed soon.

Once again, goofball here resorting to textbook definition while ignoring the context. As I said, you see the exploitation, yet cheer for it under some sick twisted philosophical ideology. You're not an island, asshole.

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy I like you how you ignore my point - "their country WILL develop...it's inevitable." It makes me think you don't actually want their country to develop? Do you want their country to develop or not?

[ninuxy]

@munkyusm Yes, "our" country also developed... on the back of millions of slaves. The point is not that something will or won't happen; the point is how you can improve a condition without exploitation.

You are still have your head stuck in a place where darkness is praised as daylight. Do you want to stop molesting the Straw pole?

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy So there is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. You actually think slavery is the reason America was successful. You should go back and read up on history...you'll find that you're completely misinformed.

Also, it's disgusting to watch someone compare slavery to people voluntarily working for a wage. One involves force, the other is anything but using force. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[ninuxy]

@munkyusm Slaves provided an enormous economical clout for America or else the industrial revolution wouldn't have had happened.

Second, I knew you would miss the point. I wasn't equating slavery with a typical manufacturing work. I was pointing out the morality behind exploitation, whether it is slavery or cornering someone's desperation to work him to death in a sweatshop.

You are still drawing equivalency between "a" manufacturing labor with "sweatshop's." You're incorrigible.

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy Many studies have shown that slavery was a highly inefficient means of producing anything. Taking uneducated people and then feeding and clothing them means you have a highly ineffective, costly work force.

Also, there's NO difference between manufacturing labor and sweatshops. It's people voluntarily agreeing to work for said wage. In an undeveloped economy, you're going to have people willing to work for far less, but i guarantee their families are thankful.

[ninuxy]

@munkyusm shove your poorly stated, dubious "studies." What kind of fucking moron would make an argument that having hundreds of "free" labor while keeping them alive on a subsisting level and draining their lives from birth to grave was not only somehow "inefficient" but it was "highly" inefficient.

Ya! Who knew such "inefficiency" would drive the southern states to go into a civil war just to maintain their "disadvantageous" way of conducting business.

[ninuxy]

But don't tell that to cocksuckers like munkeyboy. He can concoct, fabricate and manufacture kooky excuses for just about everything.

I mean, how can anyone take a goofball like you seriously when you suggest shackling 100 highly productive workers (under the lashes), in an agricultural industry (think today's illegal Mexicans) to toil day in and day out for life and no pay as being "highly ineffective"!

What the fuck goes through your head when you comment?

[ninuxy]

Again, in your one-dimensional, myopic worldy view, you see no moral shortcome of seeing a 15-year-old whoring herself to support her family, just because it has been "reasoned" it is "voluntarily." Black and white. As long as POS' like you can get something for cheap, ends would justify the means.

The fact that a person is being put in a position to tear himself up because due to his economical condition has no bearing factor in examining the overall picture. NONE!

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy What if her "whoring herself" led to her being able to go to college and get out of the current situation that led her to have to resort to "whoring herself" and her kids grew up in a much better situation? Or would you rather her just have children that grew up in the same environment she did?

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy It WAS highly ineffective. Anyone who thinks slavery is efficient has not actually thought very long about it. It required MASSIVE resources to run slaves. You needed people to watch over them, you had to feed and house them, you had to keep them healthy, etc. Do you honestly think 1 guy on a tractor would not be much more cost-effective than 100 slaves? Slavery was going to end w/o govt, it was only a matter of time. Moral views began to change and so did technology.

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy Because there are enormous amounts of costs required to control human beings by force. You tell me - would it be cheaper to train cows to take good care of themselves, breed often, and then milk themselves for you or is it cheaper to constantly have to do all of those things for them?

The southern states were against getting rid of slavery, as you would be, bc they viewed them as property. How would Americans react if government all of a sudden abolished the ownership of cars?

[munkyusm]

@ninuxy Furthermore, what's more efficient? Tractors or a massive group of slaves for picking cotton?

[keithdra]

I wonder if john stossel works for minimum wage.

[munkyusm]

@keithdra No...because he has skills that are worth more than minimum wage. I really don't think people understand how capitalism works...

[barlover636]

@ignbtd capitalism is an economic system whereas the means of production and distribution are privately owned, what u are describing is a free market in a democracy, look at china those entrepenuers are excercising capitalism within a communist country, u say unions are not socialist in nature try opening a private fire dept in nyc and see who owns that service what's puzzling me with u, is that historically unions were always aligned with socialists proudly.

[barlover636]

@ignbtd randdom house webster's concise dictionary, socialism=a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the gov't, i said that unions are a form of socialism there is no system totally capitalist or socialist, boycotts etc are a function of democracy in a free society.

[barlover636]

@ignbtd labour is worth whatever people can bargain for, that's why unions have strikes,lockouts, and boycotts my friend, now go get a dictionary and look up the word socialism. unions get together to force up the price of labor that's where we get laws like the davis beacon act where employers have to pay prevailing wage on fed jobs thats because of "collective bargaining" which is a form of socialism, if u don't comprehend that then i truly believe u like to argue at any cost.

[barlover636]

@ignbtd unions are a form of socialism , u need to realize that people can choose socialism that doesn't make it bad, unions are a collective body of people trying to dictate what labor should be worth and they try to enforce it through many different means.

[barlover636]

@ignbtd 1st off i want u to know i'm not anti union, but socialism=the means of production and distribution are collectively owned so though unions may be a byproduct of capitalism, at its core its also a byproduct of socialism

[barlover636]

@ignbtd u obviously don't understand the meaning of socialism, besides that every business and economic model has elements of socialism and capitalism no matter what people like milton friedman and that whole crowd says.

[mba2ceo]

@ignbtd ... slavery has never disappeared from society ... it has been transformed into a pseudo-endearment. Where the slaves engenders themselves by debt & social obligation. Most slaves exist in a quasi moderate survival with the bare minimal of necessities. Slavery of the mind is the greatest oppression for the victim is unaware. Slaves DO NOT even own their houses ... after paying off the exploiters ... slaves rent it from the GOVT,.

[mba2ceo]

@ignbtd ... that is NOT true. Fact is that ONLY UNIONS & GOVT can protect the slaves from exploitation.

[MorpheusX001]

He is an idiot! talking to other idiots. Nuff said...

[FunkWhip]

Hell, why not just bring back slavery. Then all business would be happy.

[HKK91]

@FunkWhip

Sir you are an idiot. First off, no one would allow themselves to be slaves to an entity. Second, of course they should be paid but according to what the job is (like demand, education, etc, and etc). And finally, for the love of god, take economics before you spout nonsense.

[FunkWhip]

@HKK91 Nice to see your abilty to spot sarcasm is intact. History has shown that people do indeed allow themselves to become slaves to an entity. That's how revolutions occur. Nobody questions the logic of paying people according to job value. but given the ever growing disparity between the top and bottom of the remuneration tree, I wonder if that's still the case. It doesn't take an economics degree to see that punishing the consumer base is bad for business.

[obamaforprez2008]

Personally, I feel the minimum wage should be much higher. I think around $15-$17 per hour, plus free health care benefits would be the most beneficial for ALL Americans.

[grahmnash1]

@obamaforprez2008 Yeah, and who's going to pay for that?

[munkyusm]

@obamaforprez2008 Why stop there? Let's promise everyone a car, two story house, and free food as well...then minimum wage wouldn't even matter because no one would need to work! Dude, I think you're onto something!!!!

[MrHav1k]

So what? We should have 100% employment but make $1 an hour? FUCK OFF.

[TheShaniqua1992]

@MrHav1k

Dumbest post of all time. Barely anyone makes minimum wage because they are much more productive than minimum wage. However, if you have unskilled labor and the going rate is 1$ an hour for that, who is to say if someone is willing to work for that they can't? How else can they get skills to earn a higher wage? Your logic is that you put others out of a job so you can have a higher wage. Sounds mighty dandy.

[MrHav1k]

@TheShaniqua1992

What you want is people undercutting each other for work in a race to the bottom and that would be total DISASTER, that would make all of us slaves and that's fucking bullshit

[jeffiek]

@MrHav1k What you need to learn is why do prices continually rise? You will find that this phenomena is brought to you by the very same people that bring you the minimum wage.

You will find that prices will continue to rise, and another round of minimum wage hikes will be called for. Rinse and repeat.

It is simply immoral to ban work.

[jeffiek]

@MrHav1k "race to the bottom" - there is no such thing, it's just psychobabble to fool the ignorant.

Everything in economics is *relative*. Earning $1/hr with gas at 10c/gallon is exactly the same as earning $10/hr when gas costs $3/gal, or $100/hr when gas cost $30/gal

This "race to the bottom" nonsense assumes everyone will earn next to nothing yet still have money to buy things. Ridiculous.

Left to themselves, wages and prices stabilize at their relative worth.

[jeffiek]

@MrHav1k So what? We should have 0% employment but make $100 an hour? FUCK OFF.

Gee, it really is easy to make your point when you don't need to have ... uh, uh, what is that again, oh yeah, I remember, when you don't need to have REASON and LOGIC. No need to go to the effort of establishing cause and effect. No need to actually THINK.



[munkyusm]

@MrHav1k But what if we were all paid a dollar an hour and everything was much much cheaper?

[mba2ceo]

lies ... !!! Fact minimum wages prevent exploitation.

If supply & demand set wages most would be poor !!!

[SquashDog01]

@mba2ceo People who know nothing about economics shouldn't comment on economic policy. You dont see me giving tips to neurosurgeons do you?

[MckyMseNTarotCrds]

Yeah the$14 minimum wage and anything around there is crazy. A teenage kid working in retail or flipping burgers definitely doesn't need $14 an hour for that work, but is $7.50 really a big deal? I think that's fair. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can be opening a business if you can't afford to pay your employees 7.50 an hour. The tone of this story is a bit on the hyperbolic side. It's 7.50 an hour; calm the hell down. If that breaks your budget, you need a new business model.

[munkyusm]

@MckyMseNTarotCrds You're only seeing half of the picture. What if because you have to pay your workers 7.50, you hire less of them and ask them to work harder? What about all of the people that can't find jobs? Do you not care about them?

[707hoser]

We don't need China to buy our treasuries to stop the dollar collapsing, that is thinking from the gold standard era. In fact, we don't even need to issue treasuries to finance spending. You are blaming poverty and unemployment on labor standards and unions, that's a good one! Why do we need any standards at all? To hell with the poor, it's their own fault they are poor, right? Who cares about the Chinese workers anyway. We don't have to see what goes on over there.

[munkyusm]

@707hoser This logic baffles the mind. Please go do some research on why minimum wage laws were designed in the first place. It was because white people were getting tired of black workers coming in and undercutting them so they made minimum wage laws to stop that. Google the "Davis-Bacon Act".

[707hoser]

@munkyusm This logic baffles your mind because you have no idea how money works. By the way, the Davis-Bacon Act was not enacted just because of black workers. It was the hiring of workers (of all races) from elsewhere and undercutting local standards. The minimum wage law was enacted because of the Depression when workers were desperate to take any job at virtually any wage.

[munkyusm]

@707hoser "desperate to take any job at virtually any wage". Right, and what better way to solve the depression than to make sure they couldn't get work. Such a great idea. If the wages would have went down during the depression, it would have led to more people being employed, instead of in soup lines. Also, do you think as the economy improved, and more jobs became available, that they would have been able to keep their wages low? No, they'd have to compete for good employees.

[stealthgerm]

so lets pay what they pay in somalia.its plan to see they have a great economy.they also have no regulations,no gun control

[groam6666]

The problem with these kind of arguments, even though they are 100% true, implementation without fixing the other parts of government intervention, payroll tax, welfare, unemployment benefits for example, this would still be a disaster.

[Entropy56]

When I was 16, I made 1.25 dollars per hour at a pizza parlor. I was happy to work!

[707hoser]

@Entropy56 How old are you, 100?

[707hoser]

Stossel doesn't mention that states with higher minimum wages than the federal level have higher rates of job growth and business expansion than other states. In some jurisdictions they have a lower minimum wage for young people, which has worked well. John Stossel wants US workers to compete with Chinese or Indian wage levels while his corporate pals make obscene bonuses. If you believe that prices will fall if people are working for slave wages you are not paying attention.

[JaySee5]

@707hoser You're half right. He wants wage levels to drop to compete with China and India. That way those jobs come back to the US and our economy will grow and unemployment will drop. There's no such thing as a slave wage in a free society. The fact is because of minimum wage people in the US can't compete for the jobs being shipped off to foreign countries and low wage jobs aren't available for the poor to work legally.

[707hoser]

@JaySee5 We don't have a free society, what we have now is crony capitalism. The big corporations have the politicians in their pockets and would like to dictate labor law. There are a number of reasons we can't compete with China or India and minimum wage is only one. How about currency manipulation, unfair labor practices, dumping, unsafe goods, non-existent environmental standards? How can you have free trade under these conditions?

[JaySee5]

@707hoser It's called corporatism. Workers are free to quit if they don't like conditions and consumers are free to not buy the goods and services of companies they don't like. China's currency manipulation helps the U.S. The U.S. will also be completely screwed if China stops buying treasuries to keep the currency manipulation going. Also, If they let their money rise, their people will become rich and they'll lose control over their people. China's standards have nothing to do with FT.

[707hoser]

@JaySee5 It's called corporatism but that's just a thin veneer over virtual slavery. Slavery for the worker in China forced to work in rotten conditions for low wages. Slavery for the poorest in the US: unemployment, welfare, poor housing, despair, especially in the inner city. We don't need China buying treasuries to fund our spending. All US govt. spending is simply a data entry on our own books. China's low standards allow wage arbitrage not fair trade.

[JaySee5]

@707hoser There's no virtual slavery. That's like virtual pregnancy. The poor in the US are not slaves in any sense. If China doesn't keep buying US treasuries, the dollar collapses and everyone holding dollars gets screwed. Yes, there are many poor and unemployed, thanks to minimum wage, ridiculous labor laws, and labor unions. It's fair trade as long as they don't impose tariffs. China ruining their people and environment has nothing to do with fair trade. That's a price they pay for later.

[barlover636]

@JaySee5 i would think u care what happens in china,"that's the price they pay for later" if they pay later so will we, i don't get anti union pro corporation people like u. thank goodness 4 people like henry ford who eventually understood and got it.

[JaySee5]

@barlover636 Because you're not that smart. I'm not pro-corporation. I'm anti-corporation/pro business. Corporations form anti-competitive monopolies. Unions are pro corporation because without them, they won't have jobs. Unions destroy competing businesses. A union is a monopoly. China will pay for abusing it's people and environment eventually. Henry Ford would have never been able to be in business with the stupid unions of today.

[NoProbaloAmigo]

@JaySee5 It is difficult to find a sustain monopoly WITHOUT government intervention, so I partially agree with you. The solution is, while corny, freedom.

[barlover636]

@JaySee5 unlike pure libertarians i believe we can have moderate socialism and free markets working side by side that might sound crazy, unions can impede competing businesses i agree but that's because unions demand safe working conditions,8hr work days,sick days,vacation, medical as a starting point . now ask any worker what conditions would he like better. unions like anything else has pros and cons but the pros outway the cons when it comes to the average worker.

[JaySee5]

@barlover636 you can try to make a case that moderate socialism is a good model, but it can be manipulated in the end because people are greedy and will always skew whatever system in place to their advantage. Sound familiar? The pros do not outweigh the cons. What good is a nice job, if no one can get one? Workers have the same choice as consumers. If you don't like a company, don't work for them. They will go out of business. If there is a demand, a competitive company will try to recruit you.

[barlover636]

@JaySee5 unregulated free markets suck, try to understand this. in america if we allowed so called free markets to work then americans on every job level would be unemployed. i guarantee whatever job u have there is somebody that's better that can do ur job 4 cheeper, that's why u need a base salary for a specific job. my cuz works 4 a trading comp. the IT guy in indonesia has 2x the knowledge and gets 10x less pay by ur logic let him come 2 the US and undercut the whole dept.

[JaySee5]

@barlover636 Yes! That's exactly how it should be. If I can hire someone that has twice the knowledge for 10x less pay, why should I not hire such a person versus a pampered idiot like you? If you had any common sense, you would know that he gets paid less because cost of living is cheaper. That 10x cheaper salary probably lets him live like a king. Americans won't be unemployed, they will have more jobs for less pay and prices will drop.

[barlover636]

@JaySee5 pampered idiot lmao! just curious what do u do 4 a living? i'm an electrician in nyc.

[TheShaniqua1992]

@barlover636

Wait, competition sucks?

So corporations are supposed to compete against each other, but the government is supposed to create artificial barriers so workers can't??

You sir, are an idiot.

[barlover636]

@TheShaniqua1992 what the hell are u talking about?

[barlover636]

@JaySee5 surely u can make a case that free markets as good a model as it is, it can still be manipulated because in the end people are greedy and will always skew whatever system is in place to their advantage, i'm not against free markets per se but i'm also not for unregulated free markets either.

[JaySee5]

@barlover636 Anything can be manipulated, but a free market already has a built in regulation system. It's called a consumer. If a company does something you don't like, you don't buy and they will go out of business.

[barlover636]

@JaySee5 do u really believe u matter that much, give me a break there can never be free market, u know why? because people are going to come together through covert monopolies to manipulate the markets that's just the way things work.

[JaySee5]

@barlover636 You mean like the ones already existing in "regulated" markets with bribed government officials? You can't have a monopoly in a free market.

[TheShaniqua1992]

@barlover636

You know how hard it would be to "come together" to create a monopoly in a free market? mighty impossible, it is strictly because of regulation that there are currently so little firms in each industry. Televisions, Cars, and all those other industries wouldn't only have a couple giants if it weren't for all those regulations.

[barlover636]

@TheShaniqua1992 that is rubbish u are espousing in a free market people can do what they want isn't that the point, people can create "monopolies" without calling it that, tell u what take regulations out the equation and let everybody do what they want, u think its bad now it would be worst, what we need is responsible regulations not absent thereof.

[Kibamax]

No dont pay the employee more that would cut into profit. the owners profit. When is there enough profit??? Never!!! A business can control expenses. labor is a controllable expense. business owners need to find a balance between profit and paying their employees a decent wage. When a business owner buys a new mercedes, a lavish vacation home, short expensive weekend retreats, spends a couple hundred on on meal for 2 at a restarunt.....that money could be going into the employees paycheck. woww

[qbanpapi690]

@Kibamax: Your missing the point and the adverse affect of minimum wage. Why should a company be required to pay a certain wage to someone? What if said person does not meet the requirements necessary to earn said wage? Should that person be denied the right to work there or should he be able to offer his services for less and thus be given the opportunity to experience on the job training which would lead to higher pay and better qualification.

[Kibamax]

No dont pay the employee more that would cut into profit. the owners profit. When is there enough profit??? Never!!! A business can control expenses. labor is a controllable expense. business owners need to find a balance between profit and paying their employees a decent wage. When a business owner buys a new mercedes, a lavish vacation home, short expensive weekend retreats, spends a couple hundred on on meal for 2 at a restarunt.....that money could be going into the employees paycheck.

[69erstud]

Stossel's stupid arguments, he asks: "Why not $100? ... Let supply and demand set wages" If you know anything about economics and statistics, in general, there will be a plateau. Secondly, there is a huge problem facing America...if you don't set a minimum wage, the job competition internationally will set wages. Americans will compete with Chinese, Indian, South American workers at $2/day and 1/3 earnings when comparing professions, such as accounting, engineering, etc. HOMELESS pros anyone?

[jackolini]

@69erstud

You do realize that if prices fall in wages, prices will also fall everywhere else. People can afford to live on $2 a day because the price of living and the standard of living is much lower. Go ahead and live in India, It's an overpopulated, shit country.

And why should government tell businesses how much to pay their employees? I mean I know you are an economist and all so maybe you can explain that to me.

[69erstud]

@jackolini You missed the point. Did I say people should live in India? The conditions of India will come here. Could US workers compete w/ the labor price in India, China, etc., by getting paid $2/day or less in the US? The prices of housing are not going to drop that low. Government should not have to tell businesses anything; businesses will eventually find out that the Utopia of maximum profits they are in search of will kill the very fabric of capitalism, if they do an economic flow chart.

[GatheringSticks]

john stossel is weak and will probably lose his job to internet news competition.

[laetrille]

I agree the minimum wage is stupid, I am in college currently and have a job at a fast food restaurant, but I get paie the same as the employee that does half the work I do. I say let the free market decide what we will get paid. I now dont even feel like working much, but I have to. Fuck the Government and their liberal lackeys.

[laetrille]

I agree the minimum wage is stupid, I am in college currently and have a job at a fast food restaurant, but I get paie the same as the employee that does half the work I do. I say let the free market decide what we will get paid. I now dont even feel like working much, but I have to. Fuck the Government and their liberal lackeys.

[nemo12degraff]

WTF does John Stossel know about poor people and has he ever had a job that doesnt make 100K a year!?!

[FoxPMcCloud]

@nemo12degraff

irrelevant. Would you refuse to go to a cancer doctor because he has never had cancer himself? If you understand or grasp something, you understand or grasp something; you don't have to have experienced it yourself to speak accurately about it.

[MaddDogg81]

employers might cut wages or benefits

[nfwvideo]

im sure 2 dollars an hr will help all those poor people

[grunyen]

Brilliant idea "BloodiCheeseCake". Why don't we just make the minimum wage $1,000,000 annual salary for everyone. Then we're all millionaires.

[ch1kusoo]

then we can buy $5000000 Big Mac Meals at McD's

[steve75ca]

Minimum wages in Australia is 14 dollars hr and there unemployment rate of 4.6% ???????????

[grunyen]

I suppose they have figured out some kind of magic. I notice you didn't care to explain the correlation.

[ptricky15]

@steve75ca : Inflated currency? Not enough people to compete for jobs? Different way of factoring unemployment statistics? Here's a better question: If it's easy to pay everyone $14 an hour, why haven't you started a fast food restaurant and paid everyone a minimum of $20? That would be a really good thing, wouldn't it? Why don't people who work for minimum wage just do that? The burden of proof is on you, not us.

[Djarms67]

@grunyen I love your logic. That not going to lead inflation or anything stupid. right!

[shoelessjohn]

@Djarms67

You missed the point.

[Djarms67]

@shoelessjohn Do realize my last comment was Sarcasm.

[zimmerking2]

Simple concept: If you cannot produce $7.50 per hour (the current national minimum wage) in goods & services, the employer will not hire you. Period.

Minorities and teens, you are being pimped by the politicians! Suckers.

[steve75ca]

Minimum wages in Australia is 14 dollars hr and there unemployment rate of 4.6% ???????????

[LonelyMOman]

Short and sweet explanation of a huge problem....well done! He might have added that: many union pay scales are tied to minimum wage....minimum wage goes up > union wages go up. Ooooops, that's not supposed to be mentioned!

[DandDskeeto]

@LonelyMOman Indeed ! I remember learning about the connection between union salaries * minimum wage ( almost a quarter century ago shssss don't tell..

[russ1951]

Minimum wage, that's a PARASITIC TARD's idea...

[BloodiCheeseCake]

As long as there's a minimum wage, I think they should set it to $40 an hour.