Is the idea of paying living wages to employees automatically a socialist, anti-capitalist idea? Pls explain.?

Question

side comment "welfare" is a tainted word and many use it with pejorative intent that the word does not have. I do not consider it reasonable to portray the concept a "living wage"(or the "minimum wage") as a form of gov't welfare. These concepts are a matter of establishing a minimum value for work honestly performed by Societies that consider themselves to be ethical.

This is the definition I use:

wel·fare (wlfâr) KEY

NOUN:


Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
Prosperity.
Welfare work.

Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
Corporate welfare.

IDIOM:
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.

source:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/welfare;_ylt=AsP_YCrVKjvPHfOn5mI1TW.sgMMF

Answer 1

I would say the idea itself of making sure that every person is paid a wage that they can live on is not socialist, or anti-capitalist. The problem arises when this idea is implemented. The application of this can become socialist in a way because there are so many different variables. For instance, who has the right to decide what is a "livable wage?" Ask almost any person at almost any income level, and I would bet that many, if not all, would say they could use more money. If a company in the US paid someone from Africa or Indonesia our minimum wage, it would not take them long to become the wealthiest person in their country. So the idea becomes socialist and anti-capitalist when we rely on the government to tell us and mandate what is livable rather than letting the market decide. Now I do understand that if we had pure capitalism it would be very easy for the business owners to collude and underpay everyone. I believe this is when Karl Marx's predictions of the Bourgeois and Proletarians and the downfall of capitalism could be realistic... but that is a different story.

Back to your question... there are a couple consequences to a minimum wage or a livable wage that many "social do-gooders" fail to see. My first point is more obvious then my second point. First, if an employer has to pay a higher wage to his/her employee, that money is going to have to come from somewhere. This most likely would come from an increase in price of their products. So, paying people more will cause inflation, so in terms of ratios, is anyone better off??? The second major consequence of a minimum wage is that it creates higher unemployment in two different ways. First, that employer who has to pay more will either raise his/her prices OR they will lay off employees. Second, there are people who do not currently work but are not included in unemployment because they are not looking for work. If you increase the wage, more of these people will start to look for work, but the supply of jobs will be the same as before, if not lower, thus raising the unemployment rate a second time. That is why it seems anti-capitalist.

Anyway, I hope this helps!

Answer 2

Not automatically. As I see it, the only way it'd automatically qualify as socialism is if the employees would have no choise but to work, and accept any salary the employee wants to give. Other than that situation, the workers can always quit and look for better options.

Depends a bit on the motivation, averaging a higher pay would mean lower turnover of employees; less resources needed to train replacements.. so it makes financial sense to set the level above the "barely survivable" level.

I'm just guessing here tho ;)

Answer 3

It is 100 percent anti capitalist.

And there are very good reasons to oppose arbitrarily raising the minimum wage.

Basic economics. When employers costs are increased 20% or more by a minimum wage increase, those employers will recover the extra cost by raising the proces on their products. That means that ever product that has a minimum wage worker somewhere in its production will cost more. (all products, in other words...)

Any wage increase is very shortly eaten away by higher prices for bread, food, housing, etc.

Don't believe it?

Check this out for yourself. A McDonald's Big Mac combo is priced at approximately the cost of 1 hour's "minimum" wages. Back when I was in high school, minimum wage was $3.35/hour, and a Big Mac meal used to cost $2.99 plus tax (about $3.20 total.)

Now our minimum wage is $5.85/hour and that same combo meal will cost six bucks at any McDonald's in the USA--in some places more.

Here's whats worse. People who worked hard, got an education, and put in the effort to getting a job with real responsibility and more money than minimum wage are actually gtting a pay cut. How? There is no law that requires wage increases for Everyone--and a lot of us get nothing when minimum wage goes up. We pay more for everything being sold, but don't get the extra pay to cover it.

Finally--because prices simply rise to match the higher minimum wage, those earning minimum wage make NO progress towards living a better life.

Your only way out is to get an education, be responsible, put in your time, and get the better jobs that pay more.

Answer 4

Before the welfare (socialist type policies) state employees who were not paid a living wage died, so it was not an issue. Now the state provides subsidies for people who do not earn enough to support themselves and their families so employers can get people to work for less so the idea of government mandated living wage is the result of such policies.

Answer 5

Not if that's what the employer willingly chooses to pay.