• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Interesting video explains problems with the minimum wage.

cpwill said:
:shrug: probably not. They probably never would have been hired in the first place, in fact, and their lives would be harder than they even are now.
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me.. You are assuming that these people are not doing their jobs... You cannot base anything on an assumption... Can you?
 
cpwill said:
They could continue to do so, certainly. They could keep performing their labor at a million dollars an hour. What they can't do is provide value-added over the cost to hiring and maintaining them at those rates, meaning that employing them constitutes a loss for the employer, meaning that employers who hire them will lose in competition, watch their business fail, and have to fire all their workers.

But I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question. Why is your response to the fact that my sister is a low-education, low-skill worker just starting out in life who can't command higher salaries "well screw her, fire her ass"? Why shouldn't she (and her brothers) be given a chance to start working, gain skills and experience, self-improve, and move up lifes' ladder? Why are you so keen on trapping them at the bottom by moving the bottom rung of that ladder out of their reach?
Click to expand...



That is ridiculous... Pessimistic even... A janitor misses a crumb on the floor and the whole business goes down the drain? Wow... If your sister in law still has her job, she must be doing something right, so why should she be fired? If she wants a higher paying job, she can always go back to school.... You are putting such limitations and low expectations on these people... Everyone has their own path to follow in this life....
 
Juanita said:
That is ridiculous... Pessimistic even... A janitor misses a crumb on the floor and the whole business goes down the drain
Click to expand...

Uh, no, I didn't say that. What I stated was that if employers pay their employees more than the employees value added, their business will fail. That's not exactly what you call "pessimistic". It's what you call "math".

If your sister in law still has her job, she must be doing something right, so why should she be fired?
Click to expand...

She shouldn't be. And as long as people like yourself are not allowed to deny her labor because her skill level and experience is not yet enough to suit you, she won't be.

If she wants a higher paying job, she can always go back to school.... You are putting such limitations and low expectations on these people...
Click to expand...

On the contrary, a life on public assistance is a low expectation. Lacking the ability to improve ones'self and needing therefore a government mandated increase in how much you are paid is a low expectation. Stating that, once someone starts working they have the ability to learn new things, develop new skills, build experience, and improve their conditions is the fair expectation, though a harder one than the one you are putting forth.

Everyone has their own path to follow in this life....
Click to expand...

a nice thing to say that ultimately means nothing. are you going to tell my sister in law that after you get her fired and send her home to her baby with no job and no prospects of ever getting one, because you've removed her ability to enter the workforce? "Hey kid, sorry we trapped you and your child in poverty. But don't worry, guess this is just your path..."


and so I repeat: Why is your response to the fact that my sister is a low-education, low-skill worker just starting out in life who can't command higher salaries "well screw her, fire her ass"? Why shouldn't she (and her brothers) be given a chance to start working, gain skills and experience, self-improve, and move up lifes' ladder? Why are you so keen on trapping them at the bottom by moving the bottom rung of that ladder out of their reach?
 
Last edited:
Juanita said:
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense to me.. You are assuming that these people are not doing their jobs... You cannot base anything on an assumption... Can you?
Click to expand...

You base everything you do on assumptions. For example, you turned your key in the ignition this morning on the assumption that no one had cut the wire, or that an extremely local EMP burst had not taken our your vehicles' electronics. That is what you call a "safe assumption."

Another "safe assumption" is that different jobs carry different values - for example, a mid level manager position carries a higher value than a busboy, but a lower level than a vice-president. You appear to be missing this critical step - if an employee cannot give greater value added than the cost of employing them, then that employee is not hirable. When you artificially increase the floor for the cost of hiring someone, similarly increase the portion of people who are not hirable. Unfortunately, those marginal workers will also typically be representative of our least educated, least skilled, least experienced workers.

It doesn't matter if they are doing their jobs at $7.50 or not. What matters is that they are not necessarily producing enough value-added to the employer to justify their positions once the cost of employing them goes up by 40%. In every other item we accept that a 40% increase in price means a decrease in demand - but somehow because with labor that comes with unfortunate circumstances for those who wish to increase it nonetheless, we must jump through hoops and insist that "that's different" for ill-defined and undemonstrated reasons.
 
Redress said:
Actually it is not called exponential growth. Exponential growth involves growth at a rate over time. This is talking about the relative growth rates as the result of a discreet event. Nice try, but clearly economics isn't your forte... ;)
Click to expand...

Oh please... Who are you trying to kid, bro? What relative growth rates? relative to what exactly?


Tim-
 
radioman said:
--------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Are you saying the same products cost more in Canada than the USA?
That this increased price is due to Canada's higher MW?
Click to expand...

Well yes, yes I am, among other things, but what do you suppose it is due to?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Oh please... Who are you trying to kid, bro? What relative growth rates? relative to what exactly?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Each other. You should read the post I made, it might educate you. I will admit the exponential growth claim you tried was hilarious. Protip: using terms you do not understand is not a good idea.
 
For those that still don't get the concept look at this example we used to have caddies who carried our clubs and people who pumped our gas for us. Now both of these jobs no longer exist because to decrease cost employers fired people and installed new technology. This is what happens when you increase cost companies try and find a way to reduce them.
 
YoungConserv said:
For those that still don't get the concept look at this example we used to have caddies who carried our clubs and people who pumped our gas for us. Now both of these jobs no longer exist because to decrease cost employers fired people and installed new technology. This is what happens when you increase cost companies try and find a way to reduce them.
Click to expand...

So you are saying companies do not implement cost saving measures unless the minimum wage increases? Really?
 
We are in the process of witnessing one of the largest 'cost saving measures' in history
as companies drop workers insurance coverage and go to a 30 hour work week.
The minimum wage slaves will be the first to go?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That is completely, and entirely incorrect. Germany does NOT have an all union workforce, and there are laws AGAINST compulsory union membership. Because they can't force people to join unions, the unions actually have to try to represent the people. They may VOLUNTARILY join a union, which will negotiate salaries.

So no, there is no minimum wage, no compulsory union membership, AND their unemployment is lower.
Click to expand...

No it is correct. See since All german employees get what only union people do in USA, therfore all German jobs are "union" from the USA view point.

here is an example

"GM executives in Detroit were flabbergasted at how the head of the Opel works council, Klaus Franz, acted as if he were running the company and desperately fought to keep Opel from being drawn into the US parent company's financial turmoil.

"The Americans say: the company belongs to us," said Franz after he left Opel. "In the US, trade unions have a protective function. They are there to negotiate wages and working conditions," says Franz. "Here in Germany, though, they play a key role in the area of products and their quality, along with each company's growth potential, and thus employment," he explains. "We are highly professional members of the supervisory boards and we get involved. American (corporate) culture has a problem with that," argues Franz.

US company executives also view the German model with suspicion because the US economy is strongly oriented toward shareholder value. Budgets are often only made on a quarterly basis, and rarely for more than a year at a time. By contrast, German companies tend to pursue long-term plans."

From
amazon-and-other-us-corporations-flout-german-labor-laws-a-900615

Also German workers have Reps on all corp boards, can you imagine THAT in USA!!!! LMAO

So, how about German labor laws in USA then????? (snicker)
"
 
You see liberal kiddies we really don't care one whit what you think where we get a tad bothered is when you advocate that the
government at the point of a gun has the need to come into our lives and tell us how to lead them. If you had a business you'd
not look to the government on how to run it cuz lawd knows they haven't the first clue.
 
cpwill said:
You base everything you do on assumptions. For example, you turned your key in the ignition this morning on the assumption that no one had cut the wire, or that an extremely local EMP burst had not taken our your vehicles' electronics. That is what you call a "safe assumption."

Another "safe assumption" is that different jobs carry different values - for example, a mid level manager position carries a higher value than a busboy, but a lower level than a vice-president. You appear to be missing this critical step - if an employee cannot give greater value added than the cost of employing them, then that employee is not hirable. When you artificially increase the floor for the cost of hiring someone, similarly increase the portion of people who are not hirable. Unfortunately, those marginal workers will also typically be representative of our least educated, least skilled, least experienced workers.

It doesn't matter if they are doing their jobs at $7.50 or not. What matters is that they are not necessarily producing enough value-added to the employer to justify their positions once the cost of employing them goes up by 40%. In every other item we accept that a 40% increase in price means a decrease in demand - but somehow because with labor that comes with unfortunate circumstances for those who wish to increase it nonetheless, we must jump through hoops and insist that "that's different" for ill-defined and undemonstrated reasons.
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, but my right hemisphere brain and progressive self thinks that your views are wrong from every angle....Anybody and everybody, unless they are retarded, has the capacity to better themselves, but they don't have to.. It's up to them.. If they are a janitor and are happy being a janitor, that is fine as well.. If they are happy being a clerk, that is great... I would not demean the job or the worker... I don't think that raising the minimum wage would affect these workers at all...
 
274ina said:
No it is correct. See since All german employees get what only union people do in USA, therfore all German jobs are "union" from the USA view point.

here is an example

"GM executives in Detroit were flabbergasted at how the head of the Opel works council, Klaus Franz, acted as if he were running the company and desperately fought to keep Opel from being drawn into the US parent company's financial turmoil.

"The Americans say: the company belongs to us," said Franz after he left Opel. "In the US, trade unions have a protective function. They are there to negotiate wages and working conditions," says Franz. "Here in Germany, though, they play a key role in the area of products and their quality, along with each company's growth potential, and thus employment," he explains. "We are highly professional members of the supervisory boards and we get involved. American (corporate) culture has a problem with that," argues Franz.

US company executives also view the German model with suspicion because the US economy is strongly oriented toward shareholder value. Budgets are often only made on a quarterly basis, and rarely for more than a year at a time. By contrast, German companies tend to pursue long-term plans."

From
amazon-and-other-us-corporations-flout-german-labor-laws-a-900615

Also German workers have Reps on all corp boards, can you imagine THAT in USA!!!! LMAO

So, how about German labor laws in USA then????? (snicker)
"
Click to expand...

Dude, I work and live in Germany, and I'm not in an union. Nothing in your little anecdote even remotely hinted that EVERY worker in Germany is in a union, because they aren't at all.

There are federal laws against mandatory union membership, and only certain types of mid to low end jobs are unionized. I think voluntary unions are a great idea, but I know you're a big fan of US unions forcing workers to join or they don't get the job.

And no, we don't all get what union workers in the US get, that is also nonsense. If you'd like to present any actual facts showing all German workers get union benefits, by all means do it. I can then go to my work and tell all my co-workers about how a guy on an internet forum is telling us that we've all been scammed.
 
Juanita said:
I'm sorry, but my right hemisphere brain and progressive self thinks that your views are wrong from every angle....Anybody and everybody, unless they are retarded, has the capacity to better themselves, but they don't have to.. It's up to them.. If they are a janitor and are happy being a janitor, that is fine as well.. If they are happy being a clerk, that is great... I would not demean the job or the worker... I don't think that raising the minimum wage would affect these workers at all...
Click to expand...

your right hemisphere appears to be missing a critical link. Anyone can self improve. Unless they are denied an opportunity to do so. Which is what hiking the minimum wage does.


Would you pay $14,000 for a car that was worth $10,000?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You're concluding that no one would be willing to work for less than minimum wage - already not true, people do it all the time.
Click to expand...

...And what does that tell you? Either the minimum wage is a manufactured threshold, or that those not eligible for legal work in the USA are indeed willing to work for a wage lower than the legal minimum. It says that essentially, any wage fix is artificial in nature and completely blind to the competitive free market principles most conservatives adhere to. MW fixing is anti-capitalism, and we don't need it because we have welfare already.


Tim-
 
I found the vid to be a good simple summary about minimum wage.

What it did not address is when the min wage is raised, what is the impact on the mid level more experienced workers? What I am getting at for example is if a new hire gets paid min wage. and a 1 year experience workers gets paid 15% more than min wage. When you raise min. wage, should not the more experienced worker get a raise to maintain the 15%. If not, then basically you are saying the more experienced worker now has less value when compared to a new employee. Bottom line, its inflation.
Nothing is free.
 
cpwill said:
your right hemisphere appears to be missing a critical link. Anyone can self improve. Unless they are denied an opportunity to do so. Which is what hiking the minimum wage does.


Would you pay $14,000 for a car that was worth $10,000?
Click to expand...



Tell me--is this what happened the last time that the minimum wage was raised?
 
the world came to end!
hah the same thing that happened every other time sweetie
folks got let go, which in this economy is no big shakes Right?
 
Juanita said:
Tell me--is this what happened the last time that the minimum wage was raised?
Click to expand...

Yup. You may remember that it was about 3-6 months later that all those self-checkout machines started showing up in supermarkets. Where do you think the people who used to run those checkout lines went? The machines had become cheaper than the people, because the cost of people had been artificially increased.
 
cpwill said:
Yup. You may remember that it was about 3-6 months later that all those self-checkout machines started showing up in supermarkets. Where do you think the people who used to run those checkout lines went? The machines had become cheaper than the people, because the cost of people had been artificially increased.
Click to expand...



No, actually, I don't remember but I don't think that I have ever seen more than one in any store that I've been in...but I live rural, so...
 
Juanita said:
No, actually, I don't remember but I don't think that I have ever seen more than one in any store that I've been in...but I live rural, so...
Click to expand...

:) I was in Birmingham Alabama at the time. They started with Wal-Mart and spread from there. Now even my commissary here in Okinawa has them; once the initial investments are made, I guess economy of scale eventually kicks in.

Teens are (as mentioned above) not the best of indicators (they don't need jobs, and can float more easily out of the "unemployed" lines into the "not seeking" lines), but I think that this pretty poignantly makes the point:


minwage.jpg


That gap between the numbers at $5.15 and $7.25? Those numbers represent people. People like my sister in law - people now unable to get employment.
 
shush you, no one wants to be reminded of reality, it disconcerts their wacky Liberal sensibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom