Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Foxi4]

I see no reason why unions can't bargain for above the minimum wage.

What a crazy notion, employees and employers figuring out a mutually beneficial arrangement. Novel idea, get outta here, that's witchcraft.

 

[KingVamp]

What a crazy notion, employees and employers figuring out a mutually beneficial arrangement. Novel idea, get outta here, that's witchcraft.

To be clear, I don't understand why we can't have unions and a minimum wage.

 

[Plasmaster09]

What a crazy notion, employees and employers figuring out a mutually beneficial arrangement. Novel idea, get outta here, that's witchcraft.

That'd work in most places.
Unfortunately, this is America, where "mutually beneficial" is basically big-corporate blasphemy.
The solution, at least temporarily in this case, is to KEEP minimum wage and have unions on top of that so that there's a governmentally defined "lowest bar" to prevent corporations from fucking people over while also being able to raise the effective minimum.

 

[Foxi4]

To be clear, I don't understand why we can't have unions and a minimum wage.

Because it reduces bargaining power. It's a complex subject, but the way it works in the Scandinavian model is empowering the unions to actually enforce the negotiated minimum in lieu of government intervention. In other words, if people are underpaid, nobody comes to work, there's fines, legal repercussions - that's a risk nobody is going to take. When the minimum wage is federal, the enforcement is on the state, the union has far less power in the arrangement.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Because it reduces bargaining power. It's a complex subject, but the way it works in the Scandinavian model is empowering the unions to actually enforce the negotiated minimum in lieu of government intervention. In other words, if people are underpaid, nobody comes to work - that's a risk nobody is going to take. When the minimum wage is federal, the enforcement is on the state, the union has far less power in the arrangement.

If people are underpaid, and nobody comes to work, then corporations will HAVE to pay them more.
The minimum wage being federal gives unions a safeguard, as there's already an established limit that corporations are literally just not allowed to ever go below.
All of this "can't trust the state, somehow can trust big corporations" nonsense is the pinnacle of bullshit in right-libertarianism (which is just ancap disguised as libertarianism, and ancap is basically just exaggerated capitalism disguised as anarchism...) and it's why I can't stand it.

 

[Foxi4]

That'd work in most places.
Unfortunately, this is America, where "mutually beneficial" is basically big-corporate blasphemy.
The solution, at least temporarily in this case, is to KEEP minimum wage and have unions on top of that so that there's a governmentally defined "lowest bar" to prevent corporations from fucking people over while also being able to raise the effective minimum.

There are, like, 8 corporations running the entire world, most other corpos are subsidiaries or small fries. American or non-American literally makes no difference at that level. We'll have to agree to disagree here, this whole thing is grossly off-topic, and I genuinely have nothing else to add, so this chat can be quickly reduced to just bickering and restating the same points - something we should avoid.

 

[Plasmaster09]

There are, like, 8 corporations running the entire world, most other corpos are subsidiaries or small fries. We'll have to agree to disagree here, this whole thing is grossly off-topic, and I genuinely have nothing else to add, so this chat can be quickly reduced to just bickering and restating the same points - something we should avoid.

"There are, like, 8 corporations running the entire world" is literally the problem.

 

[Foxi4]

"There are, like, 8 corporations running the entire world" is literally the problem.

Your current standard of living is equivalent or higher than that of the nobility just a few centuries ago. Something to think about when you go on your "capitalism bad" crusades. Not saying that the system can't be improved, but you don't seem to be very open to ideas from the other side. I'll grin and bear it when it comes to unions as long as the minimum wage situation gets resolved, I'll also accept the reverse - dismantling unions and relying on the government minimum wage standard as bargained by elected representatives, one or the other. You on the other hand refuse to consider alternatives, and you should. You have a view of corporations that's straight out of Cyberpunk, that's not how it works.

 

[gamefan5]

Because it reduces bargaining power. It's a complex subject, but the way it works in the Scandinavian model is empowering the unions to actually enforce the negotiated minimum in lieu of government intervention. In other words, if people are underpaid, nobody comes to work, there's fines, legal repercussions - that's a risk nobody is going to take. When the minimum wage is federal, the enforcement is on the state, the union has far less power in the arrangement.

That is indeed what I have learned in my economics class. I admire how you look at this with knowledge and understanding.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Your current standard of living is equivalent or higher than that of the nobility just a few centuries ago. Something to think about when you go on your "capitalism bad" crusades. Not saying that the system can't be improved, but you don't seem to be very open to ideas from the other side. I'll grin and bear it when it comes to unions as long as the minimum wage situation gets resolved, I'll also accept the reverse - dismantling unions and relying on the government minimum wage standard as bargained by elected representatives, one or the other. You on the other hand refuse to consider alternatives, and you should. You have a view of corporations that's straight out of Cyberpunk, that's not how it works.

I'll consider alternatives after the fundamental problems preventing them from possibly functioning properly when implemented into the US have been solved.
I'll let you show me colors to paint the house with once I get a chance to finish repairs.
Oh, and the standard of living bit? Might wanna look at more data than just the mean there, because the gap between the current standard of living and the people at the bottom end of things economically is vast.

 

[gamefan5]

To be honest with my thoughts, even if medium wage were abolished, companies won’t be that daring to make wages super low, as if their offerings are not interesting, people will not be willing to go work for them, which in turn, impact the amount of what they can offer to customers.

 

[Foxi4]

I'll consider alternatives after the fundamental problems preventing them from possibly functioning properly when implemented into the US have been solved.
I'll let you show me colors to paint the house with once I get a chance to finish repairs.
Oh, and the standard of living bit? Might wanna look at more data than just the mean there, because the gap between the current standard of living and the people at the bottom end of things economically is vast.

The wealth gap is a useless metric. I'm not interested in the lives of the rich and famous, I'm interested in improving everyone's standard of living. People always focus on high rollers having more in their pocket at the end of the year instead of focusing on the low wage earners having a little more too, just "not as much", as if growth was a problem. The issue with the left-wing is that they want to reduce the wealth gap by cutting people's hamstrings, it's a recipe for equality - in squalor. I'll shake on going halfsies with the house though, especially since you offered to do the labour while I'm making the decisions - I like this new arrangement.

...

I jest, I jest!

 

[Plasmaster09]

To be honest with my thoughts, even if medium wage were abolished, companies won’t be that daring to make wages super low, as if their offerings are not interesting, people will not be willing to go work for them, which in turn, impact the amount of what they can offer to customers.

Have you seen what they're ALREADY willing to do?
The fundamental problem with corporations deciding it all is that they'll do whatever makes them the most money- while this'd normally go off of a sensible curve of some sort, this doesn't apply when they're given so much control that they can all tank wages in unison and people don't have a CHOICE.

The wealth gap is a useless metric. I'm not interested in the lives of the rich and famous, I'm interested in improving everyone's standard of living. The problem with the left-wing is that they want to reduce the wealth gap by cutting people's hamstrings, it's a recipe for equality - in squalor. I'll shake on going halfsies with the house though, especially since you offered to do the labour while I'm making the decisions - I like this new arrangement.

I mean... if it was plausible to improve everyone's standard of living, to a point where even the worst-off are still... managing fine without risk of going without the fundamentals, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, that's pretty darn difficult- no matter how many improvements people get, the experience of someone poor enough to not afford any of said improvements is nearly identical. Zero times any number (except, depending on the interpretation, infinity) is still zero. It's a lot harder to make things better for everyone than it is to make it a lot better for the worst-off and somewhat worse for the best-off.
And even if it'd result in near-complete equality in squalor... then THAT'S when you apply strategies that benefit literally everyone!

 

[Deleted User]

Your current standard of living is equivalent or higher than that of the nobility just a few centuries ago.

a low bar to meet a slightly higher bar than that bar.
aka still a low bar.
Yeah no. We can do better than make people just live pay check to pay check.
When there are 8 corporations running the world due to capitalism, Those 8 get to choose who lives, who dies.
You are a slave to the company you work for.
Failure to be a servant to them means going homeless and having no means of living.
Working should be for the things you want.
Not for the things you need to live.
You shouldn't need to choose between eating and having a home.
And if your going to somehow argue people are lazy by default, and giving them a home is wrong.
People by default strive for more. No person likes being called lazy. And I'm sure no person likes staring at a blank wall or a empty house.

 

[gamefan5]

Have you seen what they're ALREADY willing to do?
The fundamental problem with corporations deciding it all is that they'll do whatever makes them the most money- while this'd normally go off of a sensible curve of some sort, this doesn't apply when they're given so much control that they can all tank wages in unison and people don't have a CHOICE.

Again, every decision has a set back. Deciding too low may end up having repercussions and make them less of an attractive place to work at. And a consider amount of people WILL leave the workforce. A sensible amount, in fact, if their offers are not up to snuff.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Again, every decision has a set back. Deciding too low may end up having repercussions and make them less of an attractive place to work at. And a consider amount of people WILL leave the workforce. A sensible amount, in fact, if their offers are not up to snuff.

Thing is, that shouldn't even be part of the equation- a company cranking up the avarice and economically abusing its workers for greater profits should not be possible, either by limiting how little a company can pay for a given amount of work (minimum wage but more proportional to the work done- still ideally set the absolute minimum at "not much but livable") or limiting how much a company can make someone work for a given wage (basically the same principle but inverted with similar results).

 

[gamefan5]

a low bar to meet a slightly higher bar than that bar.
aka still a low bar.
Yeah no. We can do better than make people just live pay check to pay check.
When there are 8 corporations running the world due to capitalism, Those 8 get to choose who lives, who dies.
You are a slave to the company you work for.
Failure to be a servant to them means going homeless and having no means of living.
Working should be for the things you want.
Not for the things you need to live.
You shouldn't need to choose between eating and having a home.
And if your going to somehow argue people are lazy by default, and giving them a home is wrong.
People by default strive for more. No person likes being called lazy. And I'm sure no person likes staring at a blank wall or a empty house.

Thing is, that’s how life works. You work, so that society benefits and you get something in return. Even the richest people have to invest their time in their own companies in order to get something in return.

The difference however, is how much time the person needs to do and the amount the person earns.
It sucks, but that is sadly how that is.

 

[Deleted User]

Again, every decision has a set back. Deciding too low may end up having repercussions and make them less of an attractive place to work at. And a consider amount of people WILL leave the workforce. A sensible amount, in fact, if their offers are not up to snuff.

They don't need to worry about that. People will accept it anyways if all of them in unison drop the wage.
As people live off it.
You don't get a choice or say.
Failure to stay in your job means having a chance of going homeless.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Thing is, that’s how life works. You work, so that society benefits and you get something in return. Even the richest people have to invest their time in their own companies in order to get something in return.

The difference however, is how much time the person needs to do and the amount the person earns.
It sucks, but that is sadly how that is.

dude there are some people- not corporations, INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE- so unfathomably wealthy that they could earn absolutely nothing for the rest of their lives and the amount they already have would suffice for luxury.
and if the difference between time or effort expended and money earned is so bad (which it is), then focus on fixing that instead of giving power to the powerful!

 

[Deleted User]

Thing is, that’s how life works.

That is not how life works.
Our lives are man-made. The idea of capitalism is man made, the idea of money is man made.
If your going to try to argue "that's how life works"
Then your describing people in the past back as cave men.
Nothing about our world is natural.
We don't have to accept things, we can strive for better. It is stupid to accept something as is.
We define things, we give shape to things,
I see no reason why we can't change our absurd society.

The difference however, is how much time the person needs to do and the amount the person earns.
It sucks, but that is sadly how that is.

Defeatist mindset much.