BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 21,146
- 1,845
- 85
- Banned
- #101
no, public works - nation building ... Eliminating the roots of crime (its costs and victims).
Poll: Solid majority (71%) of Americans support Obamas increase of the minimum wage
- Thread starter kidrocks
- Start date
no, public works - nation building ... Eliminating the roots of crime (its costs and victims).
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
Hello, again!
I promise I'm not stalking you...lol
But it should be market-based.
A "floor-sweeper" at a mom and pop hardware store in BFE, Arkansas won't be paid as much as a "floor-sweeper" at the Ritz on South Beach.
Why should there be a federal mandate?
Acrually the "simplest logic" will kick in as soon as it dawns on you that you need two janitors.... and that you've been paying them too little. It's called "reality check". Changing one of the factors in the equation (the number of janitors) is nothing more than a moving-the-goalposts fallacy.
By the previous logic, you would drive to the gas station and expect to fill up your Buick for $2.50. Because dammit, that's what you filled up for in 1966. And to follow your single-janitor theory, the solution to the gallon price going up would be to buy half as much gas. Think about it.
Currency value changes; that's just the reality. You can't accept the price of everything else going up and then suddenly put up a stop sign when it comes to human labor -- which is by nature always the last one to follow suit, which it must, to keep up. That's uh, what COLA means.
I'll just put this out again until it sinks in. When a 16-year-old high school kid entered the work force in 1968 the MW was $1.25 an hour. In 2013 dollars that value is equal to $8.27. The current MW is $7.25. Which means a 16-year old kid taking the same job would be making, all together now.... LESS than the 1968 kid did for the same work. Do the freaking math already; this is not rocket surgery.
Lots of issues have arguable opposite sides. This is not one of them. There is no argument for allowing wages to deteriorate. None. Unless you're willing to work for 13 cents a day on principle. Rotsa ruck with that.
Last edited:
Do you think that money for the increased wages just comes out of the air. Someone has to foot the bill. But, you don't care, because you don't think it is going to be you. However, it will be you, and every other consumer. Prices will rise to offset the cost, and all those getting the increased minimum wage will be no better off than they were before the raise. People on fixed incomes will also pay more, and their standard of living will be diminished to some degree. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
No, what's being said, is that ARTIFICALLY raising the price of labor is a pointless exercise which increases unemployment AND inflation. You can't win an argument if you don't really understand the issue, which obviously you don't. If you are unaware, you'll propbably be shocked to learn that most people who start at mnimum wage are earning more than that within one year...raising minimum wage merely makes labor more expensive and retards hiring. As skills are developed, worders are given raises.
Figure this out fool! Those employees are just part of what makes the money for the business. The part that you cannot seem to get your ignorance around is "service". In business, you hire enough people to provide the service that the public demands. But, you do not hire any people that the business cannot afford, regardless of public demands, or you go out of business.
Consequently, when labor costs rise, a hamburger joint may well figure they can provide acceptable service with 10 employees versus 12 employees. Two people lose their jobs. Or, they may decide to increase the price of their product. Most likely, it will wind up as a combination of the two. One employee will lose his job, and the price of the product will increase to cover the additional costs.
Since the cost increase is widespread throughout the business community, all stores will be raising their prices to cover the cost, and the increased wages for the employees will be negated by the rise in prices thoughout the community.
Big box stores operate on a very narrow profit margin in the 3% range. It does not take much of an increase in labor costs to eat up that 3%. They will be required to raise the prices throughout the store to maintain a profit margin.
There is no such thing as a free lunch
Sometimes turnover isn't even a consideration. Who cares whether someone who cleans the floor, washes the dishes or throws out the trash is gone tomorrow. These tasks have a value of their own. That's what the hoi-polloi doesn't understand. No one really needs a loyal dishwasher.
I've hired and trained personnel both skilled and unskilled. A trainee is the most expensive person you will ever have working for you. They are intentionally started out at very low wages because they are so expensive. What they make reflects how much they cost to train. They are paid. Someone has to supervise them and if they make a mistake someone has to fix it. Those people have to be paid. Training is a very expensive gamble. Maybe, just maybe that person will turn out to be worth it and advance. Otherwise they are gone, and it's start all over again. Raise the minimum wage and you get exactly the same circumstances that we have today. You can't get a good job unless you already have a good job because no one wants to make the very expensive investment of hiring someone that has to be trained. You all do understand that, don't you? Don't you see it every day? This is the effect right now. Untrained unskilled people just can't find a job at all. It is already too expensive to hire them at the minimum wage we have now.
No matter how much a janitor is paid, it's the same floor, the same mop, the same water and the janitor brings no special talent to the task. Loyalty isn't even an issue. Who cares. It's the janitor. One floor mopper is as good as any other floor mopper. There is no particular expertise that one janitor has that's not possessed by some derelict decorating an alley.
We don't need a higher minimum wage. We need a complete restructuring of starting salaries which lowers some and raises others.
I've hired and trained personnel both skilled and unskilled. A trainee is the most expensive person you will ever have working for you. They are intentionally started out at very low wages because they are so expensive. What they make reflects how much they cost to train. They are paid. Someone has to supervise them and if they make a mistake someone has to fix it. Those people have to be paid. Training is a very expensive gamble. Maybe, just maybe that person will turn out to be worth it and advance. Otherwise they are gone, and it's start all over again. Raise the minimum wage and you get exactly the same circumstances that we have today. You can't get a good job unless you already have a good job because no one wants to make the very expensive investment of hiring someone that has to be trained. You all do understand that, don't you? Don't you see it every day? This is the effect right now. Untrained unskilled people just can't find a job at all. It is already too expensive to hire them at the minimum wage we have now.
No matter how much a janitor is paid, it's the same floor, the same mop, the same water and the janitor brings no special talent to the task. Loyalty isn't even an issue. Who cares. It's the janitor. One floor mopper is as good as any other floor mopper. There is no particular expertise that one janitor has that's not possessed by some derelict decorating an alley.
We don't need a higher minimum wage. We need a complete restructuring of starting salaries which lowers some and raises others.
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
You really are that dumb???? The price of labour if currently ARTICIALLY BEING LOWERED through the use of food stamps and Medicaid by mega corporations.
Your argument that it's only teenagers and workers starting out making minimum wage, has already been debunked. Over 80% of the minimum wage workers are over 21, and nearly half of them are over 25 and supporting families.
When Bill Clinton raised the minimum wage in the 1990's, unemployment went DOWN, so clearly it didn't retard hiring them. Conservatives told us when the Bush tax cuts ended that jobs would be lost, but the unemployment rate came down. Conservatives told us when Obama's health care tax kicked it, the unemployment rate would go up, but it didn't.
These are people who lie because no one in their right mind would vote for their policies if they told the truth.
Last edited:
Your cited study is bovine feces. It is a predetermined conclusion looking for justification for that conclusion. The free lunch scenerio.
Poster please, don't patronize me. I've forgotten more than you'll find out in the entire rest of the month. Go read my posts until you get what's being said and then stick your condescending ad hominem misspelled crap back up your ass. Then try coming back with something with some meat on it.
Exactly. That's what the MW tells employers.
Same rule for both sides, like it or lump it.
Last edited:
Acrually the "simplest logic" will kick in as soon as it dawns on you that you need two janitors.... and that you've been paying them too little. It's called "reality check". Changing one of the factors in the equation (the number of janitors) is nothing more than a moving-the-goalposts fallacy.
By the previous logic, you would drive to the gas station and expect to fill up your Buick for $2.50. Because dammit, that's what you filled up for in 1966. And to follow your single-janitor theory, the solution to the gallon price going up would be to buy half as much gas. Think about it.
Currency value changes; that's just the reality. You can't accept the price of everything else going up and then suddenly put up a stop sign when it comes to human labor -- which is by nature always the last one to follow suit, which it must, to keep up. That's uh, what COLA means.
I'll just put this out again until it sinks in. When a 16-year-old high school kid entered the work force in 1968 the MW was $1.25 an hour. In 2013 dollars that value is equal to $8.27. The current MW is $7.25. Which means a 16-year old kid taking the same job would be making, all together now.... LESS than the 1968 kid did for the same work. Do the freaking math already; this is not rocket surgery.
Lots of issues have arguable opposite sides. This is not one of them. There is no argument for allowing wages to deteriorate. None. Unless you're willing to work for 13 cents a day on principle. Rotsa ruck with that.
It has to be rocket science, not surgery. You don't understand it. In 1968 a 16 year old kid got a first job at $1.25 an hour. Now that same 16 year old kid isn't finding a job at all. In 1968 a 16 year old kid making $1.25 an hour could slap that on a job application in 1969 and get a better job making more money. They can't do that today. The starting point has been erased.
Demands for a rise in the minimum wage eliminates one important point. It isn't ONLY what the employee NEEDS. It's what does that employee bring to the table and for most of them it's nothing.
For many young kids today the alternative is to work for nothing. They intern someplace. They become volunteer labor and are overjoyed that they got that much! The Southern California Regional Occupation office matches kids that want to work with employers willing to start them out paying them nothing. Instead of minimum wage of $1.25 an hour like they got in 1968, they get zip. The kids can be in this program for six months at a time. Sometimes they have to wait until an unpaid labor slot opens up. Some teens have been waiting for two years before an unpaid slot opens up.
I don't know whether people today don't see what these liberal principles are doing, or they see it and don't care.
The breaking point is the cost that the payer associates with the desire not to have to sweep the floor himself. Labor is a product, and is worth no more, nor no less, than what someone is willing to pay to get it, and someone is willing to sell it for.
The minimum wage is nothing more than government mandated cost control on labor. It is a simple fact that cost controls distort markets and disrupt consumer spending. They never achieve their desired results.
If someone is over 25 and supporting a family on minimum wage the problem is theirs and no one else should be paying for their mistakes.
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
It means that "teens" can stay at home until 25 and not worry about their own support?????
The people who most likely would find a job making minimum wage are being priced out of the market.
If your economic concepts had any merit beyond your desire to get something for nothing, we could raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour and live in a utopia. Economic decisions do not operate in a vacuum, they ripple through the economy like the ripples from a stone thrown into a pond. One small stone will create small ripples, and will not raise the level of the pond in any detectable way. But, many small stones thrown into the pond will have an effect of spreading the ripples farther, and will raise the level of the pond.
There is no such thing as a talented janitor. The days when they could mop and tap dance at the same time are over.
No longer required.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlkrN4DXvO0]Gene Kelly mop dance - YouTube[/ame]
Actually the "simplest logic" will kick in as soon as it dawns on you that you need two janitors.... and that you've been paying them too little. It's called "reality check". Changing one of the factors in the equation (the number of janitors) is nothing more than a moving-the-goalposts fallacy.
By the previous logic, you would drive to the gas station and expect to fill up your Buick for $2.50. Because dammit, that's what you filled up for in 1966. And to follow your single-janitor theory, the solution to the gallon price going up would be to buy half as much gas. Think about it.
Currency value changes; that's just the reality. You can't accept the price of everything else going up and then suddenly put up a stop sign when it comes to human labor -- which is by nature always the last one to follow suit, which it must, to keep up. That's uh, what COLA means.
I'll just put this out again until it sinks in. When a 16-year-old high school kid entered the work force in 1968 the MW was $1.25 an hour. In 2013 dollars that value is equal to $8.27. The current MW is $7.25. Which means a 16-year old kid taking the same job would be making, all together now.... LESS than the 1968 kid did for the same work. Do the freaking math already; this is not rocket surgery.
Lots of issues have arguable opposite sides. This is not one of them. There is no argument for allowing wages to deteriorate. None. Unless you're willing to work for 13 cents a day on principle. Rotsa ruck with that.
It has to be rocket science, not surgery. You don't understand it. In 1968 a 16 year old kid got a first job at $1.25 an hour. Now that same 16 year old kid isn't finding a job at all. In 1968 a 16 year old kid making $1.25 an hour could slap that on a job application in 1969 and get a better job making more money. They can't do that today. The starting point has been erased.
Demands for a rise in the minimum wage eliminates one important point. It isn't ONLY what the employee NEEDS. It's what does that employee bring to the table and for most of them it's nothing.
For many young kids today the alternative is to work for nothing. They intern someplace. They become volunteer labor and are overjoyed that they got that much! The Southern California Regional Occupation office matches kids that want to work with employers willing to start them out paying them nothing. Instead of minimum wage of $1.25 an hour like they got in 1968, they get zip. The kids can be in this program for six months at a time. Sometimes they have to wait until an unpaid labor slot opens up. Some teens have been waiting for two years before an unpaid slot opens up.
I don't know whether people today don't see what these liberal principles are doing, or they see it and don't care.
On the contrary I understand it intimately. Simple math tells us that $7.25 < $8.27. Therefore, wages have deteriorated. That's normal; we've made that adjustment periodically for 75 years since MW was instituted. It's always part of a pendulum; COL rises, ergo MW rises to meet it. It looks like this-- absolute dollars in blue (which are meaningless) and real value in red:
See the sawtooth pattern? See what part of the sawtooth we're on right now??
We can look at it another way: minimum wage in relation to poverty level:
Again -- see the see saw. MW is fixed; currency value is not. Therefore we see the spikes where the mandate goes up, then a gradual decline; then a mandated spike up, then gradual decline. Rocket surgery it ain't. Source for these here.
Stop bringing in red herrings like 'internships'. You employer brownnosers sure like to move them goalposts to keep the working stiff down. That ain't fooling anyone. Currency value changes with time; it's dishonest to keep removing that fact from the equation. Unless you want to work for 25 cents an hour -- that was after all the MW in 1938. Can't have it both ways,
Btw "rocket surgery" is a joke. You don't get a simple joke, and then want to preach "you don't understand". Pitiful.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Zone1 Traditional Catholic 'German Barbarian Bootcamp'- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
A solution to the growing number of unemployable Americans
- Started by GuyOnInternet
- Replies: 5
-
