Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

[cpwill]

I'd like to know where the average manufacturing job pays 77 grand... it sure isn't around here. Damn few manufacturing jobs around these parts pay more than 25-35k, and the latter is usually after you've been there a while... IF you don't get downsized or something.

:shrug: you'd have to ask them. My brother works in manufacturing at a Toyota plant in Kentucky, though, and he makes I think around that or maybe a tad under. Mind you, he's only been working for about 6 years or so, now, so it would make sense if he was a little under the average; but he's doing fairly well.

 

[Goshin]

:shrug: you'd have to ask them. My brother works in manufacturing at a Toyota plant in Kentucky, though, and he makes I think around that or maybe a tad under. Mind you, he's only been working for about 6 years or so, now, so it would make sense if he was a little under the average; but he's doing fairly well.

The BMW plant locally pays about $30k or so to people starting up. I don't think anyone on the manufacturing floor makes more than $40k. That's considered far better than average wages locally.

One of the few surviving big textile plants, locally, doesn't pay that much. I have a BIL who has worked there for nearly 30 years, is a supervisor, pulls OT and holiday shifts every chance he gets, and still doesn't make anywhere close to 77k.

Of course SC is one of the more extreme 'right to work' states with hardly any unionization and our labor board is a joke.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But you have merely described how we as a society attempt to implement Christian additives (such as not seeking revenge) into our justice system. A justice system does not violate Christian precepts; in fact, we find quite the opposite:





Nor is war itself in violation of Christian teaching (though some wars can be), which is why we have Just War Theory.



Free trade benefits the broad populace, increases our productivity, decreases our relative poverty, and increases our national income. We also didn't see a net "ton of jobs vanish overseas". We had a ton of abusive unions drive their companies into the dirt - all those rust-belt-esque jobs are doing fine in the South, where we have plenty of auto making factories, and (believe it or not) we are still the worlds' #1 Manufacturer. We have roughly the exact same number of manufacturing jobs now that we did in the late 60s - manufacturing has held steady. And Manufacturing jobs aren't paying minimum wage or anything close to it - the average manufacturing worker in 2011 earned $77,060.

Every time we have passed free trade legislation or reduced trade barriers, Americans' income has gone up while unemployment has gone down. But, most critically, our cost of living has gone down, heavily benefiting those for whom the bare necessities take up the largest portion of their income.

Having the same absolute number of U.S. manufacturing jobs as we did in 1960 while the U.S. population went from 179,323,175 to 307,745,538 (in 2010) is hardly keeping things the same.

US Population Through History



An interesting read on the state of "white America" 1960 to 2008 (to leave out any recent recession effects).

The new American divide - Society and Culture - AEI

 

[Gipper]

To make a very long story a lot shorter... yes it is moral sometimes for a society to do some things that an individual should not do... like punish a criminal for his crime. There are very good reasons why we don't let the family of the victim determine the guilt or innocence of the accused babyraper or grannystabber, and punish them according to their own view of justice. We do it as a society, we require certain standards and a certain consensus, and we do so according to established, hopefully-objective proceedures.

War is not exactly a Christian virtue either, strictly speaking... yet sometimes it is necessary no? What if we'd chosen not to fight the Nazis and company in 1941... not good.

Now as to the outsourcing issue...

Free trade benefits SOMEBODY yeah... but it is debatable whether that someone is the average American so much. We have had tons of jobs vanishing overseas, and people who made $12, $15, $20 an hour are now finding their skillsets worthless in America, and most of the jobs they can find (IF they can get one!) are paying minimum wage or not much more, $8 or 9 /hr, and often not even full time and often lacking benefits. Many of them lack the resources to re-train for a new in-demand skillset, being unable to spend 1-4 years getting schooled while somehow finding a way to pay the bills while making half what they made before.

Yet the same companies that employ sweatshop labor overseas import their finished goods HERE and make huge profits from those Americans who still have money, at a cost to good American jobs.


That's messed up.

America functioned as a socialist nation between the days of WW2 and Kennedy getting elected. I don't want a return to those days. When the top tax/corporate bracket is over 90%, there really is no point in not passing along the wages to the unskilled grunt. When Kennedy (and later Johnson, when Kennedy got killed) brought down the top corporate rate, then you started to see capitalism in action, and the start of where ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit were rewarded. It was really shining when Reagan dropped the corporate rate even further down. That's when you started to see the yuppies - those educated, well-versed people who brought more to the table than a hard hat, a lunchbox, and 8 hours of chimp-like intelligence.

I like rewarding people for intelligence and exceptional talent. I don't like giving someone 30 bucks an hour for putting peg A into slot B.

 

[Goshin]

America functioned as a socialist nation between the days of WW2 and Kennedy getting elected. I don't want a return to those days. When the top tax/corporate bracket is over 90%, there really is no point in not passing along the wages to the unskilled grunt. When Kennedy (and later Johnson, when Kennedy got killed) brought down the top corporate rate, then you started to see capitalism in action, and the start of where ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit were rewarded. It was really shining when Reagan dropped the corporate rate even further down. That's when you started to see the yuppies - those educated, well-versed people who brought more to the table than a hard hat, a lunchbox, and 8 hours of chimp-like intelligence.

I like rewarding people for intelligence and exceptional talent. I don't like giving someone 30 bucks an hour for putting peg A into slot B.

Yeah, it's really charming the way you compare blue collar workers to chimpanzees. You really should run down to the bar next to the factory and tell that one... I'm SURE the locals will find it hilariously funny. Give a shot and let us know how that works out for ya. Pics would be fun too.



And nobody around here is asking 30 dollars an hour to put Peg A into slot B. A MIG/TIG certified welder (NOT chimpanzee work) might make 15/hr.

 

[Gipper]

Yeah, it's really charming the way you compare blue collar workers to chimpanzees. You really should run down to the bar next to the factory and tell that one... I'm SURE the locals will find it hilariously funny. Give a shot and let us know how that works out for ya. Pics would be fun too.



And nobody around here is asking 30 dollars an hour to put Peg A into slot B. A MIG/TIG certified welder (NOT chimpanzee work) might make 15/hr.

Bar grunts don't like young professionals like myself.

 

[Goshin]

Bar grunts don't like young professionals like myself.

I haven't exactly noticed you maxing out the popularity meter among any demographic, but whatever.

 

[Gipper]

I haven't exactly noticed you maxing out the popularity meter among any demographic, but whatever.

Young, urban, educated, male professionals who watch sports and chase skirt.

 

[cpwill]

Having the same absolute number of U.S. manufacturing jobs as we did in 1960 while the U.S. population went from 179,323,175 to 307,745,538 (in 2010) is hardly keeping things the same.

er, actually, it is. What has exploded is our service and intellectual industries. There is no particular reason why manufacturing should continue to take the same portion of our workforce, or why we would even wwant ti to.

An interesting read on the state of "white America" 1960 to 2008 (to leave out any recent recession effects).

The new American divide - Society and Culture - AEI

The numbers are all the same when you take a look at the non-white portions of America - Murray focused in on the white populace when he wrote his latest piece to avoid the charges of racism that he'd gotten after The Bell Curve. However, the book (and this article) is fantastic and I highly recommend it to any.

Although you will note that what he does not talk about when he talks about the items that are causing the downward slide of the bifurcation is a supposed loss of our manufacturing base to overseas venues. The drivers Murray has identified as controlling are actually marriage, single-parenthood, religiousity, industriousness (not what industry, but rather how long you work at it), and crime. "Evil overseas parasits that took our jerbs" doesn't actually show up in the stats.

 

[cpwill]

The BMW plant locally pays about $30k or so to people starting up. I don't think anyone on the manufacturing floor makes more than $40k. That's considered far better than average wages locally.

:shrug: it wouldn't astonish me if the NAM is also including benefits in that analysis. In fact, actually, now that I think about it, I would bet that is more likely correct than not.

But my brother did start at Toyota I think at around 60k.

One of the few surviving big textile plants, locally, doesn't pay that much. I have a BIL who has worked there for nearly 30 years, is a supervisor, pulls OT and holiday shifts every chance he gets, and still doesn't make anywhere close to 77k.

Of course SC is one of the more extreme 'right to work' states with hardly any unionization and our labor board is a joke.

:shrug: letting individual workers decide for themselves whether they wish to send portions of their pay to cover down on massive triple-digit paychecks for senior union leadership in return for a higher chance of your plant closing down is, I think, only fair - so long as the decision is freely theirs.

 

[ChrisL]

....and you realize that increasing the minimum wage makes our country less business friendly...... ???

I disagree. It increases consumer base. So they raise the price of things 5 or 10 cents. I can live with that, perhaps even 50 cents or a dollar increase. It's certainly worth it IMO.

If you are willing to accept that employers suffer when their costs go up, why are you unwilling to admit this dynamic when the particular cost going up is labeled "wages paid"?

Because this is not the government overtaxing and making an unfriendly business environment. This helps regular old people, and that is a good cause, and with how much profits have risen for corporations, they should be more than willing to share with the lowest on the totem pole, the workers who actually MAKE all the money for them. I wonder how you must feel about profit sharing. You know cpwill, greed does NOT make the world a good place. I think companies need to be less greedy when it comes to paying their employees. Whether or not you want to admit it, we need those low-wage earners. They are just as important if not more important than a CEO.

No, I apply statistics. I'm sure there are plenty of responsible poor kids. My cousin, for example, was raised lower-income by a single mother and has since worked his way through Notre Dame and now is a happy father of two bouncing beautiful babies as well as an absurdly well-paid marketing manager living abroad. Equally, as I am sure that there are plenty (many) irresponsible upper middle class kids. But the problem is that you have to get to know someone before you know where they fall - and before you know them individually, all an employer is going to be able to go on is what he knows is likely true of them. Raising the minimum wage doesn't just shift resources from the poor to the middle class adults, it also shifts resources from kids from single-parent-households to kids from two-parent-households (which, to be fair, also features heavy overlap). Because they are statistically less likely to demonstrate the qualities that employers need, they are less likely to be worth the risk of a higher wage immediately out of the gate.

Raising wages trickles up to everyone. That's a good thing. Did you know that McDonald's pulls in 24 BILLION dollars a year? Without those low-wage earners, that would not be possible.

On the contrary - if you will bother to read what has been repeatedly cited and linked for you, you will find that we have been very able to trace the decision by rational managers to invest in labor-replacing capital once the cost of labor became higher than the cost of the capital. It was no coincidence that minimum wage workers were replaced by automation coincident with the last minimum wage increase - but rather a simple application of mathematics.

Technological development is the other blade in that pair of scissors, I agree. But both ends cut.

There might be some true in that, but that is due to a corporation's greed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/b...-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

No one does. In fact, I would rather be surprised at those who do so. The point of a minimum wage job is not to live and raise a family on it - it is to start working ones' way up with it. That is why I criticize increases to the minimum wage so harshly - it keeps people from being able to start. They are stuck at life's starting line forever because we have moved the next step out of their reach.

You are living in the past. Families actually DO have to survive on low-wage jobs, like it or not cpwill, that is a reality of life. You are describing a fantasy world where everything is ideal.

I look forward to it.

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you on this, but with everything going on with Syria and stuff, I've actually kind of lost interest in this topic, although it is still an important issue.

 

[cpwill]

I disagree. It increases consumer base. So they raise the price of things 5 or 10 cents. I can live with that, perhaps even 50 cents or a dollar increase. It's certainly worth it IMO.

On the contrary - it doesn't raise wages for very many workers, and more than mitigates those effects with the workers it fires. For employers who depend largely on a minimum wage workforce, however, it represents (as I have demonstrated to you) a 35-40% increase in their biggest cost (labor). There is no getting around the fact that that is an anti-business measure. As implicitly demonstrated by your own later accusation that the fact that investment in labor-saving-capital is due to "the greed of companies".

Because this is not the government overtaxing and making an unfriendly business environment. This helps regular old people, and that is a good cause, and with how much profits have risen for corporations, they should be more than willing to share with the lowest on the totem pole, the workers who actually MAKE all the money for them.

Er, no. The lowest totem pole workers do not "make all the money for them". In fact, the lowest-totem-pole workers objectively have the lowest value-added per capita in the system of production; that is why they are the lowest-paid workers.

I wonder how you must feel about profit sharing.

:shrug: I think it's a fantastic idea for employee-motivation; but only works when employees have an actual ability to regularly effect profits. Otherwise you are trying to incentivize people to act on something they have very little control over.

You know cpwill, greed does NOT make the world a good place.

Actually, allowing people to seek their self-interest in a market unimpeded by government has made the world an immeasurably better place. We have lifted hundreds of millions of men, women, and children out of poverty in the last couple of decades alone by letting people freely pursue their self-interest. We have made huge gains in reducing Child Mortality rates because of people pursuing their self-interest. Our first world lifestyle that we enjoy so much today is built on people freely pursuing their own self interest. We live longer, healthier lives because of the advances made by people pursuing their own self interest. Unless you are a self-sufficient farmer you eat every day because you depend upon others to pursue their self-interest in growing and selling you food. The house you are sitting in wasn't built by people who really wanted you to have a house - it was built by people who really wanted to get paid, by a company that really wanted to profit by building houses. The clothes you are wearing to protect you from the cold (if it's cold) weren't made by people who just loved the idea of giving you something in your color - they were made by people who wanted to get paid for a company that wanted to make a profit selling you clothes. Or, if it's hot, the same applies to the air-conditioner cooling your space. People pursuing their self-interest has done more good in this world than any other human creation or means of interaction.

I think companies need to be less greedy when it comes to paying their employees.

You would rather they go out of business and all those employees (and their families) end up jobless on the curb?

Because that's your option. Companies that are not competitive, die. And the people who are most screwed when they do are those who worked there who have the least competitive job-skills set.

Whether or not you want to admit it, we need those low-wage earners. They are just as important if not more important than a CEO.

:shrug: we need X amount of production done. Whether it is done by many low-wage workers or a few highly competent high-wage ones overseeing capital investment is irrelevant to the company except insofar as it allows them to compete. If a company chooses to pay workers more than they are worth, it will lose that competition, and all those workers will become unemployed.

Want to see what happens when employees demand to be compensated more than their value added? Take a gander at Detroit.

Raising wages trickles up to everyone.

Not when imposed, it doesn't. It reduces overall demand, reduces overall productivity, thus reduces overall growth, thus reducing our national income, thus reducing our standard of living. It also (when imposed) results in an increase in unemployment among our poorest - meaning that even if it did "trickle up to everyone", it represented simply a re-allocation of resources from the poor to the non-poor.

When it is not imposed, but rather the result of increasing productivity, then it can have those happy effects. But when it is the result of political, rather than market changes? :shrug: not so much. That's like saying that your car is better off if it gets' pushed by a tractor to 50mph with the brake on, rather than if it moves at 40mph under its own power.

That's a good thing. Did you know that McDonald's pulls in 24 BILLION dollars a year? Without those low-wage earners, that would not be possible.

:shrug: sort of. McDonalds has a certain demand for labor at a set wage. Increase the wage, you will likely decrease the demand, and McDonalds will begin to make investment in cheaper capital. Why can't you order your own food, for example, at the check-out line? It's just a matter of hitting a couple of buttons. Then you have one guy handling the dispersing as the food comes out. Call it the 'express' or the 'self-serve' or 'whatever' lane.

There might be some true in that, but that is due to a corporation's greed.

It doesn't matter what you think it's "due to", the fact is it is. You don't get to choose to reject reality because it's mean.

You are living in the past. Families actually DO have to survive on low-wage jobs, like it or not cpwill, that is a reality of life. You are describing a fantasy world where everything is ideal.

Again, when we talk about these workers, we are talking about my family. Families also have to survive on unemployment - and more of them will have to do so if we increase the minimum wage. Creating hyperbolic strawmen makes you look silly, and reduces your ability to speak to this topic and be taken seriously.

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you on this, but with everything going on with Syria and stuff, I've actually kind of lost interest in this topic, although it is still an important issue.

It is indeed - and no problem. The handy "who quoted you" function is a great feature for these discussions.

 

[ChrisL]

On the contrary - it doesn't raise wages for very many workers, and more than mitigates those effects with the workers it fires. For employers who depend largely on a minimum wage workforce, however, it represents (as I have demonstrated to you) a 35-40% increase in their biggest cost (labor). There is no getting around the fact that that is an anti-business measure. As implicitly demonstrated by your own later accusation that the fact that investment in labor-saving-capital is due to "the greed of companies".

Cpwill, the minimum wage here in Massachusetts is 8.25 an hour, I believe. They always raise it like 10 cents more than what the feds say. I don't goods are that much more expensive here in MA as compared to other states. And if a business cannot pay it's workers a decent wage, then yes they are being greedy, especially if they are pulling in millions every year.

Er, no. The lowest totem pole workers do not "make all the money for them". In fact, the lowest-totem-pole workers objectively have the lowest value-added per capita in the system of production; that is why they are the lowest-paid workers.

Er no, they wouldn't have a business without those workers.

:shrug: I think it's a fantastic idea for employee-motivation; but only works when employees have an actual ability to regularly effect profits. Otherwise you are trying to incentivize people to act on something they have very little control over.

ALL employees effect profits.

Actually, allowing people to seek their self-interest in a market unimpeded by government has made the world an immeasurably better place. We have lifted hundreds of millions of men, women, and children out of poverty in the last couple of decades alone by letting people freely pursue their self-interest. We have made huge gains in reducing Child Mortality rates because of people pursuing their self-interest. Our first world lifestyle that we enjoy so much today is built on people freely pursuing their own self interest. We live longer, healthier lives because of the advances made by people pursuing their own self interest. Unless you are a self-sufficient farmer you eat every day because you depend upon others to pursue their self-interest in growing and selling you food. The house you are sitting in wasn't built by people who really wanted you to have a house - it was built by people who really wanted to get paid, by a company that really wanted to profit by building houses. The clothes you are wearing to protect you from the cold (if it's cold) weren't made by people who just loved the idea of giving you something in your color - they were made by people who wanted to get paid for a company that wanted to make a profit selling you clothes. Or, if it's hot, the same applies to the air-conditioner cooling your space. People pursuing their self-interest has done more good in this world than any other human creation or means of interaction.

There are limitations to that theory. BIG ones.

You would rather they go out of business and all those employees (and their families) end up jobless on the curb?

Now you are exaggerating. I guess they're business is not very successful if they can't afford to keep employees.

Because that's your option. Companies that are not competitive, die. And the people who are most screwed when they do are those who worked there who have the least competitive job-skills set.

I disagree. Minimum wage jobs are the most plentiful, I would think.

:shrug: we need X amount of production done. Whether it is done by many low-wage workers or a few highly competent high-wage ones overseeing capital investment is irrelevant to the company except insofar as it allows them to compete. If a company chooses to pay workers more than they are worth, it will lose that competition, and all those workers will become unemployed.

Not true. Employees appreciate good employers and work harder for those types of employers.

Want to see what happens when employees demand to be compensated more than their value added? Take a gander at Detroit.

You are simplifying things. You know it was much more than that.

Not when imposed, it doesn't. It reduces overall demand, reduces overall productivity, thus reduces overall growth, thus reducing our national income, thus reducing our standard of living. It also (when imposed) results in an increase in unemployment among our poorest - meaning that even if it did "trickle up to everyone", it represented simply a re-allocation of resources from the poor to the non-poor.

I disagree. When minimum wage is higher, other wages rise too.

When it is not imposed, but rather the result of increasing productivity, then it can have those happy effects. But when it is the result of political, rather than market changes? :shrug: not so much. That's like saying that your car is better off if it gets' pushed by a tractor to 50mph with the brake on, rather than if it moves at 40mph under its own power.

If it wasn't mandatory, people would still be making 2 dollars an hour and everyone would be poor, and only CEOs and share holders would be rich.

sort of. McDonalds has a certain demand for labor at a set wage. Increase the wage, you will likely decrease the demand, and McDonalds will begin to make investment in cheaper capital. Why can't you order your own food, for example, at the check-out line? It's just a matter of hitting a couple of buttons. Then you have one guy handling the dispersing as the food comes out. Call it the 'express' or the 'self-serve' or 'whatever' lane.

McDonalds pulls in BILLIONS of dollars a year. LOL! BAD example.

It doesn't matter what you think it's "due to", the fact is it is. You don't get to choose to reject reality because it's mean.

You are the one rejecting reality cpwill. The reality is we actually DO have a mandated MW, which will probably rise again in the future no matter if you kick and scream. Lol!

Again, when we talk about these workers, we are talking about my family. Families also have to survive on unemployment - and more of them will have to do so if we increase the minimum wage. Creating hyperbolic strawmen makes you look silly, and reduces your ability to speak to this topic and be taken seriously.

No that speaks to the health of the economy, not minimum wage.

It is indeed - and no problem. The handy "who quoted you" function is a great feature for these discussions.

True!

BTW, too many emoticons in this post. I don't know how you post with all of those, but mine tells me it is a maximum of 5, and you had 6, so I had to get rid of one.

 

[cpwill]

Cpwill, the minimum wage here in Massachusetts is 8.25 an hour, I believe. They always raise it like 10 cents more than what the feds say. I don't goods are that much more expensive here in MA as compared to other states. And if a business cannot pay it's workers a decent wage, then yes they are being greedy, especially if they are pulling in millions every year.

This makes literally no sense. Businesses are not charity organizations - they exist to provide goods people want at prices they wish to pay for them. The fact that someone's work may only be worth $8 an hour v $10 an hour is literally irrelevant to whether or not a business is being greedy for the crime of actually providing goods people want at prices they wish to pay for them.

Er no, they wouldn't have a business without those workers.

Sure they could. What do you think happened to all those line-checkout-workers the last time we raised the minimum wage and so Wal-Mart et al started putting in place self-checkout-lines? Sure, you are going to have a minimum of labor requirements, but how much of your resources you pour into what kind of labor is going to change based off of relative costs.

ALL employees effect profits.

Sort of - but different employees have different effects. For example, management can have a very powerful individual effect on profits, and thus it makes sense to engage management workers more heavily in profit sharing schemes. The guy who sweeps at night has less of a direct effect on profit, and thus it makes less sense to engage him in profit0-sharing incentives. Profit sharing as a part of base-pay can do well to foster a sense of community and group work ethic - and in that case it can better low-value labor; but only if they can see the direct effects of their efforts. If a worker increases his labor significantly to help the companies' profits, but is unable to see a comparative increase in his paycheck relative to his extra output, he's not going to maintain the effort.

Because, you see, he's greedy.

There are limitations to that theory. BIG ones.

Ah, no. That is pretty much the history of the world over the last couple hundred of years. The self-interest profit-motive has been a massive enabler of good things in this world, from poverty-reduction, to fighting child morality rates, to reducing sickness, you name it. It even helped us wipe out slavery. You are launching an emotional but fact-free assault against the free market, and history will not support it.

Now you are exaggerating. I guess they're business is not very successful if they can't afford to keep employees.

Not at all. If employees start costing more than their value-added, then they are unsupportable. Don't believe me? Go do some research into whether or not the vast majority of hirees lately have been part time as businesses seek to avoid the increased costs associated with full-time workers under Obamacare. Even the unions are freaking out and turning on Obama over this. If a business pays more for labor than it is worth, then the business is less successful. Businesses are not natural resources to be plundered, they are enterprises that live or die based off of cost assessments.

I disagree. Minimum wage jobs are the most plentiful, I would think.

Then you think wrong. Approximately 2-3% of the workforce is minimum wage. Those with developed skill sets and a history of good work experience will be more in demand than those who do not have those items.

Not true. Employees appreciate good employers and work harder for those types of employers.

Sure they do. None of which changes the fact that when the cost of labor rises above the value-added of an employee, then that employee is no longer supportable, as hiring them represents a net-loss to the company.

You are simplifying things. You know it was much more than that.

That was indeed the chief reason. Oh, you could blame WWII, if you like, for letting them think they could get away with it, but the fact of the matter is that labor decided to demand more than it was worth in compensation, got portions of that compensation deferred, and thus killed their companies when it came due. Because a company that pays too much for labor is no better than a company that pays too little for labor or a company that pays too much for supplies when it come to questions of competitiveness; and companies that do any of these things will inevitably die.

I disagree. When minimum wage is higher, other wages rise too.

Naturally the average wage increases. You have just cut off all the wages of the people on the bottom and put them into unemployment. Calculate the income per capita (allowing the newly unemployed to be represented by a wage of "$0"), and you'll get different reesults.

If it wasn't mandatory, people would still be making 2 dollars an hour and everyone would be poor, and only CEOs and share holders would be rich.

:roll: No. No more than everyone is making minimum wage today. If your claim here was accurate, then more than 2-3% of our current workforce would be bringing home $7.50, and the median wage wouldn't be anywhere close to $50k. Again, very basic economic history demonstrates the histerics unsupportable. Some people would be making $2 an hour. Specifically, people who are currently unemployed and whose only realistic alternative is a life spent garnering income through illegal activity would be making $2 an hour. If you'd rather have them in jail than be offended at their legal wages :shrug: that's your right, but I think it unnecessarily cruel.

McDonalds pulls in BILLIONS of dollars a year.

so?

You are the one rejecting reality cpwill. The reality is we actually DO have a mandated MW, which will probably rise again in the future no matter if you kick and scream. Lol!

:shrug: it probably will. And more poor people will suffer when it does. I don't really think that's terribly funny.

No that speaks to the health of the economy, not minimum wage.

No. As I demonstrated to you with the citations that you continue to refuse to read and respond to - as they would force you to admit that history demonstrates your claims to be wrong - that speaks to the fact that we have moved the first step on the employment ladder beyond their reach.

Think back to your first job. Would you have been able to land it if the government had said "you can't hire this girl unless you pay her $150,000 a year with full benefits"? No you would not have. Nor would the vast majority of us - our labor wasn't anywhere worth that. For every dollar below $150k that we lower the entry barrier, a marginally larger amount of workers are able to enter the workforce. For every dollar higher that we move the entry barrier, a marginally smaller amount of workers are able to enter the workforce.


Perhaps a simple question: Do you think that labor is a good or service that is purchased by companies? If so, do you think that labor thus responds to the laws of supply and demand? (*warning: if your answer is "yes", then you have to accept that an increase in price means a releative reduction in demand - if your answer is "no", then you have to accept that a minimum wage of $1 million (or put in any ridiculous number you like) would not result in decreased employment).

BTW, too many emoticons in this post. I don't know how you post with all of those, but mine tells me it is a maximum of 5, and you had 6, so I had to get rid of one.

I delete yours, too.

 

[ChrisL]

This makes literally no sense. Businesses are not charity organizations - they exist to provide goods people want at prices they wish to pay for them. The fact that someone's work may only be worth $8 an hour v $10 an hour is literally irrelevant to whether or not a business is being greedy for the crime of actually providing goods people want at prices they wish to pay for them.



Sure they could. What do you think happened to all those line-checkout-workers the last time we raised the minimum wage and so Wal-Mart et al started putting in place self-checkout-lines? Sure, you are going to have a minimum of labor requirements, but how much of your resources you pour into what kind of labor is going to change based off of relative costs.



Sort of - but different employees have different effects. For example, management can have a very powerful individual effect on profits, and thus it makes sense to engage management workers more heavily in profit sharing schemes. The guy who sweeps at night has less of a direct effect on profit, and thus it makes less sense to engage him in profit0-sharing incentives. Profit sharing as a part of base-pay can do well to foster a sense of community and group work ethic - and in that case it can better low-value labor; but only if they can see the direct effects of their efforts. If a worker increases his labor significantly to help the companies' profits, but is unable to see a comparative increase in his paycheck relative to his extra output, he's not going to maintain the effort.

Because, you see, he's greedy.



Ah, no. That is pretty much the history of the world over the last couple hundred of years. The self-interest profit-motive has been a massive enabler of good things in this world, from poverty-reduction, to fighting child morality rates, to reducing sickness, you name it. It even helped us wipe out slavery. You are launching an emotional but fact-free assault against the free market, and history will not support it.



Not at all. If employees start costing more than their value-added, then they are unsupportable. Don't believe me? Go do some research into whether or not the vast majority of hirees lately have been part time as businesses seek to avoid the increased costs associated with full-time workers under Obamacare. Even the unions are freaking out and turning on Obama over this. If a business pays more for labor than it is worth, then the business is less successful. Businesses are not natural resources to be plundered, they are enterprises that live or die based off of cost assessments.



Then you think wrong. Approximately 2-3% of the workforce is minimum wage. Those with developed skill sets and a history of good work experience will be more in demand than those who do not have those items.



Sure they do. None of which changes the fact that when the cost of labor rises above the value-added of an employee, then that employee is no longer supportable, as hiring them represents a net-loss to the company.



That was indeed the chief reason. Oh, you could blame WWII, if you like, for letting them think they could get away with it, but the fact of the matter is that labor decided to demand more than it was worth in compensation, got portions of that compensation deferred, and thus killed their companies when it came due. Because a company that pays too much for labor is no better than a company that pays too little for labor or a company that pays too much for supplies when it come to questions of competitiveness; and companies that do any of these things will inevitably die.



Naturally the average wage increases. You have just cut off all the wages of the people on the bottom and put them into unemployment. Calculate the income per capita (allowing the newly unemployed to be represented by a wage of "$0"), and you'll get different reesults.



No. No more than everyone is making minimum wage today. If your claim here was accurate, then more than 2-3% of our current workforce would be bringing home $7.50, and the median wage wouldn't be anywhere close to $50k. Again, very basic economic history demonstrates the histerics unsupportable. Some people would be making $2 an hour. Specifically, people who are currently unemployed and whose only realistic alternative is a life spent garnering income through illegal activity would be making $2 an hour. If you'd rather have them in jail than be offended at their legal wages :shrug: that's your right, but I think it unnecessarily cruel.



so?



it probably will. And more poor people will suffer when it does. I don't really think that's terribly funny.



No. As I demonstrated to you with the citations that you continue to refuse to read and respond to - as they would force you to admit that history demonstrates your claims to be wrong - that speaks to the fact that we have moved the first step on the employment ladder beyond their reach.

Think back to your first job. Would you have been able to land it if the government had said "you can't hire this girl unless you pay her $150,000 a year with full benefits"? No you would not have. Nor would the vast majority of us - our labor wasn't anywhere worth that. For every dollar below $150k that we lower the entry barrier, a marginally larger amount of workers are able to enter the workforce. For every dollar higher that we move the entry barrier, a marginally smaller amount of workers are able to enter the workforce.


Perhaps a simple question: Do you think that labor is a good or service that is purchased by companies? If so, do you think that labor thus responds to the laws of supply and demand? (*warning: if your answer is "yes", then you have to accept that an increase in price means a releative reduction in demand - if your answer is "no", then you have to accept that a minimum wage of $1 million (or put in any ridiculous number you like) would not result in decreased employment).




I delete yours, too.

:lamo Funny! I just deleted yours! LOL!

Anyway, :roll: do they have to be soooo long. I'll have to look at it later.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

“Writing is 1 percent inspiration, and 99 percent elimination.”
Louise Brooks

 

[cpwill]

When you do so, I'd like to know if you would mind finally responding to the matierial I repeatedly cited for you, demonstrating that in fact outsized negative employment effects exist concentrated in our lowest-income populations as a result of MW increases. I would also like to get you to answer that question on supply/demand, if you don't mind.

As a side note, on the term "greedy" - you realize that both workers and companies are equally greedy? That both are seeking to get the most for the least in this arrangement? That the worker seeks the greatest income per unit of labor sold just as the employer seeks the lowest cost per unit labor purchased?