Why is volunteering legal?

  • 69 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

If you can't work for $5 an hour, then why are people allowed to work for free? This is inhumane and needs to stop. Who is with me?

#2 Edited by always_explicit (2737 posts) -

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

#3 Edited by 4myAmuzumament (1748 posts) -

i don't agree

#4 Posted by Korvus (3356 posts) -

I could understand if you were speaking against non-payed internships or something like that but you want to prevent people from doing something they want to do to help others? What the hell? =p

#5 Posted by AutoPilotOn (8226 posts) -

Troll?

#6 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

#7 Posted by jasean79 (2364 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

#8 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

#9 Edited by jasean79 (2364 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

#10 Posted by foxhound_fox (87839 posts) -

Because people want to be generous and give of themselves without asking something in return?

#11 Posted by always_explicit (2737 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

Well it entirely depends on the circumstance doesnt it. Your issue clearly isnt with voluntary work. Give us a scenario and maybe you will get more constructive comments.

#12 Edited by Master_Live (14244 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

Lets say an individual agree to work flipping burgers in McDonalds for $5/hr that would be illegal since you have to pay them the minimum salary.

#13 Edited by AutoPilotOn (8226 posts) -

I believe he is tring to say why there is a legal min wage when people may be willing to work for much less just to work?

#14 Edited by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

I actually agree to some extent because I think society gets too much of a free ride off the hard work and goodwill of others. The people volunteering get no compensation when their selfless deeds prove they are the most deserving of compensation.

But unfortunately I think its a much larger issue with the incentive structure we have built in to modern society, we tend to reward negative an ugly human traits over positive ones that are actually beneficial.

#15 Edited by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

What dont you understand? If an employer wants to hire someone to stock shelves at $5 an hour and someone wants this job, why do we make it illegal for them to do this with minimum wage laws?

#16 Posted by jasean79 (2364 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

Lets say an individual agree to work flipping burgers in McDonalds for $5/hr that would be illegal since you have to pay them the minimum salary.

Because by federal and state law, they are required to compensate you by whatever the minimum wage is so people can earn enough to live and support themselves. There are categories of workers, however, that don't fall into the minimum wage category. Independent contractors, farm workers, waiters (and those who receive tips), etc., don't qualify. So, in reality people could work for less provided it's a job title that doesn't require min wage mandate.

#17 Edited by always_explicit (2737 posts) -

Thats got nothing to do with volunteering.

If a minimum wage did not exist then where do you draw the line. Does someone who earns $2.00 have the same rights as someone who earns the current minimum wage.

People who are potentially far better at particular jobs wouldnt be employed simply because the boss would rather pay someone less able who was willing to work for $2.00

Not to mention basic tax contributions etc etc

I see TC's thought process but its fraught with crappy consequences.

#18 Edited by AutoPilotOn (8226 posts) -

I understand what your saying but there is a difference between working to make a living and volunteering. Min wage is to protect workers.

#19 Edited by MonsieurX (29723 posts) -

Two totally different things

#20 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Master_Live said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

Lets say an individual agree to work flipping burgers in McDonalds for $5/hr that would be illegal since you have to pay them the minimum salary.

Because by federal and state law, they are required to compensate you by whatever the minimum wage is so people can earn enough to live and support themselves. There are categories of workers, however, that don't fall into the minimum wage category. Independent contractors, farm workers, waiters (and those who receive tips), etc., don't qualify. So, in reality people could work for less provided it's a job title that doesn't require min wage mandate.

The minimum wage has nothing to do with being able to live and support ones self. Minimum wage is unjust, illogical, and immoral.

#21 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

Thats got nothing to do with volunteering.

If a minimum wage did not exist then where do you draw the line. Does someone who earns $2.00 have the same rights as someone who earns the current minimum wage.

People who are potentially far better at particular jobs wouldnt be employed simply because the boss would rather pay someone less able who was willing to work for $2.00

Not to mention basic tax contributions etc etc

I see TC's thought process but its fraught with crappy consequences.

I have no clue what you mean by "same rights". If you are talking about legal protection then sure, why not?

You are wrong. If someone is "potentially far better at particular jobs" then the employer would see this and hire this person for whatever the boss deemed his work to be worth

#22 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

I understand what your saying but there is a difference between working to make a living and volunteering. Min wage is to protect workers.

Im not sure of the TCs angle, but the message we send as a society is...

Want to help rich people? we will compensate you.

Want to help poor people that actually need help? dont expect anything in return.

Personally, i think its a bad message in general, and a major flaw with society.

#23 Posted by jasean79 (2364 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Master_Live said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

Lets say an individual agree to work flipping burgers in McDonalds for $5/hr that would be illegal since you have to pay them the minimum salary.

Because by federal and state law, they are required to compensate you by whatever the minimum wage is so people can earn enough to live and support themselves. There are categories of workers, however, that don't fall into the minimum wage category. Independent contractors, farm workers, waiters (and those who receive tips), etc., don't qualify. So, in reality people could work for less provided it's a job title that doesn't require min wage mandate.

The minimum wage has nothing to do with being able to live and support ones self. Minimum wage is unjust, illogical, and immoral.

How is it immoral? I mean I can see unjust and maybe illogical, but what does morality have to do with how much someone is paid for work - work that is usually labeled in the min wage category?

It's immoral to pay someone $7.25/hr to flip burgers for a living? A job that requires no background education and very little training?

#24 Posted by AutoPilotOn (8226 posts) -

@BeardMaster: well people who make money are ones that can afford to pay.

I make good money with little formal education (2 year degree) but serveral years experience.

My wife graduated with honors with bachelors in case management and is going for social work masters. Right now she makes about 1/10 what I make and she works way more but smaller amount of time and she volunteers at VA. Is it fair, no not really.

#25 Posted by always_explicit (2737 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

Thats got nothing to do with volunteering.

If a minimum wage did not exist then where do you draw the line. Does someone who earns $2.00 have the same rights as someone who earns the current minimum wage.

People who are potentially far better at particular jobs wouldnt be employed simply because the boss would rather pay someone less able who was willing to work for $2.00

Not to mention basic tax contributions etc etc

I see TC's thought process but its fraught with crappy consequences.

I have no clue what you mean by "same rights". If you are talking about legal protection then sure, why not?

You are wrong. If someone is "potentially far better at particular jobs" then the employer would see this and hire this person for whatever the boss deemed his work to be worth

Im not "wrong" your right thats how an employer should see the situation, however its a job with low profit margins anyway it might be more valuable to the employer to have cheap labour than a "better" employee.

How you gonna tax someone who only earns 2 dollars?

If you remove federal and state control over wages all you do is create a free for all whereby people have to sell themselves and you hand ALL control to the employer. As somebody who works you absolutely DO NOT want the power to be in the hands of the person who employs you. Its not a difficult concept.

How do you ensure that the guy who employed you to work for 4 dollars, doesnt suddenly decide to make you work for 2 dollars and threatens that.if you dont you lose your job? Its about protecting your right to earn a living. Do some research on employment law. Its there to protect you not alienate people.

#26 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

Volunteering is something that come basic to human beings, and often involves personal or religious relationships that the government should not but into in a free society. If someone helps their relative move furniture or clean their yard, sings at their church,or shovels snow for their grandparents, the government has no authority to tell them they cannot do so for less than a certain monetary amount. Volunteering is something that is done for non-financial purposes.

Minimum wage laws however involve business, which the government does regulate. People work in order to make a living. If some people are willing to work for a low amount, like $5 an hour, then employers would be more willing to higher them than other workers. This would lead to a drop in wages being offered, and employees would have to work for very little money in order to get a job, which would not be just, and would make it very hard for people to meet their basic needs and live a dignified life for themselves and their families.

Most Americans would probably not be willing to work for less than $5 an hour, nor would they be able to get by on such an amount, so many of them would choose welfare over such a job. The people who would be willing to work for such a low wage would be immigrants from poor countries, especially if they have family in their home country that are dependent on remittances from such workers.

#27 Posted by Master_Live (14244 posts) -

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Thats got nothing to do with volunteering.

If a minimum wage did not exist then where do you draw the line. Does someone who earns $2.00 have the same rights as someone who earns the current minimum wage.

People who are potentially far better at particular jobs wouldnt be employed simply because the boss would rather pay someone less able who was willing to work for $2.00

Not to mention basic tax contributions etc etc

I see TC's thought process but its fraught with crappy consequences.

I have no clue what you mean by "same rights". If you are talking about legal protection then sure, why not?

You are wrong. If someone is "potentially far better at particular jobs" then the employer would see this and hire this person for whatever the boss deemed his work to be worth

How you gonna tax someone who only earns 2 dollars?

Don't tax him.

#28 Edited by MonsieurX (29723 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Master_Live said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

Lets say an individual agree to work flipping burgers in McDonalds for $5/hr that would be illegal since you have to pay them the minimum salary.

Because by federal and state law, they are required to compensate you by whatever the minimum wage is so people can earn enough to live and support themselves. There are categories of workers, however, that don't fall into the minimum wage category. Independent contractors, farm workers, waiters (and those who receive tips), etc., don't qualify. So, in reality people could work for less provided it's a job title that doesn't require min wage mandate.

The minimum wage has nothing to do with being able to live and support ones self. Minimum wage is unjust, illogical, and immoral.

lolwat

#29 Posted by always_explicit (2737 posts) -

Don't tax him.

So its better to work in a society where people earn a terrible wage and also dont pay any tax?

Or work in a society whereby people earn a wage on which they can comfortably live... and also contribute to said society?

#30 Edited by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@Master_Live said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

Lets say an individual agree to work flipping burgers in McDonalds for $5/hr that would be illegal since you have to pay them the minimum salary.

Because by federal and state law, they are required to compensate you by whatever the minimum wage is so people can earn enough to live and support themselves. There are categories of workers, however, that don't fall into the minimum wage category. Independent contractors, farm workers, waiters (and those who receive tips), etc., don't qualify. So, in reality people could work for less provided it's a job title that doesn't require min wage mandate.

The minimum wage has nothing to do with being able to live and support ones self. Minimum wage is unjust, illogical, and immoral.

How is it immoral? I mean I can see unjust and maybe illogical, but what does morality have to do with how much someone is paid for work - work that is usually labeled in the min wage category?

It's immoral to pay someone $7.25/hr to flip burgers for a living? A job that requires no background education and very little training?

It is immoral because the employer is forced to pay a wage that the worker may not be worth. Minimum wage also increases unemployment of the very poor that you are trying to help

#31 Edited by comp_atkins (31284 posts) -

#32 Posted by AutoPilotOn (8226 posts) -

@mingmao3046: if the worker isn't worth min wage the employer probably wouldn't keep them around anyways. Min wage isn't really a living wage either. It's a min bar set.

#33 Edited by always_explicit (2737 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

How is it immoral? I mean I can see unjust and maybe illogical, but what does morality have to do with how much someone is paid for work - work that is usually labeled in the min wage category?

It's immoral to pay someone $7.25/hr to flip burgers for a living? A job that requires no background education and very little training?

It is immoral because the employer is forced to pay a wage that the worker may not be worth. Minimum wage also increases unemployment of the very poor that you are trying to help

The employer isnt forced to pay anyone anything....the employer CHOSE to employ that person. Minimum wage doesnt increase unemployment at all. You NEED a minimum wage, how you cant see that is truly staggering.

Answer me this....You flip burgers for £7 dollars an hour. You get fired. Your boss rehires someone else to do your job for 2 dollars....because he can. Because there is no minimum wage you create a society where the EMPLOYER is in charge and not YOU.

Is it fair you just lost your job?

#34 Posted by Ariabed (1103 posts) -

@mingmao3046:

"Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?"

I think people have a problem with employers paying employees $5/hr rather than having a problem with individuals who are willing to work for $5/hr

#35 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Thats got nothing to do with volunteering.

If a minimum wage did not exist then where do you draw the line. Does someone who earns $2.00 have the same rights as someone who earns the current minimum wage.

People who are potentially far better at particular jobs wouldnt be employed simply because the boss would rather pay someone less able who was willing to work for $2.00

Not to mention basic tax contributions etc etc

I see TC's thought process but its fraught with crappy consequences.

I have no clue what you mean by "same rights". If you are talking about legal protection then sure, why not?

You are wrong. If someone is "potentially far better at particular jobs" then the employer would see this and hire this person for whatever the boss deemed his work to be worth

Im not "wrong" your right thats how an employer should see the situation, however its a job with low profit margins anyway it might be more valuable to the employer to have cheap labour than a "better" employee.

How you gonna tax someone who only earns 2 dollars?

If you remove federal and state control over wages all you do is create a free for all whereby people have to sell themselves and you hand ALL control to the employer. As somebody who works you absolutely DO NOT want the power to be in the hands of the person who employs you. Its not a difficult concept.

How do you ensure that the guy who employed you to work for 4 dollars, doesnt suddenly decide to make you work for 2 dollars and threatens that.if you dont you lose your job? Its about protecting your right to earn a living. Do some research on employment law. Its there to protect you not alienate people.

The employer would go with whatever would produce the most output with the least pay. Whether this was the less skilled worker at $2 or the more skilled worker at $3. There is nothing wrong with this.

You tax this person just like you would tax anyone else.

It is the owners business, the owner should be in control.

If he can find someone to work for him for $2 then it is a valid argument. There is nothing wrong here.

#36 Edited by Master_Live (14244 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

Don't tax him.

So its better to work in a society where people earn a terrible wage and also dont pay any tax?

Or work in a society whereby people earn a wage on which they can comfortably live... and also contribute to said society?

I laughed as soon I saw your post because of the mentality. "Someone is earning $2/hr!? What!? But how are we gonna taxed them!!". From the onset the question wasn't if we should tax them, but how did we tax them. Because god forbid if someone went untaxed or taxed minimally.

#37 Posted by always_explicit (2737 posts) -

The employer would go with whatever would produce the most output with the least pay. Whether this was the less skilled worker at $2 or the more skilled worker at $3. There is nothing wrong with this.

You tax this person just like you would tax anyone else.

It is the owners business, the owner should be in control.

If he can find someone to work for him for $2 then it is a valid argument. There is nothing wrong here.

"If he can find someone to work for him for $2 then it is a valid argument. There is nothing wrong here."

Okay...here is something you have not thought about buddy and its only one of the billion flaws in your "nothing wrong here statement".

A guy with 2 kids and a wife to support is relying on a job that pays 7 dollars

but a kid living at home could work for 5 dollars.

Is it fair a guy cant support his wife and kids because a teenager wants pocket money?

#38 Edited by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

Volunteering is something that come basic to human beings, and often involves personal or religious relationships that the government should not but into in a free society. If someone helps their relative move furniture or clean their yard, sings at their church,or shovels snow for their grandparents, the government has no authority to tell them they cannot do so for less than a certain monetary amount. Volunteering is something that is done for non-financial purposes.

Minimum wage laws however involve business, which the government does regulate. People work in order to make a living. If some people are willing to work for a low amount, like $5 an hour, then employers would be more willing to higher them than other workers. This would lead to a drop in wages being offered, and employees would have to work for very little money in order to get a job, which would not be just, and would make it very hard for people to meet their basic needs and live a dignified life for themselves and their families.

Most Americans would probably not be willing to work for less than $5 an hour, nor would they be able to get by on such an amount, so many of them would choose welfare over such a job. The people who would be willing to work for such a low wage would be immigrants from poor countries, especially if they have family in their home country that are dependent on remittances from such workers.

The drop in wages being offered would naturally come to equal the supply of labor equilibrium in a free market without a minimum wage. Why is this unjust? Because they are "worth" more? Who defines how much someones work is actually worth?

#39 Edited by PannicAtack (21021 posts) -

Yeah man, we gotta protect the rights of the workers who want to work for next to nothing. That's the real injustice of the minimum wage.

Ming is right-wing crank, blah blah blah something about false rape claims.

#40 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

It blows my mind as well just how illogical liberals can be.

#41 Edited by Korvus (3356 posts) -

Why are people confusing getting a job with volunteering? They are 2 totally different things. I know how to program, so if I want to do a website for a friend for free, I have that right but if I get hired as a web designer I have the right to be protected against people who would pay me peanuts for it...

#42 Posted by AutoPilotOn (8226 posts) -

Before there was a min wage some company's wouldn't even pay you in legal tende money. They'd pay in company tokens/ money. This could be used to pay the rent, which was housing provided by the company and goods/food at a store ran by the company. You were pretty much a slave with no way out.

#43 Edited by Master_Live (14244 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

How is it immoral? I mean I can see unjust and maybe illogical, but what does morality have to do with how much someone is paid for work - work that is usually labeled in the min wage category?

It's immoral to pay someone $7.25/hr to flip burgers for a living? A job that requires no background education and very little training?

It is immoral because the employer is forced to pay a wage that the worker may not be worth. Minimum wage also increases unemployment of the very poor that you are trying to help

Minimum wage doesnt increase unemployment at all.

Would raising the minimum wage to $30 increase unemployment?

@always_explicit said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

How is it immoral? I mean I can see unjust and maybe illogical, but what does morality have to do with how much someone is paid for work - work that is usually labeled in the min wage category?

It's immoral to pay someone $7.25/hr to flip burgers for a living? A job that requires no background education and very little training?

It is immoral because the employer is forced to pay a wage that the worker may not be worth. Minimum wage also increases unemployment of the very poor that you are trying to help

Answer me this....You flip burgers for £7 dollars an hour. You get fired. Your boss rehires someone else to do your job for 2 dollars....because he can. Because there is no minimum wage you create a society where the EMPLOYER is in charge and not YOU.

Is it fair you just lost your job?

Was he fired with just cause? Was there a breach of contract?

#44 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

How is it immoral? I mean I can see unjust and maybe illogical, but what does morality have to do with how much someone is paid for work - work that is usually labeled in the min wage category?

It's immoral to pay someone $7.25/hr to flip burgers for a living? A job that requires no background education and very little training?

It is immoral because the employer is forced to pay a wage that the worker may not be worth. Minimum wage also increases unemployment of the very poor that you are trying to help

The employer isnt forced to pay anyone anything....the employer CHOSE to employ that person. Minimum wage doesnt increase unemployment at all. You NEED a minimum wage, how you cant see that is truly staggering.

Answer me this....You flip burgers for £7 dollars an hour. You get fired. Your boss rehires someone else to do your job for 2 dollars....because he can. Because there is no minimum wage you create a society where the EMPLOYER is in charge and not YOU.

Is it fair you just lost your job?

Yes, the employer is forced to pay a minimum wage for every employee he hires. Yes, it does increase unemployment. The minimum wage acts as a price floor, causing a surplus in labor. If you lowered the minimum wage, employers such as super markets would have more money to hire low level employees.

Yes, it is fair. Someone else was willing to do the same job for less than I was.

#45 Posted by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Master_Live said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

Why would you want to stop people contributing to the benefit of society without asking for anything back?

Because they are not being paid for it, it is unjust.

Hence the term "volunteer". They are WILLING to do it knowing full well they are not being compensated (monetarily) for their time.

Then why do we forbade people who are WILLING to work for $5/hr from doing so?

I'm not understanding. Can you provide an example?

Lets say an individual agree to work flipping burgers in McDonalds for $5/hr that would be illegal since you have to pay them the minimum salary.

Because by federal and state law, they are required to compensate you by whatever the minimum wage is so people can earn enough to live and support themselves. There are categories of workers, however, that don't fall into the minimum wage category. Independent contractors, farm workers, waiters (and those who receive tips), etc., don't qualify. So, in reality people could work for less provided it's a job title that doesn't require min wage mandate.

There is a minimum wage for tipped workers, but it's not the same as for regular workers. In Connecticut the state minimum wage for tipped workers is set at 69% of whatever the state minimum wage happens to be (currently it's $9 something, but set to increase at the end of the year, and then it will increase to $10.10 in a few years - I think 2017 - due to a new minimum wage increase that became state law a few months ago, so waiters would get close to $7 once the minimum wage for non-tipped people is 10.10). Under federal law the minimum wage is $7.25, but for tipped workers it is $4.25, though if the tips and the $4.25 don't add up to $7.25 an hour than the employer has to make up the difference and pay more (so in the end the tipped worker is still making at least $7.25 per hour, it's just that the employer is not paying that whole amount, the customer is chipping in too).

#46 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@BeardMaster: well people who make money are ones that can afford to pay.

I make good money with little formal education (2 year degree) but serveral years experience.

My wife graduated with honors with bachelors in case management and is going for social work masters. Right now she makes about 1/10 what I make and she works way more but smaller amount of time and she volunteers at VA. Is it fair, no not really.

Well im not a dolt, i understand why incentives are structured this way. But at the same time, if you look at the net benefit to society of your wife (helps people that need help) vs some hedge fund manager (helps people that dont need help) pulling in 20 mil a year... i think its difficult to make the case your wife isnt the greater asset.

I have no answer on how to fix that, or make the system more equitable. But I find it frustrating that people are generally punished for trying to make positive impacts.

#47 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

@mingmao3046 said:

The employer would go with whatever would produce the most output with the least pay. Whether this was the less skilled worker at $2 or the more skilled worker at $3. There is nothing wrong with this.

You tax this person just like you would tax anyone else.

It is the owners business, the owner should be in control.

If he can find someone to work for him for $2 then it is a valid argument. There is nothing wrong here.

"If he can find someone to work for him for $2 then it is a valid argument. There is nothing wrong here."

Okay...here is something you have not thought about buddy and its only one of the billion flaws in your "nothing wrong here statement".

A guy with 2 kids and a wife to support is relying on a job that pays 7 dollars

but a kid living at home could work for 5 dollars.

Is it fair a guy cant support his wife and kids because a teenager wants pocket money?

Yes, it is fair. Despite how you seem to operate on emotions and feelings, no one is entitled to a job.

#48 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -

@AutoPilotOn said:

@BeardMaster: well people who make money are ones that can afford to pay.

I make good money with little formal education (2 year degree) but serveral years experience.

My wife graduated with honors with bachelors in case management and is going for social work masters. Right now she makes about 1/10 what I make and she works way more but smaller amount of time and she volunteers at VA. Is it fair, no not really.

Well im not a dolt, i understand why incentives are structured this way. But at the same time, if you look at the net benefit to society of your wife (helps people that need help) vs some hedge fund manager (helps people that dont need help) pulling in 20 mil a year... i think its difficult to make the case your wife isnt the greater asset.

I have no answer on how to fix that, or make the system more equitable. But I find it frustrating that people are generally punished for trying to make positive impacts.

LMAO. His wife got a degree and is trying to work in an over saturated field that clearly does not require much skill if it pays so little. You can't just take a random joe off the street and train him in a week to manage multi million dollar accounts.

Are you trolling? You must be.

#49 Edited by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@mingmao3046 said:

@always_explicit said:

@mingmao3046 said:

@jasean79 said:

How is it immoral? I mean I can see unjust and maybe illogical, but what does morality have to do with how much someone is paid for work - work that is usually labeled in the min wage category?

It's immoral to pay someone $7.25/hr to flip burgers for a living? A job that requires no background education and very little training?

It is immoral because the employer is forced to pay a wage that the worker may not be worth. Minimum wage also increases unemployment of the very poor that you are trying to help

The employer isnt forced to pay anyone anything....the employer CHOSE to employ that person. Minimum wage doesnt increase unemployment at all. You NEED a minimum wage, how you cant see that is truly staggering.

Answer me this....You flip burgers for £7 dollars an hour. You get fired. Your boss rehires someone else to do your job for 2 dollars....because he can. Because there is no minimum wage you create a society where the EMPLOYER is in charge and not YOU.

Is it fair you just lost your job?

Yes, the employer is forced to pay a minimum wage for every employee he hires. Yes, it does increase unemployment. The minimum wage acts as a price floor, causing a surplus in labor. If you lowered the minimum wage, employers such as super markets would have more money to hire low level employees.

Yes, it is fair. Someone else was willing to do the same job for less than I was.

Thats not true. Numerous studies have shown no correlation between min wage increases an unemployment.

For the simple reason that if you require 5 employees to run your business, you hire 5 employees. Employers dont hire bonus employees simply because than can afford to, they hire the 5 employees and pocket the rest. A well run business always hires the minimum number of employees required, and minimum wage has no effect on the minimum number of employees required to run said business. A very high service cost business that relies on minimum wage employees and is just scraping by might have a min wage increase plunge them into insolvency. But its such a tiny segment, it has no real impact. Especially because its offset by the increase in consumer demand and spending as a result of the higher wages. To be honest, the argument that higher minimum wage decreases unemployment holds more water.

#50 Edited by whipassmt (13998 posts) -

By the way, McDonald's workers do not flip burgers, McDonald's has a machine that cooks the burger on both sides at the same time. I saw that on Modern Marvel's. I think Burger King worker's do flip their burgers though, since Burger King burgers are grilled.