Could you support a 2-tiered minimum wage?

[ChrisL]

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.

OMG! You're so fantastic and wonderful! :rofl

 

[KevinKohler]

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.

Right, so you believe that setting a minimum wage equals a net loss, no matter the rate it's set at. We should abolish minimum all together, and profit levels will remain roughly the same, because market forces will cause producers to reduce their costs, right?

 

[KevinKohler]

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?

Could have something to do with the fact that 1 in 5 jobs created since '08 are service sector, crap, McJobs.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Right and in this economy, it is really, really hard to find a job. My son got a job finally, thankfully! :lol: But he had a really hard time to find one, and when he was looking in the classified in the paper and online, jobs in our area were noticeably very scarce. There have been days when there were only 10 jobs in my local newspaper. That's really bad. That's why I have to laugh whenever the Obama supporters say the economy has improved and the recession is over.

 

[Cephus]

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.

Are you saying that the majority of low-wage workers are retarded or something?

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.

There certainly are if people got an education, worked hard and rose to the level of their competence and then lived at that level. Unfortunately, you have people who have no skills, who have no education, who want to own the latest big screen and latest car, even though they cannot afford it at their wage. There are people who want to have a dozen kids, even though they can hardly afford to feed themselves. These are the people who need to learn self-control.

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

I agree with you entirely there, we have shot ourselves in the foot far too many times in this country. However, we can bring manufacturing back if we go into it with our eyes open, but we refuse to. It's a long-term project, to be sure, but it's possible.

 

[Cephus]

Could have something to do with the fact that 1 in 5 jobs created since '08 are service sector, crap, McJobs.

Which doesn't change the fact that someone with management skills and a track record of success can qualify for a higher job, even in the service sector, even if it means taking a lower paying job temporarily and proving that you've got the right stuff. It might not be as much money as you were earning before but it's certainly not minimum wage.

 

[KevinKohler]

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?

Ever looked into how much it costs to keep just one person in jail per year? Not a smart option.

It is an individual with a society's responsibility to act within the scope of the laws and mores of that society..or leave.

 

[jimbo]

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?

It is the other way around. As long as we have welfare, no one is going to get off the couch and take a job that pays less thsn welfare, regardless of the minium wage level

Maybe the solution is to make welfare, in all its forms, less desirable.

 

[Henrin]

Minimum Wage Hikes Do Not Cause Inflation

Inflation can be caused by new or increased costs of production which includes an increase in workers wages. If a company must increase the amount it pays its workers by several dollars as you suggest this is a new expense that must either be absorbed by the company as the cost of using human labor or passed on to customers in the form of higher prices. This is called cost-push inflation. Of course, they could just adjust their workforce to compensate for a mandated increase in minimum wage instead of passing the cost on to consumers. Which is what happens regularly.

 

[KevinKohler]

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.

We are now a consumer based economy, so consumers that are most likely to spend any extra having more TO spend is a net benefit for our economy.

 

[ChrisL]

Are you saying that the majority of low-wage workers are retarded or something?

Are you kidding me? Quite obviously everyone isn't at the same intelligence level. Good Lord! That was kind of dumb. LOL!

There certainly are if people got an education, worked hard and rose to the level of their competence and then lived at that level. Unfortunately, you have people who have no skills, who have no education, who want to own the latest big screen and latest car, even though they cannot afford it at their wage. There are people who want to have a dozen kids, even though they can hardly afford to feed themselves. These are the people who need to learn self-control.

People make mistakes. That's part of what makes us people. No one is perfect. Also, in this economy it's hard to find a job. Why are you ignoring that reality? Our country has almost entirely done away with the manufacturing industry. Get with the program. Maybe you're old and retired and unfamiliar with the realities of life today, I don't know, but you seem so out of touch with reality.

I agree with you entirely there, we have shot ourselves in the foot far too many times in this country. However, we can bring manufacturing back if we go into it with our eyes open, but we refuse to. It's a long-term project, to be sure, but it's possible.

It's not possible because we import goods now that are manufactured in other countries. Part of strengthening the "global economy" of course. :roll:

 

[KevinKohler]

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.

I have plenty of skills, there just weren't any jobs. It was take some crap job, or take NO job. You seem out of touch with reality, a typical affliction for followers of one of the two main political parties.

 

[Goshin]

Why do you think it wouldn't simply make younger people more competitive than older people?

Yes and no. I have a certain perspective on this as I was involved in hiring not long ago.


I mean no offense to younger folks here on the board, but we found it was extremely darn difficult to find under-21's with ANY work ethic at all. Now and again you'd find a diamond-in-the-rough who would do the job well, but most of our hires under 21 (and tbh in recent years, nearly half of our hires 21-24) ranged from barely worth the trouble to frigging useless.

The large majority could not be induced to put their smartphones down and stop texting, gaming or etc for even a whole hour, by either threat or reward. They ignored rules and procedure, did unsafe things, got into arguments with the public, created drama and conflict within the office among employees, were absent without calling in frequently, came in late, quit working early, took excessive breaks, did shoddy work, failed to complete paperwork or even file it (even important paperwork), and even the ones that actually WORKED created so many other problems that they were not worth keeping.

As I said, there were exceptions... but you could hire someone in their mid-20s or older and have a very good chance of getting a worthwhile employee, while hiring someone under 21 was about a 90% likelihood of getting an employee that was worthless.

Now granted, we're talking about a job situation where the employee is NOT under constant supervision every minute, and has to be capable of self-direction and keeping up with their own crap. Burger-flipping is different, if you screw up or goof off you're right there under your manager's eye. Our biz requires people who will keep to the job and do it right even when they're not being watched all the time.

Personally I don't think THAT large of a difference (per OP) would work... that's almost double. But let's say it was $8/hr vs $10/hr.... as someone who's done hiring, I'd be more inclined to hire an over-21 than an under-21 even if it cost 25% more.


Personally I'd say a three-tiered system would be better.... $6/hr for under 18, $8/hr for 18-20, $10/hr for 21+. The quality of worker you're likely to get would tend to even out the pay diff.

 

[Goshin]

It is the other way around. As long as we have welfare, no one is going to get off the couch and take a job that pays less thsn welfare, regardless of the minium wage level

Maybe the solution is to make welfare, in all its forms, less desirable.

Or to turn it into a hand UP instead of a hand OUT... we'll keep you solvent while you retrain for a new job and help you get hired, but you've got to do your part within a reasonable time frame, then you're on you're own again.

Except for those who are actually disabled and literally unable to work, of course.

 

[KevinKohler]

Which doesn't change the fact that someone with management skills and a track record of success can qualify for a higher job, even in the service sector, even if it means taking a lower paying job temporarily and proving that you've got the right stuff. It might not be as much money as you were earning before but it's certainly not minimum wage.

And how long, pray tell, would you expect a father of two, with a house, student loan payments, etc, to be able to hang onto, say, his house, before his having "the right stuff" proves out at whatever company he had to take said crap job?

Fact of the matter is, you're ignoring reality. Take a low paying job in the hopes of getting a management spot, lol? There is going to be one manager for every 20 employees, generally, across most service sectors. Which means that only 1/20th of the people taking those 1 in 5 McJobs out of desperation is going to find themselves more financially healthy in coming years. Economically, this sets this country up for a roller coaster ride we don't want to take.

 

[ChrisL]

Inflation can be caused by new or increased costs of production which includes an increase in workers wages. If a company must increase the amount it pays its workers by several dollars as you suggest this is a new expense that must either be absorbed by the company as the cost of using human labor or passed on to customers in the form of higher prices. This is called cost-push inflation. Of course, they could just adjust their workforce to compensate for a mandated increase in minimum wage instead of passing the cost on to consumers. Which is what happens regularly.

Did you read the article? The article acknowledges that but says it wouldn't be enough to cause inflation.

 

[KevinKohler]

It is the other way around. As long as we have welfare, no one is going to get off the couch and take a job that pays less thsn welfare, regardless of the minium wage level

Maybe the solution is to make welfare, in all its forms, less desirable.

That is 100% part of the solution. Welfare and SURVIVAL should be synonymous.

 

[ChrisL]

Or to turn it into a hand UP instead of a hand OUT... we'll keep you solvent while you retrain for a new job and help you get hired, but you've got to do your part within a reasonable time frame, then you're on you're own again.

Except for those who are actually disabled and literally unable to work, of course.

Problem is there aren't enough jobs for everyone.

 

[ChrisL]

Lack of jobs is just one reason why I'm for drilling for oil at home. Anything that would create NEW jobs for people and give us some energy independence so that we can step a little further away from that mess they call the Middle East.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Or to turn it into a hand UP instead of a hand OUT... we'll keep you solvent while you retrain for a new job and help you get hired, but you've got to do your part within a reasonable time frame, then you're on you're own again.

Except for those who are actually disabled and literally unable to work, of course.

I like that idea, but dread to see the implementation of it. This sounds like what Clinton sold us when he boldly declared to have "ended welfare as we knew it", much of which Obama is now busy returning back to a way of life. A simple system would verify the claimant's need, review (or help to create) an improvement plan, get a signed agreement to implement that plan and hand them a check sufficent to do so - in exchange for a waiver of ever having to do that for them again. One fairly generous hand up, in exchange for no more handouts (or handups).

 

[Fisher]

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.

All of my full-time year round employees are older than me. What you said is part of it. The other parts of it in no particular order are: 1) They do not have babies and have to be calling in sick because of their little kids constantly; 2) They do not create a bunch of drama; 3) They are happy to have a job and their lives are not about their job--they treat work as work; 4) They are not constantly being passive-aggressive about their pay not providing for their every want in life; 5) They are better at improvising and working with little to no hands on supervision; 6) They do not get bent out of shape if you are short with them usually, and they have no problem telling me what they think in concise, no-nonsense fashion; and they understand that sensitive information is not fodder for gossip outside outside the walls of work.

 

[jimbo]

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" have not even been able to set the floor. They just think they have. Some 20 millions will risk life and limb to work for less than the floor, and billions more will build our cell phones for a couple of bucks a day.

Like it or not, the free market always prevails.

 

[ChrisL]

All of my full-time year round employees are older than me. What you said is part of it. The other parts of it in no particular order are: 1) They do not have babies and have to be calling in sick because of their little kids constantly; 2) They do not create a bunch of drama; 3) They are happy to have a job and their lives are not about their job--they treat work as work; 4) They are not constantly being passive-aggressive about their pay not providing for their every want in life; 5) They are better at improvising and working with little to no hands on supervision; 6) They do not get bent out of shape if you are short with them usually, and they have no problem telling me what they think in concise, no-nonsense fashion; and they understand that sensitive information is not fodder for gossip outside outside the walls of work.

Well I figured there were other reasons too. I just couldn't think of any at the time.

 

[Goshin]

Problem is there aren't enough jobs for everyone.

Unemployment =/= Welfare.


But in a sense, we really ought to look at all the social safety net varieties in much the same way. The object is to get the person gainfully employed again in some field that will make it possible for them to earn a decent living.

This ought to go hand-in-hand with governmental policy designed to promote economic growth of the sort that tends to create more and better jobs, as well.


But that would be ENTIRELY too rational and fail to provide the political conflict our ruling class needs to keep us divided and manageable, so never mind. :doh

 

[Goshin]

"They" have not even been able to set the floor. They just think they have. Some 20 millions will risk life and limb to work for less than the floor, and billions more will build our cell phones for a couple of bucks a day.

Like it or not, the free market always prevails.

Because we ALLOW outsourcing and illegal labor to be profitable, with consequences that fail to deter.