Minimum Wage Increase: They Never Talks About the SALES

[dblack]

Obviously the increase shouldn't be too big. It has to stay below skilled and educated workers. Otherwise the pay for them also has to go up and then yes there would be problems.

And the last thing we need is a well paid workforce.

Even if were government's job to decide how much people should get paid (and it's not), minimum wage laws to mandate how much low wage workers will get paid. They simply make it illegal for them to work for less. Can you understand that?

 

[LOki]

I know what the business term "productivity" means. What you "produce" may or may not be worth something. "Productivity" is not a synonym for "worth." Not even in business terms. Not the same thing. Not.

So, the question that the minimum wage proponents around here have been avoiding still stands unanswered: Do you object to to basing a worker's wage solely upon what the worker's work is worth? If so, please explain to me why.

Thank you.

How do YOU determine ''worth'', before I answer you?

I'm not about to determine for YOU or anyone else what's worth what, or how you and whoever you contract with determines that worth. None of my business.

The question is simple: Do you object to to basing a worker's wage solely upon what the worker's work is worth? YES or NO.

If not, please explain to me why.

Thank you.

<<Irrelevant blerf snipped>>​

so yes, I believe employers or business owners, should pay their employees on what they are "worth"....and when and if minimum wage goes up...has little, if anything, to do with it...

You have expressed more than once that wages should be based upon what the worker is worth.

I don't want to jump on your shit if you're just speaking imprecisely... do you believe a worker's wages should be based upon what the worker is worth, or what their work is worth?

It's one and the same for me...

Then if the work you assign to a person is worth $1, that person is worth $1 to you.

One and the same, right?

Interesting perspective.

 

[dblack]

Obviously the increase shouldn't be too big. It has to stay below skilled and educated workers. Otherwise the pay for them also has to go up and then yes there would be problems.

And the last thing we need is a well paid workforce.

Even if were government's job to decide how much people should get paid (and it's not), minimum wage laws to mandate how much low wage workers will get paid. They simply make it illegal for them to work for less. Can you understand that?

Re-reading this, I don't understand it.

I meant to say that minimum wages laws DON'T necessarily increase someone's wages. They just make it illegal for them to work for less. If whoever is paying their wages doesn't think their work is worth that much, they'll find another way.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just now, I saw another report about the topic of minimum wage increase. This one was on CNN, hosted by Julie Banderas. She was talking to Scott Gamm, of HelpSaveMyDollars.com, a financial website focused on helping consumers save and learn about money. They were talking about the recent 14-1 vote by the city of Los Angeles to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.

Scott might be well versed on various aspects pertaining to consumer finances but, on the minimum wage raise, he is waaay off the mark. He said three things about the minimum wage raise topic. And he was WRONG on all three. Gamm merely recited the 3 most commonly heard (and programmed) descriptions about minimum wage raises.

1. He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

2. He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.

3. He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ? Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away. Some businesses could do it. Not many.

So here's the real crux of all this. As in 1000 other media reports I've seen on minimum wage increases, the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$. All businesses get this, and generally it far outweighs labor increases, since the number of wage raised consumers (not just those at the minimum wage) by far outnumbers any one employer's workers who are getting wage increases.

Then there's also the fact that many business, while receiving this big SALES boost, do NOT have any wage loss at all. These are businesses who are mom & pop and have no employees, those whose workers are all working just on sales commission (car lots, furniture, real estate, insurance, etc), and third, those with skilled workers (ex. machine shops) whose workers all already get well over $15 hour, or whatever the MW would be raised to.

I think back to when I owned a business. I paid my commission salespeople $350/hour (in 2015 dollars), and they still were only receiving 15% of the sale. In all, I made fine profits and expanded the business. Biggest downer ? All the people who called in and said > "Sorry. I can't afford it." Of course they can't. Not one somebody out there is paying them a low minimum wage. To be successful in business, you have a lot fo things to do. But you can't do anything, if the public around you doesn't have money in their pockets to buy what you're trying to sell.

This is why Conservatives who support raising the MW nationwide, outnumber Conservatives who don't, 54% to 44%.

the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$.

If I pay my employees another $500,000 a year, are my sales supposed to increase by $500,000?
Is that supposed to be an even trade?

I don't understand how you can be so dense. The economic benefits of raising the minimum wage would occur because the change would happen in the entire economy. Overall, a good portion of the economy would have more disposable income, so yeah, business in general would see an increase in demand.

And as prices rise as they must all those people making above the proposed MW will see their buying power decrease.

It ain't rocket science

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just now, I saw another report about the topic of minimum wage increase. This one was on CNN, hosted by Julie Banderas. She was talking to Scott Gamm, of HelpSaveMyDollars.com, a financial website focused on helping consumers save and learn about money. They were talking about the recent 14-1 vote by the city of Los Angeles to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.

Scott might be well versed on various aspects pertaining to consumer finances but, on the minimum wage raise, he is waaay off the mark. He said three things about the minimum wage raise topic. And he was WRONG on all three. Gamm merely recited the 3 most commonly heard (and programmed) descriptions about minimum wage raises.

1. He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

2. He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.

3. He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ? Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away. Some businesses could do it. Not many.

So here's the real crux of all this. As in 1000 other media reports I've seen on minimum wage increases, the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$. All businesses get this, and generally it far outweighs labor increases, since the number of wage raised consumers (not just those at the minimum wage) by far outnumbers any one employer's workers who are getting wage increases.

Then there's also the fact that many business, while receiving this big SALES boost, do NOT have any wage loss at all. These are businesses who are mom & pop and have no employees, those whose workers are all working just on sales commission (car lots, furniture, real estate, insurance, etc), and third, those with skilled workers (ex. machine shops) whose workers all already get well over $15 hour, or whatever the MW would be raised to.

I think back to when I owned a business. I paid my commission salespeople $350/hour (in 2015 dollars), and they still were only receiving 15% of the sale. In all, I made fine profits and expanded the business. Biggest downer ? All the people who called in and said > "Sorry. I can't afford it." Of course they can't. Not one somebody out there is paying them a low minimum wage. To be successful in business, you have a lot fo things to do. But you can't do anything, if the public around you doesn't have money in their pockets to buy what you're trying to sell.

This is why Conservatives who support raising the MW nationwide, outnumber Conservatives who don't, 54% to 44%.

the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$.

If I pay my employees another $500,000 a year, are my sales supposed to increase by $500,000?
Is that supposed to be an even trade?

I don't understand how you can be so dense. The economic benefits of raising the minimum wage would occur because the change would happen in the entire economy. Overall, a good portion of the economy would have more disposable income, so yeah, business in general would see an increase in demand.

And as prices rise as they must all those people making above the proposed MW will see their buying power decrease.

It ain't rocket science

for some reason they can not comprehend it

 

[Care4all]

How do YOU determine ''worth'', before I answer you?

I'm not about to determine for YOU or anyone else what's worth what, or how you and whoever you contract with determines that worth. None of my business.

The question is simple: Do you object to to basing a worker's wage solely upon what the worker's work is worth? YES or NO.

If not, please explain to me why.

Thank you.

<<Irrelevant blerf snipped>>​

so yes, I believe employers or business owners, should pay their employees on what they are "worth"....and when and if minimum wage goes up...has little, if anything, to do with it...

You have expressed more than once that wages should be based upon what the worker is worth.

I don't want to jump on your shit if you're just speaking imprecisely... do you believe a worker's wages should be based upon what the worker is worth, or what their work is worth?

It's one and the same for me...

Then if the work you assign to a person is worth $1, that person is worth $1 to you.

One and the same, right?

Interesting perspective.

no Loki, it's you that imagines such...

I wouldn't hire a worker if I only needed them for $1 worth of work, and have to pay the mandatory benefits and taxes on them etc, would you?

BEFORE the decision is made to even hire someone I know what the work value is that I expect him to bring....employees are NOT added and hired Willy nilly....it's not guess work and not something to take lightly.

The workers worth is one and the same as the works worth.... how do you separate that?

If the worker is not worth the works worth....why hire them in the first place?

 

[Care4all]

Just now, I saw another report about the topic of minimum wage increase. This one was on CNN, hosted by Julie Banderas. She was talking to Scott Gamm, of HelpSaveMyDollars.com, a financial website focused on helping consumers save and learn about money. They were talking about the recent 14-1 vote by the city of Los Angeles to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.

Scott might be well versed on various aspects pertaining to consumer finances but, on the minimum wage raise, he is waaay off the mark. He said three things about the minimum wage raise topic. And he was WRONG on all three. Gamm merely recited the 3 most commonly heard (and programmed) descriptions about minimum wage raises.

1. He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

2. He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.

3. He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ? Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away. Some businesses could do it. Not many.

So here's the real crux of all this. As in 1000 other media reports I've seen on minimum wage increases, the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$. All businesses get this, and generally it far outweighs labor increases, since the number of wage raised consumers (not just those at the minimum wage) by far outnumbers any one employer's workers who are getting wage increases.

Then there's also the fact that many business, while receiving this big SALES boost, do NOT have any wage loss at all. These are businesses who are mom & pop and have no employees, those whose workers are all working just on sales commission (car lots, furniture, real estate, insurance, etc), and third, those with skilled workers (ex. machine shops) whose workers all already get well over $15 hour, or whatever the MW would be raised to.

I think back to when I owned a business. I paid my commission salespeople $350/hour (in 2015 dollars), and they still were only receiving 15% of the sale. In all, I made fine profits and expanded the business. Biggest downer ? All the people who called in and said > "Sorry. I can't afford it." Of course they can't. Not one somebody out there is paying them a low minimum wage. To be successful in business, you have a lot fo things to do. But you can't do anything, if the public around you doesn't have money in their pockets to buy what you're trying to sell.

This is why Conservatives who support raising the MW nationwide, outnumber Conservatives who don't, 54% to 44%.

the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$.

If I pay my employees another $500,000 a year, are my sales supposed to increase by $500,000?
Is that supposed to be an even trade?

I don't understand how you can be so dense. The economic benefits of raising the minimum wage would occur because the change would happen in the entire economy. Overall, a good portion of the economy would have more disposable income, so yeah, business in general would see an increase in demand.

And as prices rise as they must all those people making above the proposed MW will see their buying power decrease.

It ain't rocket science

and MW workers are just 5 percent or so of the working population....what happens when the other 95 percent gets their yearly raises? Are prices raised and this inflation put on the spending power of the MW worker only...year after year after year after year after year?

 

[LOki]

I'm not about to determine for YOU or anyone else what's worth what, or how you and whoever you contract with determines that worth. None of my business.

The question is simple: Do you object to to basing a worker's wage solely upon what the worker's work is worth? YES or NO.

If not, please explain to me why.

Thank you.

<<Irrelevant blerf snipped>>​

so yes, I believe employers or business owners, should pay their employees on what they are "worth"....and when and if minimum wage goes up...has little, if anything, to do with it...

You have expressed more than once that wages should be based upon what the worker is worth.

I don't want to jump on your shit if you're just speaking imprecisely... do you believe a worker's wages should be based upon what the worker is worth, or what their work is worth?

It's one and the same for me...

Then if the work you assign to a person is worth $1, that person is worth $1 to you.

One and the same, right?

Interesting perspective.

no Loki, it's you that imagines such...

I'm not imagining anything... you were clear and unambiguous.

I wouldn't hire a worker if I only needed them for $1 worth of work, and have to pay the mandatory benefits and taxes on them etc, would you?

BEFORE the decision is made to even hire someone I know what the work value is that I expect him to bring....employees are NOT added and hired Willy nilly....it's not guess work and not something to take lightly.

I suspect you have a disingenuous motive for insisting upon over-complicating the point with all these distractions; "mandatory benefits and taxes, etc.."

The question is simple: Why not base a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

The workers worth is one and the same as the works worth.... how do you separate that?

Because if I want a particular bit of work done, I can hire any worker that can do it... if I want to hire a particular worker, I cannot just hire any worker. Workers and their work are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

How can you not parse the distinction?

If the worker is not worth the works worth....why hire them in the first place?

I'm not hiring to get workers, I'm hiring to get work done. The two are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

You obviously object to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth; you wouldn't obfuscate the point so much if it were otherwise.

Tell me, exactly what is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

 

[Care4all]

Ha, they do that anyway. So don't worry about the whiny hype. They'll be angry about it for a short time, and then they'll shut up and move on. The sky won't be falling. Bet on that.

And teenagers will find it just a bit harder to get that first job, and unemployment among the young will increase just a bit more, but we don't care about that, because we feel good about ourselves. And again, why not just raise it to $100/hr?

All that's gonna happen regardless of paying workers better. We've got Millions & Millions of Illegals invading. Good-paying jobs are gonna become harder & harder to find. And once this current President's disastrous trade deal is passed, American Workers will struggle even more.

And btw, your beloved Republicans are strongly behind the President's current trade deal proposal. So, paying workers a bit more isn't gonna significantly alter anything. The course has been set. We're heading down that road.

So why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

Are you seriously frightened they'll raise Minimum Wage to $100 an hr? If so, why?

I'm pointing out that claiming a MW increase never costs jobs is ludicrous. If that were true, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? The fact that no one wants to deal with the question is telling.

this $100 an hour crud is just a strawman argument....

minimum wage hikes have not caused inflation and have not caused unemployment to go up in the overall economy, every time it has happened because it is raised minimally....no one is planning on raising the federal minimum wage to $100 an hour because its utterly ridiculous and it would hurt the economy.

Raising the minimum wage, over a few years time, to $10 an hour, won't hurt our economic machine overall....just as it has not hurt the economy previous times.... going straight to $15 an hour for the Nation in one scoop WOULD have negative effects in the economy...

 

[Care4all]

<<Irrelevant blerf snipped>>​

so yes, I believe employers or business owners, should pay their employees on what they are "worth"....and when and if minimum wage goes up...has little, if anything, to do with it...

You have expressed more than once that wages should be based upon what the worker is worth.

I don't want to jump on your shit if you're just speaking imprecisely... do you believe a worker's wages should be based upon what the worker is worth, or what their work is worth?

It's one and the same for me...

Then if the work you assign to a person is worth $1, that person is worth $1 to you.

One and the same, right?

Interesting perspective.

no Loki, it's you that imagines such...

I'm not imagining anything... you were clear and unambiguous.

I wouldn't hire a worker if I only needed them for $1 worth of work, and have to pay the mandatory benefits and taxes on them etc, would you?

BEFORE the decision is made to even hire someone I know what the work value is that I expect him to bring....employees are NOT added and hired Willy nilly....it's not guess work and not something to take lightly.

I suspect you have a disingenuous motive for insisting upon over-complicating the point with all these distractions; "mandatory benefits and taxes, etc.."

The question is simple: Why not base a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

The workers worth is one and the same as the works worth.... how do you separate that?

Because if I want a particular bit of work done, I can hire any worker that can do it... if I want to hire a particular worker, I cannot just hire any worker. Workers and their work are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

How can you not parse the distinction?

If the worker is not worth the works worth....why hire them in the first place?

I'm not hiring to get workers, I'm hiring to get work done. The two are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

You obviously object to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth; you wouldn't obfuscate the point so much if it were otherwise.

Tell me, exactly what is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

As I have said many times, I do...
the worker's worth to me IS the work expected from him and done by him....I don't know how they can be separated?

And I don't know why you are even making this an issue....?

Sure the worker may go through a period where they are not producing the work I hired him to cover, especially during training periods.....perhaps then, I am paying the employee for what they ARE GOING TO BE WORTH but not for the actual work produced.

I am not going to pay him LESS than what I hired him for during this training period because he is not producing the work to cover his salary....

 

[LOki]

You have expressed more than once that wages should be based upon what the worker is worth.

I don't want to jump on your shit if you're just speaking imprecisely... do you believe a worker's wages should be based upon what the worker is worth, or what their work is worth?

It's one and the same for me...

Then if the work you assign to a person is worth $1, that person is worth $1 to you.

One and the same, right?

Interesting perspective.

no Loki, it's you that imagines such...

I'm not imagining anything... you were clear and unambiguous.

I wouldn't hire a worker if I only needed them for $1 worth of work, and have to pay the mandatory benefits and taxes on them etc, would you?

BEFORE the decision is made to even hire someone I know what the work value is that I expect him to bring....employees are NOT added and hired Willy nilly....it's not guess work and not something to take lightly.

I suspect you have a disingenuous motive for insisting upon over-complicating the point with all these distractions; "mandatory benefits and taxes, etc.."

The question is simple: Why not base a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

The workers worth is one and the same as the works worth.... how do you separate that?

Because if I want a particular bit of work done, I can hire any worker that can do it... if I want to hire a particular worker, I cannot just hire any worker. Workers and their work are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

How can you not parse the distinction?

If the worker is not worth the works worth....why hire them in the first place?

I'm not hiring to get workers, I'm hiring to get work done. The two are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

You obviously object to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth; you wouldn't obfuscate the point so much if it were otherwise.

Tell me, exactly what is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

As I have said many times, I do...
the worker's worth to me IS the work expected from him and done by him....I don't know how they can be separated?

And I don't know why you are even making this an issue....?

Sure the worker may go through a period where they are not producing the work I hired him to cover, especially during training periods.....perhaps then, I am paying the employee for what they ARE GOING TO BE WORTH but not for the actual work produced.

I am not going to pay him LESS than what I hired him for during this training period because he is not producing the work to cover his salary....

Fine.

Then we agree.

You also said:

I believe employers or business owners, should pay their employees on what they are "worth"....and when and if minimum wage goes up...has little, if anything, to do with it...

If the work you have is worth is less than the statutory minimum wage, and you have a worker willing to do the work for what it is worth, how is it possible that the minimum wage has little to do with how much you pay him?

It would be a crime to pay him what his work is worth; so if you pay him the minimum wage, the "worker's worth" has NOTHING to do with his wages, and the statutory minimum wage has EVERYTHING to do with his wages.

Correct?

 

[hadit]

Yeah. They always plug their ears on this one. Make it really hard to take them seriously.

It's true because it hasn't ever been raised to $100. We have lots of history to look at, job losses have not happened. Seattle is raising min wage now with no problems.

Then answer the question. But you won't, will you? Seriously, if you really think minimum wages laws don't cause any problems, is there any good reason not to raise it to $100/hr?

Lots of good reasons. It has to stay below wages of the skilled and educated.

Why? that seems like a very random excuse. You keep insisting that we can raise it with no problem. So, why not really raise it? The answer, of course, is that you know we can't without destroying jobs and the economy, so any increase will have to be small enough as to ultimately not matter very much. Face reality, MW will never be able to get high enough for a single wage earner to support a spouse, much less a family. You will forever be complaining that it's too low.

Obviously the increase shouldn't be too big. It has to stay below skilled and educated workers. Otherwise the pay for them also has to go up and then yes there would be problems.

Problems? You mean the destruction of jobs, companies, and the economy.

ANY increase effects more than just those at the current MW. If you go from $7/hr to $15/hr, for example, you're going to effect all those who earn anything less than $15/hr, and that's a lot of people. This all goes to demonstrate that there ARE limits to increasing the MW, and raising it DOES impact jobs. The larger the increase, the larger the impact.

 

[hadit]

How do YOU determine ''worth'', before I answer you?

I'm not about to determine for YOU or anyone else what's worth what, or how you and whoever you contract with determines that worth. None of my business.

The question is simple: Do you object to to basing a worker's wage solely upon what the worker's work is worth? YES or NO.

If not, please explain to me why.

Thank you.

<<Irrelevant blerf snipped>>​

so yes, I believe employers or business owners, should pay their employees on what they are "worth"....and when and if minimum wage goes up...has little, if anything, to do with it...

You have expressed more than once that wages should be based upon what the worker is worth.

I don't want to jump on your shit if you're just speaking imprecisely... do you believe a worker's wages should be based upon what the worker is worth, or what their work is worth?

It's one and the same for me...

Then if the work you assign to a person is worth $1, that person is worth $1 to you.

One and the same, right?

Interesting perspective.

It doesn't reflect on the worth of a person, but on the skills and experience that person brings to the job.

 

[airplanemechanic]

But that is very job specific.

I have 2 college degrees, an airplane mechanics license and a pilots licence. I used to work at a corporate jet hangar until I finally had enough of the hours and the bosses and so I finally left. Over there, my pilots license and mechanics license made me very valuable. I was compensated very well, but I also had very little if any free time.

I got another job at another company far out of my area of expertise. While my college degree was worth a little bit, my mechanics license was worth nothing. So I took a substantial pay cut when I first started working here. I had to EARN my pay raises with good work performance, punctual arrivals every day, etc etc.

They did not feel that I was worth as much to them as my old bosses did. And no law should be able to change that. I basically had to "work my way up the corporate ladder" a second time.

 

[Care4all]

It's one and the same for me...

Then if the work you assign to a person is worth $1, that person is worth $1 to you.

One and the same, right?

Interesting perspective.

no Loki, it's you that imagines such...

I'm not imagining anything... you were clear and unambiguous.

I wouldn't hire a worker if I only needed them for $1 worth of work, and have to pay the mandatory benefits and taxes on them etc, would you?

BEFORE the decision is made to even hire someone I know what the work value is that I expect him to bring....employees are NOT added and hired Willy nilly....it's not guess work and not something to take lightly.

I suspect you have a disingenuous motive for insisting upon over-complicating the point with all these distractions; "mandatory benefits and taxes, etc.."

The question is simple: Why not base a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

The workers worth is one and the same as the works worth.... how do you separate that?

Because if I want a particular bit of work done, I can hire any worker that can do it... if I want to hire a particular worker, I cannot just hire any worker. Workers and their work are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

How can you not parse the distinction?

If the worker is not worth the works worth....why hire them in the first place?

I'm not hiring to get workers, I'm hiring to get work done. The two are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

You obviously object to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth; you wouldn't obfuscate the point so much if it were otherwise.

Tell me, exactly what is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

As I have said many times, I do...
the worker's worth to me IS the work expected from him and done by him....I don't know how they can be separated?

And I don't know why you are even making this an issue....?

Sure the worker may go through a period where they are not producing the work I hired him to cover, especially during training periods.....perhaps then, I am paying the employee for what they ARE GOING TO BE WORTH but not for the actual work produced.

I am not going to pay him LESS than what I hired him for during this training period because he is not producing the work to cover his salary....

Fine.

Then we agree.

You also said:

I believe employers or business owners, should pay their employees on what they are "worth"....and when and if minimum wage goes up...has little, if anything, to do with it...

If the work you have is worth is less than the statutory minimum wage, and you have a worker willing to do the work for what it is worth, how is it possible that the minimum wage has little to do with how much you pay him?

It would be a crime to pay him what his work is worth; so if you pay him the minimum wage, the "worker's worth" has NOTHING to do with his wages, and the statutory minimum wage has EVERYTHING to do with his wages.

Correct?

I don't expect an employee newly hired to give me the output that he is going to give me with time on the job...I don't expect their skills to be stagnate, I expect improvement every day they work for me.... his or her improvements, will cover any minimal minimum wage hike... my job is to make certain the employee is improving and becoming more valuable with time, with or without a minimum mandatory wage..... if they are not, then bye bye....

On new hires after a minimum wage hike, I will hire them if I know they can produce what it takes to cover them in my budget and I would expect them to exceed that....in time... Why hire someone who could not meet these measures?

And this is probably one of the reasons teen unemployment is high....I dunno? The people being hired are the creme of the crop, or have the potential of being the creme of the crop, from where I am sitting....some teens have what it takes, but most don't....

so maybe people like me are part of the problem with their U/E being so high??? I dunno?

Even in a McDonald's, all workers behind the counter, though all being paid the same MW, I can identify immediately who are the creme, with simply how they service me and those around me, and if done so with a smile....

Maybe businesses that don't see the importance and value in hiring good employees from the get go, will have a problem with a minimum wage hike because their employees were never good employees with potential? That is the fault of the employer...

 

[Brain357]

It's true because it hasn't ever been raised to $100. We have lots of history to look at, job losses have not happened. Seattle is raising min wage now with no problems.

Then answer the question. But you won't, will you? Seriously, if you really think minimum wages laws don't cause any problems, is there any good reason not to raise it to $100/hr?

Lots of good reasons. It has to stay below wages of the skilled and educated.

Why? that seems like a very random excuse. You keep insisting that we can raise it with no problem. So, why not really raise it? The answer, of course, is that you know we can't without destroying jobs and the economy, so any increase will have to be small enough as to ultimately not matter very much. Face reality, MW will never be able to get high enough for a single wage earner to support a spouse, much less a family. You will forever be complaining that it's too low.

Obviously the increase shouldn't be too big. It has to stay below skilled and educated workers. Otherwise the pay for them also has to go up and then yes there would be problems.

Problems? You mean the destruction of jobs, companies, and the economy.

ANY increase effects more than just those at the current MW. If you go from $7/hr to $15/hr, for example, you're going to effect all those who earn anything less than $15/hr, and that's a lot of people. This all goes to demonstrate that there ARE limits to increasing the MW, and raising it DOES impact jobs. The larger the increase, the larger the impact.

If it goes up it won't be to $15. Maybe 10. Not sure how it will go up at all with repubs runining congress.

 

[LOki]

Then if the work you assign to a person is worth $1, that person is worth $1 to you.

One and the same, right?

Interesting perspective.

no Loki, it's you that imagines such...

I'm not imagining anything... you were clear and unambiguous.

I wouldn't hire a worker if I only needed them for $1 worth of work, and have to pay the mandatory benefits and taxes on them etc, would you?

BEFORE the decision is made to even hire someone I know what the work value is that I expect him to bring....employees are NOT added and hired Willy nilly....it's not guess work and not something to take lightly.

I suspect you have a disingenuous motive for insisting upon over-complicating the point with all these distractions; "mandatory benefits and taxes, etc.."

The question is simple: Why not base a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

The workers worth is one and the same as the works worth.... how do you separate that?

Because if I want a particular bit of work done, I can hire any worker that can do it... if I want to hire a particular worker, I cannot just hire any worker. Workers and their work are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

How can you not parse the distinction?

If the worker is not worth the works worth....why hire them in the first place?

I'm not hiring to get workers, I'm hiring to get work done. The two are OBVIOUSLY NOT the same thing.

You obviously object to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth; you wouldn't obfuscate the point so much if it were otherwise.

Tell me, exactly what is your objection to basing a worker's wages solely upon what the worker's work is worth?

As I have said many times, I do...
the worker's worth to me IS the work expected from him and done by him....I don't know how they can be separated?

And I don't know why you are even making this an issue....?

Sure the worker may go through a period where they are not producing the work I hired him to cover, especially during training periods.....perhaps then, I am paying the employee for what they ARE GOING TO BE WORTH but not for the actual work produced.

I am not going to pay him LESS than what I hired him for during this training period because he is not producing the work to cover his salary....

Fine.

Then we agree.

You also said:

I believe employers or business owners, should pay their employees on what they are "worth"....and when and if minimum wage goes up...has little, if anything, to do with it...

If the work you have is worth is less than the statutory minimum wage, and you have a worker willing to do the work for what it is worth, how is it possible that the minimum wage has little to do with how much you pay him?

It would be a crime to pay him what his work is worth; so if you pay him the minimum wage, the "worker's worth" has NOTHING to do with his wages, and the statutory minimum wage has EVERYTHING to do with his wages.

Correct?

I don't expect an employee newly hired to give me the output that he is going to give me with time on the job...I don't expect their skills to be stagnate, I expect improvement every day they work for me.... his or her improvements, will cover any minimal minimum wage hike... my job is to make certain the employee is improving and becoming more valuable with time, with or without a minimum mandatory wage..... if they are not, then bye bye....

This is obvious nonsense. If you needed work done--even if that work was worth only $1/hr--you would hire someone to do that work, and you would pay that person the statutory minimum wage or better, or that work would not get done. FACT.

Doing so, you would necessarily have to underpay others (particularly those worth more than the minimum wage) to subsidize over-paying for the work worth $1/hr. FACT.

Your only work-around, is to use someone already hired at wages equal or better than the statutory minimum; pulling them from the valuable work you hired them for, reducing their productivity--their worth--to a point below the wage you're paying. FACT.

Statutory minimum wage necessarily results in work devaluation, hence wage devaluation. FACT.

On new hires after a minimum wage hike, I will hire them if I know they can produce what it takes to cover them in my budget and I would expect them to exceed that....in time... Why hire someone who could not meet these measures?

Because if you expect to get work done, someone will have to do it; and if you are legislatively obligated to pay them more than their work is worth, you will do it. FACT.

And this is probably one of the reasons teen unemployment is high....I dunno? The people being hired are the creme of the crop, or have the potential of being the creme of the crop, from where I am sitting....some teens have what it takes, but most don't....

so maybe people like me are part of the problem with their U/E being so high??? I dunno?

Even in a McDonald's, all workers behind the counter, though all being paid the same MW, I can identify immediately who are the creme, with simply how they service me and those around me, and if done so with a smile....

Maybe businesses that don't see the importance and value in hiring good employees from the get go, will have a problem with a minimum wage hike because their employees were never good employees with potential? That is the fault of the employer...

In the presence of a statutory minimum wage, the "worker's worth" has virtually NOTHING to do with his wages, but the statutory minimum wage has EVERYTHING to do with his wages.

The effect of minimum wage laws is to require employers to view employees less like a resource that contributes value, and much more like a cost center.

I know that you view employees as such, you described it for me in detail. Didn't you?

 

[LOki]

And teenagers will find it just a bit harder to get that first job, and unemployment among the young will increase just a bit more, but we don't care about that, because we feel good about ourselves. And again, why not just raise it to $100/hr?

All that's gonna happen regardless of paying workers better. We've got Millions & Millions of Illegals invading. Good-paying jobs are gonna become harder & harder to find. And once this current President's disastrous trade deal is passed, American Workers will struggle even more.

And btw, your beloved Republicans are strongly behind the President's current trade deal proposal. So, paying workers a bit more isn't gonna significantly alter anything. The course has been set. We're heading down that road.

So why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether?

Are you seriously frightened they'll raise Minimum Wage to $100 an hr? If so, why?

I'm pointing out that claiming a MW increase never costs jobs is ludicrous. If that were true, why not just raise it to $100/hr and eliminate poverty altogether? The fact that no one wants to deal with the question is telling.

this $100 an hour crud is just a strawman argument....

minimum wage hikes have not caused inflation and have not caused unemployment to go up in the overall economy, every time it has happened because it is raised minimally....no one is planning on raising the federal minimum wage to $100 an hour because its utterly ridiculous and it would hurt the economy.

Raising the minimum wage, over a few years time, to $10 an hour, won't hurt our economic machine overall....just as it has not hurt the economy previous times.... going straight to $15 an hour for the Nation in one scoop WOULD have negative effects in the economy...

Patently wrong.

Before you produce data to support your obviously wrong assertions, make sure it is corrected for the effects of counter-inflation and counter-unemployment policies in place at the same time. Good luck.

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS contributes to unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Minimum wage laws ALWAYS result in inflation. They necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If they were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased... yet again!

 

[paulitician]

Fact is, since the Minimum Wage has existed, more Millionaires & Billionaires have been created in this country than ever before in history. Businesses have not only survived, they've thrived. So there is no evidence whatsoever that the Minimum Wage causes any perceptible negative impact on the Economy. All the gloom & doom 'Sky is Falling' predictions really are B.S. They've always been proven to be B.S. And this time will be no different.

The Wage will go up, and Businesses will be fine. In my own personal opinion, i think the Minimum Wage should be somewhere between $10-$12. $15 may be a bit much. I think $10-$12 is a survivable wage. But even at that, it will still be a struggle. So don't count on Minimum Wage for your survival. Get educated and skilled. That's the best way to go.

 

[LOki]

Fact is, since the Minimum Wage has existed, more Millionaires & Billionaires have been created in this country than ever before in history. Businesses have not only survived, they've thrived. So there is no evidence whatsoever that the Minimum Wage causes any perceptible negative impact on the Economy. All the gloom & doom 'Sky is Falling' predictions really are B.S. They've always been proven to be B.S. And this time will be no different.

The Wage will go up, and Businesses will be fine. In my own personal opinion, i think the Minimum Wage should be somewhere between $10-$12. $15 may be a bit much. I think $10-$12 is a survivable wage. But even at that, it will still be a struggle. So don't count on Minimum Wage for your survival. Get educated and skilled. That's the best way to go.

Before you produce data to support your obviously wrong assertions, make sure it is corrected for the effects of counter-inflation and counter-unemployment policies in place at the same time. Good luck.

Minimum wage laws cannot create jobs, they can ONLY outlaw them. Minimum wage laws demand that workers willing to accept wages less than the minimum wage are barred from such contracts. It is compulsory unemployment. Statutory minimum wage ALWAYS contributes to unemployment.

There is no escape from the objective fact of economic reality that minimum wage laws devalue wages. You simply cannot avoid devaluing wages when you make $1/hr work cost the same as $15/hr work. It's just not possible.

Adding new dollars to the economy by increasing the minimum wage beyond what the work is worth is not the same thing as creating new wealth. Minimum wage laws ALWAYS result in inflation. They necessarily must.

These realities are inescapable, and it is why minimum wage ponzi schemes ALWAYS fail.

If they were not always failures--if they did not always result in unemployment and inflation--minimum wage proponents would not always be demanding that the minimum wage be increased... yet again!