Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree43Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 20th, 2016, 08:52 AM   #1
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,024
Minimum Wage: A Common Rhetorical Trick

Discount retailer Target Corp has started raising employee wages to a minimum of $10 an hour, its second hike in a year, pressured by a competitive job market and labor groups calling for higher wages at retail chains, sources said. Target management has informed store managers, who in turn have started informing employees about the wage hike and most employees who earn less than $10 per hour should see their base pay go up in May, two sources with direct knowledge of the situation told Reuters.


It is misleading to call this an increase in the “minimum wage.” Or at least, this phrase should not be, but is (especially among an economically illiterate public), confused with the implications of the phrase applied to the “public policy” of the government mandating that wages be increased. The phrase “minimum wage” applied to government policy carries the effectual meaning that government is making it illegal (sometimes with exceptions) to hire someone at a lesser rate than its decreed one.

Stated differently, the minimum wage implies that if a business or person hires someone under the conditions of a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee, the employer will face some sort of consequence, enforced by the government, if the employee is paid below whatever the legal minimum is declared to be.

There are economic and ethical ramifications of such a policy, of course (all of them negative), but the point is that minimum wages are government-issued and therefore backed by the coercive power of the government.

But what Target did is not a minimum wage; or at least, the definition of minimum wage should be altered if it is going to be applied to Target’s action. The reason for this is that it was not mandated by the government and therefore it is not backed up by the coercive power of the government. Target’s management has simply decided that, for reasons irrelevant to my current point, it is going to increase the amount of pay that it gives its wage earners at the very bottom of Target’s pay structure.

It is true that one can choose to define this phrase in order to satisfy what Target did; but what one should never do is confuse the underlying economic and political reality via rhetorical trickery. And using the phrase “minimum wage” inevitably succeeds in providing exactly this trickery as it seems to communicate to those that are not aware of economic reality that Target has heroically done exactly what, say Bernie Sanders, has been preaching this whole time.

But what the government seeks to force companies to do, and what companies themselves choose to do with their own resources, must never been blurred together as one harmless decision.

Target may have increased wage levels within their company, but only the government can create and enforce a “minimum wage,” as defined with a historically understood meaning.


https://mises.org/blog/minimum-wage-...etorical-trick
Thanks from coke
Sabcat is offline  
Old April 20th, 2016, 09:07 AM   #2
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Discount retailer Target Corp has started raising employee wages to a minimum of $10 an hour, its second hike in a year, pressured by a competitive job market and labor groups calling for higher wages at retail chains, sources said. Target management has informed store managers, who in turn have started informing employees about the wage hike and most employees who earn less than $10 per hour should see their base pay go up in May, two sources with direct knowledge of the situation told Reuters.


It is misleading to call this an increase in the “minimum wage.” Or at least, this phrase should not be, but is (especially among an economically illiterate public), confused with the implications of the phrase applied to the “public policy” of the government mandating that wages be increased. The phrase “minimum wage” applied to government policy carries the effectual meaning that government is making it illegal (sometimes with exceptions) to hire someone at a lesser rate than its decreed one.

Stated differently, the minimum wage implies that if a business or person hires someone under the conditions of a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee, the employer will face some sort of consequence, enforced by the government, if the employee is paid below whatever the legal minimum is declared to be.

There are economic and ethical ramifications of such a policy, of course (all of them negative), but the point is that minimum wages are government-issued and therefore backed by the coercive power of the government.

But what Target did is not a minimum wage; or at least, the definition of minimum wage should be altered if it is going to be applied to Target’s action. The reason for this is that it was not mandated by the government and therefore it is not backed up by the coercive power of the government. Target’s management has simply decided that, for reasons irrelevant to my current point, it is going to increase the amount of pay that it gives its wage earners at the very bottom of Target’s pay structure.

It is true that one can choose to define this phrase in order to satisfy what Target did; but what one should never do is confuse the underlying economic and political reality via rhetorical trickery. And using the phrase “minimum wage” inevitably succeeds in providing exactly this trickery as it seems to communicate to those that are not aware of economic reality that Target has heroically done exactly what, say Bernie Sanders, has been preaching this whole time.

But what the government seeks to force companies to do, and what companies themselves choose to do with their own resources, must never been blurred together as one harmless decision.

Target may have increased wage levels within their company, but only the government can create and enforce a “minimum wage,” as defined with a historically understood meaning.


https://mises.org/blog/minimum-wage-...etorical-trick
coke is offline  
Old April 20th, 2016, 09:29 AM   #3
Fm Presidential Candidate
 
Southern Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Monroe, GA
Posts: 534
Walmart increased it's minimum wage for employees to $10 per hour back in January. Good to see Target keeping up.
Thanks from coke and Clara007
Southern Dad is offline  
Old April 20th, 2016, 06:33 PM   #4
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
Walmart increased it's minimum wage for employees to $10 per hour back in January. Good to see Target keeping up.
News the left will never talk about. Damn free market setting the wages. How un socialist of it
coke is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 08:26 AM   #5
Celebrating diversity
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,024
bump for skews
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 08:32 AM   #6
Banned
 
Toto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,149
Can anyone guess ho REALLY benefits for raising the minimum wage?
Toto2 is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 08:32 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,445
Minimum wage is the responsibility of the states or better yet the free market....$15.00 per hr is not going to do you squat in New York City, but it will make you "Rollo the Rich Kid" in Pocatello Idaho....
Jimgorn is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 08:33 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto2 View Post
Can anyone guess ho REALLY benefits for raising the minimum wage?
I know!!....the unions!!....A lot of contracts are tied to multiples of the minimum wage....
Jimgorn is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 08:37 AM   #9
Banned
 
Toto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
I know!!....the unions!!....A lot of contracts are tied to multiples of the minimum wage....
Yup. Raise the minimum, the Unions make more and if you can follow that money right into the Dems Campaigns. There is nothing altruistic about these assholes.
Thanks from coke and Jimgorn
Toto2 is offline  
Old May 23rd, 2016, 08:39 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto2 View Post
Can anyone guess ho REALLY benefits for raising the minimum wage?
Here's another one....If you are the officer of a Corporation...even a small Mom and Pop operation....You must pay workman's comp. and unemployment insurance on your wages....but you can not use them, because you are a principal to the Corp....The law says that you must report at least the minimum wage as income ....So a lot of small businessmen do that and just tap the profits at the end of the quarter (if there are any)....Now if you raise the minimum wage the states and insurance companys can leach more money out of the small businessman....
Thanks from coke and Twisted Sister
Jimgorn is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
common, minimum, rhetorical, trick, wage



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Increase the Minimum Wage, hum? roastpork Current Events 138 October 8th, 2014 07:50 AM
Seattle; Minimum-Wage = $15!!! Medicine Man Current Events 42 July 6th, 2014 02:02 PM
Minimum (Minimal) Wage?? Medicine Man Current Events 12 June 2nd, 2014 09:00 AM
The federal minimum wage affects ALL wage and salary rates. Supposn Economics 157 June 9th, 2013 11:54 AM
Minimum wage Supposn Money and Finance 0 February 22nd, 2010 07:31 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.