Minimum Wage

[BobK]

It won't happen because of the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Much as I admire the sentiment behind the idea, I can't agree with it. I agree there's a huge income gap and it's getting worse but trying to legislate it won't work, as well as being (IMO) morally wrong. The issue will eventually be rectified, I have no doubt. What I don't know is how bloody the solution will be.

 

[Keef]

So although it's slightly off-topic, how would you summarise your positions on the possibility of a maximum wage?

It's immoral and wrong. Requiring a person to work for less than what he may be worth, less than what an employer may be willing to pay, and disallowing him to negotiate for his compensation violates his rights to liberty, if not also property.

Same goes for minimum wage. It's simply wrong to dictate what a person is worth in the market, whether it be minimum or maximum. The market must decide what they're worth, and the person must negotiate for what they think they're worth.

 

[wfooshee]

There is no such thing as entitlement. Simple as that.

Those who complain about the wealth being held by the few are your basic crybabies. They may feel that they're in a dead-end job with no future, no hope for betterment, and somebody ought to do something about that. Why is that "somebody" always somebody else?

I myself struggle to make ends meet. I work for a family-owned small business (<30 employees) and am not a member of the family, so how high can I go in this thing? I didn't finish college but I make an above-average income for my area, because I've developed my skills along some natural aptitudes I discovered while I was in college, struggling to pay tuition.

I take a decent photograph once in a while, and I've wondered if perhaps I might ought to try that for a living, rather than what I do. Maybe it would make better money, maybe I would lose my shirt (and my house, and my car, etc.)

The reason I don't move that way is the risk. I'm simply not willing to take the risk of packing it in and starting over.

The 99%-ers claiming they're not getting what they're worth, that life isn't fair, should ask themselves what risk they've taken with their fortunes, what successes they've had with those risks, and what rewards from those successes they actually should be receiving.

I don't resent the man who runs the business I work for just because he has more money than I have even though my labors have contributed siginificantly to his success. He took all the risks, made all the investments required for the authorizations we have, paid all the bills, and gives me a fair shake for what I do for him. All I've done is screw computer networks together for a while, and fix the ones that don't work right. I haven't risked anything a day in my life, while his management efforts have kept his business profitably running through some very trying times. He's entitled to everything he has, if not more.

Granted, even my boss is not one of the 1%-ers, but the principle is the same, if not the scale.

 

[hambone8611]

There is no such thing as entitlement. Simple as that.

Those who complain about the wealth being held by the few are your basic crybabies. They may feel that they're in a dead-end job with no future, no hope for betterment, and somebody ought to do something about that. Why is that "somebody" always somebody else?

I myself struggle to make ends meet. I work for a family-owned small business (<30 employees) and am not a member of the family, so how high can I go in this thing? I didn't finish college but I make an above-average income for my area, because I've developed my skills along some natural aptitudes I discovered while I was in college, struggling to pay tuition.

I take a decent photograph once in a while, and I've wondered if perhaps I might ought to try that for a living, rather than what I do. Maybe it would make better money, maybe I would lose my shirt (and my house, and my car, etc.)

The reason I don't move that way is the risk. I'm simply not willing to take the risk of packing it in and starting over.

The 99%-ers claiming they're not getting what they're worth, that life isn't fair, should ask themselves what risk they've taken with their fortunes, what successes they've had with those risks, and what rewards from those successes they actually should be receiving.

I don't resent the man who runs the business I work for just because he has more money than I have even though my labors have contributed siginificantly to his success. He took all the risks, made all the investments required for the authorizations we have, paid all the bills, and gives me a fair shake for what I do for him. All I've done is screw computer networks together for a while, and fix the ones that don't work right. I haven't risked anything a day in my life, while his management efforts have kept his business profitably running through some very trying times. He's entitled to everything he has, if not more.

Granted, even my boss is not one of the 1%-ers, but the principle is the same, if not the scale.

I own a small contracting business and would appreciate it if you would come talk to my employees

 

[wfooshee]

My consulting fee wil be . . . . .

 

[hampus_dh]

To fuel the fire going on in this forum right now I decided to ask everyone what they thought of minimum wage.

Personally I hate it and think there should be no minimum wage.

What do you think?

Why would you hate that? If anything it stops corporations paying out pays that families can´t support themselves on.

 

[Azuremen]

The reason I don't move that way is the risk. I'm simply not willing to take the risk of packing it in and starting over.

The 99%-ers claiming they're not getting what they're worth, that life isn't fair, should ask themselves what risk they've taken with their fortunes, what successes they've had with those risks, and what rewards from those successes they actually should be receiving.

This is a huge piece of the puzzle a lot of people seem to be missing. People like Jobs, Allen, Gates, etc. all risked quite a bit by dropping out of school, couch surfing, or claiming they had programs they hadn't even started on.

I mean, Allen wrote the loader for their program, which they had never really tested on the intended platform, in flight to the meeting for it. And it worked. If it had failed, the prospect company would have realized him and Gates had been talking out their asses the whole time and things would be a lot different than they are today.

A lot of the very wealthy risked quite a bit to be where they are. Sure, some were born into it, but that means their parents likely made all the hard choices and there isn't a reason their children shouldn't benefit. And those that make these risks and end up owning large companies tend to employ a lot of people - MS has over 90,000 employees. Those jobs likely wouldn't exist if Gates hadn't taken those risks early on, etc. Mean while, the majority of those employees likely went to college for 4 years, got a degree, and have had a stable job for the past how ever many years.

High risk, high reward. This is something StarCraft taught me

 

[Danoff]

Why would you hate that? If anything it stops corporations paying out pays that families can´t support themselves on.

It prevents companies from hiring as many people as they otherwise could, and eliminates entire categories of jobs that would otherwise enable people to more easily gain experience and become qualified for higher paying jobs.

As we speak, jack in the box is attempting to replace cashiers with machines. This has some to do with minimum wage (and a lot to do with health care demands). Grocery stores have started replacing cashiers with machines as well. When was the last time you saw a cashier for every aisle at the grocery store? They can't staff that many people anymore because they cost too much (health care demands act exactly like minimum wage in this discussion). We all wait in line or check our own groceries as a result while the people who might have gotten a job as a cashier are perhaps sitting at home watching The Price is Right cashing unemployment checks (no they're not living on the street).

So why don't I like minimum wage? It puts people out of work and distorts economic signals.

 

[hampus_dh]

It prevents companies from hiring as many people as they otherwise could, and eliminates entire categories of jobs that would otherwise enable people to more easily gain experience and become qualified for higher paying jobs.

As we speak, jack in the box is attempting to replace cashiers with machines. This has some to do with minimum wage (and a lot to do with health care demands). Grocery stores have started replacing cashiers with machines as well. When was the last time you saw a cashier for every aisle at the grocery store? They can't staff that many people anymore because they cost too much (health care demands act exactly like minimum wage in this discussion). We all wait in line or check our own groceries as a result while the people who might have gotten a job as a cashier are perhaps sitting at home watching The Price is Right cashing unemployment checks (no they're not living on the street).

So why don't I like minimum wage? It puts people out of work and distorts economic signals.

In the stores i go to we have at most 1 "quick cash isle"

And if the person buying the stuff needs help? I´ll be darn if someone pops up and helps them..
IKEA has this aswell here, i think they have out of 10 isles they have maybe 2 fast isles.
With 2 or 3 guys just standing there looking at you and wondering if you need any help.
When was the last time you even saw all cashiers open?
In Sweden that is a very rare thing.

What puts people out of work is when a company can hire 5 mexicans for the price of one American.

That´s the real problem. I bet those mexicans barely can pay their rent aswell but then again they live in a suburb that reminds me of El Salvador.

 

[Azuremen]

hampus_dh... there are so many things wrong with all of what you just said it blows my mind. Not to mention what you experience over there has nothing to do with how things are working over here... most major stores have automated check out, and several lanes for that, while they are pulling back on how many people they have waiting to check people out.

And large stores can't employee Mexicans any cheaper than Americans because they will get checked for having eligible employees that are legal, etc.

 

[hambone8611]

It prevents companies from hiring as many people as they otherwise could, and eliminates entire categories of jobs that would otherwise enable people to more easily gain experience and become qualified for higher paying jobs.

As we speak, jack in the box is attempting to replace cashiers with machines. This has some to do with minimum wage (and a lot to do with health care demands). Grocery stores have started replacing cashiers with machines as well. When was the last time you saw a cashier for every aisle at the grocery store? They can't staff that many people anymore because they cost too much (health care demands act exactly like minimum wage in this discussion). We all wait in line or check our own groceries as a result while the people who might have gotten a job as a cashier are perhaps sitting at home watching The Price is Right cashing unemployment checks (no they're not living on the street).

So why don't I like minimum wage? It puts people out of work and distorts economic signals.

I don’t care much for minimum wage because it has a way of turning summer jobs into long term employment for people that should do better for themselves and their kids by finding jobs of greater value that being said I can find no truth in your post. Business have been replacing men with machines long before minimum wage was around and grocery stores that can afford to have self checkers pay way above minimum wage and I say with complete confidence minimum wage prevents nobody from being employed, and economic signals, gimme a break

 

[Danoff]

What puts people out of work is when a company can hire 5 mexicans for the price of one American.

When was the last time you saw a plethora of employees working for a large American company? When was the last time you said to yourself "there are so many people working here!". If the problem was illegal immigration (which it's not, for many reasons), that's what you'd see - lots of employees that didn't speak English. Instead you find no employees.

I don’t care much for minimum wage because it has a way of turning summer jobs into long term employment for people that should do better for themselves and their kids by finding jobs of greater value that being said I can find no truth in your post. Business have been replacing men with machines long before minimum wage was around and grocery stores that can afford to have self checkers pay way above minimum wage and I say with complete confidence minimum wage prevents nobody from being employed, and economic signals, gimme a break

I've lost work to minimum wage. So has my wife. You cannot tell me that minimum wage doesn't eliminate jobs. It flat out does. Not only does it HAVE to economically, but I've seen it firsthand.

The grocery stores basically have a higher-than-federal minimum wage dictated by unions. It's a fantastic example of what minimum wage does because it's exaggerated.

 

[hambone8611]

When was the last time you saw a plethora of employees working for a large American company? When was the last time you said to yourself "there are so many people working here!". If the problem was illegal immigration (which it's not, for many reasons), that's what you'd see - lots of employees that didn't speak English. Instead you find no employees.



I've lost work to minimum wage. So has my wife. You cannot tell me that minimum wage doesn't eliminate jobs. It flat out does. Not only does it HAVE to economically, but I've seen it firsthand.

The grocery stores basically have a higher-than-federal minimum wage dictated by unions. It's a fantastic example of what minimum wage does because it's exaggerated.

It seems to me you should explore the possibility you just weren’t worth minimum wage

 

[Azuremen]

It seems to me you should explore the possibility you just weren’t worth minimum wage

I've worked with many people that are worth less than minimum wage, and they often end up being let go or fired. Many people think they are entitled to just receive pay for showing up and putting in as little effort as possible. I'm college educated, have a considerable sum of skills for a person without a degree, and I've worked a huge range of jobs. The number of people I've found in minimum wage jobs that put forth virtually no effort.

And also, Danoff is, if I recall correctly, in aerospace now. He is likely referring to college days.

 

[Danoff]

It seems to me you should explore the possibility you just weren’t worth minimum wage

I wasn't, I was worth less than minimum wage. And so instead of being gainfully employed at less than minimum wage, I was not employed at all (ie: minimum wage kills jobs)

And also, Danoff is, if I recall correctly, in aerospace now. He is likely referring to college days.

...before then. In college I made almost $2 an hr more than minimum wage.

 

[Danoff]

If the minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation, it would be $24/hr today. So raising it to $15/hr over five years is hardly onerous on small businesses.

You have to assume it wasn't onerous before to come to this conclusion. If it was onerous before, then adjusting it for inflation can make it onerous now.

Time and again, whenever the minimum wage is increased, spending goes up which means jobs increase.

Broken window fallacy.

The fact is, if you can’t afford to pay your employees $15/hr, then you have a failing business.

No, you have a business that is predicated on cheap labor. That's not a failing business, that's a business model which does not thrive in the presence of a high minimum wage.

 

[Keef]

No, you have a business that is predicated on cheap labor.

You have a business that is predicated on predatory labor, using and abusing employees, systematically destroying their self-worth, and knowingly not offering them enough to satisfy their basic human needs.

Humans are greedy and hateful by nature, all of us, and it's time to accept that fact. If humans refuse to come together as nations to govern themselves collectively through unnatural legislation then humans will destroy themselves slowly but surely, because humans hate other humans and will refuse to share what they've earned, or more appropriately what they've probably simply taken.

We need to be governed and there must be rules otherwise the haves will exterminate the have-nots not because it's a good decision but because they can and it feels good to be in charge.

 

[Danoff]

You have a business that is predicated on predatory labor, using and abusing employees, systematically destroying their self-worth, and knowingly not offering them enough to satisfy their basic human needs.

Humans are greedy and hateful by nature, all of us, and it's time to accept that fact.

Greedy, maybe. Hateful, not by a long shot.

If humans refuse to come together as nations to govern themselves collectively through unnatural legislation then humans will destroy themselves slowly but surely, because humans hate other humans and will refuse to share what they've earned, or more appropriately what they've probably simply taken.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but it'll be one more. You create your own wealth. No need to share, you make it out of nothing.

 

[Joey D]

So I don't know much about minimum wage, but it seems to me that it should be up to the states to decide on if they're going to have a minimum wage and if so, then what it is. Having a federal minimum wage doesn't make much sense considering $15 an hour in California is pretty much worthless and $15 in the backwoods of Arkansas would probably allow you to live large.

 

[Exorcet]

The fact is, if you can’t afford to pay your employees $15/hr, then you have a failing business.

You have a business that is predicated on predatory labor, using and abusing employees, systematically destroying their self-worth, and knowingly not offering them enough to satisfy their basic human needs.

Just to pipe in here, I've been on/off looking for a second job. Of course more hourly pay would be better, but I've been making estimates on the added income that I could get and things look pretty good without even approaching $15/hr. I don't see how you could point to a single number and declare that anything below that is exploitation. Being able to offer my service for less money is a potential advantage for me.

I kind of wish I had my expenses from university saved somewhere. I worked over the summer to help cover day to day expenses and even with inflation it's not like $15/hr is a tipping point. It's more than I made for sure, and more is better, but getting a job for less than that would still have let me get by in my situation.

Humans are greedy and hateful by nature, all of us, and it's time to accept that fact. If humans refuse to come together as nations to govern themselves collectively through unnatural legislation then humans will destroy themselves slowly but surely, because humans hate other humans and will refuse to share what they've earned, or more appropriately what they've probably simply taken.

Well how are the laws even going to work then. They'll be corrupt because the people making them are greedy and hateful. Society only works because people care for each other, although different people do to different degrees.

 

[GranTurNismo]

So I don't know much about minimum wage, but it seems to me that it should be up to the states to decide on if they're going to have a minimum wage and if so, then what it is. Having a federal minimum wage doesn't make much sense considering $15 an hour in California is pretty much worthless and $15 in the backwoods of Arkansas would probably allow you to live large.

Even "being up to the states" is too vague, because most states have COLs that vastly differ from place to place. I mentioned the "60% rule" around here before, as in 60% of the median wages of a given place, which seems to be a satisfactory way of determine minimum wages. Also, I stress that minimum wage should be completely kept out of the hands of politicians. It should be automatically increased to match the given area's price level and worker productivity rates (which have steadily increased over the decades), so that the possibility of the minimum wage being lower than a living wage is eliminated.

 

[Danoff]

Even "being up to the states" is too vague, because most states have COLs that vastly differ from place to place. I mentioned the "60% rule" around here before, as in 60% of the median wages of a given place, which seems to be a satisfactory way of determine minimum wages. Also, I stress that minimum wage should be completely kept out of the hands of politicians. It should be automatically increased to match the given area's price level and worker productivity rates (which have steadily increased over the decades), so that the possibility of the minimum wage being lower than a living wage is eliminated.

A lot of times, it ends up unpaid. An unpaid internship is the way to get your foot in the door when you can't convince an employer to pay you big bucks. Instead of making $5/hr in an internship, they make $0/hr.

This is helping people?

 

[GranTurNismo]

An unpaid internship is the way to get your foot in the door when you can't convince an employer to pay you big bucks. Instead of making $5/hr in an internship, they make $0/hr.

No? I thought the purpose of an unpaid internship is to gain skills that can be applied to future jobs. Which is why most of them are high-school or college students, and the people who apply for these positions are not expecting pay. I've had a few unpaid internships before and the purpose was skill-development and learning (and, of course, to put on a college resume), not as a failed attempt to get a job. Are you trying to conflate unpaid internships with actual jobs? Besides, how does that have anything to do with what you quoted?

 

[Danoff]

No? I thought the purpose of an unpaid internship is to gain skills that can be applied to future jobs. Which is why most of them are high-school or college students, and the people who apply for these positions are not expecting pay. I've had a few unpaid internships before and the purpose was skill-development and learning (and, of course, to put on a college resume), not as a failed attempt to get a job. Are you trying to conflate unpaid internships with actual jobs? Besides, how does that have anything to do with what you quoted?

...in otherwords... to get your foot in the door? Which is exactly what I said.

Why is not not ok to pay someone $5 to do "skill development" or "learn" even for future jobs? Whether that job is with the current "employer" of the internship or not, what difference does that make? How is $0/hr better than $5/hr?

 

[GranTurNismo]

...in otherwords... to get your foot in the door? Which is exactly what I said.

Why is not not ok to pay someone $5 to do "skill development" or "learn" even for future jobs? Whether that job is with the current "employer" of the internship or not, what difference does that make? How is $0/hr better than $5/hr?

You have a point. I'm on the fence when it comes to internships and pay. Like I said, many internships are considered to be volunteer work and their participants to do not enter expecting any compensation. I'll go as far as to say that most interns probably do not accept the position in hopes of eventually gaining a job from that employer, but simply to gain skills and expertise. For internships that I have done (for my district representative, and for an affordable housing developer), I do not plan to work for these employers in the future. Though, labor is still labor, and it could be argued that all labor is worthy of compensation. But, the key difference is that an internship is for gaining skills, and a job is for supporting yourself.

 

[Danoff]

Though, labor is still labor, and it could be argued that all labor is worthy of compensation.

Not really no. Labor is worthy of compensation to the extent that it creates value.

But, the key difference is that an internship is for gaining skills, and a job is for supporting yourself.

Why can't that be every job that pays less than what you want to support yourself?

 

[GranTurNismo]

Why can't that be every job that pays less than what you want to support yourself?

It's not "less than what I want", but less than they can afford to live on, as in meet basic expenses, for their respective productivity. I'm unclear as to what exactly you're asking.

 

[Danoff]

It's not "less than what I want", but less than they can afford to live on, as in meet basic expenses, for their respective productivity. I'm unclear as to what exactly you're asking.

Why is it that you view unpaid work as a stepping stone to future sufficient compensation, but not low paid work? You don't stop gaining skills and improving your opportunities and potential to create future value simply because someone hands you a few bucks.

 

[Joey D]

Unpaid internships are a joke, at least in the field I'm in. It's getting free labor out of someone while they do 80% of what I do. That isn't ideal, but the older generation has pushed onto the younger generation so much that they need to do this it's become the norm for college kids. I never took an unpaid internship and the only "free" work I ever did was on an archaeology project that I was interested in. Sure I gained experience, but it was more of a volunteer thing than anything else. No one should work for free though unless it's volunteer work, with how the economy is setup in the US, you exchange goods/services for money, which means you're exchanging your time, effort, knowledge, etc. for a paycheck. I suppose the only stipulation would be is if you're earning college credits in your internship since you're getting something in return.

Thankfully, where I'm at now pays their interns based on where they land in the organization. It's not a ton of money, but the one intern we had was making enough to pay for schooling and we offer college credits too. I really liked them and they were a great worker who picked up things really quickly. Unfortunately, they had zero plans to stay in Utah and moved as soon as they graduated.

Even "being up to the states" is too vague, because most states have COLs that vastly differ from place to place. I mentioned the "60% rule" around here before, as in 60% of the median wages of a given place, which seems to be a satisfactory way of determine minimum wages. Also, I stress that minimum wage should be completely kept out of the hands of politicians. It should be automatically increased to match the given area's price level and worker productivity rates (which have steadily increased over the decades), so that the possibility of the minimum wage being lower than a living wage is eliminated.

I don't know, even at 60%, you're not going to make a living wage. In Salt Lake City, the median income is $31,000 which means the minimum wage would be $18,600 or about $9 an hour at 40 hours per week before the city, state, and federal taxes. You're not living in SLC for $9 an hour and the likelihood you even find someone to rent you a studio apartment is low and that's if you can find a place to rent in the first place. Even if you were working 80 hours a week that's less than $38,000 a year and that's might be just enough to score you a studio apartment in a "bad" area. Even then you're still shelling out at least $1,000 a month for rent.

It seems like we should be looking at how to decrease the cost of living instead of setting a number people should get paid. If everyone working was suddenly making more money, there would be more demand for things, and prices would go up. That would put us right back to square one where people. There would also, inevitably, be the company that cuts hours so they don't have to pay a certain wage to their employees. I know that's not exactly the best business strategy but it has to work on some level since companies do it.

 

[Danoff]

Unpaid internships are a joke, at least in the field I'm in. It's getting free labor out of someone while they do 80% of what I do. That isn't ideal, but the older generation has pushed onto the younger generation so much that they need to do this it's become the norm for college kids. I never took an unpaid internship and the only "free" work I ever did was on an archaeology project that I was interested in. Sure I gained experience, but it was more of a volunteer thing than anything else. No one should work for free though unless it's volunteer work, with how the economy is setup in the US, you exchange goods/services for money, which means you're exchanging your time, effort, knowledge, etc. for a paycheck. I suppose the only stipulation would be is if you're earning college credits in your internship since you're getting something in return.

Thankfully, where I'm at now pays their interns based on where they land in the organization. It's not a ton of money, but the one intern we had was making enough to pay for schooling and we offer college credits too. I really liked them and they were a great worker who picked up things really quickly. Unfortunately, they had zero plans to stay in Utah and moved as soon as they graduated.



I don't know, even at 60%, you're not going to make a living wage. In Salt Lake City, the median income is $31,000 which means the minimum wage would be $18,600 or about $9 an hour at 40 hours per week before the city, state, and federal taxes. You're not living in SLC for $9 an hour and the likelihood you even find someone to rent you a studio apartment is low and that's if you can find a place to rent in the first place. Even if you were working 80 hours a week that's less than $38,000 a year and that's might be just enough to score you a studio apartment in a "bad" area. Even then you're still shelling out at least $1,000 a month for rent.

It seems like we should be looking at how to decrease the cost of living instead of setting a number people should get paid. If everyone working was suddenly making more money, there would be more demand for things, and prices would go up. That would put us right back to square one where people. There would also, inevitably, be the company that cuts hours so they don't have to pay a certain wage to their employees. I know that's not exactly the best business strategy but it has to work on some level since companies do it.

There are a lot of ideas I dislike but like better than minimum wage. Ideas like subsidized housing, "earned income" tax credits, welfare, and food stamps.

Perhaps we should just offer government work to everyone that wants it for some basic wage level. That would effectively set a floor for other employers, and at least those people could gain skills and become employed in the future.

I'm imagining some kind of $10/hr government "internship" which includes mostly basic education and job training for adults. Honestly I'd rather that the government paid people directly than that it set a wage floor.