In either event, given the unemployment figures we see on the news these days, and knowing full well, that many skilled people are indeed being forced to accept min wage, I feel sir, that unless you've lived on min wage as the other fellow suggested, for a 12 month period, you just have no clue what it's like, irregardless of what you say.
Again, it's MINIMUM wage. It's not a living wage, nor should it be. It is the bear minimum commercial value for a person's time. A high-school kid trying to earn a little money to put gasoline in his car. It is NOT a living wage. nor should it be.
Quote:
A person just simply cannot make a house payment or raise a family on it. Sorry, but that's just the plain reality.
Do you not understand that this is a good thing? Do you not understand that there are people who don't have families, don't have car payments? Do you understand that there are people who have their basic needs met, people who can thrive on less than minimum wage but who are being forced to compete with people trying to make a living? Do you understand that by raising minimum wage, you're INCREASING competition for jobs, making it more difficult to find gainful employment?
Quote:
These discussions really don't change anything and minimum wage will be protected and a right in this country and in my mind, that's all that really matters to me. Basic government protections in place to keep the business community playing at least partially fair. That's it and take care!
Minimum wage will be protected. It will continue to create the same problems. It will continue to economically disenfranchise the lowest classes while making them feel good about their ever increasing paychecks.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
1. The factors I outlined contribute to inflation far worse than minimum wage .
2. Increasing demand in other countries for fuel and other resources are perhaps one of the biggest contributors to your dwindling paycheck.
3. People at the top want to make more money as MIAB said. It is the reality and anyone living from paycheck to paycheck will agree with me. .
4. I feel content that the federal government does a great job of keeping the min wage in check, with states taking it higher as they see fit.
5.paid pennies an hour for labor, the price of the product in this country would not go down even in the slightest, and likely, the price would go up, just because.
6. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to create enemies here, ......
7. I just think that there is an element coming from you guys that suggests to me that you either own a business, or have a relative who owns one, or you guys are retired after selling a business.
8. many skilled people are indeed being forced to accept min wage.
9. A person just simply cannot make a house payment or raise a family on it. !
1. I agree with that, but minimum wage increases do play a part.
2. I agree with that also.
3. I think that pretty much everyone wants to make more money.
4. Disagree. The Federal government is (in my opinion) not efficient or "good" at very much at all.
5. I agree.
6. Awww come on. no enemies being made here! All in fun. I have been going at it with several of these folks in other threads and I don't feel like I am making enemies, and I hope noone else feels that way either!
7. Incorrect. I just merely think that the economy works a certain way and if you mess with it weird things happen. I have never owned a business, don't know anyone that owns a business (I don't think), and not retired. Honestly, I don't make very much money (if that matters?!). I work hourly, not on salary, and just get by.
8. That is merely a reflection of supply and demand. (still unfortunate)
9. If people could make house payments and raise a family on it (will never happen) then we would likely just be a country of burger flippers, trying to sell burgers to people who couldn't afford the burgers. (makes sense doesn't it.) I can see the HS students now (if they hadn't dropped out!)..."Why go to college, I don't like school and I can raise a family and everything on min, wage..."
In response to the numerous queries about when and how much minimum wage was raised:
1955 - $0.75
1956 - 1960 - 4 years - $1.00
1961 - 1962 - 2 years - $1.15
1963 - 1966 - 3 years - $1.25
1967 $1.40
1968 - 1973 5 years - $1.60 - 28% over 1966
1974 $2.00
1975 $2.10
1976 - 1977 - 2 years - $2.20 - 37% over 1973
1978 - $2.65
1979 - $2.90
1980 - $3.10
1981 - 1989 - 8 years - $3.35 - 26% over 1978
1990 - $3.80
1991 - 1995 - 4 years - $4.25 - 27% over 1989
1996 - $4.75
1997 - 2006 - 9 years - $5.15 - 21% over 1995
2007 - $5.85
2008 - $6.55
2009 - 2011 - 2 years - $7.25 - 41% over 2006
When the minimum cost of your labor rises 40% in three years, as it did from 2006 to 2009, it's going to shake up your business. We shook the hell out of every employer in the nation.
Don't try to tell me that minimum wage changes aren't playing a part in this current recession. That rapid change in minimum wage laws caused a LOT of damage, including a significant portion of the rise in grocery and gasoline prices.
Any comments on the "living wage" idea I presented a couple posts back?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I believe that the "living wage" is irrelevent when discussing minimum wage because I don't think that minimum wage should be a living wage.
If someone doesn't know why I think that, see my previous posts...
I believe that the "living wage" is irrelevent when discussing minimum wage because I don't think that minimum wage should be a living wage.
If someone doesn't know why I think that, see my previous posts...
Reading that link, I think "basic needs wage" is the better term for what I was referring to as "living wage". I'll try to use that term from now on.
I brought it into the discussion, attempting to resolve the problems each side has with minimum wage. Eliminating minimum wage entirely is simply not an option - it would cause chaos throughout our economy. Permanently fixing it in place is not really an option, as this would eventually cause the same problems as eliminating it entirely. Linking it to the poverty line is not an option - it's inherently inflationary, and drives the poverty line upwards. The "best" solution - without involving other aspects of the market -seems to be what we have now, a periodic review and adjustment of minimum wage. As solutions go, this one is crap.
I'm not talking about trying to make "minimum wage" a "basic-needs wage" - there are far too many people willing and able to work for less than a basic-needs wage. I'm talking about a new requirement for employers.
Instead of simply setting a minimum wage, I was suggesting that employers be legally compelled to pay most of their employees a "basic needs" wage . The percentage of employees who must receive at least such a wage would be closely related to the percentage of the public living at or above the poverty line. Employers can still pay many employees well below poverty levels - high school kids, hobby workers, and others who don't need to earn their keep can still get jobs.
I think that reviewing the poverty guidelines every year or two would make this system inherently stable and self correcting. As the economy improves, costs rise and dampen it, preventing rampant inflation. As the economy slows, costs decrease and spur it on.
I think it should be county-dependent, both in terms of the poverty line and the percentages of people above and below. Employers would have a significant advantage in manpower costs by choosing to invest in impoverished areas.
While such legislation would tend to intrude on "private" business, I think it wouldn't affect "good" employers very much at all, but would force exploitive companies to fix their business plans. Exploitive businesses that survive by putting their employees on public assistance - businesses like Walmart, whose stores each cost taxpayers about a quarter million a year in public assistance for its employees. Each store. There are 4 within 20 minutes of me, sucking down a million bucks of taxpayer funds in addition to the register prices.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Did you just say that Walmart is actually putting people on public assistance???
If so, then what if Walmart were completely out of the picture in the respected area? Would these said people cease to be on public assistance?
Here's an overly simplistic description of how it currently works. Walmart and Zmart do the exact same amount of business. They charge exactly the same prices for their products.
Walmart creates a job that pays below a basic-needs wage, making its employee eligible for public assistance. Zmart creates the same job, but pays a basic-needs wage, making its employee ineligible. The employee in either case is "earning" the same amount of money, except that a portion of the Walmart employee's wages are paid by welfare.
Walmart's costs are lower, so their profits will be higher, despite doing the exact same amount of business. Walmart will pay higher taxes than Zmart, but their employees will pay less taxes than Zmart employees. Yes, walmart is a taxpayer and contributes to the welfare fund, as do Zmart and its employees. But, Zmart and its employees don't collect welfare! By making their employees eligible for taxpayer-funded assistance, Walmart has figured out how to make Zmart and Zmart employees pay a portion of Walmart's payroll.
So, if walmart were out of the picture, would these people be on public assistance? In the simplistic scenario above, this would be Zmart taking over the walmart store and operating both facilities. Employees would receive the same income as before, but it would be coming solely from Zmart and not from welfare. Nobody receiving welfare means nobody paying into it (sucks to be the welfare clerk, I guess) so taxes are lower. The new Zmart store's profits would be lower than they were under Walmart management, because the new store is solely responsible for its payroll, instead of having it augmented by taxpayers. The original Zmart store's profits are higher, due to the lower taxes that were previously paid to Walmart.
I'm a consumer. I choose to boycott Walmart. Yet Walmart still manages to "collect" a chunk of my pay, a chunk of my sales tax. I have no choice but to support them. So much for the free market.
My plan would basically be to establish a "basic needs" wage. Employers are NOT required to pay everyone this wage. I suggested calculating the percentage of people above and below the poverty line in an area, and requiring an employer to pay a basic needs wage to at least the percentage above the line. If 80% of the people are above the poverty line, 80% of a business's employees should be paid at least a basic-needs wage.
In the scenario above, the vast majority of walmart employees don't earn a basic-needs wage, yet collect a basic-needs income through public assistance. This plan would prevent walmart from shifting a part of its payroll burden to the taxpayer. They would have to keep it on their own books.
Keep in mind, the plan I suggested is just a rough-draft idea. I'm trying to see how it would work, how it might be exploited, what as-yet-unforeseen problems it would create, etc. Right now I can see that while it permits less-than-basic-needs wages, because it's based solely on the poverty line, it doesn't adjust appropriately for hobby workers.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Okay, I see what you are saying. I must say, I have never heard of this "Z-Mart" that you speak of. That is fine, perhaps they aren't around here (unless you are talking about K-Mart?). Anyway, your idea is interesting. Sounds like a good amount of thought went into it. Not sure how I feel about it, however.
That is not how it works. If you don't like it, sorry. Just how it is.
Sure is, that's why we need unions. I posted another thread about all the new billionaires in the world. they don't appear much effected by a recession.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Linear Mode
