Oregon raises min wage

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oregon lawmakers approve landmark minimum wage increase

I wonder if the same idiots that whine now about the min wage sound like the idiots that whined the apocalypse was going to happen when it was raised to its current wage.....anyways good for Oregon residents,maybe now they can make ends meet a little better.

actually it might be better for residents of one state.
products that come from other states will still be produced at the lower pay rates so the price of goods wont go up.
However, if all states do it, then the price of goods goes up accordingly and the increase in minimum wage will for the most part be eaten up by inflation.
And, while the minimum wage goes up, the wages of workers already at or above that pay rate will most likely not see an increase so their standard of living will go down as prices go up.
But, for one state to do it? Yes, the people will most likely see favorable results overall.

Goods come into a state via truck or train. In most cases, they go to warehouses where people have to unload the truck, process the paperwork, and then separate the items into groups.

From there, the groups of goods are shipped by truck to various locations and stores. Once again, the truck has to get unloaded, paperwork has to be completed, and every item on each pallet has to be accounted for.

From there, stock personnel have to take those pallets of goods and stock the shelves.

So there are still costs to consider that higher minimum wages will reflect. But whatever advantage there is, there is a loss since manufacturers will avoid such areas in which to produce. In the long term, it will be a net loss when you consider the jobs. After all, minimum wage increases affect more places than McDonald's. Industry too uses minimum wage workers.

 

[Rustic]

Company's will start moving out of Oregon and reconsider moving there...

No reason for them to move as the ball has started rolling already. It's just a matter of time until other states begin to follow.

Name one employer that went bankrupt because they paid their employees too much.

It's called too much overhead... It happens all the time.

It's called too much overhead... It happens all the time.

Then reduce your overhead. I did. I bought my suppliers.

Now, name one company that went bankrupt because they paid their employees too much. Good luck.

Too many too list...

 

[OnePercenter]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Because they save money that way, that's why.

You only need so much experience to wash floors or clean toilets. If such a person leaves the job, then the employer will simply hire somebody else at minimum wage to do the same job.

Bosses respect good workers--especially those that work without the consideration of pay. I remember during the Reagan recession where there weren't any jobs at all--not even McDonald's jobs.

I too was out of work, so I joined a temporary service. My first job with them was at a factory where they sent seven of us to the business. The supervisor was an ex-military guy. I was a 20 some year old with long hair and tee shirt. The supervisor gave us a little lecture about the company and the job as we stood in a line like boot camp. When he got to me, he said "Do you even know how to work???"

He ate his words. After the first day, two workers didn't return. After all, it was a minimum wage job. The next day, two walked off of the job. At the end of the job, I was the last one he let go. On my way out, he stopped me at the door. With a bit of shame, he asked if I would return when the economy got better to apply for a full time job. He said he could really use a worker like me.

Long story short, a former co-worker of mine got me into his company when the economy turned around. It had to go through corporate where they called my last places of employment for references. I was told through the grape vine that the temporary service I worked for gave me an A+ reference.

Because they save money that way, that's why.

You never save money by replacing workers. Any good employer hires, trains, nurturer's their employees.

That's why I highlighted monkey jobs to make the point. If there is any kind of training or learning involved, then of course the employer usually increases wages above minimum.

That's why I highlighted monkey jobs to make the point. If there is any kind of training or learning involved, then of course the employer usually increases wages above minimum.

The fact that you use the term 'monkey jobs' tells me that you are completely ignorant of the importance of every worker.

 

[OnePercenter]

No reason for them to move as the ball has started rolling already. It's just a matter of time until other states begin to follow.

Name one employer that went bankrupt because they paid their employees too much.

It's called too much overhead... It happens all the time.

It's called too much overhead... It happens all the time.

Then reduce your overhead. I did. I bought my suppliers.

Now, name one company that went bankrupt because they paid their employees too much. Good luck.

Too many too list...

Too many too list...

There aren't any.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Because they save money that way, that's why.

You only need so much experience to wash floors or clean toilets. If such a person leaves the job, then the employer will simply hire somebody else at minimum wage to do the same job.

Bosses respect good workers--especially those that work without the consideration of pay. I remember during the Reagan recession where there weren't any jobs at all--not even McDonald's jobs.

I too was out of work, so I joined a temporary service. My first job with them was at a factory where they sent seven of us to the business. The supervisor was an ex-military guy. I was a 20 some year old with long hair and tee shirt. The supervisor gave us a little lecture about the company and the job as we stood in a line like boot camp. When he got to me, he said "Do you even know how to work???"

He ate his words. After the first day, two workers didn't return. After all, it was a minimum wage job. The next day, two walked off of the job. At the end of the job, I was the last one he let go. On my way out, he stopped me at the door. With a bit of shame, he asked if I would return when the economy got better to apply for a full time job. He said he could really use a worker like me.

Long story short, a former co-worker of mine got me into his company when the economy turned around. It had to go through corporate where they called my last places of employment for references. I was told through the grape vine that the temporary service I worked for gave me an A+ reference.

Because they save money that way, that's why.

You never save money by replacing workers. Any good employer hires, trains, nurturer's their employees.

That's why I highlighted monkey jobs to make the point. If there is any kind of training or learning involved, then of course the employer usually increases wages above minimum.

That's why I highlighted monkey jobs to make the point. If there is any kind of training or learning involved, then of course the employer usually increases wages above minimum.

The fact that you use the term 'monkey jobs' tells me that you are completely ignorant of the importance of every worker.

It tells me your comprehension skills are in complete failure.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nobody hires bad employees

Of all the stupid shit that gets said around here, this is in a league of its own.

 

[Rustic]

Nobody hires bad employees

Of all the stupid shit that gets said around here, this is in a league of its own.

No doubt
Whoever believes that is too stupid to breath...

 

[hadit]

Ah, increasing the minimum wage. Just another example of how liberals and conservatives alike are equally stupid in their own unique ways.

What's wrong with keeping wages equal to costs?

Wages ARE costs.

And?

And that's why the question to which I was responding is fallacious.

 

[hadit]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Because they save money that way, that's why.

You only need so much experience to wash floors or clean toilets. If such a person leaves the job, then the employer will simply hire somebody else at minimum wage to do the same job.

Bosses respect good workers--especially those that work without the consideration of pay. I remember during the Reagan recession where there weren't any jobs at all--not even McDonald's jobs.

I too was out of work, so I joined a temporary service. My first job with them was at a factory where they sent seven of us to the business. The supervisor was an ex-military guy. I was a 20 some year old with long hair and tee shirt. The supervisor gave us a little lecture about the company and the job as we stood in a line like boot camp. When he got to me, he said "Do you even know how to work???"

He ate his words. After the first day, two workers didn't return. After all, it was a minimum wage job. The next day, two walked off of the job. At the end of the job, I was the last one he let go. On my way out, he stopped me at the door. With a bit of shame, he asked if I would return when the economy got better to apply for a full time job. He said he could really use a worker like me.

Long story short, a former co-worker of mine got me into his company when the economy turned around. It had to go through corporate where they called my last places of employment for references. I was told through the grape vine that the temporary service I worked for gave me an A+ reference.

Because they save money that way, that's why.

You never save money by replacing workers. Any good employer hires, trains, nurturer's their employees.

And good employees take advantage of that to become better employees. There are, however, employees who do not perform well, do not take advantage of opportunities, and ultimately are replaceable. And yes, the company saves money by replacing them. If you have a forklift operator, for example, who drops and damages loads despite training opportunities and you replace him/her with another who does not drop and damage loads, you save money. The way it is today, simply showing up on time every day with a good attitude seems to be a rare commodity.

 

[hadit]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Not if the job doesn't earn the company more than it costs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Not if the job doesn't earn the company more than it costs.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

And unions.

 

[OnePercenter]

Nobody hires bad employees

Of all the stupid shit that gets said around here, this is in a league of its own.

Why would someone hire a bad employee?

 

[OnePercenter]

Ah, increasing the minimum wage. Just another example of how liberals and conservatives alike are equally stupid in their own unique ways.

What's wrong with keeping wages equal to costs?

Wages ARE costs.

And?

And that's why the question to which I was responding is fallacious.

You're stating something that is common knowledge, I'd think you'd have something else to offer.

 

[OnePercenter]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Because they save money that way, that's why.

You only need so much experience to wash floors or clean toilets. If such a person leaves the job, then the employer will simply hire somebody else at minimum wage to do the same job.

Bosses respect good workers--especially those that work without the consideration of pay. I remember during the Reagan recession where there weren't any jobs at all--not even McDonald's jobs.

I too was out of work, so I joined a temporary service. My first job with them was at a factory where they sent seven of us to the business. The supervisor was an ex-military guy. I was a 20 some year old with long hair and tee shirt. The supervisor gave us a little lecture about the company and the job as we stood in a line like boot camp. When he got to me, he said "Do you even know how to work???"

He ate his words. After the first day, two workers didn't return. After all, it was a minimum wage job. The next day, two walked off of the job. At the end of the job, I was the last one he let go. On my way out, he stopped me at the door. With a bit of shame, he asked if I would return when the economy got better to apply for a full time job. He said he could really use a worker like me.

Long story short, a former co-worker of mine got me into his company when the economy turned around. It had to go through corporate where they called my last places of employment for references. I was told through the grape vine that the temporary service I worked for gave me an A+ reference.

Because they save money that way, that's why.

You never save money by replacing workers. Any good employer hires, trains, nurturer's their employees.

And good employees take advantage of that to become better employees. There are, however, employees who do not perform well, do not take advantage of opportunities, and ultimately are replaceable. And yes, the company saves money by replacing them. If you have a forklift operator, for example, who drops and damages loads despite training opportunities and you replace him/her with another who does not drop and damage loads, you save money. The way it is today, simply showing up on time every day with a good attitude seems to be a rare commodity.

And good employees take advantage of that to become better employees.

Only if employers give them the tools to become better employees.

If you have a forklift operator, for example, who drops and damages loads despite training opportunities and you replace him/her with another who does not drop and damage loads, you save money.

It depends why the load was dropped. Are there mechanical problems with the forklift? Was the pallet wrapped correctly? Was there sufficient room for the fork lift to maneuver?

 

[OnePercenter]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Not if the job doesn't earn the company more than it costs.

Not if the job doesn't earn the company more than it costs.

There isn't such a thing.

 

[OnePercenter]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Not if the job doesn't earn the company more than it costs.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

And unions.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

And unions.

I owned a Union printing business for 20 years. Best employees and employer could ask for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If that's a persons attitude towards work, it's not a wonder why they make minimum or lower wages in the first place.

When you go on the job, you do the best job you can no matter how much you get paid. That's how you create references for better jobs down the road. That's how you get better pay or promotions at the job you are currently at.

Nobody hires bad employees, employers make them bad.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

People take jobs because they need to work. Most time they are poorly paid positions.

If you are an employer, why would you have positions that an employee would use as a step stone for a resume? Wouldn't it make better sense to have all positions paying a living wage and promote from within?

Not if the job doesn't earn the company more than it costs.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

And unions.

Correction, nobody KEEPS bad employees (except government).

And unions.

I owned a Union printing business for 20 years. Best employees and employer could ask for.

Yeah......sure you did. And when I was with a famous rock band, we sold out concerts all over the world.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nobody hires bad employees

Of all the stupid shit that gets said around here, this is in a league of its own.

Why would someone hire a bad employee?

Same reason why someone would date a bad partner.

 

[OnePercenter]

Nobody hires bad employees

Of all the stupid shit that gets said around here, this is in a league of its own.

Why would someone hire a bad employee?

Same reason why someone would date a bad partner.

Same reason why someone would date a bad partner.

Which is why you NEVER hire relatives.

 

[initforme]

So govt employees are bad employees. Nice blanket statement. They are people just like you. I worked in corporate america in my younger days...plenty of bad employees there too....in management positions most of them.