Gov Controled Minimum Wages Good?

[billvon 2,426]

>This leads me to think you want the minimum wage to be
>scaled according to the worker's personal conditions.

Scaled to the conditions of the area. San Diego would have a different minimum wage than El Centro, set by the local governments. They have the best view of what makes sense for their populations.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Scaled to the conditions of the area. San Diego would have a different minimum wage than El Centro, set by the local governments. They have the best view of what makes sense for their populations.

Interesting. So you propose that minimum wage should be set by city governments based on their assessment of the local cost of living?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,426]

>So you propose that minimum wage should be set by city
>governments based on their assessment of the local cost of living?

Basically, yes. They take into account cost of living, type of labor they want to attract, the demographics of their areas, the specific needs of businesses in their area, and set their minimum pay scales accordingly.

As an example, right now the minimum wage is often ignored in areas where migrant workers work in fields on a seasonal basis; if local governments set a more reasonable minimum wage in those areas, farmers would be more likely to pay their workers that minimum wage. Thus their incomes would go up and farmers would be less exposed to legal action.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gov controlled minimum wage - good. Gov controlled minimum wages at the levels they are at now - bad.

So you do not see that raising the min wage does more harm than good?

Of course I do realize that evil business have to be told what to do.

Still waiting for PROOF that it has happened EVERY time.

I will not agree that there is PROOF that it has happened EVERY time. I just think that there is plenty of evidence to show what effect minimum wages have. It leads to outsourcing. It leads to the loss of industry.

I'll put things the way I see them - as an employer. I have no degree in economics, just an idea of cost/benefit. I pay a wage no higher than the value of an additional hour's work. Raising the minimum wage forces me to dismiss low productivity workers. The lowest productivity workers are those with the least education, job experience, and maturity. Goodbye, receptionist. A receptionist doesn't do $7.25 per hour worth of work for me. My paralegals are well-above the minimum wage, so they have no worries. It is my receptionist who does.

The minimum wage laws likely don't kill off a huge number of jobs. The sad effect, though, is that while the minimum wage laws don't drive unemployment up to high numbers, it does tend to screw over those who have the least education and experience - teenagers (with less experience) and the poor (who are the unfortunate victims of a fraudulent education system that provides them with no choice but to go with sad inner-city education). These are the people who are most in need of a job - especially one that they can utilize to develop experience and receive training.

"Workers of the World, Admit It!" The reasons for minimum wages are NOT based on economic efficiency. Arguments are NOT put forward to say, "The GDP of the US will increase by..." or "Worker productivity will increase by..." No, the argument is best summed up by Sen. Kennedy,

Quote

"I believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should not live in poverty in the richest country in the world."

The reason for minimum wage is redistribution of resources and income. Thus, economics is the the compelling reason for a minimum wage.

Rather, it is a political agenda for redistribution of wealth utilizing arbitrary political judgments. "Minimum Wage" is political wealth redistribution. That is all. If the minimum wage is used to create wealth, why don't we lead the charge by forwarding a UN resolution that all countries create a minimum wage to halt poverty. Don't you think that Bangladesh would be better if everybody there could have a job for $7.25 per hour?

Nothing economical about it. And think about it - the federal minimum wage has been around since 1938 and there is STILL poverty - 70 years later! Shouldn't it have worked by now?

No, because it was never intended to do anything but redistribute wealth. Argue the economic benefits if you think it's good.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gov controlled minimum wage - good. Gov controlled minimum wages at the levels they are at now - bad.

So you do not see that raising the min wage does more harm than good?

Of course I do realize that evil business have to be told what to do.

Still waiting for PROOF that it has happened EVERY time.

I will not agree that there is PROOF that it has happened EVERY time. I just think that there is plenty of evidence to show what effect minimum wages have. It leads to outsourcing. It leads to the loss of industry.

I'll put things the way I see them - as an employer. I have no degree in economics, just an idea of cost/benefit. I pay a wage no higher than the value of an additional hour's work. Raising the minimum wage forces me to dismiss low productivity workers. The lowest productivity workers are those with the least education, job experience, and maturity. Goodbye, receptionist. A receptionist doesn't do $7.25 per hour worth of work for me. My paralegals are well-above the minimum wage, so they have no worries. It is my receptionist who does.

.

So if the receptionists job can go undone for the sake of $7.50 an hour, I guess it's not really important that you have a receptionist. Will no-one answer the phones, or will your paralegals have to do it?

IMO, if a business is SO marginal that it can't afford to have its most menial tasks done for minimum wage, it deserves to fail.

In the USA, only (approx) 3% of workers are at minimum wage anyway. How big of a deal is it unless your business is really marginal?

I have yet to hear of any CEO having to forgo his Mercedes on account of the miniumum wage.

Florida raised its minimum wage in 2005 following a referendum in 2004. The increase was strongly opposed by business groups claiming just what rushmc claims.



In the last year, Florida has actually added 220,000 jobs.

And in the hotel and restaurant sector alone, the state gained nearly 30,000 jobs.

Mike Jacobs -- who now runs his own Beef O'Brady's -- doesn't think the chains were really worried about layoffs. It just sounded a lot better than focusing on what Jacobs calls the real issue: profit.

A minimum-wage increase "takes part of that bottom-line profit that corporate restaurants have to report to their stockholders," Jacobs says. "Profit is a big part of it, so they weren't a hundred percent honest, in my opinion."

Source: NPR.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So if the receptionists job can go undone for the sake of $7.50 an hour, I guess it's not really important that you have a receptionist. Will no-one answer the phones, or will your paralegals have to do it?

No, it is not crucial that I have her. She makes my life easier, which is good. It's worth $6.75 per hour. But a 50 cent increase is an extra thousand in wages to her per year, without payroll taxes, insurance, etc.

You are right - it is NOT that important to me - more of a luxury. One I will part with when it costs more than it is worth. I won't suffer much but she will. This is the doctrine that I like to call, "Reality." And it's true - reality bites.

Quote

if a business is SO marginal that it can't afford to have its most menial tasks done for minimum wage, it deserves to fail.

Many will. And there will be MORE people out of work. How nice is it that you have no problem putting so many out of work! You may be right - perhaps a person making $6.75 an hour with a job cannot put as much food on the table as a person who would make $7.25 per hour but has no job.

Thank you, professor, for proving my point. When market forces can't put someone out of business, dammit, the government should!

Again, you value the marginal business's existence much less that the employee of the marginal business values it. I'm sure those employees value their employer, but fuck 'em. Minimum wage laws are doing them a favor, right?! They are just too uneducated to realize what a favor it did to them to lay them off.

Quote

In the USA, only (approx) 3% of workers are at minimum wage anyway.

Good point. I heard 2.2 percent. How many of these workers are teen? Probably more than half of those. But let's assume 1.5 percent are not teens or students. Do 90 percent of them a favor by increasing it and let's let the other 10 percent find new jobs. That's very heartwarming!

Quote

A minimum-wage increase "takes part of that bottom-line profit that corporate restaurants have to report to their stockholders," Jacobs says. "Profit is a big part of it, so they weren't a hundred percent honest, in my opinion."

Yep. As I said, it takes profit away. As I put in my first post, it is not about economic efficiency - it is about social engineering. And once my bottom line is affected, I am going to streamline. I run my business as a business, which means I better make money. If I don't make money, I go out of business and 7 employees, plus my wife and I, lose our jobs. For the sake of the business, my business can operate with 6 employees supporting us. I'll sacrifice the receptionist to keep the other 6 working. 1 person lookign for work is better than 9 people.

I am actually suprised by your lack of caring for legitimate businesses doing what they can to keep people employed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

A receptionist doesn't do $7.25 per hour worth of work for me.

Many companies consider the receptionist to be a very important position, and pay more than $7.25/hr, even small businesses. The receptionist is the first, and sometimes only impression the public or potential clients will receive, so a valued pro will often pay dividends in the long run.

As they say "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression."

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[FreeflyChile 0]

My question is: if you were to radically increase minimum wage, wouldn't employers have to increase the price of their goods to make up for the increased wages? More to the point, wages would go up, but wouldn't cost of living as well? Im sure someone making more money than they were before would feel better about having more money, but that money wouldn't go as far.

I haven't done any research so I am not sure of what the ratio of increases would be, im just curious.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Many companies consider the receptionist to be a very important position, and pay more than $7.25/hr, even small businesses.

Mine isn't one of them. She is a convenience to me. Conveniences aren't worth much to me. But it's nice to know she can find work at places that will pay her much better than me. I'll be sure to let her know that if I need to discharge her. It'll make her feel better.

Quote

The receptionist is the first, and sometimes only impression the public or potential clients will receive, so a valued pro will often pay dividends in the long run.

True. Hut not here. Every consultation I have with a prospective client is a job interview for me. My receptionist can look hot, be sweet, all those things. But it's whether that person is comfortable with me that is the real issue.

I recognize that, and it works fine. Then again, I DO tend to operate differently than most.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if you were to radically increase minimum wage, wouldn't employers have to increase the price of their goods to make up for the increased wages?

Yep, which is but one reason why there are more poor poeple now than when minimum wages began in 1938.

Quote

Im sure someone making more money than they were before would feel better about having more money, but that money wouldn't go as far.

They may even spend MORE money thinking it WILL get them further. After all, they are primarily the uneducated, inexperienced or immature that are working minimum wage. The end result is that they are even worse off than before.

But hey, the government tried to be nice. To make them feel better, they'll raise the minimum wage again. And again. And again.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

***
Yep, which is but one reason why there are more poor poeple now than when minimum wages began in 1938.

There are more people - period - than in 1938.

I seem to recall a little event called "The Great Depression" that still hadn't ended in 1938.

If you're fortunate, NCclimber won't ask for definitive proof of your assertion from a mainstream credible source, and then quibble endlessly over the meaning of "more", "people", "minimum", "wages", "began" and "1938"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I understand that. But what is the purpose of the minimum wage? If we need to keep raising it over the last 70 years, it isn't working.

The purpose of the program is to redistribute wealth. Period. Alvin Lee of Ten Years After sang in "I'd Love to Change the World,"
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more."

It's not "till there are no poor no more." It's make everyone poor. Equal misery for all.

Yes, the Depression was going on in 1938 - worse than it was in any year of the depression except 1933. It has been theorized that FDR's antibusiness policies caused the recession of 1937, which lasted through 1938. Real recovery didn't happen until WWII, when FDR realized, "Shit. I need those businesses if I'm gonna go to war."

.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

"No, it doesn't work that way. You make an assertion, you back it up. It's not up to others to prove you wrong."

Well, Kallend, you have made the assertion that he was wrong. Prove it.
I could easily ask you to prove that it made no sense to stop hiring high school kids at my shop, but I won't because that would be asking you to prove something you can't.
Or we could just stop playing your little game of semantics that you seem to enjoy so much.

Your point has already been addressed, and you are wrong.

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2665420#2665420

ALSO, I didn't assert that he is wrong, I asked him to prove that he is right.

No, my point was what I think of the situation. I am fully aware of the idea that when someone makes an assertion they bear the burden of proof. But there are exception to most any rule and I feel this is one of them, mostly because it would be easier for you to find one example to prove him wrong than for him to search through all of history and quote each and every case. Or are going to now tell me that I'm not thinking what I am thinking? Have you developed an ability to read minds from hundreds of miles away?
Your assertion that he was wrong is implicit in your posts. Your repeated demands for proof bear that out.
I don't expect you to change your mind or opinion, nor do I expect anything from you but more sarcasm. You implied to me that it didn't make sense to stop hiring high school kids, I proved you wrong. But you won't even admit that. Kind of like a certain President.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

I understand that. But what is the purpose of the minimum wage? If we need to keep raising it over the last 70 years, it isn't working.

That appears to be blaming all inflation on the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been stagnant for years but inflation hasn't stopped. Sorry, counselor, I don't buy that one.

Quote

The purpose of the program is to redistribute wealth. Period. Alvin Lee of Ten Years After sang in "I'd Love to Change the World,"
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more."

.

Our spread between the richest and the poorest Americans is just unconscionable.

The Swedes have plenty of wealthy people, and they have a far lower poverty rate than us, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more redistribution of wealth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

A receptionist doesn't do $7.25 per hour worth of work for me.

Many companies consider the receptionist to be a very important position, and pay more than $7.25/hr, even small businesses. The receptionist is the first, and sometimes only impression the public or potential clients will receive, so a valued pro will often pay dividends in the long run.

As they say "you don't get a second chance to make a first impression."

You are absolutely right. A well spoken, well groomed, friendly and personable receptionist can do wonders for business relations. Add intelligent to that list of qualifications. Any and all qualities a customer sees in their first contact are the ones they envision in the rest of the company. It doesn't matter if you make the best Widgets in the world, if the customers first contact is anything less than, at the minimum, normal, then you won't sell many Widgets to that customer.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

I understand that. But what is the purpose of the minimum wage? If we need to keep raising it over the last 70 years, it isn't working.

That appears to be blaming all inflation on the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been stagnant for years but inflation hasn't stopped. Sorry, counselor, I don't buy that one.

Quote

The purpose of the program is to redistribute wealth. Period. Alvin Lee of Ten Years After sang in "I'd Love to Change the World,"
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more."

.

Our spread between the richest and the poorest Americans is just unconscionable.

The Swedes have plenty of wealthy people, and they have a far lower poverty rate than us, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more redistribution of wealth.

I don't like the income difference either, but it is a byproduct of a capitalist society. Every person has the same right (not neccessarily the same chance) to advance as far in life as they want. More than one person has gone from near starvation to CEO or President. To put a cap on the amount a person can make in a year borders on a political system I would much rather not be a part of. If someone isn't happy with their income they are free to do something about it. A former classmate of mine put herself through college by working two part time jobs at minimum wage while raising her son, who was 4 when she started college. It took her five years but she graduated from Ohio State with a BS in Civil Engineering.
No, the system isn't fair. But it's better than communism.

[gontleman 0]

Quote

Quote

I understand that. But what is the purpose of the minimum wage? If we need to keep raising it over the last 70 years, it isn't working.

That appears to be blaming all inflation on the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been stagnant for years but inflation hasn't stopped. Sorry, counselor, I don't buy that one.

Quote

The purpose of the program is to redistribute wealth. Period. Alvin Lee of Ten Years After sang in "I'd Love to Change the World,"
"Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more."

.

Our spread between the richest and the poorest Americans is just unconscionable.

The Swedes have plenty of wealthy people, and they have a far lower poverty rate than us, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more redistribution of wealth.

Perhaps I can get your opinion on this professor.

In simple terms... would at least a significant portion of inflation be related to the fact that there is foreign money paying for our domestic funds and resources?

If we have a national debt approaching 10 trillion dollars, then in my mind, that means we have 10 trillion dollars in resources (currency, goods, buildings whatever) that we don't own. If I have 3 dollars and Bob loans me 1, I then have 4 dollars. If I give you 1 of those dollars, in actuality I'm giving you 1 dollar that has a lien of 33 cents on it until I pay Bob his dollar back.

EDIT: Since I owe Bob money, that "dilutes" the value of currency as it sits in my system. Sure I have $4 to my name but I'm really only worth $3.

Am I over-simplifying this? I've been under the impression that our national debt is one of, if not, THE largest sources of inflation.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour does more harm than good.

Bah. That doesn't even keep it in line with inflation since the last increase. Index it to inflation and lets move on to something else.

And how about a maximum wage? Those goddamn overpaid executives are hurting the bottom line too.

Ah yes, class envy. A liberal mainstay.

Got to worry about the other guy.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour does more harm than good.

Bah. That doesn't even keep it in line with inflation since the last increase. Index it to inflation and lets move on to something else.

And how about a maximum wage? Those goddamn overpaid executives are hurting the bottom line too.

Ah yes, class envy. A liberal mainstay.

Got to worry about the other guy.....

POT.. You worry about your tax money going to the undeserving poor.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Our spread between the richest and the poorest Americans is just unconscionable.

To you it is. And to most it is. But the US has been trying the SAME thing for the SAME reasons over and over again for 70 years. And with what result?

So, again, you are echoing that it is a political, rather than economic, benefit. Unless you can argue how a minimum wage increases economic efficiency, it decreases economic efficiency, and is therefore a bad economic move.

You just think the social benefit outweighs the economic harm, which is fine.

p.s. - Sweden is only now recovering from the economic crises of the 1990's. They have had to cut back and decentralize.

Also note that Sweden has a population of about 9 million - which is roughly one-half that of the metropolitan Los Angeles basin. It is difficult to compare anyplace like Sweden that has little diversity (90 percent are ethnic Swedes, 5 percent Finns, and the rest other), has a small population, and, yes, less economic diversity.

It's easier to get everyone doing well in a place that size. Yeah, Sweden did all right (except the 90's and with youth unemployment)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour does more harm than good.

Bah. That doesn't even keep it in line with inflation since the last increase. Index it to inflation and lets move on to something else.

And how about a maximum wage? Those goddamn overpaid executives are hurting the bottom line too.

Ah yes, class envy. A liberal mainstay.

Got to worry about the other guy.....

POT.. You worry about your tax money going to the undeserving poor.

Totaly fucking wrong but nice try

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Ah yes, class envy. A liberal mainstay.

Got to worry about the other guy.....

Class envy? No.

"How widely the benefits of growth and productivity are shared is a basic measure of economic performance in a democracy - and further, widely shared benefits help to generate positive feelings about a society and its government."

-http://www.cows.org/about_newsroom_detail.asp?id=76)

Also, studies have shown that a fair minimum wage increases employment. Just look at the states with the lowest minimum wages - they also have the highest unemployment. Higher minimum wages entice many to look for work.

Go ahead, ask me for a cite. Or google it yourself.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[gontleman 0]

Quote

Class envy? No.

"How widely the benefits of growth and productivity are shared is a basic measure of economic performance in a democracy - and further, widely shared benefits help to generate positive feelings about a society and its government."

-http://www.cows.org/about_newsroom_detail.asp?id=76)

Also, studies have shown that a fair minimum wage increases employment. Just look at the states with the lowest minimum wages - they also have the highest unemployment. Higher minimum wages entice many to look for work.

Go ahead, ask me for a cite. Or google it yourself.

The problem with that article is that it will queue most people to say "Well it's your fault you didn't go get a college degree." (Considering the article explicitly serves to show that degrees are definining line in whether you are on the side with the "new majority" or the other side which, as far as I can tell, are painted to be above the problems of the other side) Yet here I am thinking about all my friends who are going to college and those who are not and here's what I find. Essentially every friend that is going to college is getting a SIGNIFICANT level of support for this to be possible. The average college friend meets these criteria:

- Works a part time job and is enrolled in at least 10 credit hours. Since the college schedule is horrendously unfriendly with "regular" full time (40 hour) work weeks, these people are working 20-30 hours per week in menial pay jobs which barely approach $6.50 per hour.

- Receives the largest portion of their financial support from their families. If 40 hours of full time minimum wage work can barely cover the basic expenses it takes to have a remotely normal life (food, shelter, utilities) you can be damn sure 20 hours a week isn't going to cut it. As such, these kids are going to college with tuitions anywhere from $4,000-$8,000 per year if not more. (Working full time for $8/hr plus a $250 monthly bonus I made $16.6k taxable last year to put those costs in perspective) Not to mention cost of books. And ESPECIALLY not to mention cost of living expenses. They either live with their parents or their parents help them pay for their apartment/dorm etc.

These are the two biggies. There are no magic scholarships that are paying for the bulk of the college-going community's expenses. So anyone using that as a basis for "You didn't try hard enough" is left with nothing but a cop out excuse. But the whole point of bringing this up is to squelch the notion that college degrees are something that come simply as the result of a choice to get one. The reality is that a kid just out of high school with little to know support from his parents who seeks to get a college degree while doing his best to be self-sufficient is in for an uphill battle that will take longer to reward him with a Bachelors than it will take the other end of the spectrum to achieve a PhD. And that's aggressive speculation.

In my opinion, the minimum wage hike is most beneficial to the above mentioned individual. There is no reason a kid out of high school should have to work 80 hours a week just to approach the level of being able to live on their own with a decent standard of living. If you want them to go to college and get degrees... empower them to do so. A kid in such a situation who's parents househould bring home more than around $35,000 receives almost no government help with the cost of a degree until they are 24 years old. Until then, it's this country's obligation to provide that individual with the means to take care of themselves in such a way that they feel as though they are succeeding in at least that. Provided they are willing to work like the rest of us. The sad thing is, minimum wage doesn't allow for that. I make $10/hr working 40 hours a week and to afford medical insurance, a means of transportation to my job, insurance on that transportation, gas, food that transcends the level of cup ramen, and a place to live with at least a couple of the amenities that your typical middle class individual gets to enjoy (the only source of home entertainment my roommates and I have are computers with a broadband internet connection... [note that in countries like South Korea, it's virtually unheard of to NOT have a broadband internet connection] no TV here) requires just about ALL of my income and I live with 2 other people. I would not be capable of maintaining my current living situation on minimum wage. So unless minimum wage employees are given plenty of places (section 8) to live where they can be grouped up with other minimum wage employees to split bills... minimum wage will continue to be inadequate for accomplishing it's stated goal.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

My question is: if you were to radically increase minimum wage, wouldn't employers have to increase the price of their goods to make up for the increased wages? More to the point, wages would go up, but wouldn't cost of living as well? Im sure someone making more money than they were before would feel better about having more money, but that money wouldn't go as far.

I haven't done any research so I am not sure of what the ratio of increases would be, im just curious.

That will be one of the net effects - guaranteed.

Someone else Swimmer Ted forgot about - wait staff. With the increase in min. wage, they're going to get screwed even WORSE than they are now.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Our spread between the richest and the poorest Americans is just unconscionable.

What?? Here we go again... it's not MY responsibility to earn money for OTHER people.

Quote

The Swedes have plenty of wealthy people, and they have a far lower poverty rate than us, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more redistribution of wealth.

Hurrah for the Swedes.

Japan has less crime - do you suggest that we live cheek-to-jowl like they do, as well?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706