What do you think of a person who does this?

Post Reply New Topic

I work for about minimum wage, but I believe that having a minimum wage is wrong and that it would have bad effects for mostly everybody but me, and people who worked for below the new minimum wage. I believe the economic reasoning that would suggest it would be better if people determined wages and prices among themselves and not have them be dictated by the government. But I also know that I stand to benefit personally if the wage increases.

Am I an uncle Tom?

It kind of reminds me of that story where that black man waves the confederate flag, saying that he's for state's rights. It seemed profound and somewhat comical in a disturbing way.

So if it came to a vote, and I don't vote for the increase I'm an Uncle Tom.
If I do vote for the increase, some might see me as a hypocrite, at the least I lack integrity.

You are not a hypocrite for taking advantage of the system.

For example ...

I have repeatedly stated that government workers are lazy, greedy, self-serving and possibly incompetent.

And co-workers have asked me, "So why do you work for the U.S. government"?

I reply, "because government workers are lazy, greedy, self-serving and possibly incompetent".

For all the fuss over the US minimum wage, there is an essential truth.

NOT EVERY JOB DESERVES A HIGH RATE OF PAY.

The benefit of a relatively low "minimum wage" is that you can have the most basic of tasks requiring little education, skill or effort compensated at the lowest wage possible.

Many places do this, and once you prove you can do more, they give you something more demanding and raise your pay accordingly.

Hence, it is a GOOD thing for weeding out the better workers from the worse.

The PROBLEM is if an employer wants people to do tasks requiring moderate skill, training, effort for minimal pay. Just as the minimum way segregates the lowest demanding tasks from the higher demanding tasks, likewise it SHOULD only be used for these "bottom rung" jobs.

It's not easy to exploit the law to be cheap. If you don't pay your workers well, you will get poor quality, no loyalty, and have high turnover. The problem (with any model) is the supply/demand curve. When unemployment is low and good jobs are somewhat readily available, you won't last being cheap in your compensation. Your good workers WILL leave you. However, when the economy is bad, your good workers WILL WANT TO leave you, but they are held hostage by the lack of better opportunities. Some may leave you, but others will be trapped until they find a way out.

The answer, in my view, is to stimulate better paying jobs...not raise the minimum wage. More and better paying jobs means the pay scale will reflect the cost involved in keeping good people. The cheap employers will always pay the least and get what they deserve. Forcing everyone to pay more for "bottom rung" work means you hurt the creation of better paying jobs. You might even hurt those who are only good for "bottom rung" work because if an employer has to pay $12/hour no matter what, they will be more demanding in who they hire, add on more responsibilities, have higher standards for job retention. They won't hire Jimbo to sweep floors for 8 hours unless he needs all 8 hours to do all of the floors. Jimbo will have to sweep the floors, polish the brass, take out the trash, etc. or he will be replaced with someone who can and will do all of that in 8 hours.

Low pay isn't great, but it helps those with limited ability to work or a limited desire to work. These people would never find employment when high rates of compensation are mandated for every job.