Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

[Henrin]

No, because we want to help the poor, not pass judgement upon them. How they got that way is not relevant when talking about letting people, especially children and even babies, go hungry. That's not how we roll in this country.

Why is it that as a country we need to help the poor?

 

[ChrisL]

For the kind of jobs we are talking about, reliability would not be a prime motivation in the mind of an employer...profit loss is.

First, if an employer can choose between an employee who can be paid $8.00 an hour and an employee who must be paid $15.00 an hour for the SAME JOB...which do you THINK he will pick?

Second, there is a large pool of teen labor willing to work part-time for $8.00 per hour. Since fast food labor has built in redundancy (i.e. the work is so simple everyone there can do all of it and therefore cover for a work shortage), an employer would still hold out for a cheap $8.00 replacement rather than filling the spot with a $15.00 "reliable" replacement.

Third, we already have major service employers who are using all sorts of tactics to reduce the costs of labor. This includes hiring more part-time workers, reducing full-time to 28 hours a week, and hiring temporary workers. You don't think they wouldn't hire teens at $8.00 per hour and then discharge them when they age out into $15.00 per hour workers?

The bottom line is literally what is more profitable? The answer, hiring teens and not adults if there were a 2-tiered minimum wage.

How about $8.00 an hour and $10.00 an hour?

 

[ChrisL]

Why is it that as a country we need to help the poor?

Because we are a country of good people who care about others. Something you never learned about maybe? Charity isn't enough. That's why in the old days, there was a LOT of crime in the cities, such as New York. There was no "welfare" and there wasn't enough charity, and people turned to crime.

 

[Cephus]

False analogy, the 10k is not the same as the 20k car, unless you can prove so. I would wager that a 25-30 year old demanding 15 an hour is going to be a LOT more reliable than either a high school kid working because their parents are making them, or college kid who needs extra scratch, or a high school drop out with no better options. That's why I say the age should be around 30...a 30 year old is looking at entry level stuff for one of two reasons...they lost their old job for a multitude of possible reasons, or they never worked to advance their career. Determining which is which is simply a matter of glancing at the resume.

I wouldn't say so because anyone 25-30 and still making minimum wage has already demonstrated themselves to be unreliable and unworthy. They should have gained work experience and education by that time which would boost them out of the minimum-wage pool. Someone who has no work experience and can likely be taught a work ethic is better than someone who has already been in that position and has demonstrably failed to learn.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, because we want to help the poor, not pass judgement upon them. How they got that way is not relevant when talking about letting people, especially children and even babies, go hungry. That's not how we roll in this country.

So, since economic failure occurs we should simply suck it up, accept it as a valid "lifestyle choice" and subsidize it. OK, that will work out well - I am sure of it. It is exactly that attitude that has helped to raise the out of wedlock childbirth rate to 70% for blacks, 50% for hispanics and 30% for whites. Note the increase in the out of wedlock childbirth rate since the implementation of the "great society" programs (1960s); but that is simply a coincedence and the result of "changing times" - right?

 

[Cephus]

Let me ask you, though, do you think you get the same performance out of a 17-year-old that you do out of a 30-year-old? Across the board, in general? I don't think you do. I think you, as the employer, are investing time (which is money) into teaching that 17-year-old about responsibility, work ethic, respect for authority, time management, importance of attendance, etc., etc.

But you've defined them as being at the same level. I don't expect a 30 year old to still be making minimum wage period and if they are, there's something wrong with them. If they haven't learned enough in 13 years of work to have earned their way out of a minimum wage job, I wouldn't want them to be working for me at all.

 

[Captain Adverse]

How about $8.00 an hour and $10.00 an hour?

It really wouldn't matter. First, because under the current system most people who come to work and stick at it will get "merit increases" along the way. That means while they might start at $8.00 per hour, within 90 days it goes up $0.25 and then after another period another $0.25, so that by the time a 17 yo has been there long enough to turn 21 he's already likely to be making $10.00 thanks to being a loyal reliable worker for 3 years.

So...hire the $8.00 per hour worker and let him prove his worth would be what a employer is more likely to do.

 

[ChrisL]

It really wouldn't matter. First, because under the current system most people who come to work and stick at it will get "merit increases" along the way. That means while they might start at $8.00 per hour, within 90 days it goes up $0.25 and then after another period another $0.25, so that bu the time a 17 yo has been there long enough to turn 21 he's already likely to be making $10.00 thanks to being a loyal reliable worker for 3 years.

So...hire the $8.00 per hour worker and let him prove his worth would be what a employer is more likely to do.

I see no reason for separate minimum wages anyway, but I would like to see it go up to $10.00 an hour, and even that is not enough money to live on if you have a child or children. I make a lot more than that and still struggle. Granted, I have more bills, like a car payment and credit cards, and other things, but still, $10.00 an hour is not a lot of money.

 

[Cephus]

There are a lot of companies that prefer to hire older people. That's why the teen unemployment rate is as high as it is.

No, it's because hiring underage workers was a serious pain in the backside for businesses. Teenage workers require work permits, they have limited availability and can only work so many hours per week. Insurance premiums for companies that hire underage workers are higher. Most companies realized that by refusing to hire anyone under 18, they could do away with all of those problems so that's what they did. It has nothing to do with business preference and everything to do with economics and business sense.

 

[Henrin]

Because we are a country of good people who care about others. Something you never learned about maybe? Charity isn't enough. That's why in the old days, there was a LOT of crime in the cities, such as New York. There was no "welfare" and there wasn't enough charity, and people turned to crime.

So taking from one person without permission and giving to another person is caring about people? Ok? In the old days there was a lot of crime in big cities and today there is a lot of crime in big cities. Nothing has changed there.

 

[ChrisL]

No, it's because hiring underage workers was a serious pain in the backside for businesses. Teenage workers require work permits, they have limited availability and can only work so many hours per week. Insurance premiums for companies that hire underage workers are higher. Most companies realized that by refusing to hire anyone under 18, they could do away with all of those problems so that's what they did. It has nothing to do with business preference and everything to do with economics and business sense.

I'm sure that might be the case with some companies, but there are still plenty that would hire teens. It's just that in this economy, we have adults competing with teens for the same job, so naturally the teen usually loses out. When you have 100 people applying for the same job, the employer can afford to be choosy.

 

[Cephus]

That's the only way you're going to get people off welfare and, at the same time, not starve them (or their CHILDREN) to death. Even though, I'm aware of the fact that you don't really care about anyone else.

The only way is to hold people accountable for their actions. It's to strongly encourage people not to have children before they are financially ready to do so and if they do, hold them to the same standard as everyone else with regard to child care, etc. That's the only way to get responsibility is to demand it and not make excuses about it.

 

[ChrisL]

So taking from one person without permission and giving to another person is caring about people? Ok? In the old days there was a lot of crime in big cities and today there is a lot of crime in big cities. Nothing has changed there.

Crime would be a lot worse without any public assistance.

 

[Cephus]

I think minimum wage should be raised to $10.00 an hour.

At which point, prices inflate and $10 an hour becomes no better than the current $8 an hour. All you're going to do is raise prices for everyone.

 

[ChrisL]

The only way is to hold people accountable for their actions. It's to strongly encourage people not to have children before they are financially ready to do so and if they do, hold them to the same standard as everyone else with regard to child care, etc. That's the only way to get responsibility is to demand it and not make excuses about it.

Many people do not have a lot of options, and a lot of those people would turn to crime. You think things are bad now? Lol! Just imagine how much worse it could be.

 

[Cephus]

I'm sure that might be the case with some companies, but there are still plenty that would hire teens. It's just that in this economy, we have adults competing with teens for the same job, so naturally the teen usually loses out. When you have 100 people applying for the same job, the employer can afford to be choosy.

Teen employment has gone down dramatically in the past decade. Companies like McDonalds no longer hire anyone under 18 for the reasons I gave. It really is a sad thing that we have adults competing for the same jobs, what the hell is wrong with those adults that they're still trying to do an entry level job at their age?

 

[ChrisL]

At which point, prices inflate and $10 an hour becomes no better than the current $8 an hour. All you're going to do is raise prices for everyone.

Minimum Wage Hikes Do Not Cause Inflation

 

[Cephus]

Many people do not have a lot of options, and a lot of those people would turn to crime. You think things are bad now? Lol! Just imagine how much worse it could be.

Then those people go to jail and we don't have to worry about them anymore. People have options, people just don't LIKE the options they have and most of the time, they have put themselves into the horrible positions they're in. It's their own damn fault. Why is it the employer's or taxpayer's job to bail them out?

 

[ChrisL]

Teen employment has gone down dramatically in the past decade. Companies like McDonalds no longer hire anyone under 18 for the reasons I gave. It really is a sad thing that we have adults competing for the same jobs, what the hell is wrong with those adults that they're still trying to do an entry level job at their age?

A lot of jobs are just terminated, in other words, they do away with a certain position in a company in order to save money, so that person cannot find any other job in this economy and has to settle for what he or she can get. That's just one example of why an adult might work at a minimum wage job. Perhaps a person's parents couldn't afford college for their children? There are a lot of reasons. If you could just put yourself in someone else's shoes . . .

 

[Cephus]

Minimum Wage Hikes Do Not Cause Inflation

It doesn't go up immediately at the same rate as the increase, but it does go up over time as consumers have more money available to spend. Even your article says that there was a 2.6% increase in just the first couple of months of the new minimum wage.

 

[KevinKohler]

I wouldn't say so because anyone 25-30 and still making minimum wage has already demonstrated themselves to be unreliable and unworthy. They should have gained work experience and education by that time which would boost them out of the minimum-wage pool. Someone who has no work experience and can likely be taught a work ethic is better than someone who has already been in that position and has demonstrably failed to learn.

This only holds water if you are of the opinion that people NEVER lose their current job.

 

[KevinKohler]

But you've defined them as being at the same level. I don't expect a 30 year old to still be making minimum wage period and if they are, there's something wrong with them. If they haven't learned enough in 13 years of work to have earned their way out of a minimum wage job, I wouldn't want them to be working for me at all.

I had to go back to minimum wage two years ago, because the company I worked for went out of business. What did that make me?

 

[ChrisL]

Then those people go to jail and we don't have to worry about them anymore. People have options, people just don't LIKE the options they have and most of the time, they have put themselves into the horrible positions they're in. It's their own damn fault. Why is it the employer's or taxpayer's job to bail them out?

Do you truly believe that everyone can be a doctor, a lawyer, a CEO? It's just not true. Not everyone is mentally capable of getting a good job.

Also, do you believe there are enough good jobs that every person in America could have one if they so wished? Sorry, that's just not the case.

We really hurt ourselves when we got rid of most manufacturing industries in this country. There just aren't enough jobs anymore.

 

[Cephus]

I had to go back to minimum wage two years ago, because the company I worked for went out of business. What did that make me?

You had no job skills? If I ever lost my job, I'd never go back to minimum wage because I have a wealth of marketable skills that are applicable to a wide variety of industries.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't go up immediately at the same rate as the increase, but it does go up over time as consumers have more money available to spend. Even your article says that there was a 2.6% increase in just the first couple of months of the new minimum wage.

That's good. That's what we want, for it to rise slowly and because of consumer demand. I think that inflation is actually the sign of a healthy and robust economy. Correct me if I'm wrong.