Minimum wage rates.

[Hellbilly]

Am I? Where?

You’re asking me what you meant?

That's my way of mocking your silly question.

Nice cover.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you saying skilled workers are only worth $15 an hour?

Nope.

 

[task0778]

He's right. People with no skills, no experience, no education...aren't worth $15.

An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?

Not always......obviously.

I don't get dressed for less than $15.00 an hour for a minimum of 5 hour shift. And that's if I don't have to drive very far to get to work. Want me to drive further pay more.

One might assume then, that you have the necessary skills to command $15/hr for at least 5 hours., or maybe you live in a high labor cost area. Others may not possess the skills you do and if they live in a low cost of living area then they will not get a job at that rate. Nobody is going to pay you $15/hr to flip burgers. Unless that is, you double the price of a burger.

"An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?"

People on the Left (some of them) do not seem to grasp the reality that a person's wage is dependent on the value of his labor in relation to the enterprise he or she is working for. If an employer requires certain skills that are in short supply, they will pay more for them (a higher wage) IF a cost/benefit analysis shows that decision to be profitable. Otherwise, the employer will look for alternatives, such as automation or contracting out certain functions. Or they move parts of the enterprise off shore or to a RTW state perhaps. If they can, the employer will raise their prices if they can, but if none of these alternatives proved viable then they'll go out of business.

I wish the Lefties would or could understand that a person's wage cannot be reviewed out of the context of the job they do and the skills needed to do that job. And that if the gov't interferes with the the costs of labor or anything else then the economy as a whole is distorted to some extent and becomes less efficient and that leads to higher prices and fewer jobs. And THAT leads to lower productivity and a lower standard of living for everybody except the super-rich.

 

[LibertyKid]

He's right. People with no skills, no experience, no education...aren't worth $15.

An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?

Not always......obviously.

I don't get dressed for less than $15.00 an hour for a minimum of 5 hour shift. And that's if I don't have to drive very far to get to work. Want me to drive further pay more.

One might assume then, that you have the necessary skills to command $15/hr for at least 5 hours., or maybe you live in a high labor cost area. Others may not possess the skills you do and if they live in a low cost of living area then they will not get a job at that rate. Nobody is going to pay you $15/hr to flip burgers. Unless that is, you double the price of a burger.

"An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?"

People on the Left (some of them) do not seem to grasp the reality that a person's wage is dependent on the value of his labor in relation to the enterprise he or she is working for. If an employer requires certain skills that are in short supply, they will pay more for them (a higher wage) IF a cost/benefit analysis shows that decision to be profitable. Otherwise, the employer will look for alternatives, such as automation or contracting out certain functions. Or they move parts of the enterprise off shore or to a RTW state perhaps. If they can, the employer will raise their prices if they can, but if none of these alternatives proved viable then they'll go out of business.

I wish the Lefties would or could understand that a person's wage cannot be reviewed out of the context of the job they do and the skills needed to do that job. And that if the gov't interferes with the the costs of labor or anything else then the economy as a whole is distorted to some extent and becomes less efficient and that leads to higher prices and fewer jobs. And THAT leads to lower productivity and a lower standard of living for everybody except the super-rich.

Another narrative that people don't seem to understand is that not every business model can support $15.00 an hour. Period. Small businesses will be hurt by enforcing this.

Raising minimum wage is not the answer to fixing the poverty problem. Training, education, and obtaining skills that demand higher wages is the answer. But that requires the individual to want to pursue those skills.

The other narrative, "Livable Wage". What the hell is that and can someone define for me what that livable wage since the cost of living across this country swings drastically from one state to the next?

 

[Slyhunter]

He's right. People with no skills, no experience, no education...aren't worth $15.

An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?

Not always......obviously.

I don't get dressed for less than $15.00 an hour for a minimum of 5 hour shift. And that's if I don't have to drive very far to get to work. Want me to drive further pay more.

One might assume then, that you have the necessary skills to command $15/hr for at least 5 hours., or maybe you live in a high labor cost area. Others may not possess the skills you do and if they live in a low cost of living area then they will not get a job at that rate. Nobody is going to pay you $15/hr to flip burgers. Unless that is, you double the price of a burger.

"An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?"

People on the Left (some of them) do not seem to grasp the reality that a person's wage is dependent on the value of his labor in relation to the enterprise he or she is working for. If an employer requires certain skills that are in short supply, they will pay more for them (a higher wage) IF a cost/benefit analysis shows that decision to be profitable. Otherwise, the employer will look for alternatives, such as automation or contracting out certain functions. Or they move parts of the enterprise off shore or to a RTW state perhaps. If they can, the employer will raise their prices if they can, but if none of these alternatives proved viable then they'll go out of business.

I wish the Lefties would or could understand that a person's wage cannot be reviewed out of the context of the job they do and the skills needed to do that job. And that if the gov't interferes with the the costs of labor or anything else then the economy as a whole is distorted to some extent and becomes less efficient and that leads to higher prices and fewer jobs. And THAT leads to lower productivity and a lower standard of living for everybody except the super-rich.

Another narrative that people don't seem to understand is that not every business model can support $15.00 an hour. Period. Small businesses will be hurt by enforcing this.

Raising minimum wage is not the answer to fixing the poverty problem. Training, education, and obtaining skills that demand higher wages is the answer. But that requires the individual to want to pursue those skills.

The other narrative, "Livable Wage". What the hell is that and can someone define for me what that livable wage since the cost of living across this country swings drastically from one state to the next?

able to pay your monthly rent with 1 weeks pay check.

 

[LibertyKid]

He's right. People with no skills, no experience, no education...aren't worth $15.

An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?

Not always......obviously.

I don't get dressed for less than $15.00 an hour for a minimum of 5 hour shift. And that's if I don't have to drive very far to get to work. Want me to drive further pay more.

One might assume then, that you have the necessary skills to command $15/hr for at least 5 hours., or maybe you live in a high labor cost area. Others may not possess the skills you do and if they live in a low cost of living area then they will not get a job at that rate. Nobody is going to pay you $15/hr to flip burgers. Unless that is, you double the price of a burger.

"An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?"

People on the Left (some of them) do not seem to grasp the reality that a person's wage is dependent on the value of his labor in relation to the enterprise he or she is working for. If an employer requires certain skills that are in short supply, they will pay more for them (a higher wage) IF a cost/benefit analysis shows that decision to be profitable. Otherwise, the employer will look for alternatives, such as automation or contracting out certain functions. Or they move parts of the enterprise off shore or to a RTW state perhaps. If they can, the employer will raise their prices if they can, but if none of these alternatives proved viable then they'll go out of business.

I wish the Lefties would or could understand that a person's wage cannot be reviewed out of the context of the job they do and the skills needed to do that job. And that if the gov't interferes with the the costs of labor or anything else then the economy as a whole is distorted to some extent and becomes less efficient and that leads to higher prices and fewer jobs. And THAT leads to lower productivity and a lower standard of living for everybody except the super-rich.

Another narrative that people don't seem to understand is that not every business model can support $15.00 an hour. Period. Small businesses will be hurt by enforcing this.

Raising minimum wage is not the answer to fixing the poverty problem. Training, education, and obtaining skills that demand higher wages is the answer. But that requires the individual to want to pursue those skills.

The other narrative, "Livable Wage". What the hell is that and can someone define for me what that livable wage since the cost of living across this country swings drastically from one state to the next?

able to pay your monthly rent with 1 weeks pay check.

What determines where you live? Where you WANT to live or where you CAN live?

 

[Slyhunter]

He's right. People with no skills, no experience, no education...aren't worth $15.

An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?

Not always......obviously.

I don't get dressed for less than $15.00 an hour for a minimum of 5 hour shift. And that's if I don't have to drive very far to get to work. Want me to drive further pay more.

One might assume then, that you have the necessary skills to command $15/hr for at least 5 hours., or maybe you live in a high labor cost area. Others may not possess the skills you do and if they live in a low cost of living area then they will not get a job at that rate. Nobody is going to pay you $15/hr to flip burgers. Unless that is, you double the price of a burger.

"An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?"

People on the Left (some of them) do not seem to grasp the reality that a person's wage is dependent on the value of his labor in relation to the enterprise he or she is working for. If an employer requires certain skills that are in short supply, they will pay more for them (a higher wage) IF a cost/benefit analysis shows that decision to be profitable. Otherwise, the employer will look for alternatives, such as automation or contracting out certain functions. Or they move parts of the enterprise off shore or to a RTW state perhaps. If they can, the employer will raise their prices if they can, but if none of these alternatives proved viable then they'll go out of business.

I wish the Lefties would or could understand that a person's wage cannot be reviewed out of the context of the job they do and the skills needed to do that job. And that if the gov't interferes with the the costs of labor or anything else then the economy as a whole is distorted to some extent and becomes less efficient and that leads to higher prices and fewer jobs. And THAT leads to lower productivity and a lower standard of living for everybody except the super-rich.

Another narrative that people don't seem to understand is that not every business model can support $15.00 an hour. Period. Small businesses will be hurt by enforcing this.

Raising minimum wage is not the answer to fixing the poverty problem. Training, education, and obtaining skills that demand higher wages is the answer. But that requires the individual to want to pursue those skills.

The other narrative, "Livable Wage". What the hell is that and can someone define for me what that livable wage since the cost of living across this country swings drastically from one state to the next?

able to pay your monthly rent with 1 weeks pay check.

What determines where you live? Where you WANT to live or where you CAN live?

Where you work.

 

[Supposn]

Task0778, cc of letter to Senator Schumer: I’m a proponent of gradually increasing the minimum wage rate to eventually reach 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power; thereafter it should be monitored and annually upgraded (if necessary ), to retain no less than 125% of 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power.

CBO reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate are not detrimental to the proposed “Raise the Wage Act”, but they were drafted in manners that better enables opponents of minimum wage rates.

CBO reports of family total incomes without differentiating or identifying wages portions of those incomes. Incomes of all lower income families are projected to be increased, but their proportional increases do not reflect the proportional increases due to wages replacing incomes derived from other than wage incomes.

To the extent of minimum wage rate’s purchasing power and enforcement, it reduces numbers and extents of poverty among wage earners and their dependents. Minimum wage rate only substantially affects all employees earning rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates, but increasing those rates would in turn be of substantial benefit to our nation’s economic and social well-being. We all do better when we all do better.

I don't believe CBO favors Republicans. I speculate to what extent CBO's less than full disclosure of minimum wage rate increases consequences were due to Republicans' cleverness, or to less diligence by speaker of the house Pelosi and yourself, (currently majority leader of the senate)? Democrats must now confront and are obliged to explain CBO's reports.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Task0778, cc of letter to Senator Schumer: I’m a proponent of gradually increasing the minimum wage rate to eventually reach 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power; thereafter it should be monitored and annually upgraded (if necessary ), to retain no less than 125% of 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power.

CBO reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate are not detrimental to the proposed “Raise the Wage Act”, but they were drafted in manners that better enables opponents of minimum wage rates.

CBO reports of family total incomes without differentiating or identifying wages portions of those incomes. Incomes of all lower income families are projected to be increased, but their proportional increases do not reflect the proportional increases due to wages replacing incomes derived from other than wage incomes.

To the extent of minimum wage rate’s purchasing power and enforcement, it reduces numbers and extents of poverty among wage earners and their dependents. Minimum wage rate only substantially affects all employees earning rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates, but increasing those rates would in turn be of substantial benefit to our nation’s economic and social well-being. We all do better when we all do better.

I don't believe CBO favors Republicans. I speculate to what extent CBO's less than full disclosure of minimum wage rate increases consequences were due to Republicans' cleverness, or to less diligence by speaker of the house Pelosi and yourself, (currently majority leader of the senate)? Democrats must now confront and are obliged to explain CBO's reports.

Respectfully, Supposn

Raising it to $15 would be a net negative.
It would most harm those workers with no skills or experience.

 

[Supposn]

Raising it to $15 would be a net negative.
It would most harm those workers with no skills or experience.

Whining ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) reports indicate otherwise.
I would suppose lower income families' wage earners are generally earners of low wage rates. CBO projects proportional increases of total incomes among all of their brackets of low-income families, and the greatest proportional increases among families within CBO's reported lowest brackets of family incomes.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Raising it to $15 would be a net negative.
It would most harm those workers with no skills or experience.

Whining ToddsterPatriot, Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) reports indicate otherwise.
I would suppose lower income families' wage earners are generally earners of low wage rates. CBO projects proportional increases of total incomes among all of their brackets of low-income families, and the greatest proportional increases among families within CBO's reported lowest brackets of family incomes.
Respectfully, Supposn

Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) reports indicate otherwise.

You already forget that the CBO says it raises prices, reduces employment and shrinks GDP?
Is your dementia progressing rapidly, or holding steady?

 

[initforme]

Finding great workers today is so beyond easy. Any, and I mean any business that says opposite is simply one NOBODY should apply at. I hope they struggle.

 

[noonereal]

Task0778, cc of letter to Senator Schumer: I’m a proponent of gradually increasing the minimum wage rate to eventually reach 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power; thereafter it should be monitored and annually upgraded (if necessary ), to retain no less than 125% of 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power.

CBO reports regarding the federal minimum wage rate are not detrimental to the proposed “Raise the Wage Act”, but they were drafted in manners that better enables opponents of minimum wage rates.

CBO reports of family total incomes without differentiating or identifying wages portions of those incomes. Incomes of all lower income families are projected to be increased, but their proportional increases do not reflect the proportional increases due to wages replacing incomes derived from other than wage incomes.

To the extent of minimum wage rate’s purchasing power and enforcement, it reduces numbers and extents of poverty among wage earners and their dependents. Minimum wage rate only substantially affects all employees earning rates within the lowest bracket of wage rates, but increasing those rates would in turn be of substantial benefit to our nation’s economic and social well-being. We all do better when we all do better.

I don't believe CBO favors Republicans. I speculate to what extent CBO's less than full disclosure of minimum wage rate increases consequences were due to Republicans' cleverness, or to less diligence by speaker of the house Pelosi and yourself, (currently majority leader of the senate)? Democrats must now confront and are obliged to explain CBO's reports.

Respectfully, Supposn

Raising it to $15 would be a net negative.
It would most harm those workers with no skills or experience.

Polly want a cracker?

 

[LibertyKid]

He's right. People with no skills, no experience, no education...aren't worth $15.

An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?

Not always......obviously.

I don't get dressed for less than $15.00 an hour for a minimum of 5 hour shift. And that's if I don't have to drive very far to get to work. Want me to drive further pay more.

One might assume then, that you have the necessary skills to command $15/hr for at least 5 hours., or maybe you live in a high labor cost area. Others may not possess the skills you do and if they live in a low cost of living area then they will not get a job at that rate. Nobody is going to pay you $15/hr to flip burgers. Unless that is, you double the price of a burger.

"An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?"

People on the Left (some of them) do not seem to grasp the reality that a person's wage is dependent on the value of his labor in relation to the enterprise he or she is working for. If an employer requires certain skills that are in short supply, they will pay more for them (a higher wage) IF a cost/benefit analysis shows that decision to be profitable. Otherwise, the employer will look for alternatives, such as automation or contracting out certain functions. Or they move parts of the enterprise off shore or to a RTW state perhaps. If they can, the employer will raise their prices if they can, but if none of these alternatives proved viable then they'll go out of business.

I wish the Lefties would or could understand that a person's wage cannot be reviewed out of the context of the job they do and the skills needed to do that job. And that if the gov't interferes with the the costs of labor or anything else then the economy as a whole is distorted to some extent and becomes less efficient and that leads to higher prices and fewer jobs. And THAT leads to lower productivity and a lower standard of living for everybody except the super-rich.

Another narrative that people don't seem to understand is that not every business model can support $15.00 an hour. Period. Small businesses will be hurt by enforcing this.

Raising minimum wage is not the answer to fixing the poverty problem. Training, education, and obtaining skills that demand higher wages is the answer. But that requires the individual to want to pursue those skills.

The other narrative, "Livable Wage". What the hell is that and can someone define for me what that livable wage since the cost of living across this country swings drastically from one state to the next?

able to pay your monthly rent with 1 weeks pay check.

What determines where you live? Where you WANT to live or where you CAN live?

Where you work.

That makes no sense... "Where you work". That implies that every job within a certain economical demographic has to be able to afford the same pay. This implies that a fast food franchise owner (not a big corporation as some believe) can afford to pay the same as let's say a tech company with much larger sales and revenues and also needs skilled employees. Also, what's to stop the large tech company, capable of paying higher wagers, withholding those higher wages because they are paying this so called "livable wage" and keeping most of the profits?

Who draws these economical maps that dictate who get's paid what? Who get's to define those livable wages... the government? I think we all know how that will work out.

In essence... what some of you want is complete government control and regulation. Even if you give someone with no skill $15.00 an hour... that absolutely is no guarantee to get out of poverty. $15.00 an hour doesn't automatically make someone fiscally responsible. It doesn't automatically remove debt. Throwing money at unskilled labor doesn't fix a problem. It is in essence giving in and giving that screaming 5 year old at walmart what they want. We understand what the child turns into.

 

[task0778]

The other narrative, "Livable Wage". What the hell is that and can someone define for me what that livable wage since the cost of living across this country swings drastically from one state to the next?

The livable wage, also known as the living wage, is defined as the amount of income determined to provide a decent standard of living. In public policy, advocates define the living wage as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. Basic needs include housing, food, healthcare, and other essential needs.

The living wage should pay for the cost of living in any location and should also be adjusted to compensate for inflation. The purpose of the living wage is to make sure that all full-time workers are compensated enough to live above the federal poverty level.

Livable Wage By State 2021

The above link shows the wide range of what is considered to be a livable wage, from a low of around $43k in KY to a high of $60k or more in a few blue states like HI, MA, and CN. The problem is primarily a political one: the liberal democrats want to put the onus for compensating everyone to a livable age on the employer, whereas conservatives believe it is up to the individual to apply him or herself to be worth a higher wage. And the basic reason is that if the gov't forces an employer to pay more to an employee than the employee's value is to the company then to some extent the market labor rate has been distorted and that can be a mistake because it could contribute to inflation.

Since the livable wage is different from one state or region to another, the gov't cannot require that wage to be enforced everywhere without undue consequences in areas where small businesses cannot survive the increase in labor costs. It's funny (sorta) that the democrats purport to be for the little guy against the big biz/corps, yet what they're trying to do will force many of the smaller competitors out of business, which obviously helps the bigger enterprises.

As stated above, this issue is primarily political; since one size clearly does not fit all, and the federal gov't has no business interfering with whatever an employer and an employee in the 1st place, what we actually have is yet another ploy by the democrats to get votes. They extol the virtues for those who get the higher wage but downplay or say nothing about those who lost their jobs or saw their benefits shrink or how everyone has to pay higher prices (inflation).

 

[Supposn]

...

As stated above, this issue is primarily political; since one size clearly does not fit all, and the federal gov't has no business interfering with whatever an employer and an employee in the 1st place, what we actually have is yet another ploy by the democrats to get votes. ...

task0778, the federal minimum wage rate's A MINIMUM, but it's not THE MINIMUM wage rate for our entire nation.
Federal law reduces the extent that a lower wage rate state is able to undermine the wage rates of other USA states. Until the federal law's repealed or the U.S. Supreme Court overturns their prior courts' decisions, the federal minimum wage rate remains to be the federal law.

I'm among the proponents for the federal minimum wage rate to be annually increased gradually in a uniform manner until it achieves a value no less than 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power. Thereafter it should be monitored and automatically be annually, (if required) adjusted to retain no less than that level of purchasing power. Respectfully, Supposn

ReplyForward

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

An hour of a persons life isn’t worth $15?

In relation to workplace productivity and earning money for the company, then no. They aren't.

and I say this not as a snob. I'm an unskilled worker myself. I sit in empty buildings at night, doing little other than some paperwork and reports if there's an incident.

My reason for being there is probably because the companies insurers insist on it (someone to be there, write reports if there's an incident and follow-up accordingly).

Minimum wage is just under £9 (pounds) an hour. I get something like £9.14 an hour for a 36-hour week (x3 nights). I'm fine with it. I don't deserve more, I don't need more and I kind of know my role within the system.

Would I like more? absolutely. But I'm still happy with my lot. You need to be realistic. I'm not making the company a fortune, I'm there probably due to save the company a little money on their insurance premiums.

People need to realise that increasing the minimum wage just a little can sink smaller businesses. For the larger companies with tens of thousands of employees throughout the country who do thousands of hours each per annum it can cost billions - which will be passed straight onto the consumer.

It's not as simple as just trying to be the good guys and give people more money. It has to come from somewhere, budgets. It has a knock-on effect.

 

[Ringo]

A huge study of 50 years of tax cuts for the wealthy suggests 'trickle-down' economics makes inequality worse

Cutting taxes boosts incomes for the wealthy "but has little effect on economic performance," the academics David Hope and Julian Limberg said.

www.businessinsider.com

"Wealth under capitalism seeps from the rich to the poor with a reduction in taxes on the rich (the main postulate of the trickle-down economy)"
"It doesn't leak. The rich build spaceships for themselves instead"
BTW, if someone dreams that billionaires are paving the way to space for all mankind, then dream on. The interest of the dealers is purely applied - as a maximum program, the industrial development of asteroids in their pocket, with the sale of fossils on Earth at an exorbitant price. Inequality will increase even more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A huge study of 50 years of tax cuts for the wealthy suggests 'trickle-down' economics makes inequality worse

Cutting taxes boosts incomes for the wealthy "but has little effect on economic performance," the academics David Hope and Julian Limberg said.

www.businessinsider.com

"Wealth under capitalism seeps from the rich to the poor with a reduction in taxes on the rich (the main postulate of the trickle-down economy)"

"It doesn't leak. The rich build spaceships for themselves instead"

Spaceships are the worst!!!!

All that construction money going to those damn Martians.

 

[task0778]

"It doesn't leak. The rich build spaceships for themselves instead"

When was the last time you or anyone else got hired by a poor man to do a job? A real job that is sustainable. Where do you think the capital comes from to create a business enterprise? No capital means no business, no economic growth, and no jobs. Do you really think a bank will lend you a bunch of money when all you got is an idea? No my friend, banks don't lend money without some kind of collateral, meaning something they can use to cover their loss if your idea goes bust.

Like it or not, that's our economic system. Somebody has to invest something (capital) to get the ball rolling, it doesn't come from people living from paycheck to paycheck. It comes from the rich people who want to increase their wealth. The more money they have, the more they can invest, how is that not obvious? How does anyone not understand that when you tax rich people more then they have less money to invest?