Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
...Who the heck are you to decide that carrying drywall is worth whatever some bureaucrat says it is worth?
Or collect nails left on the jobsite"
Or getting coffee for workers? ...
Political Chick, The minimum benchmark affects all wage rates but does not affect them all equally.
Prior to this message, nothing you wrote of Ms. Elzie Higginbottom construction enterprises was germane to the federal minimum wage laws.
I dont suppose you have ever carried wall board, lifted it up to and affixed it to ceilings for an entire working day. (Ive done so).
If Higginbottoms an experienced general contractor, she knows that if you trust more demanding tasks to severly underpaid employees, the damage induced by such extremely inadequate compensation would exceed any possibly hoped for net cost reductions due to an extremely unrealistic pay scale. This is relatively valid within the USA or a nation that enforces no minimum wage.
This is not germane to the discussion of the FMW. The FMW is the legally mandated minimum rate regardless of the tasks demands.
Tasks such as construction clean up or doing the coffee run or working as a flagman on mild spring days at comparatively safer less polluted surroundings are not very demanding tasks are the tasks directly related to our discussion of the FMW rate.
I addressed less demanding jobs such as these within the first post of another thread.
Excerpted from:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/232006-consequences-of-repealing-minimum-wage-rates.html
There are many job tasks that do not justify the minimum rate but they now exist because their performance is necessary to our public or private enterprises. Those jobs will continue to exist but their wage levels will plunge down to sub-minimum rates.
Sub-minimum jobs will be the vast majority of additional jobs created and (because many of those qualified to perform sub-minimum tasks were previously not qualified for employment at minimum wage rates), well have a pool of eligible labor that will far exceed the number of those additional jobs.
The affect of those extremely poor paying jobs will ripple throughout our entire labor market. All labor compensation will be somewhat affected but the general extent of the effect upon a tasks wage rate will be inversely related to the difference between the purchasing power of the eliminated minimum wage rate and the jobs rate; (i.e. the more youre earning, the less youre hurting. Thats the meaning of minimum wage rates inverse affect upon all jobs rates).
Lower wage earners will all then be paid in wages of extremely poor purchasing power. Prior to the elimination of the minimum wage rate, many of those now earning the lesser purchasing powered wages will have been unemployed or not worked steadily but they will be joined by those who already had been the working poor and some who were previously getting by slightly better. Therell be net increased needs for public assistance and our states cant now handle the present needs.
Thats a scenario of increased national poverty.
I m a proponent of an annually cost of living adjusted minimum wage rate similar to the annually COLAd Social Security benefits.
Respectfully, Supposn
Research published in 2010 by economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser concluded that if the federal minimum wage were increased from $7.25 per hour to $9.50 per hour (remember that the president's proposal is to increase the minimum wage to $9 per hour), only 11.3 percent of workers who would gain from the increase belong to poor households.
Why?
First, many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners -- an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers younger than age 25 make up only about 20 percent of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal.
The case for a higher minimum wage grows even weaker when you stop to consider that there are vastly superior alternatives for steering money to low-income households. For example, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that expanding the earned income tax credit is a much more efficient way to fight poverty than increasing the minimum wage.
Why have we so often embraced a less effective tool? A tax credit is less politically palatable because it takes money directly out of federal coffers, while the minimum wage can be raised without it showing up directly on the government's books. The cost of a higher wage is borne by employers and consumers -- and by the unfortunate people who end up not working because of it.
It is also important to consider the president's proposal to increase the minimum wage in the context of today's labor market. The unemployment rate for African-American teenagers stands at a staggeringly high 43.1 percent. For white teenagers, the unemployment rate is 22.1 percent; a little more than 11 percent of workers older than 25 and without a high school diploma are unemployed.
To put these numbers in perspective, overall unemployment at the height of the Depression was about 25 percent. Especially for low-skill workers and for young workers, the two groups of workers who will be disproportionately hit by a minimum-wage increase, ours is a labor market in crisis. Increasing the cost of job creation now is unwise.
Why we shouldn't raise the minimum wage - South Bend Tribune
Political Chick, you are entitled to an opinion but Im not?
You are well aware the U.S. Congress, (our elected officials) determined our federal minimum wage, (FMW); theyre not bureaucrats; the FMW does not determine compensation for any particular job or task. It is the legally enforced minimum rate for all jobs regardless of what their tasks require.
Youre post does yourself an injustice, pretending ignorance by writing "...Who the heck are you to decide that carrying drywall is worth whatever some bureaucrat says it is worth?"
We agree that political determination of wages minimum bench mark is not desirable.
The reasons why Im among proponents of the FMW annually adjusted to the U.S. dollars purchasing power rather than eliminating the FMW were explained within post #100 of this thread.
Respectfully, Supposn
Political Chick, you are entitled to an opinion but Im not?
You are well aware the U.S. Congress, (our elected officials) determined our federal minimum wage, (FMW); theyre not bureaucrats; the FMW does not determine compensation for any particular job or task. It is the legally enforced minimum rate for all jobs regardless of what their tasks require.
Youre post does yourself an injustice, pretending ignorance by writing "...Who the heck are you to decide that carrying drywall is worth whatever some bureaucrat says it is worth?"
We agree that political determination of wages minimum bench mark is not desirable.
The reasons why Im among proponents of the FMW annually adjusted to the U.S. dollars purchasing power rather than eliminating the FMW were explained within post #100 of this thread.
Respectfully, Supposn
I think that you all should take jobs below the minimum wage. See how it works for you.
Then try and wonder whether you will be able to bargain, as a single laborer, with those corporations who have largely monopoly control over the labor market.
And wonder, why it is, that the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking as your favorite politicians try to keep the minimum wage as small as possible.
And explain to me why I should worry about a company that feels it can not pay the minimum wage.
I think that you all should take jobs below the minimum wage. See how it works for you.
Then try and wonder whether you will be able to bargain, as a single laborer, with those corporations who have largely monopoly control over the labor market.
And wonder, why it is, that the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking as your favorite politicians try to keep the minimum wage as small as possible.
And explain to me why I should worry about a company that feels it can not pay the minimum wage.
I've held a minimum wage job before. I studied and worked hard and relocated myself to a higher paying job. Just because there are loads of people who lack ambition and motivation, is not cause for me to be forced to subsidize them with a living wage on the very same job I used to have. Come on, nobody owes you a living if you choose the easy road over the substantially harder one. Losers without ambition not succeeding is their problem, not mine.
I think that you all should take jobs below the minimum wage. See how it works for you.
Then try and wonder whether you will be able to bargain, as a single laborer, with those corporations who have largely monopoly control over the labor market.
And wonder, why it is, that the middle class keeps shrinking and shrinking as your favorite politicians try to keep the minimum wage as small as possible.
And explain to me why I should worry about a company that feels it can not pay the minimum wage.
I've held a minimum wage job before. I studied and worked hard and relocated myself to a higher paying job. Just because there are loads of people who lack ambition and motivation, is not cause for me to be forced to subsidize them with a living wage on the very same job I used to have. Come on, nobody owes you a living if you choose the easy road over the substantially harder one. Losers without ambition not succeeding is their problem, not mine.
I also have held minimum wage jobs before--I've taken minimum wage jobs long after I was qualified for much higher wages because we were in a new place and I needed a foot in the door. And after I worked my way into the top wage brackets for my area, I have still worked for considerably less than minimum wage by choice--due to temporary circumstances--on more than one occasion.
But I, and most likely you, knew I wouldn't have to stay at minimum wage for long. By demonstrating an exemplary work ethic, marketable skills, and value to my employer, I was always able to work up to a living wage fairly quickly even if I had no prior experience in a particular business. My employer wanted to keep me around and paid what he or she could to keep me. But without ability to take a fairly low minimum wage, I never would have been given the opportunity to prove myself.
The employer will take a chance at a low wage. Make the minimum wage too high though, and the employer is far less likely to give somebody a chance. They'll wait for the employee who already has the experience and proven track record.
Right now we have a substantial percentage of the work force who won't take any work lest they lose the very generous government benefits they are receiving. The working poor also receive substantial government benefits which lowers their incentive to qualify for better wages.
Before minimum wage there was always a lot of fluidity between rich and poor with people being able to move between various wage levels fairly easily. After minimum wage, it was more difficult for the more unemployable and when they can get a whole lot more by not working than they can make at or near minimum wage, they won't even try. And each time minimum wage has increased, so has the poverty threshhold.
It can become a viscious cycle that encourages long term dependency. A far more humane policy is to promote and encourage people to prepare themselves with marketable skills, acquire a work ethic, develop references, and an expectation that they will support themselves.
I've held a minimum wage job before. I studied and worked hard and relocated myself to a higher paying job. Just because there are loads of people who lack ambition and motivation, is not cause for me to be forced to subsidize them with a living wage on the very same job I used to have. Come on, nobody owes you a living if you choose the easy road over the substantially harder one. Losers without ambition not succeeding is their problem, not mine.
I also have held minimum wage jobs before--I've taken minimum wage jobs long after I was qualified for much higher wages because we were in a new place and I needed a foot in the door. And after I worked my way into the top wage brackets for my area, I have still worked for considerably less than minimum wage by choice--due to temporary circumstances--on more than one occasion.
But I, and most likely you, knew I wouldn't have to stay at minimum wage for long. By demonstrating an exemplary work ethic, marketable skills, and value to my employer, I was always able to work up to a living wage fairly quickly even if I had no prior experience in a particular business. My employer wanted to keep me around and paid what he or she could to keep me. But without ability to take a fairly low minimum wage, I never would have been given the opportunity to prove myself.
The employer will take a chance at a low wage. Make the minimum wage too high though, and the employer is far less likely to give somebody a chance. They'll wait for the employee who already has the experience and proven track record.
Right now we have a substantial percentage of the work force who won't take any work lest they lose the very generous government benefits they are receiving. The working poor also receive substantial government benefits which lowers their incentive to qualify for better wages.
Before minimum wage there was always a lot of fluidity between rich and poor with people being able to move between various wage levels fairly easily. After minimum wage, it was more difficult for the more unemployable and when they can get a whole lot more by not working than they can make at or near minimum wage, they won't even try. And each time minimum wage has increased, so has the poverty threshhold.
It can become a viscious cycle that encourages long term dependency. A far more humane policy is to promote and encourage people to prepare themselves with marketable skills, acquire a work ethic, develop references, and an expectation that they will support themselves.
Wow....the victimologists HATE posts like your's and tj's...
Here's another:
1. For a real-world perspective on the American ethic, find the Alan Shepard book, Scratch Beginnings, in which the author recounts his own social experiment, at age 24, starting out at the lowest rung of the economic ladder. The question: could he conquer poverty in one year at his best efforts?
2. He left his home with nothing but a tarp, sleeping bag, an empty gym bag, the clothes on his back, and $25. The went to Charleston, South Carolina a city where he had never been before, and where he knew nobody. He didnt use his college education as a resume, nor any family or other contacts.
3. The first night he finds the Crisis Ministries homeless shelter, and, next morning, begins working odd jobs. Within a few weeks, he gets a regular job with a moving company. He moonlights on weekends to make extra money.
4. He makes friends and contacts, and these help him to find jobs and housing Within five months, he gets a raise from the moving company to $10/ hour. And another, to $11/hour in less than nine months.
5. Progress was retarded by breaking his foot on the job, yet by three months he was able to move out of the homeless shelter and rent a room in a large house in an upscale part of town. (It was owned by a friend he met while working a second job on weekends.) Then, just a month later, he moved into a two-bedroom duplex with the cousin of one of his co-workers. It was a bit rundown, so the two of them spent a week-end making it like new. (His share was $325 because he took the master bedroom.)
6. After just ten months he was living in his own furnished apartment, with his own car, and he had $5,300 in savings.
a. The book also tells of other low-income people he met, and how they, also, would like a safety net second to their own work,
Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream [Paperback]
Adam W. Shepard (Author)
Respectfully, who is a senator or congressman to dictate what a component of labor is worth? The only ones who should determine that are the a) the laborer who has his labor to sell to the highest bidder and b) the employer who will pay the laborer. ...
throughout all USA governments, (from our levels of federal down to towns and villages), there are precedents of governments determinations of publics vital interests
Respectfully, who is a senator or congressman to dictate what a component of labor is worth? The only ones who should determine that are the a) the laborer who has his labor to sell to the highest bidder and b) the employer who will pay the laborer. ...
Foxfryre, throughout all USA governments, (from our levels of federal down to towns and villages), there are precedents of governments’ determinations of public’s vital interests having precedence over what otherwise would be contracts among consenting private entities.
In the case of federal minimum wage laws, it was not “a senator or congressman” (that chose) “to dictate what a component of labor is worth?”.
The decision was made to enact a minimum rate applicable to wages and salaries as described in the federal law. (Because the law only specifies a MINIMUM rate, it does not prevent states from enacting a higher rate within their own jurisdictions).
The federally enforced minimum rates may be described as the equivalent of a minimum priced tasks’ worth. For all other tasks the minimum is not their market priced worth; it’s only a minimum bench mark.
The United State’s majority of the house and the majority of the senate and the president all agreed that the public’s interest takes precedence over any agreement between employers and employees that specifies less than the FMW’s rate for jobs within federal jurisdiction.
The federal minimum wage laws were not determined by “a senator or congressman” (that chose) “to dictate what a component of labor is worth?”.
Why do you and political Chick embarrass yourselves by pretending to be ignorant of these facts? I suppose you both to be more knowledgable.
Respectfully, Supposn
Really? Those federal laws just materialize out of thin air? They magically appear on the books just because of some noble cosmic decision that an hour's worth of work, regardless of the work, should be X dollars? No senator or representative had to write them and submit them to a vote?
And what is the purpose of the benchmark of which you speak? Public interest? Or public pleasing? If it is to provide a living wage, why not make the benchmark a living wage? And I'm sure some cosmic intelligence would write down that figure too so the senators and representatives, whether federal or state, would not have to soil their hands creating it.
And of course we don't even talk about those who can't or won't qualify for it.
Who is embarrassing who here?
I worked for the New Mexico State Police when in HS and over summers in college and did a little contract work for the tourist division.
I drew 2 weeks of unemployment once--I was unemployed due to hubby's transfer to a tiny town with extremely limited employment opportunities. I managed to snag a part time job before I drew my first unemployment check--the state insisted on sending me the two weeks it took to find the job though. I think I collected $150 in all.
I was between jobs once and accepted a local government contract to run a county wide survey on domestic violence. It took about a month total to complete and I was paid $2,500.
Other than that I have been on my own, without any government help, my entire working life. It never occurred to me that the government should pay me anything just because I'm me. It never occurred to me that anybody owed me a certain level of wage or a job at all. I always knew it was up to me to make it profitable for somebody to hire me. Why should anybody hire me if I was going to cost them money or created a higher risk for them than any profit they could hope to earn?
And where is it written that I can ethically demand that any of you support me in any way? On what basis can I lay claim to anything that you have? I figure if you hire me and I do the job, you have to pay me. But that's all you owe.
