Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

[KevinKohler]

Bottom line : manufacturing is not coming back, what little that is is largely automated, and becoming more so every day.

Questions.

1. Is the middle class the backbone of our economy?
2. Do we define our middle class as being those workers who make the median income, or the closest to it?
3. If the majority of employed people in 10-20 years are working McJobs, are they the new middle class?
4. Is the median income falling, or at best, remaining stagnant?

 

[KevinKohler]

By two tiering minimum wage based on a arbitrary age, provides no incentive for the worker to do anything to actually earn that increase.

Flipping a burger at 20 years and 364 days isn't going to suddenly change at 21 and 1 day. Still going to be performing the same duties.

Any employer who wishes to stay in business will then find reason to release the employee who crosses that arbitrary age line, for one who doesn't increase his labor costs.

IMO, you start making 'raises' mandated, and you've just handed the government the entire free market to play with.

Free market? Where? Can you point it out to me?

 

[ttwtt78640]

And as long as we have welfare available, entry level jobs need to have pay scales that exceed what a person can "earn" via welfare.

Why is this so hard to understand?

The solution to that gov't created problem is obvious - lower the social "safety net" programs' payout so as not to exceed the proceeds of a single, full-time, minimum wage job. To make two different numbers the same can be done by changing either number and in either direction. Why increase the lower number (applying to more people) instead of decreasing the higher number (applying to fewer people)?

 

[GottaGo]

Free market? Where? Can you point it out to me?

If I need to explain 'free market' to you, then we are in sad shape indeed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Are there alot of companies that like to pay them $15/hour?

Changing the rules also changes the style of playing the game.

 

[Fisher]

Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

1. Under age 21 -- $8.00 an hour.
2. Over age 21 -- $15.00 an hour.

Age discrimination in employment is technically illegal. That said, I would still not agree with your proposal. One's age should not be determinative to their wage. It is like taking progressive taxation to a whole new level of wrong.

 

[KevinKohler]

If I need to explain 'free market' to you, then we are in sad shape indeed.

If you believe the US enjoys a free, or even mostly free market, it's not MY understanding of the term that should be in question.

Food for thought.

 

[KevinKohler]

The solution to that gov't created problem is obvious - lower the social "safety net" programs' payout so as not to exceed the proceeds of a single, full-time, minimum wage job. To make two different numbers the same can be done by changing either number and in either direction. Why increase the lower number (applying to more people) instead of decreasing the higher number (applying to fewer people)?

I agree with lowering the arbitrary dollar value of some of our social programs, but the principle in my post, the emphasis behind having a minimum wage in the first place, still stands. You either believe having a minimum wage works to our economic benefit, or you don't.

 

[mike2810]

if you support a two tier min. wage. What is the impact on lower level managment positions (shift supervisors)? By paying inexperienced / new worker more just because of age, would you not be discounting the supervisors worth?
IMO, a entry level job is worth X. Doesn't matter who is doing the job.

 

[GottaGo]

If you believe the US enjoys a free, or even mostly free market, it's not MY understanding of the term that should be in question.

Food for thought.

There are laws regarding how a market must function. In certain markets, there is too much government involvement.

They have yet to be able to 'regulate' (beyond setting a floor) the wage market, type of business (other than ones already governed by protection laws), who can run the business, where they obtain their goods from and who they sell them to (other than who/what is governed by protectionist laws).

You let them control the wage market, and you have handed them the free market (as in what is cited above) and there is no more free market whatsoever.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree with lowering the arbitrary dollar value of some of our social programs, but the principle in my post, the emphasis behind having a minimum wage in the first place, still stands. You either believe having a minimum wage works to our economic benefit, or you don't.

Having a single, universal minimum wage, adjusted for prior inflation, is a benefit, IMHO. Economic benefit is a very tricky term to define. Minimum wage is simply a number that was, adjusted for inflation, at its peak in 1968 (about $10.56/hour in today's dollars). One must remember that less than 3% of the U.S. workforce now earns that minimum wage. Increases in the minimum wage tend to simply ripple up to maintain overall wage "parity"; since worker productivity remains unchanged, any change beyond accounting for prior inflation will actually cause inflation rather than just react to it.

 

[KevinKohler]

There are laws regarding how a market must function. In certain markets, there is too much government involvement.

They have yet to be able to 'regulate' (beyond setting a floor) the wage market, type of business (other than ones already governed by protection laws), who can run the business, where they obtain their goods from and who they sell them to (other than who/what is governed by protectionist laws).

You let them control the wage market, and you have handed them the free market (as in what is cited above) and there is no more free market whatsoever.

They already control wages. And no one is handing Uncle Sam an even remotely free market, it's already regulated into unrecognizability. They control the currency you are required to accept, they control the facilities you are allowed to use, what products you are legally allowed to sell, and to whom.


If that's a free market, I'd hate to see what your idea of a regulated one would look like.

 

[GottaGo]

They already control wages. And no one is handing Uncle Sam an even remotely free market, it's already regulated into unrecognizability. They control the currency you are required to accept, they control the facilities you are allowed to use, what products you are legally allowed to sell, and to whom.

tIf that's a free market, I'd hate to see what your idea of a regulated one would look like.

They only control wages from a base, but that is not all 'wages', they control some currencies, there are a few controls on facilities, and the protection laws limit a very small percentage of products and services.

No argument that there are too many regulations existing, but there is still much that they don't control.

 

[ChrisL]

The solution to that gov't created problem is obvious - lower the social "safety net" programs' payout so as not to exceed the proceeds of a single, full-time, minimum wage job. To make two different numbers the same can be done by changing either number and in either direction. Why increase the lower number (applying to more people) instead of decreasing the higher number (applying to fewer people)?

You can't do that. People will starve. Don't you understand that people who already work are also collecting benefits legally, because they are STILL below the poverty level?

 

[Henrin]

You can't do that. People will starve. Don't you understand that people who already work are also collecting benefits legally, because they are STILL below the poverty level?

Subsidizing wages with welfare is only making the problem worse.

 

[ChrisL]

Subsidizing wages with welfare is only making the problem worse.

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You can't do that. People will starve. Don't you understand that people who already work are also collecting benefits legally, because they are STILL below the poverty level?

Defining the poverty level based on how many dependents that you have created is insane. You can make yourself "poorer" by simply adding dependents (that you cannot afford to support) and yet now keep "the right" to have that, self imposed, poverty offset by getting to share the wages of others. The federal poverty level (in the CONUS) for a TWO person household is the same as (slightly exceedd by) ONE of them working a full-time job at the minimum wage. 3% of U.S. workers make only the minimum wage, yet we claim that 15% (or more) live in poverty. A full-time minumum wage worker + 2 dependents = poverty.

 

[ChrisL]

Defining the poverty level based on how many dependents that you have created is insane. You can make yourself "poorer" by simply adding dependents (that you cannot afford to support) and yet now keep "the right" to have that, self imposed, poverty offset by getting to share the wages of others. The federal poverty level (in the CONUS) for a TWO person household is the same as one of them working a full-time job at the minimum wage. 3% of U.S. workers make only the minimum wage, yet we claim that 15% (or more) live in poverty. A full-time minumum wage worker + 2 dependents = poverty.

Jeez, how many people do you think actually WANT to make themselves more poor so that they suffer?

Besides, on other threads I have supported mandatory birth control for those who are currently collecting public assistance. That would control for that situation.

 

[Henrin]

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.

Subsidizing wages with government help to services has no chance to actually lower dependence or to not cause a stagnation in wages.

 

[ChrisL]

Subsidizing wages with government help to services has no chance to actually lower dependence or to not cause a stagnation in wages.

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

 

[ttwtt78640]

Jeez, how many people do you think actually WANT to make themselves more poor so that they suffer?

I look at it this way: if I am poor and uneducated (HS drop-out) I can either work hard at the minimum wage to "just get by" or have a kid and do better, possibly w/o having to work at all for a while and also get "job training" that is not available w/o that dependent. These are largely choices made, not something forced upon anyone in many cases. In some cases it may be unforced, such as the breadwinner dies leaving dependents to the care of others, but I doubt that is the majority of cases by any means. To make ZERO distinction as to how the poverty situation was created in order to "qualify" for help is insane.

 

[ChrisL]

http://truth-out.org/news/item/14050

Past research on how business costs rise with minimum wage hikes indicates that a 10-percent minimum wage hike can be expected to produce a cost increase for the average business of less than one-tenth of one percent of their sales revenue. This cost figure includes three components. First, mandated raises: the raises employers must give their workers to meet the new wage floor. Second, “ripple-effect” raises: the raises employers give some workers to put their pay rates a bit above the new minimum in order to preserve the same wage hierarchy before and after minimum wage hike. And third, the higher payroll taxes employers must pay on their now-larger wage bill. If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 10-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 0.1 percent.[1]A price increase of this size amounts to marking up a $100 price tag to $100.10.

 

[ChrisL]

Oops, double post!

 

[ChrisL]

I look at it this way: if I am poor and uneducated (HS drop-out) I can either work hard at the minimum wage to "just get by" or have a kid and do better, possibly w/o having to work at all for a while and also get "job training" that is not available w/o that dependent. These are largely choices made, not something forced upon anyone in many cases. In some cases it may be unforced, such as the breadwinner dies leaving dependents to the care of others, but I doubt that is the majority of cases by any means. To make ZERO distinction as to how the poverty situation was created in order to "qualify" for help is insane.

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.

 

[Captain Adverse]

That's a clear analogy.

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.

Me? I'd hate to see fast-food workers unionized . . . which is what this fast-food bruhaha is about . . . but I'd sure have no problem raising the minimum wage for adults to $15 an hour.

Because of the quality. Kids tend to not show up and be more unreliable. Older workers do have something to offer in terms of reliability.

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.