Minimum Wage

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by danoff
explain to me how everyone chasing money doesn't work out for everyone.

A huge bag of $100's opens up and the wind empties it. All of the $100 bills fly over the edge of a cliff and everybody chases after them, including the part of flying over the edge of the cliff.

 

[Danoff]

lol

I stand corrected.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
The fact that you include car safety belts and public schools in that list tells me all I need to know. You are a right wing fanatic. Your reliance on "logic" and your insitence that everything must conform to it is no different from Christian extremism, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were that, too.

Corporate America could take a lesson from the Marine Corps. "No man left behind." Simple. Decent.

But instead they use your "philosophy." "Every man for himself." Your thinking is dangerous for humanity. It has a tough skin and a marangue core. So in that light I can rest assured that you and your ilk will be selcted out of the picture over time. What is necessary always comes to be. What is not always passes away. The pathologically cynical type, of which you are representative, is weak and already on the way out. Don't hold your breath, civilization won't regress for you.

Lastly, don't try to call your political diarrhea "philosophy." I understand how it must make you feel even more self righteous, but philosophers could never be bothered with the superficiality of this discussion. Politicians and economists get their philosophy third hand. You may be familiar with a theory, which may be derivative of a part of a certain philosophy, but please don't prevaricate yourself as a man with a philosphy. It's embarassing.

Wow. This kind of came out of left field. Lacking a little sleep that day, milefile?

I guess you'll have to add my name to the list of self-righteous, diarrhetic "philosophers" right behind danoff. I for one don't think this conversation was any more superficial than you yourself made it. I suppose I should have recognized the danger signs when I asked you what you thought of Kant a few months ago and you didn't recoil in horror.

I don't understand how on earth you can have gotten the idea that danoff is "pathologically cynical", or how you could begin to think that he's capable of being a "right-wing/Christian extremist". The only explanantion is that you're projecting your own feelings onto him.

That, and the fact that you've obviously - and erroneously - equated "every man for himself" with "dog eat dog". Your implication is that capitalism by definition means the pursuit of profit, ethically and unethically. You couldn't be further wrong in that assumption.

The Marine Corps "philosophy" that you quote is based on the assumption that each MAN in that equation will do his job to the utmost of his ability, thanks to his self discipline and pride in his own proficiency, and is therefore worthy of the support and respect of his fellow Marines. To view that motto as some kind of quasi-socialist feelgood banality is to have misconstrued it in the extreme.

I guess a philosophy isn't allowed to be called A Philosophy unless it's taught by a posturing, self-important PoMo/Decon "intellectual" professor whose main goal is to prove that the intellect itself doesn't exist. Talk about superficiality - it doesn't matter how deep you pile the bull****, it still stinks.

Fine and dandy. I'll pass on the capital 'P', thanks.

 

[Pako]

I see it as a push towards a higher economic standard. If their were no Min. Wage laws, a lot of companies would be able to cut their salary expenses in half or even more. What this means is that the company has to produce even more margins to cover their salary overhead, which in turn, creates more cash flow. Through higher wages, the justification for higher margins on product means better service, and a higher quality of product, while savings are being made in the production end of things. This is why robotics and other non-human automated systems are so important. Just remember that the maintanence guy gets at least min. wage. The real benifit can be experienced from the non-experienced working. First day on the Job, and he gets $5.15 an hour, while the guy with "some" training that should be getting $7.00 an hour only gets $5.15 to make up the difference.

Most, if not all laws (at least in theory), are created and put into action because someone exploited their 'right', with the ending result being a law created to protect others from the same circumstances...

As far as the original question...., I make more than minimum wage now so it doesn't matter all that much to me now. I will say that 'back in the day', I was glad for minimum wage, it was a concrete, set amount of pay that no matter what, I would be getting this amount of money based on the hours I worked. It was the bare minimum amount, but I knew it wouldn't be any lower than that.

 

[Danoff]

If their were no Min. Wage laws, a lot of companies would be able to cut their salary expenses in half or even more.

I need some data backing that up. I totally disagree. Workers have a choice in which company to work for.

 

[Pako]

Unless their migrating from a different country. Why do you think we have international labor laws?

 

[Danoff]

International workers have different standards for living. You cannot compare what a Job would pay in the US to US citizens to what a job would pay in a third world country to third world country citizens. When they have no options, they'll go with whatever little they can get. In the US, we have options.

Why do you think sooooooo many jobs pay higher than minimum wage, even though the government didn't tell them to do so?

 

[Danoff]

In our infinite wisdom, California is attempting to raise our minimum wage to $7.50 an hour. This will mostly hurt poor people and small businesses by removing low wage jobs and raising prices.

But hey, I guess people get to feel good about it or something.

 

[Danoff]

bump.

 

[Arwin]

I need some data backing that up. I totally disagree. Workers have a choice in which company to work for.

The problem with minimum wage is similar to that of tax. Supply and demand has little respect for economic necessity of an employee. The argument that it creates jobs is really null and void - if it is feasible for a company to move elsewhere to set up its factory because wages are lower, there is always a company with lower wages. The higher standard of living in Western countries have to be balanced by benefits of having the business in that country, in the form of higher quality personnel with better qualifications, better provisions, infrastructure, technological advantages and so on. Ideally, that means that no minimum wage is necessary as demand would guarantee the wages to be above the required minimum anyway. However, the fluctiations in wages create a very unstable economic flow for individuals that is hard to cope with and creates a lot of unnecessary overhead. It is similar to your idea of voluntary tax. It just doesn't work. In times of need, people will have trouble looking past their own needs. I'd like you to provide a bit of research that shows it would work, and why.

 

[Danoff]

It is similar to your idea of voluntary tax.

I don't really have an idea about voluntary tax. My view is that charity should be run by private organizations rather than government. Donations can (and did) and do play the best role for charity because the money is spent efficiently and there will always be the bill gate's out there that donate millions upon millions of dollars. There was someone a year or two back that donated over a billion dollars to the red cross.

Ideally, that means that no minimum wage is necessary as demand would guarantee the wages to be above the required minimum anyway.

In fact, most wages are far above the minimum today.

If a company has 2 dollars per hour to give an employee for the job of taking out the trash or cleaning up spills and you say that it has to offer 6 dollars per hour for any job (and healthcare etc. etc) . It will simply get one of its current employees to do the job. You're not going to get a company to pay someone 6 dollars per hour to do a 2 dollar per hour job. They simply won't hire.

You're effectively telling people that they don't have a choice to work for that little. You saying:

"The government would rather you be unemployed than work for that little."

Because creating a minimum wage can only increase unemployment.

 

[xcsti]

The higher standard of living in Western countries have to be balanced by benefits of having the business in that country, in the form of higher quality personnel with better qualifications, better provisions, infrastructure, technological advantages and so on. Ideally, that means that no minimum wage is necessary as demand would guarantee the wages to be above the required minimum anyway.

Can middle management take up 200 some thing million jobs in the US. NO! There needs to be a broad spectrum of jobs, from the Johnny on the spot guy to millionare business man. People are needed to do the menial jobs which take no experience. Honestly If you flew in some guy from a third world country and had him mow your lawn do you think it would be all that different from the kid on your street who does it for candy money? Would you pay them the same?

Better infrastructure can help increase efficiency, but it is easier to go to a third world country and pay them 10 cents an hour to sew up your nikes. The higher standard of living in the US could be attributed to sub standard wages in third world countries, so maybe the US doesn't need a higher minimum wage but the countries we trade with should (china). That would then allow home grown companies the ability to compete. The truely superior product would win out.

I am kind of on the fence as it comes to raising minimum wages.

 

[Danoff]

so maybe the US doesn't need a higher minimum wage but the countries we trade with should (china). That would then allow home grown companies the ability to compete.

Or we could reduce or eliminate ours. That wouldn't affect very many jobs because right now very few jobs pay minimum wage.

Can middle management take up 200 some thing million jobs in the US. NO! There needs to be a broad spectrum of jobs, from the Johnny on the spot guy to millionare business man. People are needed to do the menial jobs which take no experience.

This acts as though we owe them somethng more than we do. They get paid what the market will bear (given the number of people willing to do the job). If nobody wanted to clean toilets then the few who did would get paid a rediculous amount of money. Fact is that lots of people are willing to do that - so they don't get paid much.

 

[Arwin]

Or we could reduce or eliminate ours. That wouldn't affect very many jobs because right now very few jobs pay minimum wage.

You could only compete with a country like China on wages alone if you're willing to lower the standard of living to the country you're competing with.

This acts as though we owe them somethng more than we do. They get paid what the market will bear (given the number of people willing to do the job). If nobody wanted to clean toilets then the few who did would get paid a rediculous amount of money. Fact is that lots of people are willing to do that - so they don't get paid much.

Correct. But if you want to maintain a certain standard of living, then you'll just have to let some jobs go, and replace them with others. There is nothing wrong with this - you know that the economy can grow and benefit from others, and so if this means a country with a lower standard of living can develop this can increase the world economy and will make them consumers for products that in turn you can develop for their market or knowledge and expertise you can export and sell.

 

[Danoff]

You could only compete with a country like China on wages alone if you're willing to lower the standard of living to the country you're competing with.

I don't know what you mean by on wages alone. If you take that part out of this sentence, though, this statement is not true.

Correct. But if you want to maintain a certain standard of living, then you'll just have to let some jobs go, and replace them with others.

Raising the minimum wage does not replace any jobs with any other jobs. It simply decreases the number of available jobs. I'm not willing to some people on the street to increase the standard of living of others when a free market would employ them all.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Hang on a sec.

Capitalism works it out on its own. If people can't get by on the amount of money that companies are paying them, then they won't work for those companies.

You're part of the system. Companies are fighting for your labor. They have to compete too, just like people trying to sell you something.


Here's the thing. What minimum wage does do is it prevents small buisnessmen (I happen to be related to one) from offering a low paying job to a highschooler so they he/she could get some extra change by doing some odd job. If you decide you want to go around the system and offer this below minimum wage job you have to worry about getting sued and going to jail and so forth.


There is no reason for a minimum wage at all... because companies need employees. Just ask yourselves why any job ever has a salary higher than minimum wage.

Umm, I know I'm coming in a little late here, but most companies are definitely NOT fighting for anyone's labour. In fact, they're fighting to find ways to pay their employees less. So many companies close down shop in North America and move production to other countries (in South America, Mexico, etc.) because it's cheaper to pay someone there to do the same job as someone up here.

If you don't get paid enough go work somewhere else isn't really sound advice. Companies don't care. There will ALWAYS be someone willing to work for less money than you, which is why there is a minimum wage in the first place, so it evens out the playing field.

If you got hired ad McDonalds in a non-minimum wage society, you might work there for a while, but say sales dropped a bit and McDonalds decided to pay employees less money to make up the difference. So you protest and quit, because it's bull****. But guess what? Someone else who hasn't had a job in half a year and is tired of eating cat food from a can will step right up and be more than willing to work for half of what McDonalds originally paid you.

 

[Danoff]

There will ALWAYS be someone willing to work for less money than you, which is why there is a minimum wage in the first place, so it evens out the playing field.

That's not true and that does not necessarily hurt you since you can probably do the job better and will EARN the extra money.

Someone else who hasn't had a job in half a year and is tired of eating cat food from a can will step right up and be more than willing to work for half of what McDonalds originally paid you.

If there are so many people out there dying for a job and willing to work for so little, why the hell do I see HELP WANTED at so many businesses?

If minimum wage works so well, why not just make it 50 bucks an hour so we can all be rich? And if minimum wage is so necessary, why do companies pay people any more than the bare minimum?

 

[milefile]

Earn? What is this "earn" you speak of? Don't I just get money because I was born?

 

[Anderton Prime]

If minimum wage works so well, why not just make it 50 bucks an hour so we can all be rich? And if minimum wage is so necessary, why do companies pay people any more than the bare minimum?

Because this would affect inflation, and pretty soon $50 would be worth as much as $7.00 is now.

I never see "help wanted" signs anywhere near where I live, which is a major urban area with a population of over 600,000 people. In fact, even if you go hunting for a job, there's no guarantee you'll get one. There is such a flood of high school students looking for jobs and vying for the same positions as other, older people, that landing a spot can be quite difficult.

 

[milefile]

I never see "help wanted" signs anywhere near where I live, which is a major urban area with a population of over 600,000 people. In fact, even if you go hunting for a job, there's no guarantee you'll get one. There is such a flood of high school students looking for jobs and vying for the same positions as other, older people, that landing a spot can be quite difficult.

Hm. Move to America then. If you want to work, that is. I get a couple calls a month from companies who want me to work for them. I can pick where I want to work. When I lost my job back in May it took me all of two weeks to replace it with a much better one. After another week I quit that one and took an even better one. It's competitive... for employers. They need to make me want to work for them. If you want to get paid you need to have somehting to sell besides a dumb stare and a sense of entitlement. Low wages are supposed to be a motivator for people to better themselves. How pathetic and boring would life be if everybody worked at McDonalds? How unfair would it be everybody made that kind of wage?

 

[Anderton Prime]

Hm. Move to America then. If you want to work, that is. I get a couple calls a month from companies who want me to work for them. I can pick where I want to work. When I lost my job back in May it took me all of two weeks to replace it with a much better one. After another week I quit that one and took an even better one. It's competitive... for employers. They need to make me want to work for them. If you want to get paid you need to have somehting to sell besides a dumb stare and a sense of entitlement. Low wages are supposed to be a motivator for people to better themselves. How pathetic and boring would life be if everybody worked at McDonalds? How unfair would it be everybody made that kind of wage?

Out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? Do you work for minimum wage? I suspect you don't, and that you have a skill that makes you both desirable and highly employable. I'm talking about unskilled labour, the kind that pays the absolute minimum amount per hour allowed by law.

 

[Danoff]

I never see "help wanted" signs anywhere near where I live, which is a major urban area with a population of over 600,000 people. In fact, even if you go hunting for a job, there's no guarantee you'll get one. There is such a flood of high school students looking for jobs and vying for the same positions as other, older people, that landing a spot can be quite difficult.

For the past 2 months the best buy nearest to my place has been handing out help wanted fliers as people walk in. I know of a grocery store with a sign that says "you're hired! inquire within for details".

I live in LA. The grocery stores near me needed help in a major way during the strikes. Lots and lots of people moved in on those opportunities while the other idiots walked around with picket signs.

Think it would be hard to get a job at McDonalds? Think it would be tough to find a job flipping burgers in some city somewhere in the US? Ever read the classifieds?


Do you think having a minimum wage at 6 bucks doesn't impact inflation while having it at 50 would?

I'm talking about unskilled labour, the kind that pays the absolute minimum amount per hour allowed by law.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most unskilled labor pays more than the minimum amount per hour allowed by law.

 

[milefile]

My brother never graduated high school and can easily get a job making 15.00 an hour to start. It's not glamorous work, and he gets dirty. But my dad did the dame work until he retired as the boss.

If you are content to work as an unskilled laborer for your entire life, have no plan to ever move on or better yourself or expect to be able to support a family on an unskilled labor job, you don't deserve to make as much as the guy who either learned a skill, trade, or discipline to have a competitive edge in the job market. Competition is all that makes the job market fair. It's the only reason anyone strives for anything better. Minimum wage jobs pay squat. That's why you're supposed to strive for better. In this way society improves itself through individuals working fo their own advantage.

To just give people more money for nothing is degenerate. For government to force it is corrupt.

 

[Anderton Prime]

Well guys, I guess you'll just have to deal with your corrupt government forcing a minimum wage, and danoff you disappoint me by calling pickiters idiots. A lot of workers don't have a choice when it comes to joining a union; they're simply forced to join or they can't work. So when a strike arises, they are also forced to participate if they want to get any money at all (well, up here in Canada you can get strike pay if the strike goes on for more than a week, I don't know how it is in the US).

Most of the time, the people you see on site holding picket signs aren't the ones who put the strike into action.

And I didn't say minimum wage has no effect on inflation, but I was responding to someone saying why not pay everyone $50.oo/hr as minimum wage and make everyone rich. Obviously this wouldn't work, as soon enough $50.00 would be worth as much as $7.00 is now.

 

[TheCracker]

Picketing/striking is the only way a huge amount of people can get their voices heard, i'm not saying that unions aren't without their corruptions, but letting the work-force have some sort of say over their companies actions is the only way they can protect themselves from being shafted. Laying people off or lowering their income is usually the first thing companies do when looking to cost-cut.

 

[milefile]

Laying people off or lowering their income is usually the first thing companies do when looking to cost-cut.

No it's not. It's the last thing they do.

 

[TheCracker]

...i think thats a little naive of you

 

[milefile]

...i think thats a little naive of you

So what? You're still wrong. Companies are seeking ways to cut costs every second of every day, they are obsessed with it. It is one of their primary functions and is essential to their bottom line. And yet, they rarely get rid of workers. How is this possible if it's the "first thing they do"?

 

[Danoff]

A lot of workers don't have a choice when it comes to joining a union; they're simply forced to join or they can't work.

I have a choice (as does everyone else). I will never in my life be part of a union.


How can I make that statement if there is no choice? (which is perfect for this thread).


Do you really believe that when it comes to joining unions some people are faced with starvation as the only alternative? - which would not be a real alternative

 

[Arwin]

...i think thats a little naive of you

Here's what I usually see here:

1. Cut non-personnel costs
2. Cancel temp jobs and/or do not replace personnel that leaves (for another company, to retire, etc.)
3. Reduce benefits
4. freeze wages (no compensation for inflation)
5. Fire lower level managers
6. Dump or sell 'unneeded' departments (includes 'voluntary' layoffs, silence usually bought by bribe money and letters of recommendation)
7. Firing people outright
8. Raising salaries of those responsible for 1-7

Of course, 8 is in fact carried out always, whether the year was good or bad. Argument used most frequently: wages are still very low compared to our international equavalents.