Who works for minimum wage?

[beagle9]

Hire me as the President in America, and I will bring this nation back to the strength that it was here once upon a time or two, and I would unite the nation again, and I would focus on strengthening the American family in everyway that I could, because when a house is divided it shall fall, and that is exactly what has happened here in America with all the foolishness, and the social experimentation that has gone on.

 

[AmazonTania]

Wages are a human commodity. America Samoa doesn't have the domestic product infrastructure like the US.

I don't see what this has to do with wage increases being good for the economy.

There needs to be an entrance wage set in each company, as based upon each specific business and it's setting of the entrance wage by what it deems correct, but it needs to be a wage worth working for (imho), and then there needs to be a structural system of wage increases afterwards, that will have a top out within so many years if a person decides to hang in there for the company as is his or her choice. Companies who have joined together in order to form a unity against paying their workers by some kind of structural pay system, is a company or companies that need to be looked at heavily by the feds for other dubious workings and goings on within them (imho), because I guarantee you that they are crooked in other ways if they have decided to shaft their employee's by not having a proper pay wage system, that at least has an entrance pay set up, and then a wage increase scale set up until exits are made by the employee who decided to stay on and be loyal to a company till the very end.

There is an entrance wage for each company. It's called 'the minimum wage.' It's very nonsensical for employers to take a chance on an inexperienced employee. People generally worked their way up faster before the minimum wage was $7.25/hr. Since the minimum wage is increasing and the minimum wage is the basis for all wages, employees find themselves constricted in having to climb up the ladder in order to obtain a substantial raise. As a result, you have higher and higher youth unemployment, creating a very inexperienced labour force. You also have more experienced working adults earning closer to the minimum wage, despite the fact that these workers do not earn the minimum wage at all.

The only other way for young/inexperienced workers to break into an industry was to work for free through internships.

Companies with no pay scale systems are highly suspect to me in why they have abandoned this concept over the years. Greed is a problem that has evolved over the years, and it keeps being revisited by these companies in unity there of, and if they would just put back in place proper pay scales, and an entrance level living wage, and it is one that is based upon the type of company and it's long term goals, these problems would not even exist today in our nation.

Greed is a constant, not a variable. Also there is no such thing as a living wage.

 

[beagle9]

I don't see what this has to do with wage increases being good for the economy.

There needs to be an entrance wage set in each company, as based upon each specific business and it's setting of the entrance wage by what it deems correct, but it needs to be a wage worth working for (imho), and then there needs to be a structural system of wage increases afterwards, that will have a top out within so many years if a person decides to hang in there for the company as is his or her choice. Companies who have joined together in order to form a unity against paying their workers by some kind of structural pay system, is a company or companies that need to be looked at heavily by the feds for other dubious workings and goings on within them (imho), because I guarantee you that they are crooked in other ways if they have decided to shaft their employee's by not having a proper pay wage system, that at least has an entrance pay set up, and then a wage increase scale set up until exits are made by the employee who decided to stay on and be loyal to a company till the very end.

There is an entrance wage for each company. It's called 'the minimum wage.' It's very nonsensical for employers to take a chance on an inexperienced employee. People generally worked their way up faster before the minimum wage was $7.25/hr. Since the minimum wage is increasing and the minimum wage is the basis for all wages, employees find themselves constricted in having to climb up the ladder in order to obtain a substantial raise. As a result, you have higher and higher youth unemployment, creating a very inexperienced labour force. You also have more experienced working adults earning closer to the minimum wage, despite the fact that these workers do not earn the minimum wage at all.

The only other way for young/inexperienced workers to break into an industry was to work for free through internships.

Companies with no pay scale systems are highly suspect to me in why they have abandoned this concept over the years. Greed is a problem that has evolved over the years, and it keeps being revisited by these companies in unity there of, and if they would just put back in place proper pay scales, and an entrance level living wage, and it is one that is based upon the type of company and it's long term goals, these problems would not even exist today in our nation.

Greed is a constant, not a variable. Also there is no such thing as a living wage.

Ok, but what or who destroys the system in which you decide is correct in your words ? If the companies would operate in an ethical manor, and in a trusting way in the handling of the whole process, then the government wouldn't have to be involved in this at all now would they ? So why is it that the government is involved in the setting of a living/minimum wage (i.e. a wage worth working for or being hired at in the entrance level), as is and has been defined by, and is set by government in which is to be abided by according to law, I mean if these companies in your opinion will do the right thing by their employee's without government intervention, why is it that the government is involved in this at all ? Can you explain this one away or is it to embarrassing to explain away ? I think the system should be progressive just like the tax system is, where as all depending on a companies profits according to the IRS, we should see differences in the way they treat their employee's as according to those profits as are defined by each company, and as them being individual in there own specialized services or companies in which they run.

Example, if a starter company begins (i.e. a lawn care service for example), and the company can only afford $4.00 dollars an hour for the new hires to help them begin building the company, then I think that the government should allow this depending on the circumstances surrounding the situation, and if they can find people (in which will be mostly young people I think) to work for this wage in the beginning, then as the company grows and the profits grow with them, the company should have to show the structured pay system in which it will then set up as a result of positive growth, and how the employee's that started at the $4.00 level, would have gotten raises according to the progress of the company, along with it's profits being gained as an indicator of that progress. If the company does not adjust everything as it grows in a moral and ethical way, in which is to include the people whom are helping it grow, then I would say greed is becoming a problem in that company early on, and that company should be penalized for operating in a hurtful way towards the whole process. Otherwise I don't think that the minimum wage should be one size fits all, but more less it should depend on the circumstances of each company, and how it reports it's income and structured system to the IRS for review, but I do think that a cap should be placed on what the government could demand of companies in as far as the minimum wage goes. I don't think that a minimum wage of say $15.00 dollars an hour across the board is correct, where as I think at $15.00 dollars an hour, a person needs to come into a company with some kind of history or skill set that is to be attractive to the company when hired for an entrance pay of that amount. Another thing is inflation, where as the wage hasn't kept pace with the inflation, therefore causing people to work for a money that is far less valuable than it was in the past, so this adjustment is needed always, just like people once got annual raises within companies in percentage rates as adjustment for inflation accordingly, but that seem to stop in many companies as well. It appears that many companies had joined in a unity to begin a trend to screw over the workers in a disrespecting way, and even to screw over the government in the same way, and they have gotten away with it for quite along time now. This is why there is the blow back right now that we are seeing in all of this to date.

 

[AmazonTania]

There needs to be an entrance wage set in each company, as based upon each specific business and it's setting of the entrance wage by what it deems correct, but it needs to be a wage worth working for (imho), and then there needs to be a structural system of wage increases afterwards, that will have a top out within so many years if a person decides to hang in there for the company as is his or her choice. Companies who have joined together in order to form a unity against paying their workers by some kind of structural pay system, is a company or companies that need to be looked at heavily by the feds for other dubious workings and goings on within them (imho), because I guarantee you that they are crooked in other ways if they have decided to shaft their employee's by not having a proper pay wage system, that at least has an entrance pay set up, and then a wage increase scale set up until exits are made by the employee who decided to stay on and be loyal to a company till the very end.

There is an entrance wage for each company. It's called 'the minimum wage.' It's very nonsensical for employers to take a chance on an inexperienced employee. People generally worked their way up faster before the minimum wage was $7.25/hr. Since the minimum wage is increasing and the minimum wage is the basis for all wages, employees find themselves constricted in having to climb up the ladder in order to obtain a substantial raise. As a result, you have higher and higher youth unemployment, creating a very inexperienced labour force. You also have more experienced working adults earning closer to the minimum wage, despite the fact that these workers do not earn the minimum wage at all.

The only other way for young/inexperienced workers to break into an industry was to work for free through internships.

Companies with no pay scale systems are highly suspect to me in why they have abandoned this concept over the years. Greed is a problem that has evolved over the years, and it keeps being revisited by these companies in unity there of, and if they would just put back in place proper pay scales, and an entrance level living wage, and it is one that is based upon the type of company and it's long term goals, these problems would not even exist today in our nation.

Greed is a constant, not a variable. Also there is no such thing as a living wage.

Ok, but what or who destroys the system in which you decide is correct in your words ? If the companies would operate in an ethical manor, and in a trusting way in the handling of the whole process, then the government wouldn't have to be involved in this at all now would they ?

The minimum wage has increased over 15 times since the the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Do you really believe firms are just becoming more unethical the more the Government decides to tinker with the minimum wage, or is the Government just distorting market forces?

Firms operate to make a profit, which are essential for economic growth. If the minimum wage was $30/hr hour that may sound good, but all the jobs which doesn't generate a profit at that level would be eliminated.

So why is it that the government is involved in the setting of a living/minimum wage (i.e. a wage worth working for or being hired at in the entrance level), as is and has been defined by, and is set by government in which is to be abided by according to law, I mean if these companies in your opinion will do the right thing by their employee's without government intervention, why is it that the government is involved in this at all ? Can you explain this one away or is it to embarrassing to explain away ?

The minimum wage is nothing more than a price control. As such, it prevents employers from doing the right thing by their employees. Labour is a commodity, and business is not a one way street. The entire purpose of employment is so employees and employers can negotiate the terms of employment, which generally involve wages. Employees negotiate for the highest wage possible, while employers negotiate for the lowest. The only other alternative is to accept unemployment, as more and more lower skilled jobs are priced out of the marketplace.

Increasingly, we see that more education is required for employment as well as wages. In order for firms to obtain the ability to pay higher wages, they need to know their workforce is highly skilled and productive, therefore, keeping operation cost low.

 

[beagle9]

There is an entrance wage for each company. It's called 'the minimum wage.' It's very nonsensical for employers to take a chance on an inexperienced employee. People generally worked their way up faster before the minimum wage was $7.25/hr. Since the minimum wage is increasing and the minimum wage is the basis for all wages, employees find themselves constricted in having to climb up the ladder in order to obtain a substantial raise. As a result, you have higher and higher youth unemployment, creating a very inexperienced labour force. You also have more experienced working adults earning closer to the minimum wage, despite the fact that these workers do not earn the minimum wage at all.

The only other way for young/inexperienced workers to break into an industry was to work for free through internships.



Greed is a constant, not a variable. Also there is no such thing as a living wage.

Ok, but what or who destroys the system in which you decide is correct in your words ? If the companies would operate in an ethical manor, and in a trusting way in the handling of the whole process, then the government wouldn't have to be involved in this at all now would they ?

The minimum wage has increased over 15 times since the the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Do you really believe firms are just becoming more unethical the more the Government decides to tinker with the minimum wage, or is the Government just distorting market forces?

Firms operate to make a profit, which are essential for economic growth. If the minimum wage was $30/hr hour that may sound good, but all the jobs which doesn't generate a profit at that level would be eliminated.

So why is it that the government is involved in the setting of a living/minimum wage (i.e. a wage worth working for or being hired at in the entrance level), as is and has been defined by, and is set by government in which is to be abided by according to law, I mean if these companies in your opinion will do the right thing by their employee's without government intervention, why is it that the government is involved in this at all ? Can you explain this one away or is it to embarrassing to explain away ?

The minimum wage is nothing more than a price control. As such, it prevents employers from doing the right thing by their employees. Labour is a commodity, and business is not a one way street. The entire purpose of employment is so employees and employers can negotiate the terms of employment, which generally involve wages. Employees negotiate for the highest wage possible, while employers negotiate for the lowest. The only other alternative is to accept unemployment, as more and more lower skilled jobs are priced out of the marketplace.

Increasingly, we see that more education is required for employment as well as wages. In order for firms to obtain the ability to pay higher wages, they need to know their workforce is highly skilled and productive, therefore, keeping operation cost low.

You address some of my post, but not all of it... I have added to it as I think more and more about it, so it may be that I didn't cover what you read as of yet, so if interested return to it and see what I had added to it, and then tell me what you think... Thanks.

 

[AmazonTania]

Ok, but what or who destroys the system in which you decide is correct in your words ? If the companies would operate in an ethical manor, and in a trusting way in the handling of the whole process, then the government wouldn't have to be involved in this at all now would they ?

The minimum wage has increased over 15 times since the the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Do you really believe firms are just becoming more unethical the more the Government decides to tinker with the minimum wage, or is the Government just distorting market forces?

Firms operate to make a profit, which are essential for economic growth. If the minimum wage was $30/hr hour that may sound good, but all the jobs which doesn't generate a profit at that level would be eliminated.

So why is it that the government is involved in the setting of a living/minimum wage (i.e. a wage worth working for or being hired at in the entrance level), as is and has been defined by, and is set by government in which is to be abided by according to law, I mean if these companies in your opinion will do the right thing by their employee's without government intervention, why is it that the government is involved in this at all ? Can you explain this one away or is it to embarrassing to explain away ?

The minimum wage is nothing more than a price control. As such, it prevents employers from doing the right thing by their employees. Labour is a commodity, and business is not a one way street. The entire purpose of employment is so employees and employers can negotiate the terms of employment, which generally involve wages. Employees negotiate for the highest wage possible, while employers negotiate for the lowest. The only other alternative is to accept unemployment, as more and more lower skilled jobs are priced out of the marketplace.

Increasingly, we see that more education is required for employment as well as wages. In order for firms to obtain the ability to pay higher wages, they need to know their workforce is highly skilled and productive, therefore, keeping operation cost low.

You address some of my post, but not all of it... I have added to it as I think more and more about it, so it may be that I didn't cover what you read as of yet, so if interested return to it and see what I had added to it, and then tell me what you think... Thanks.

I don't really see too much which needs addressing. You are saying that the Government is better equipped in understanding what the price for labour should be for each particular job than the market.

1. Wages are determined by the value of your labour, not what the company can afford.

2. The growth of your company has nothing to do with the growth of your wages. Your wages grow as your skills and human capital grows. If you start off with $4.00/hr and a year later you are still making barely above your initial start level, perhaps there is an issue regarding your skill set. The growth of the company mostly deals with it's ability to expand. If the company growths, it's involved in other capital inventories, which means it's employees are involved in more aspects of the industry, which means their productivity increases, which results in higher pay.

3. Minimum wage is not suppose to be designed to kept up with inflation. Increasingly, we find that as you increase the minimum wage (as the minimum wage is the basis of all wages) you increase the cost of living. It's called 'cost-push inflation.'

 

[beagle9]

The minimum wage has increased over 15 times since the the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Do you really believe firms are just becoming more unethical the more the Government decides to tinker with the minimum wage, or is the Government just distorting market forces?

Firms operate to make a profit, which are essential for economic growth. If the minimum wage was $30/hr hour that may sound good, but all the jobs which doesn't generate a profit at that level would be eliminated.



The minimum wage is nothing more than a price control. As such, it prevents employers from doing the right thing by their employees. Labour is a commodity, and business is not a one way street. The entire purpose of employment is so employees and employers can negotiate the terms of employment, which generally involve wages. Employees negotiate for the highest wage possible, while employers negotiate for the lowest. The only other alternative is to accept unemployment, as more and more lower skilled jobs are priced out of the marketplace.

Increasingly, we see that more education is required for employment as well as wages. In order for firms to obtain the ability to pay higher wages, they need to know their workforce is highly skilled and productive, therefore, keeping operation cost low.

You address some of my post, but not all of it... I have added to it as I think more and more about it, so it may be that I didn't cover what you read as of yet, so if interested return to it and see what I had added to it, and then tell me what you think... Thanks.

I don't really see too much which needs addressing. You are saying that the Government is better equipped in understanding what the price for labour should be for each particular job than the market.

1. Wages are determined by the value of your labour, not what the company can afford.

2. The growth of your company has nothing to do with the growth of your wages. Your wages grow as your skills and human capital grows. If you start off with $4.00/hr and a year later you are still making barely above your initial start level, perhaps there is an issue regarding your skill set. The growth of the company mostly deals with it's ability to expand. If the company growths, it's involved in other capital inventories, which means it's employees are involved in more aspects of the industry, which means their productivity increases, which results in higher pay.

3. Minimum wage is not suppose to be designed to kept up with inflation. Increasingly, we find that as you increase the minimum wage (as the minimum wage is the basis of all wages) you increase the cost of living. It's called 'cost-push inflation.'

I had something in response to this, but I hit a button and it just disappeared, so I am done for now... Talk about getting mad for a second when that happened, as I thought I would throw this lap top out of the window...LOL

 

[Vox]

My first job in the US was for 5$ per hour - a minimum wage then.

I stayed there for 3 weeks.

Then I moved up the ladder - not much, but still higher.

Minimum wage is for the START only.

 

[PaulS1950]

If we pay the fast food workers $23 an hour how much are you willing to pay for the burger they fix?

With a $7/hr pay level it cost about $2 so are you willing to pay $6+ for that same burger? No? then they will be unemployed... how does that add to the GDP?

 

[beagle9]

My first job in the US was for 5$ per hour - a minimum wage then.

I stayed there for 3 weeks.

Then I moved up the ladder - not much, but still higher.

Minimum wage is for the START only.

I agree it is for the start only, but the problem with it, is who determines the amount by government standard, and how do they come up with the amount that a standard line is based upon when dealing with so much diversity in business models, and why is it an across the board amount in which is made law for which is to be abided by in almost all cases of hiring in the U.S., and this upon companies who qualify for the standard as is implemented upon them in a blanketed manor ? People would rather be in control of their hiring and firing, as well as their wages set when dealing with people for whom the government doesn't even know, but because they (the employers) have botched this over the years, government intervention has been implemented and forced upon them in many ways.

The socialistic approach is a wrong one if you ask me, and our government should stay away from socialist agenda's, where as each scenario is different and should be approached differently in many ways, because a one size fits all is never appropriate in most cases, and we should be against socialist styled laws and/or socialist agenda's in this nation, but we should never be against the outing of abuse and the outing of bad when ever it is found in this nation. Do you agree ?

We have allowed the destruction of so much in this nation by our greed and idiocy, and we have empowered the government to be a force against us all because of, instead a government that serves us instead.

 

[beagle9]

If we pay the fast food workers $23 an hour how much are you willing to pay for the burger they fix?

With a $7/hr pay level it cost about $2 so are you willing to pay $6+ for that same burger? No? then they will be unemployed... how does that add to the GDP?

Hmm, but isn't it the case where the fast food burger chain is making boo-coo millions in profits, and it is seen easily that they could do better for their workers without government having to even suggest that they should do so in any way ? Now if they are making soooo much profit, then why would they have to raise their prices if they could afford easily to give their employees a better standard of living, and this by bringing their wages up to a level that is then better balanced within the entire make up of the business model, and because of it's super successes in which it has had, and still is having ?

How much money does a company have to have above and beyond cost, and should the employee's have a stake in their profit making game as well ? It should be shameful for a company to make millions upon millions of dollars, and then one finds out that it was working people at wage levels that were hideous and out of sync within the ratio of the company and it's profits that were being made.

The disrespecting of workers in the world is a huge problem, and America was always the better nation when it came to this stuff, but these days it's like the American businessman said "hey if ya can't beat them, then you might as well join them, and so he did at the expense of selling his own soul in the process, and this if he was not careful. I think I know past owners maybe, that might be burning in hell right now if they didn't get the chance to ask God for forgiveness before they croaked, and when they did they had better meant it (imho).

 

[PaulS1950]

Each store is a franchise - some make money others don't but the corporation makes their money because the franchises have to buy from the corporation. That way the corporation makes money even when the individual stores go bust. It is a multilevel restricted marketing process. You want to sell "Bill's Burgers". You pay $1 million to Bill and sign a contract to buy everything you sell from Bill. Then you buy the land and pay to have a building put up that complies with the contract you signed with Bill. So far Bill has made $1million and you have spent around $2 million before you open the doors. Now you stock your store with $100000 in stuff from Bill that he paid $50000 for. Bill has made $1050000 and you haven't sold a single burger. A completed burger costs you $.30 plus labor, gas electricity and water. Bill makes $.15 on every burger that you sell. You charge $1 for the burger and you get about $.03 profit from each burger. You make about $30.00 for each 1000 burgers that you sell and Bill gets about $150 for every 1000 burgers that you sell.
If you are really successful and watch your losses very carefully and you make a profit of say $100000 a year Bill is making $500000 a year from you.
Now, if Bill has another franchise set up too close to you and the sales get divided between the two stores then your income drops but Bill's income stays the same.If one of you go out of business the the other one gets the extra business and Bill still gets his money.

Most corporations are similar to the franchise idea. The corp is insulated from the major costs of doing business but gets the largest amount of profits. They have to because they are owned by individuals who expect a return on the money they invest in stocks. If they don't get a decent return they will sell their stocks and the value of the corporation will drop.

 

[beagle9]

Each store is a franchise - some make money others don't but the corporation makes their money because the franchises have to buy from the corporation. That way the corporation makes money even when the individual stores go bust. It is a multilevel restricted marketing process. You want to sell "Bill's Burgers". You pay $1 million to Bill and sign a contract to buy everything you sell from Bill. Then you buy the land and pay to have a building put up that complies with the contract you signed with Bill. So far Bill has made $1million and you have spent around $2 million before you open the doors. Now you stock your store with $100000 in stuff from Bill that he paid $50000 for. Bill has made $1050000 and you haven't sold a single burger. A completed burger costs you $.30 plus labor, gas electricity and water. Bill makes $.15 on every burger that you sell. You charge $1 for the burger and you get about $.03 profit from each burger. You make about $30.00 for each 1000 burgers that you sell and Bill gets about $150 for every 1000 burgers that you sell.
If you are really successful and watch your losses very carefully and you make a profit of say $100000 a year Bill is making $500000 a year from you.
Now, if Bill has another franchise set up too close to you and the sales get divided between the two stores then your income drops but Bill's income stays the same.If one of you go out of business the the other one gets the extra business and Bill still gets his money.

Most corporations are similar to the franchise idea. The corp is insulated from the major costs of doing business but gets the largest amount of profits. They have to because they are owned by individuals who expect a return on the money they invest in stocks. If they don't get a decent return they will sell their stocks and the value of the corporation will drop.

Good report, and it makes sense to me upon what you are saying, so why does the government listen to the employee's who claim they aren't making enough, and who claim that the companies they are working for are just raking it in while forgetting about them in the scheme of things? Now why can't they make even a decent living wage in it all, and to have a fair and decent structured pay system that leaves no question as to what they are dealing with while working there ? Does the government have different stats on this than what you are quoting here as being the case ? Also if this is the case in what you have stated, then should the government enforce it's will upon such a struggling franchise by making it comply to a minimum wage standard or to even consider raising that standard on all the franchises of America, I mean if they are struggling like you say just to make ends meet while Bill and his share holders walk away with gazillions in the deal ?

Should this nation reconsider it's structural contracts and dealings as is found in doing business in these kinds of ways maybe ? Has this become a problem for the nation and it's American workers in which is linked all the way back to what (Wall street) in some kind of way, where it is that so many were angry with that place not to long ago ? How is it that the wealth is getting so out of balance in America, where as people begin to cry fowl in such a big way about it all ?

 

[OnePercenter]

Now you're invoking Special Pleading.

Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wages are a commodity, which means it's not an issue of demographics. Either a substantial increase in the minimum wage is good for the economy, or it isn't. If it's 'theoretically' good for the US, why wasn't it good for American Samoa?

Wages are a human commodity. America Samoa doesn't have the domestic product infrastructure like the US.

I don't see what this has to do with wage increases being good for the economy.

It will raise the GDP by at least $170B/yr.

 

[PaulS1950]

The wage paid depends on the ability to do a job.
I am accustomed to a wage of $30/hr. Can I make that wage flipping burgers? No! because anyone with an IQ above 40 can learn to do that job in a few minutes. (it is easy to replace the worker with another qualified worker) I can make pieces from metal and maintain tolerances of 0.001" from a three view drawing. I get paid $30/hr. It is difficult to find a replacement that can do the same quality work in the same time I can do it. If there was a machine that could read those drawings and produce the same quality piece that I do and could be run by anyone with an IQ above 40 then that job would be worth the same wage as the guy flipping burgers.

Not every job is worth paying a "living wage" for its execution. Some jobs require a high degree of education, others a high degree of skill, and some require both. If you want a skill you either go to a technical college or serve as an apprentice. If you want an education then you go to a college. If you want both then you go to college get the degree and then serve an "apprenticeship" to gain the skill that is a companion to the education.

Some people have inspirations that lead them to a career that would normally require great skill or education to achieve otherwise but the key is that they offer something which people desire, no one else makes as desired, and they do it at a price that people are willing to pay that allows them to make a living.

The key here is that if you are not helping people with your product or service you will not be in business for long.

 

[Immanuel]

Minimum Wage Workers Largely Live In The South, Are Women (GRAPHIC)

Before someone attacks the source, note where the info came from stated at the bottom of the graphic.

Also note that the graphic is larger (easier to read) at the link.

I say just shoot the messenger. . Would you like a blindfold or are you going to take your medicine like a man?

Immie

j/k

 

[beagle9]

The wage paid depends on the ability to do a job.I am accustomed to a wage of $30/hr. Can I make that wage flipping burgers? No! because anyone with an IQ above 40 can learn to do that job in a few minutes. (it is easy to replace the worker with another qualified worker) I can make pieces from metal and maintain tolerances of 0.001" from a three view drawing. I get paid $30/hr. It is difficult to find a replacement that can do the same quality work in the same time I can do it. If there was a machine that could read those drawings and produce the same quality piece that I do and could be run by anyone with an IQ above 40 then that job would be worth the same wage as the guy flipping burgers.

Not every job is worth paying a "living wage" for its execution. Some jobs require a high degree of education, others a high degree of skill, and some require both. If you want a skill you either go to a technical college or serve as an apprentice. If you want an education then you go to a college. If you want both then you go to college get the degree and then serve an "apprenticeship" to gain the skill that is a companion to the education.

Some people have inspirations that lead them to a career that would normally require great skill or education to achieve otherwise but the key is that they offer something which people desire, no one else makes as desired, and they do it at a price that people are willing to pay that allows them to make a living.

The key here is that if you are not helping people with your product or service you will not be in business for long.

Are we still talking about entrance wage as in the minimum wage or are we talking about wages in general ? No matter, because one still has to place a wage at a level that entices people to be interested, so many companies pay higher in the entrance wage, just to attract possibly skilled workers right off the bat, but there are many whom will try and get away with working low skilled and low wage workers for as long as they can get away with it, and they will do this until they are called on the carpet for it, and this no matter how much money they were making in their method of making money in these ways, they still would not do right by the ones whom were helping them make it.

If not careful companies would resort back to working people in slave labor conditions or as slaves if they could get away with it, as they would say that even the slaves were paid something in the ways of a shack, their food and a dirt floor, so one can't say that they were working for nothing would be the words back then by the rich in order to justify the situation in which was going on in their favor, otherwise because these things were supplied to them free , yet at a great cost of the plantation's expense was it gifted them is what they would use on us as an excuse for it all back then just as well.

The game is still the same in many ways, and that is why I guess the government is thought of as the great interceptor in regards to the poor and their treatment by the rich, who has tendencies in many ways to disregard the plight of the less fortunate who are in and around them, but just out of sight in their personal lives where it is not personable in what they choose to do to them when they do it.

Now was it right back then ? Nope it wasn't back in that time nor is it in this time, and working people in dirt poor situations today isn't right either if can do better by them, even if companies poor mouth and cry like babies over the situation of being looked at harshly by the government and society for miss-treating their employee's in many ways, it needs to be done regardless of if they want to act stupidly and greedy in it all.

 

[OnePercenter]

The only people I hire that make minimum wage are Servers, so that fits the graphic pretty accurately

Would you have a problem with minimum wage somehow getting to a level worth working for, otherwise if say most companies can easily afford this adjustment, and this in order to not have to worry about the employee's coming in to work maybe bitter or worse down and out because they are not being paid enough to independently survive out in the real world (apartment rent, maybe one baby or two, utilities, gas for car, babies needs, etc.), at least until they get to a better level within the company in which they are trying so hard to reach maybe ? Where the rich have been getting over, is by turning as much responsibility they can over to the government to subsidize their employee's, and this by government making up the difference in what they weren't getting from the companies in which they had been working in many cases so hard for. This corporate or business dependency on government, was created way back in the day now, and it was watered over the years to explode into companies being just as dependent on a government assuming their risk and some of their cost in many ways, just like the welfare recipients were over the years dependent on government in their lives, in which they (the anti-minimum wage crowd) has so much to say about these dependent welfare and food stamp recipients these days just as well. Well how about the dependency companies had morphed into over the years, where they had become the very thing in which they are throwing the sticks at others about in the same ways ?

Ironically, this made for a huge government over the years in which the very same people whom swear they want it to be smaller and out of their hair, actually helped create the very thing they claim to loath now, and I bet cha that they only want them out of their hair when it comes to their taxes, but when it comes to subsidizing and helping them mitigate their risk, and as well as helping them with low wage employee's by subsidizing their cost to the company by giving these workers welfare, food stamps and other subsidizing assistance while they work for these companies, which is why I think that the minimum wage had become stale and to low for to long in America because of, they wouldn't want the government to change a thing.

People just need to wake up to the game, and how it has been played over the years, then they will finally see what has been going on.

A server is only paid (by us) minimum wage.
They actually make much more than that. They get raises based COMPLETELY on performance.
When a customer comes to me and tells me 'Susie' needs a raise I tell them that's up to them.

It's an entry-level position, though some make a good career out of it.
The good ones, with the motivation, can move up.

Any increase in costs to a business....whether labor or materials.....must be absorbed elsewhere

Just for kicks; How much is your effective hourly rate for one server?

 

[OnePercenter]

Who works for minimum wage?

Those of us thankful enough to have a job, and not ungrateful enough to demand raises after only being there such a limited time. You earn raises, you don't demand them on a silver platter. End of story.

Thankful enough to have a job? - An employee uses his/her talents to make an employer successful and the employee has to be thankful?

 

[OnePercenter]

A server is only paid (by us) minimum wage.
They actually make much more than that. They get raises based COMPLETELY on performance.
When a customer comes to me and tells me 'Susie' needs a raise I tell them that's up to them.

It's an entry-level position, though some make a good career out of it.
The good ones, with the motivation, can move up.

Any increase in costs to a business....whether labor or materials.....must be absorbed elsewhere

Regardless of what a company is making, these rules about absorption elsewhere still apply ? I mean how much does a company have to make before it begins to become the better company than the company next door ? You know the one where people say hey, I want to work at that company over there, because I hear they treat their employee's like this and like that, and they have better insurance and benefits also, so man if I could just get on with them that would be great? Now there is a unity that has been created in mindset with the upper echelon, where as they get together and come up with all these so called business class rules to follow, just so another company won't steel their employee's because they are doing wrong by them, so if they can get another company or companies to follow suit in this thinking, then it all begins going down hill for the employee's in a trend type situation that is being followed at the top, while the suits walk out with more money than one could shake a stick at, while leaving everyone else in the dust.

Tips once were a great thing for the servers, until greed got in on that one also. Now the feds want taxes out of something that is given to someone as a gift, then the companies also want the employee upon which the gift was given to, to then place that gift into a pot for sharing, and then the company is reaching into that pot as well, and is taking a percentage of that gift for themselves in which is thievery (imho), because that person based upon their performance for whom was given a gift by a customer based upon that performance, should keep every bit of that gift given them, because that is between them and the customer. PERIOD!

Why shouldn't a person receiving monetary compensation related to their job pay taxes on said compensation?