Charles Koch, minimum wage and "basic needs"

[grantmeaname]

What sets us apart as 1st world countries is that we have the capacity to ensure a decent minimum wage. If your country does not have a reasonable minimum wage or employment laws that offer protections to workers then that sounds to me like exploitation.

$16AUD in Sydney is probably something like $8USD in Ohio. It's not really a fair comparison to take AUD in an expensive area and compare the wage to USD in a country with a lower cost of living. I mean, Japan doesn't look down its nose at Australia because they get 50 times as many units of currency per unit of time - it's a nonsense comparison.

Talk of "there will always be very low paid jobs that need to be filled" and that "high minimum wages hurt the poor" is the usual bunkum spouted by neo cons.

Then refute it rather than attempting to discredit it without adding anything.

[marty998]

Hi ren,

I meant to come back to this thread earlier but had to go to work so I could pay for my "basic needs".

Yes whether it is left or right doesn't matter to me. The point is that it is ideological-agenda-pushing rubbish and should be called out as such, rather than accepted without question as God's honest truth.

I'm not anti business, I realise that lifting the minimum wage will be painful for the local takeaway***. But the ones who complain the loudest seem to always either be billionaires, or people who speak on behalf of billionaires.

Case in point is our own Gina Reinhart, who put out a youtube video saying Australia's productivity is low because we don't work for $2 an hour like "Africans". She is worth $28billion last I saw.

*** My take on this is that they should raise their prices to cover costs, and consumers should stop demanding everything to be so cheap. Yep the mustachian in me does say you should spend your money wisely, rather than demanding the prices in the general economy should be kept low so you can consume absolutely everything.

I suppose my views are not 100% in agreement with the ideals of the free market. I always ask the basic question: Do you want to live in an economy or a society?

[marty998]

What sets us apart as 1st world countries is that we have the capacity to ensure a decent minimum wage. If your country does not have a reasonable minimum wage or employment laws that offer protections to workers then that sounds to me like exploitation.

$16AUD in Sydney is probably something like $8USD in Ohio. It's not really a fair comparison to take AUD in an expensive area and compare the wage to USD in a country with a lower cost of living. I mean, Japan doesn't look down its nose at Australia because they get 50 times as many units of currency per unit of time - it's a nonsense comparison.

Talk of "there will always be very low paid jobs that need to be filled" and that "high minimum wages hurt the poor" is the usual bunkum spouted by neo cons.

Then refute it rather than attempting to discredit it without adding anything.

I think you'll find that Aus and the US are not as far apart as you think. Maybe only housing, energy and petrol costs distort the comparison. Food might be a little higher here but it is still relatively cheap. I'm certainly not talking about absolute currency values. Aus/US is almost 1 to 1 anyway. Aus/Japan is 1 to 100, and prices differ accordingly.

Regarding the second part, I'm not necessarily barracking for the other side. Indeed the Left has a lot to answer for regarding union wage negotiations. Truth is I am yet to see any non-partisan research that proves a definite link between minimum wage and economic outcomes.

Since no one on the right ever advocates strongly for a min wage increase, and no one on the left ever advocates for a cut, I can be pretty sure that I should ignore both sides. If you don't ignore them then that is up to you.

Let me tell you how the minimum wage is set in Australia. For the past few decades the Business Council and the Trade unions submit a number to the industrial tribunal/authority, being the increase that should be granted per week.

Unions always say ~$25, business always says ~$5. The increase always ends up being around ~$15 per week. No joke, this is how it is done. And we have had 22 years of uninterrupted economic growth.

[grantmeaname]

I think you'll find that Aus and the US are not as far apart as you think. Maybe only housing, energy and petrol costs distort the comparison. Food might be a little higher here but it is still relatively cheap. I'm certainly not talking about absolute currency values. Aus/US is almost 1 to 1 anyway. Aus/Japan is 1 to 100, and prices differ accordingly.

Housing, energy, and food are a pretty important set of three goods to be more expensive. The effect is significant - this link suggests that $15.96AUD was equal to $9.54USD, and at that point the AUD was stronger against the USD than it is now. That's not so different from what employers pay in the US.

Truth is I am yet to see any non-partisan research that proves a definite link between minimum wage and economic outcomes.

Then how can you be so sure that the argument that high minimum wage laws hurt the poor is 'bunkum'?

[zhelud]

IMHO, if a business employs a person full-time, that business takes on an ethical responsibility for that person's livelihood. Unless there are unusual circumstances, the employee should not have to rely on public assistance to get by. If a person who is employed full-time has to accept public assistance, then to me that is the same as the business accepting public funding.

If the employer cannot "afford" to pay its regular employees a living wage, then the employer should take a good hard look at its business model. Perhaps it is better to let such businesses fail if they cannot compete without public funding.

[renbutler]

IMHO, if a business employs a person full-time, that business takes on an ethical responsibility for that person's livelihood.

Wow, I completely disagree with that. Ultimately, we are responsible for ourselves and the people who rely on us.

Ideally, a company should truly care about its employees. But they should ultimately pay whatever the market will bear. And if people think that those companies are treating their employees badly, then we should boycott them and...

... let such businesses fail.

Let the people and the free market have the power to foster change. Let's not always be so quick to have Big Government solve all our problems for us. There's such a long and storied history of government failing to truly serve the people. I don't understand why so many people are so willing to give government even more power when they often misuse the power they already have.

[grantmeaname]

If the employer cannot "afford" to pay its regular employees a living wage, then the employer should take a good hard look at its business model. Perhaps it is better to let such businesses fail if they cannot compete without public funding.

By disqualifying people with jobs from welfare programs?

[matchewed]

IMHO, if a business employs a person full-time, that business takes on an ethical responsibility for that person's livelihood.

Wow, I completely disagree with that. Ultimately, we are responsible for ourselves and the people who rely on us.

Ideally, a company should truly care about its employees. But they should ultimately pay whatever the market will bear. And if people think that those companies are treating their employees badly, then we should boycott them and...

... let such businesses fail.

Let the people and the free market have the power to foster change. Let's not always be so quick to have Big Government solve all our problems for us. There's such a long and storied history of government failing to truly serve the people. I don't understand why so many people are so willing to give government even more power when they often misuse the power they already have.

Do you see the inherent contradiction in your last paragraph? The people and the free market should foster change. The people vote in and establish a government. The people have made their choice, why is government treated as some foreign entity to the balance between the public and corporations? The government is our representative and our dog in the fight when the free market exploits the people (ideally of course in practice it is much more muddy).

It's not as if corporations don't misuse power. We just have as good of an illusion that we have power by not buying as much as we have an illusion that we have power over government with voting. That is not to say that those things aren't powerful when taken as a whole and looking at the broader society.

[renbutler]

Do you see the inherent contradiction in your last paragraph? The people and the free market should foster change. The people vote in and establish a government. The people have made their choice, why is government treated as some foreign entity to the balance between the public and corporations? The government is our representative and our dog in the fight when the free market exploits the people (ideally of course in practice it is much more muddy).

It's not as if corporations don't misuse power. We just have as good of an illusion that we have power by not buying as much as we have an illusion that we have power over government with voting. That is not to say that those things aren't powerful when taken as a whole and looking at the broader society.

The thing is, it's far easier to avoid supporting a corporation that abuses its power. However, I am always subject to the government. And I represent one vote, and I get to help elect only half of a percent of the US Congress.

That's why the federal government should be limited to those few issues that states have difficulty in handling on their own. That includes protecting national borders, and regulating interstate commerce (not an all-inclusive list necessarily). The states should handle their own education, their own economy, their own laws on crime and such. That way, people in New York aren't forced to endure the same regulations as people in Alabama, and vice versa.

I understand that, in theory, our democratic republic is a government of the people. But I think that really works well only when government is efficient, nimble, and focused. Far too much of our government has been created or appointed, instead of being elected.

[zhelud]

If the employer cannot "afford" to pay its regular employees a living wage, then the employer should take a good hard look at its business model. Perhaps it is better to let such businesses fail if they cannot compete without public funding.

By disqualifying people with jobs from welfare programs?

No- because I think it's not the people with jobs who are receiving the welfare, it's actually their employers.

Think about it. If a business employs a person at such a low wage that he must use food stamps or Medicaid, then the public, by paying for these things, is allowing the business to go on paying the low wage. And that company can then undercut its rivals by offering lower prices- which, in turn, encourages them to pay low wages as well.

I think it would be quite fair if the business that paid the low wage was charged for the employee's use of public assistance.

Call me a crazy libertarian, but I don't think the government should support uncompetitive businesses.

[SMMcP]

[/quote]

Ah, "greed," perhaps the most overused insult of the last five years. And almost always applied solely to those with different socio-political views.

It doesn't really matter to me why they care, any more than it matters to me why you care. Nor should it matter why I care any more or less than why they care.
[/quote]

Why does it matter what Charles Koch cares about and why he cares?  Because he contributes huge sums of money to political campaigns and lobbies for what he cares about.  Unfortunately you and I don't have that kind of power. 

[renbutler]

Why does it matter what Charles Koch cares about and why he cares?  Because he contributes huge sums of money to political campaigns and lobbies for what he cares about.  Unfortunately you and I don't have that kind of power.

There are obscene amounts of money on all sides of these major issues. Ultimately, most of it is matched (and thus negated) by others.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, Big Money knows no party or ideology.

I think it's bad policy to immediately ignore or disagree with any view just because of the source.

[DoubleDown]

The Washington DC City Council will see your minimum wage and raise you an additional 75% or so, to $12.50/hr -- but only for "big box stores" like Walmart. Not surprisingly, Walmart is now deciding to cancel building at least 3 of its planned 6 stores in DC, whose residents really could use a large retail store, and they could certainly use all the jobs it would bring. The DC Council's argument is that Walmart can "easily afford it."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/07/15/walmart-face-off-with-fuels-minimum-wage-debate/gPS0dcmoJpFf7uNYDxceBL/story.html

"WASHINGTON — A bitter standoff between Walmart and Washington, D.C., officials over the city’s effort to impose a higher minimum wage on big-box retailers is fueling a wider debate about how far cities should go in trying to raise pay for low-wage workers — and whether larger companies should be required to pay more.

Walmart Stores Inc., the nation’s largest private employer, is fuming about a ‘‘living wage’’ bill approved by the D.C. Council that has an unusual twist: It would apply only to certain large retailers, forcing them to pay at least $12.50 an hour, nearly 50 percent higher than city’s minimum wage of $8.25.

The measure is being cheered by unions and worker advocates, who have long complained about Walmart’s wages and working conditions. Opponents call it an unfair tactic that will discourage companies from doing business in the city.

Walmart has threatened to cancel plans for three of the six stores it hopes to build in some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. The measure is now before Mayor Vincent Gray."

[renbutler]

The Washington DC City Council will see your minimum wage and raise you an additional 75% or so, to $12.50/hr -- but only for "big box stores" like Walmart. Not surprisingly, Walmart is now deciding to cancel building at least 3 of its planned 6 stores in DC, whose residents really could use a large retail store, and they could certainly use all the jobs it would bring. The DC Council's argument is that Walmart can "easily afford it."

You gotta love when one group of people get to decide who can "afford" what. The same thing happens with targeted tax hikes.

How about this: I think that the government can "easily afford" to reduce tax rates...

[oldtoyota]

The Washington DC City Council will see your minimum wage and raise you an additional 75% or so, to $12.50/hr -- but only for "big box stores" like Walmart. Not surprisingly, Walmart is now deciding to cancel building at least 3 of its planned 6 stores in DC, whose residents really could use a large retail store, and they could certainly use all the jobs it would bring. The DC Council's argument is that Walmart can "easily afford it."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/07/15/walmart-face-off-with-fuels-minimum-wage-debate/gPS0dcmoJpFf7uNYDxceBL/story.html

"WASHINGTON — A bitter standoff between Walmart and Washington, D.C., officials over the city’s effort to impose a higher minimum wage on big-box retailers is fueling a wider debate about how far cities should go in trying to raise pay for low-wage workers — and whether larger companies should be required to pay more.

Walmart Stores Inc., the nation’s largest private employer, is fuming about a ‘‘living wage’’ bill approved by the D.C. Council that has an unusual twist: It would apply only to certain large retailers, forcing them to pay at least $12.50 an hour, nearly 50 percent higher than city’s minimum wage of $8.25.

The measure is being cheered by unions and worker advocates, who have long complained about Walmart’s wages and working conditions. Opponents call it an unfair tactic that will discourage companies from doing business in the city.

Walmart has threatened to cancel plans for three of the six stores it hopes to build in some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. The measure is now before Mayor Vincent Gray."

YES! Keep Walmart out of DC This is the best news I have heard all day. I hope Walmart never comes to DC.

[oldtoyota]

Why does it matter what Charles Koch cares about and why he cares?  Because he contributes huge sums of money to political campaigns and lobbies for what he cares about.  Unfortunately you and I don't have that kind of power.

I think it's bad policy to immediately ignore or disagree with any view just because of the source.

Who is "immediately" ignoring or disagreeing with any view because of the source?

[Honest Abe]

You gotta love when one group of people get to decide who can "afford" what. The same thing happens with targeted tax hikes.

I agree.... It's a very slippery slope when people start dictating how much is "enough" for a business (or individual for that matter) to earn.

[renbutler]

Who is "immediately" ignoring or disagreeing with any view because of the source?

Well, Replies #3, #26, and #43 appear to be just that. Sorry if I misinterpreted them.

[grantmeaname]

Who is "immediately" ignoring or disagreeing with any view because of the source?

I am suspicious of anything said by a Koch brother.

To answer your question: you.