Replies

If an employer voluntarily agrees to charge a bit more for his product, and he explains to the public why, and they voluntarily agree to pay a bit more, what is the problem?

If people realize they are helping out their neighbors, and they like the idea, why shouldn’t the program grow legs?

I realize you’re sticking to basic market principles, but I don’t think voluntarily dickering with it is a problem.

The public will still be able to chose. Some won’t like it. Others will. It would be interesting to see how it played out.

If an employer voluntarily agrees to charge a bit more for his product, and he explains to the public why, and they voluntarily agree to pay a bit more, what is the problem?

If the employer's board of directors had agents of outside influence on it and they are the key factor in setting the policy AND if the policy is NOT in the best interests of ALL the shareholders of the company.

The board is supposed to be putting shareholder's (OWNERS) interests FIRST.

In that case, the employer has a parasite that is USING the employer as a weapon to inflict a harmful social policy the public.

On the other hand, if the local environs the company operates in WOULD benefit in the long run, such that it would indeed be the best LONG-term sales and profitability policy, even including factors such as safety, cleanliness, etc., then, even if it cost the shareholders some earnings in the short run and some complained, it actually would be the "smartest" thing to do that IS in the best interest of all shareholders.

So, the question essentially falls back to: is a minimum wage a net long-term good policy from the point of view of economic prosperity ?

The BEST, BY FAR, policy on wages is for each employer to individually negotiate with each employee to determine a wage rate for that employee which is acceptable to BOTH employer and employee. BY FAR, what is most important towards employees have good negotiating power is their being able to find ALTERNATIVE jobs. This gives them a choice which gives them the most power at the bargaining table.

I have heard firsthand stories of production employees whining when another employee received a bonus, when that employee was literally producing several times the output they were, all defect-free, in a safe manner, and using machinery and tools properly so as to not damage or excessively wear them. The owner/boss told them point blank: when you produce what they do you will receive a bonus.

Paying every employee the same amount by the hour (unit of time) is inherently unfair because employee productivity will NOT be the same for every employee, as people are all different. Consequently, under a system where employers pay the same rate for every worker for a given job description, employers are driven to want to decrease wages for employees that deserve more because of their productivity because if they pay the rate that they deserved based on their production, the employer would be then overpaying for all the less productive employees per unit of time worked.