I had a discussion with a girl I know about minimum wage (idk what her politics are exactly bc she's inconsistent but if I had to guess I'd say soc dem) and she was saying Biden's plan to increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2025 was the most ambitious plan in world history. She explained that with $15 min wage the US will have the highest minimum wage in the world, this was the best way to do it bc if we switched to $24 min wage overnight then small businesses would completely shut down and leave a large amount of the workforce unemployed and allow corporations like Amazon to take over.
I'll admit I'm newish to leftism and didn't really have an answer to this. Is there an argument from the left against this? also sorry to mods if I posted in the wrong place, wasn't exactly sure where this should go
It's not even the highest nominal wage, just the the highest federal minimum wage. There are regions in Switzerland and Norway with minimum wages up to $24.
And on a federal level, the Australian minimum wage is 20 AUD an hour, which a) translates to 15.30 USD, and b) unlike the US minimum wage, is pegged to inflation so by 2025 it will be much higher.
The low minimum wage hasn't stopped big corporations from taking over. Think about how many small businesses got fucked in the 08' recession and the recent corona recession while the big guys got bailouts.
A big corporation can literally just set up shop in any town and operate at a loss with artificially low prices until their competition is forced to shut down. Like seriously people still think the minimum wage is going to stop the inevitable march to corporate conglomeration 🤡
Just look at inflation rates or literally other wealthy countries with higher minimum wage. As for most ambitious, I'll quote Felix :
"I see all these debates over whether China is communist or not, whether they’re the fucking Third Reich or something ridiculous, or they’re the saviors of humanity. They all miss this very basic fact: China overcoming mass poverty on a scale we’ve never seen, China modernizing on the timeline and scale that it has, is the only generational human accomplishment of the last 30 years. That’s it. That’s the only thing anyone actually remembers in one thousand years if we’re still here.They’re the only nation that has done anything at all. The United States, European Union, India, no one has any equivalent accomplishments. Oh, uninterrupted peace in Europe? Shut up! No one gives a fuck! You’d have to dig deep for something one one-hundredth as impressive.
In America, though, you never hear about it."
Agreed. But its more powerful imo if something happening right now is more ambitious than Biden's minimum wage proposal.
When people say 'world history' they're being hyperbolic, usually you press them on it and they'll retract to something like "in recent history".
A slight variation but the one kind of inescapable fact when trying to argue against China is that it's still a developing country.
They are starting to lay out more concrete timelines. The next 30 years will hopefully show what China is really about.
if a business can't afford to pay its workers a living wage, it is a failure of a business and shouldn't exist
Nationalize any business that can't keep up is the real answer lol. There's nothing inherently good about "small business", in fact it's fucking exploitation city.
If there's an actual reason for it to exist and it can't be supported while also giving employees a healthy wage, then it needs to be owned publicly.
Small businesses are the hardest and least efficient to nationalise. Even if you go to Cuba or whatever, there's still small businesses.
It depends on the service I'd think. Restaurants and niche stores are what I'm thinking of as things that would be hard to nationalize and the other poster who talked about grant and subsidies seems like a great solution.
Υes, these are things really hard to nationalize. And subsidies could probably help. But at that point, I really think instead of trying to get minimum wage up to 25 or something wild like that, it's a lot better to pressure for it to be raised to something less extreme BUT focus on much better labor laws that give much more power to employees, which is really important in a place like the US where it's impossible to even strike in many places.
Either require entire system changes and people to approach business differently, so I'd like both but maybe not as heavy handedly as described in my original post
They don't require the system to change, they are how you go about gradually starting to make changes to the system. Labor protection laws give to the working class the power to organize against capitalists and neoliberal policy. It is very important.
in addition to this, there's tons of grants issued by the government all the time, as well as subsidies of various sorts for all kinds of industries.
if they wanted to prevent independent businesses from biting the dust it would be easy enough to gradually increase the minimum wage which businesses have to pay employees while subsidizing the difference, in order to provide an actual living wage. they're of course not going to do that, but they could.
The thing about USD 15 being the highest minimum wage is patently false. A Danish McDonald's worker gets at least USD 18,12 an hour, excluding extra pay for night shifts etc.
Yes. Let the big corporations take over... and then.... nationalize them.
If small businesses go under because they can’t afford to pay their employees living wages, I’m glad. You have no right to profit.
If your business can't stay afloat if it has to pay a living wage then you're a failure not a successful businessman.
If a buisiness closes because they can't afford the cost of operation that's just the free market at work right?
owning people by their own logic never works, because they understand their own logic better than you do, and there's a good chance you've misunderstood what that logic is. also people don't change their minds after being owned.
i think your point mostly stands but i think it depends on the person. I've definitely changed my mind on things after being owned before. But yeah in general people tend to just double down and even if you own someone with their own "logic" often times that logic only holds up for others anyway, most people are way more lenient with holding themselves to ideals than other people.
Why do people misunderstand the point these people are making so badly? When a socdem or whatever tells you they are afraid businesses will close, it does not necessarily mean they are upset at poor small business owners losing their business. They might be but that's not the most important part. Lots of businesses closing down means unemployment. And you can't even say "it is the free market at work" either because you're literally intervening into the free market. Besides even if it was the "free market at work" you really don't know if they care at all. So you're not gonna "own" anyone by saying something like that. You're much better off saying something like "businesses will make more money too because their customers will be making more money and they will be spending more".
Because a minimum wage increase of that magnitude should also be coupled with proper tax collection from the large corporations, a reduction in tax incentives for large businesses/chain businesses, and more effort to reduce monopolization among private business.
Reducing "monopolizatoin" and the "large business" boogeyman are not correct leftist takes. There is nothing inherently wrong with giant enterprises. Economies of scale make large businesses more efficient. A communist world would be dominated by giant enterprises purely due to reasons of efficiency. Also the "large=monopoly" is not based on economic reality. Large firms face the same competitive pressures as smaller ones. See Anwar Shaikh on youtube for the concept of real competition.
there's a lot to disassemble here, and while i agree that large businesses just come with population growth/efficiency/automation, if you're going to mention that reducing monopolization is an 'incorrect' take you have to mention that that's only due to the fact that a lot of businesses that get that big should be nationalized.
seeing as how we're pretty far from achieving anything close to socialization, reducing monopolization through regulation is definitely a step that needs to be taken in the meantime.
i feel like there's probably a decent amount of information that discredits your claim that 'large firms face the same competition pressures as small ones' but i haven't done the research, just seems like common sense.
i feel like there’s probably a decent amount of information that discredits your claim that ‘large firms face the same competition pressures as small ones’ but i haven’t done the research, just seems like common sense.
It is "common sense" according to both bourgeois economists and some sections of heterodox economists, but Anwar Shaikh's political economic work put that idea to rest. I highly recommend checking out his youtube videos where he gives lectures on Marxian political economy.
I think that unionization is a much better idea than regulations for large corps.
These ideas don't come from Anwar Shaikh, they come from Joseph Schumpeter, an early 20th century socdem economist, and they do have some problems when you consider them under a more systemic lens. Namely the immense power they hold.
You say a communist world would be dominated by large enterprises. A communist world would have nationalised them. But also more or less any attempt at socialism by any country actually retained heavily regulated small businesses, because they are well suited for some sectors of the economy.
I would really recommend you watch his video on real competition on YT. The immense power of large firms mean nothing when they are competing against equally large firms. In fact, large firms are more competitive because they can simply exit markets where they are underperforming without taking too much of a hit while small businesses would have to limp on or go bankrupt.
You say a communist world would be dominated by large enterprises. A communist world would have nationalised them.
By "communism", you are actually referring to the social democracy practised by USSR, Cuba etc. Marx never argued for simply nationalizing businesses. Socialism is about abolishing the commodity form entirely, and not after "developing productive forces" but immediately. Who owns the firm makes no difference. During class struggle, do the workers care whether their firm is privately owned or state owned? If anything, workers would rather have their firm owned by themselves rather than the state.
Enterprises in communism would simply be free associations of workers producing use-values. The enterprises do not make money, like they did/do in "AESC". So the very concept of "ownership" would make zero sense.
But also more or less any attempt at socialism by any country actually retained heavily regulated small businesses, because they are well suited for some sectors of the economy.
I don't see what regulating small businesses has anything to do with socialism or even class struggle. The fact that such "attempts at socialism" retained capitalist firms at all reveals the actual nature of those attempts.
You're misinterpreting my remarks about power to be about market competition but that's not really what it is about. And yes, I have watched Anwar Shaikh's lectures.
By “communism”, you are actually referring to the social democracy practised by USSR, Cuba etc. Marx never argued for simply nationalizing businesses. Socialism is about abolishing the commodity form entirely, and not after “developing productive forces” but immediately. Who owns the firm makes no difference. During class struggle, do the workers care whether their firm is privately owned or state owned? If anything, workers would rather have their firm owned by themselves rather than the state.
Marx actually did argue for nationalising businesses at an intermediate stage. And he also didn't argue for abolishing the commodity form immediately regardless of the state of productive forces. I seriously don't know where you are getting all that from.
I don't understand why you are even bringing up the large enterprises "under communism" when talking about large enterprises in capitalism when by "under communism" you don't mean some kind of intermediate stage but something totally different to the capitalist case in every way.
It's to make a point that centralization is not a bad thing. I was responding to a comment that said that large firms need to be broken up. I said it's not something we will be doing under communism, and neither does it need to be done under capitalism as large firms are as competitive as smaller ones. The power that large firms have is not solved by breaking them up, you would just end up with more slightly smaller firms that engage in the same regulatory capture. So it's not really a leftist position to "break up the big corps", it's more a socdem "save capitalism from itself" thing.
Marx actually did argue for nationalising businesses at an intermediate stage. And he also didn’t argue for abolishing the commodity form immediately regardless of the state of productive forces. I seriously don’t know where you are getting all that from.
Whether or not we do nationalize businesses is something that should be decided by the workers of the businesses themselves. The task of building socialism is something done by the workers themselves. I doubt the workers of firms would allow their firm to be nationalized. There is no such argument made by Marx that socialism depended on " the state of productive forces." He simply said that it is more likely for socialism to succeed in capitalist countries. Almost all countries in the world outside of Africa are already fully subsumed under capitalism. These arguments about what a socialist society would exactly look like are kind of pointless, as socialism is the real movement of the working class in overthrowing capitalism and not some intellectual's conception of it. Nationalization under socialism makes no sense, and nationalization under capitalism is not always progressive. It is better for workers to control capital rather than the bourgeois state.
Large corporations have the capital to keep themselves free of rules and regulations either through regulatory capture or just being able to absorb any "punishment" that might be directed towards them when not following rules that smaller businesses, not having the ability ability to exercise regulatory capture or absorb the punishments for violating the rules, have to follow. So the larger a business is the more efficiently it can evade or break the rules.
If the only competitive pressure is to generate more profits, then the only reason to merge with another larger corporation/business in the same field is just to show growth. When the cell phone companies merge, do the prices to the customers go down? When large lending institutions merge, do the loan rates drop for those seeking loans? Do the interest rates for CD' or deposit accounts increase? The trend that I'm aware of is, no. The quality of services/goods stays the same or decreases. I'm pretty confident that my guess is correct, when businesses merge it is usually not to provide "better" to employees or customers but to buy the profits of some other business.
I'm siding with the other comments that if something needs to become a monopoly to capture more efficiency to function, it shouldn't be a private business and instead be a utility.
Of course monopolies exist, but I was speaking in general. Like Amazon or Walmart or Exxon are huge firms but they are not monopolies. As a socialist, and at least under capitalism, I would rather firms be owned by workers rather than either capitalists or the state.
"this moderate, slow plan is the best idea because if we did [radical exaggeration] it wouldn't work"
:galaxy-brain:
Capitalism is great. It couldn't possibly be holding us back.
If minimum wage kept pace with productivity it would be $24 right now. So, that's the baseline for workers to only be getting screwed as badly as they were in the 60s.
