Minimum Wage BS

[Brooks]

you stated what I said was false, I used Madison on words to prove what I said was correct, now you have no rebuttal to those facts i posted.

It wasn't a wasted effort. Some of us read it, understood it and appreciated it.

 

[Brooks]

Patience, grasshopper.

That suggests that something will eventually arrive.

I do not share you optimism.

 

[Vern]

I doesn't take a genius to work backwards from 30 hours/week and less than 4.5 hours per day. He respected you enough to think you'd figure that one out on your own...

Forgetting that 7 times 4.5 = 31.5, I too just assumed his math skills were weak. In America, we work a 5 day work week. Stop. 5 days. There was no reason for us to assume he meant otherwise. If you are going to use something that’s not the norm , you need to point that out upfront. And that's exactly what he did when he used 30 hours instead of 40 hours. It was a weak justification but he explained it upfront. But he didn't explain the use of 7 days and he like you is whining that we should have known what he meant. No, this is a debate forum not kindergarten.

So the question was asked, why did you use a 7 day work week. And his totally unbelievable excuse was "I didn't want to tire out my imaginary worker". Remember, this is a debate forum not kindergarten. Since his reason was unbelievable, it just made the notion that he screwed up the math more believable. But in retrospect its easy to see that he was using 30 hour work week as full time over 7 days to make his rant against "livable wage" look better. I mean who could argue for minimum wage should be high enough to allow people to work 4.5 hours a day and support a family of four. And since nobody was arguing for that he automatically wins. When I start a thread, I argue against what people actually say. I don't have to delicately construct a narrative to argue against.

 

[Fletch]

Any wage should be based on an equation of the importance of the job vs. how many people are available to do it, period. To do otherwise hurts business.

The new clarion call is that if someone is willing to work full time he should make a "dignified wage" and be able to support himself. Some even say support a family.
Fine. Obamacare has declared 30 hours per week to be full time. That's less than 4.5 hours per day.

What would someone need to be paid per hour to support himself by working 4.5 hours per day?

I know you have taken a lot of grief from the mindless left on this post, but you are correct and they are not. Many people, myself included when I was young, worked part time and often worked that job 6 and 7 days a week. It is not unheard of in retail and fast food to schedule 4 and 5 hour shifts.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

1. Were I reading the OP, the moment I read 4.5 hours a day totaling 30 hours I would have realized that it meant 7 days.
We went to school in very different eras.

2. And STILL nothing substantive to add to the actual topic, eh?

4.5x7=31.5?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

And you are a Saudi King?

No, are you?

 

[ashurbanipal]

1. Based on that I think our disagreement is fundamental. Everyone has their own self interest.

No doubt. I don't think there's anything wrong with self interest per se, but I think it's gone rather far out of balance in our culture. Ultimately, we exist in a balance between personal rights and freedom, and dependence on others (as others depend on us). We have a society and an economy in recognition of the latter fact, and when things get out of balance, we enter a phase of decline.

Of course, this raises the interesting question: how can we know when things are out of balance? I propose that it's possible to look at history and examine the conditions present when times were at their relative best. One thing that I note about these times is that income gaps are usually pretty low, and education is more prevalent relative to the standard of the time in question. It's fairly easy to understand why this would be the case if you understand the social contract. It's just as easy to figure out, roughly speaking, what the clauses of that contract need to be.

But the balance goes both ways; individuals have to hold up their end of the bargain. I have little respect for people who are lazy and who try to game the system, when they very well could be gainfully employed. I have even less respect for people who could make something of their lives, but who choose to make a living by injuring others (robbery, home invasion, etc). However, my observation is that today, here and now, the balance has shifted towards the elite of our society, and we need to put it back into balance if we expect our society to continue. This is really not even a moral issue for me, it's simple mechanics.

Yes, that is an apt description of how things are. But I do not say this is how things should be.

2. Another fundamental difference in our thought process. I don't see businesses as power and business owners as power hungry.
For the purposes of a discussion on minimum wage, we're probably not talking about the Fortune 500, we're talking about the gas station owner.

Some business owners are power hungry. Some are not (I've known some of both kinds...if we don't distinguish greed from hunger for power, then I've known more of the former). However, businesses who have employees are powerful in the lives of those employees. And businesses with lots of employees have power to the point they can even direct the course of government to some extent.

When they stop tolerating it they will move on to a job more commensurate with their perception of their worth. That's the idea of minimum wage - your first unskilled job.

If that's possible for them to do. One problem these days is that it's often not possible.

Employers do provide "a living wage, [that] is also reasonably fair" to the more skilled workers who are harder to replace.

I'm afraid I disagree that this is so in all cases...or even in most cases. It certainly used to be the case. Part of what we are seeing is that this is becoming less and less the case.

It's, in some cases, a struggling small businessman who can't afford to make an unskilled worker's life livable.
There are some businesses who won't be able to afford ANY workers at the "livable wage". What are they supposed to do?

Well, this certainly seems like a potent argument at first. But consider that it's possible to make it no matter how low wages go. I guarantee I could run a highly profitable business if the law allowed me to commandeer workers that I didn't have to pay. I could run a profitable business if I only had to pay 10 cents an hour. And so on. But if my business models depend on that, then the moment minimum wage is raised by some increment, my business will fail.

I hope we can agree that, at least, the law ought not to allow me to command free labor.

That said, I agree with you to some extent. Raising the minimum wage causes fractures in the overall economy (and it may be easy to see why by thinking about the example I gave above). I don't want to put mom and pop out of business, though at the same time, I also want it to be the case that someone who is reasonably capable and who wants a job can get one commensurate with their skills.

I met a guy the other day working as a cashier at the local White Castle that has a Master's degree from the University of Ohio in psychology. He'd been in that position two years, and looks, when he has time, for something in his field. He wasn't lazy or inarticulate; he had a very professional demeanor and appearance. This was just the only job he could find. And that's a narrative that is all too common these days. It's not just those individuals who suffer, we all suffer, because we're not utilizing the full collective force of our population.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Well then, it's a good thing your cockamamie story doesn't exist, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're saying that what I've stated is false, then feel free to explain why. I think I'm correct.

 

[lolabird]

I've been on several different politica fora and you, and a few others, are examples of something I've never understood.

Some people enjoy debating, some enjoy learning, some enjoy the research and the challenge of trying to keep up with a topic they don't readily understand. But I don't know where you, and a few others, fit in. It seems as though you WANT to be angry and fight and insult. If I sound like I'm picking on you personally I'm sorry, but I seriously don't get it.

When and if you learn that no every one subscribes to your embedded views, you'll be on your way to learning.
Just because I do not find you to be perspicacious doesn't mean that I'm a brawler.
The mere fact that you've been on several different political forums doesn't impress me in the least. I've no doubt you tried to browbeat those who would not kowtow to your way of thinking.
Don't worry about where I fit in. Instead worry about where you fit in.

 

[FederalRepublic]

That suggests that something will eventually arrive.

I do not share you optimism.

Then be a pessimist. You find it rewarding complain about the contribution of others, have at it. It's an open forum. Just get used to being a complainer.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Forgetting that 7 times 4.5 = 31.5, I too just assumed his math skills were weak.

Yes. For the mathematically-challenged, 7 times something less than 4.5 = 30. Making a correct statement does not indicate weak math skills.

In America, we work a 5 day work week. Stop. 5 days.

People who are satisfied with their income work 5 days. Plenty of others, especially business owners, work 6 or 7 days a week.

There was no reason for us to assume he meant otherwise. If you are going to use something that’s not the norm , you need to point that out upfront. And that's exactly what he did when he used 30 hours instead of 40 hours. It was a weak justification but he explained it upfront. But he didn't explain the use of 7 days and he like you is whining that we should have known what he meant. No, this is a debate forum not kindergarten.

There was no reason to assume he meant 7 days in a week, except that there are 7 days in a week and that 30 divided by 7 is less than 4.5. You're correct in one thing though--this isn't kindergarten. Some things are taken for granted as being understood. 7 days in a week would be one of the more obvious ones.

So the question was asked, why did you use a 7 day work week. And his totally unbelievable excuse was "I didn't want to tire out my imaginary worker". Remember, this is a debate forum not kindergarten. Since his reason was unbelievable, it just made the notion that he screwed up the math more believable. But in retrospect its easy to see that he was using 30 hour work week as full time over 7 days to make his rant against "livable wage" look better. I mean who could argue for minimum wage should be high enough to allow people to work 4.5 hours a day and support a family of four. And since nobody was arguing for that he automatically wins. When I start a thread, I argue against what people actually say. I don't have to delicately construct a narrative to argue against.

So here you are delicately constructing a narrative about there being only 5 days in a week in order to make the OP seem dishonest or stupid. Not particularly strong when you are incorrect in both assertions.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

There is an element of coercion in employment these days. Adam Smith recognized the problem: once all the land is owned, the people who own the land can force everyone else to work for them and will generally be the ones who determine working conditions and wages. Human beings need land to produce food and water, and those are necessary to survive. Not taking a job because the wages are too low may lead to you starving or dying of thirst. At least, it may lead to a very tough life of sleeping under a bridge and pulling your own abscessed teeth with a pair of rusty plyers. Employers are able, collectively, to threaten people with that fate if they don't take the wages on offer.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're saying that what I've stated is false, then feel free to explain why. I think I'm correct.

This is pure hyperbole. "Once all the land is owned?" For one thing, Mother Government owns about 30% of our land, so your little fantasy would never happen. For another thing, this whole "employers threatening people" is absolutely stupid. I've been in the workforce for a long time. Different corporations. Different lines of business. Never have I felt "threatened." Why? Because I could always go work somewhere else. My work skills make me marketable. It sounds like you do not have this type of experience.

Stop with the baseless Chicken Little stories. Employers need employees. They get this workforce by enticement. They keep the workforce by their direct treatment of their employees. They lose their workforce by employee dissatisfaction. Regardless of what many people believe, there is a balance.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I met a guy the other day working as a cashier at the local White Castle that has a Master's degree from the University of Ohio in psychology. He'd been in that position two years, and looks, when he has time, for something in his field. He wasn't lazy or inarticulate; he had a very professional demeanor and appearance. This was just the only job he could find. And that's a narrative that is all too common these days. It's not just those individuals who suffer, we all suffer, because we're not utilizing the full collective force of our population.

A guy with a master's degree who's been a cashier at White Castle for two years is lazy. He might not be physically lazy, but he is at least intellectually lazy. Nobody is making him stay there...

 

[Velvet Elvis]

I met a guy the other day working as a cashier at the local White Castle that has a Master's degree from the University of Ohio in psychology. He'd been in that position two years, and looks, when he has time, for something in his field.

It was that guy's choice to get a degree in such a niche field.

I know someone who got a degree in archaeology. Thought he was gonna be the next Alan Grant. Guess what? He hasn't worked in 2½ years because he's "too good" for a menial job, and one of these sniveling little "I don't work for 'The Man'" rejects. He'd rather collect unemployment and wait for his dream job to open up. He's an able-bodied 30-something.

So you tell me who's not "utilizing the full collective force of our population."

 

[Vern]

So here you are delicately constructing a narrative about there being only 5 days in a week in order to make the OP seem dishonest or stupid. Not particularly strong when you are incorrect in both assertions.

See how you are not arguing what I posted. A lot of cons fell it necessary to do that in response to my posts. However yours seems more disingenuous than the others. They usually "misunderstand" what I post. You had to create a statement I never made. No where did I in any way state or imply that the that there are only 5 days in the week. I clearly stated (and numerous times) that the norm in an America is a 5 day work week. When brooks used the "non standard" definition of 30 hours, he correctly pointed out his use of a non standard number. When he decided to use a non standard 7 day work week, he should have clear and up front about that. He wasn't. And his excuse only made it more believable that he just screwed up the math.

And if you were literate you would see that I acknowledged that he probably didn't make a math mistake, he was just trying to exaggerate the point he was attacking. (cons do that a lot too). But again, my first thought was he screwed up the math. I divided 30 by 5 and got 6. It didn't occur to me to go thru a series of iterations until I found the day that fit his narrative. And again, his unbelievable excuse only made it look like he was hiding something. I just assumed it was his math skills.

Humor us Fed, explain his delicate narrative that he was "concerned about tiring his imaginary worker". Yea, we all know imaginary workers get tired working 6 hours a day. (does he know that the normal working day in America is 8 hours? probably not)

 

[FederalRepublic]

See how you are not arguing what I posted. A lot of cons fell it necessary to do that in response to my posts. However yours seems more disingenuous than the others. They usually "misunderstand" what I post. You had to create a statement I never made. No where did I in any way state or imply that the that there are only 5 days in the week. I clearly stated (and numerous times) that the norm in an America is a 5 day work week. When brooks used the "non standard" definition of 30 hours, he correctly pointed out his use of a non standard number. When he decided to use a non standard 7 day work week, he should have clear and up front about that. He wasn't. And his excuse only made it more believable that he just screwed up the math.

And if you were literate you would see that I acknowledged that he probably didn't make a math mistake, he was just trying to exaggerate the point he was attacking. (cons do that a lot too). But again, my first thought was he screwed up the math. I divided 30 by 5 and got 6. It didn't occur to me to go thru a series of iterations until I found the day that fit his narrative. And again, his unbelievable excuse only made it look like he was hiding something. I just assumed it was his math skills.

Humor us Fed, explain his delicate narrative that he was "concerned about tiring his imaginary worker". Yea, we all know imaginary workers get tired working 6 hours a day. (does he know that the normal working day in America is 8 hours? probably not)

Working 4.5 hours a day is easier than working 6 hours a day. While neither is particularly difficult, 4.5 is less than 6. 8 hours a day, 5 days is week is what we call banker's hours. It's generally a derogatory term for those of us who work 10,12,18-hour days, 6 or 7 days a week along with frequent holidays. You know, the whole 99% thing...

 

[Vern]

Working 4.5 hours a day is easier than working 6 hours a day. While neither is particularly difficult, 4.5 is less than 6. 8 hours a day, 5 days is week is what we call banker's hours. It's generally a derogatory term for those of us who work 10,12,18-hour days, 6 or 7 days a week along with frequent holidays. You know, the whole 99% thing...

er uh Fed, if you don't want to respond to my posts and have nothing to say, why do you bother posting to me. I asked you to explain the reason for Brook's silly excuse for not wanting to tire out his imaginary workers.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Any wage should be based on an equation of the importance of the job vs. how many people are available to do it, period. To do otherwise hurts business.

The new clarion call is that if someone is willing to work full time he should make a "dignified wage" and be able to support himself. Some even say support a family.
Fine. Obamacare has declared 30 hours per week to be full time. That's less than 4.5 hours per day.

What would someone need to be paid per hour to support himself by working 4.5 hours per day?

It never ceases to amaze me how do-gooders on the left will rally around faux crises they created like the high caloric content of a Big Mac or the high sugar content in a Big Gulp, and then turn right around and with perfectly straight faces attempt to tell us how important it is the people who serve Big Macs and Big Gulps make a "living" or "dignified" wage.

Everything they touch turns to disaster and for every disaster they create they dream up some new disaster to solve their old disaster. And, as with asinine crises like the Big Mac, everything they imagine important is just the next new crisis, crises of their own making, they have the straight-faced gall to presume to tell us is our fault for opposing.

Good thread. Thanks.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Any wage should be based on an equation of the importance of the job vs. how many people are available to do it, period. To do otherwise hurts business.

The new clarion call is that if someone is willing to work full time he should make a "dignified wage" and be able to support himself. Some even say support a family.
Fine. Obamacare has declared 30 hours per week to be full time. That's less than 4.5 hours per day.

What would someone need to be paid per hour to support himself by working 4.5 hours per day?

P.S. Assuming they're getting their food for free from the government, their medical care for free from the government, their phone for free from the government, their housing for free from the government, their child care free from the government, and etc. etc. ad-bankruptum, the only thing they should have to pay for is their Internet service. So that costs what, $60 a month? And if they're working 30 hours a week - though goodness knows why in the world they're working at all - their salaries are free from the government (for 2 years anyway) - at 30 x 4.3 weeks / month = 129 hours a month they "work."

So $60 / 129 hours = $0.47 / hour. There's what the minimum wage "ought" to be - and ironically, that's about what it was when I served in the US Military, where my food was free, my lodging was free, my health care was free....

 

[Ryan5]

'Meh'


Minimum wages simply mean less poor people hired and that those who are hired at said ****ty jobs will have less benefits due to said minimum wage.



I actually somewhat prefer there be minimum wages. As a class oriented person who firmly believes in class as a beneficial structure, there actually 'needs' to be unemployed masses to some extent in every country. Minimum wages actually promote the class system by ensuring less poor people will be employed, which promotes the class structure and in a very real sense promotes class and hierarchy.


It's a direct testament to how much white progressives have truly had their way ideologically in the US in their promoting of class hierarchies that minimum wage laws are so prevalent. Minimum wage laws really stand for 'Keeping the plantation hordes ripe for the whip'.

 

[ashurbanipal]

This is pure hyperbole. "Once all the land is owned?" For one thing, Mother Government owns about 30% of our land, so your little fantasy would never happen.

I'm not sure what you mean. All the land is owned (except for a few areas in the deserts of the middle east, I suppose, but those don't really count, since they cannot be made to produce anything. They aren't owned because no one wants them). That's a simple fact. For any bit of productive land anywhere in the world, someone owns it. I am not free to go onto owned land and cause it to produce wealth to which no one else has any claim.

For another thing, this whole "employers threatening people" is absolutely stupid. I've been in the workforce for a long time. Different corporations. Different lines of business. Never have I felt "threatened."

Threats need not be explicit, or even stated, to be real. Someone who breaks into my house late at night must know that I may threaten their well-being or their life. But I don't mention this to everyone I see. I don't even have a sign posted saying "beware of owner." But that threat is still there.

Why? Because I could always go work somewhere else. My work skills make me marketable. It sounds like you do not have this type of experience.

I doubt very seriously that it is the case that you could always go work somewhere else. In fact, I cannot think of a single person who has ever lived for which that proposition even could be true. It sounds necessarily false. What you seem to mean is that, probably, you could work elsewhere...or such is your perception. No doubt plenty of other people have felt the same, and found that reality is rather different.

Stop with the baseless Chicken Little stories. Employers need employees.

Yes, sure. I'm not sure why you think this is a point in your favor. What matters is not what they need, but how they fill their needs.

They get this workforce by enticement. They keep the workforce by their direct treatment of their employees. They lose their workforce by employee dissatisfaction. Regardless of what many people believe, there is a balance.

I was an employer for 16 years. I employed about 250 people at any given time. I know how the game works. And I know that this is simply incorrect.

When the economy is bad, employees will put up with an absolutely stunning amount of BS from their employer, precisely because most people are aware there's someone else out there desperate enough to take the same BS for even less money. There are ways to blacklist employees in a given market. Most employers collude on wages, with the help of the government. Look, just ask yourself these questions: do most people actually love their jobs? How often do employers lose all, or even most, of their employees in a walk out?

The answers seem pretty obvious: most people I know hate their jobs. They dread going to work. And I know people from all walks of life and all income brackets. But very few employers lose all their employees in a single walkout. It happens occasionally, but not very often.

Now, this said, I would agree there is a point beyond which balance will almost of necessity come to be restored. The problem is that we don't want to go there, because that point involves violence and social dislocation of a very severe kind. The art of wise governance and administration of power (I would include not only people in government, but also business owners, execs, and managers) involves keeping balance in the first place, so we don't ever have to go there.

It was that guy's choice to get a degree in such a niche field.

Psychology seems to be a fairly robust field.

I know someone who got a degree in archaeology. Thought he was gonna be the next Alan Grant. Guess what? He hasn't worked in 2½ years because he's "too good" for a menial job, and one of these sniveling little "I don't work for 'The Man'" rejects. He'd rather collect unemployment and wait for his dream job to open up. He's an able-bodied 30-something.

Well, certainly, there are people like this. This is why I tend to favor employer of last resort programs rather than welfare programs. I agree with the principle that who doesn't want to work shouldn't make money. But only if all sides are holding up their end of the bargain. Right now, the people who are holding the reigns are not holding up their end.

So you tell me who's not "utilizing the full collective force of our population."

I think I've already said: we are not. I've seen nothing in your post to convince me otherwise.

 

[ashurbanipal]

A guy with a master's degree who's been a cashier at White Castle for two years is lazy. He might not be physically lazy, but he is at least intellectually lazy. Nobody is making him stay there...

Well, of course, I don't know him personally aside from the conversation we had, but this was not my impression. You don't get a master's degree by being intellectually lazy.

Then again, perhaps the guy was simply lying. I don't think so, but it's possible. I don't think this really matters so much; the point is whether it is plausible, given today's economic conditions, that someone could have a master's degree from a reputable and accredited university in a recognized field, and despite their best efforts, end up working as a cashier at White Castle. I think it almost certainly is plausible, and that reveals a serious problem with our economic system.

 

[FederalRepublic]

er uh Fed, if you don't want to respond to my posts and have nothing to say, why do you bother posting to me. I asked you to explain the reason for Brook's silly excuse for not wanting to tire out his imaginary workers.

I'm guessing he was humoring your silly questions about imaginary 5 days work weeks vs real 7 day weeks, but you'll have to ask him if you want to be certain.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Well, of course, I don't know him personally aside from the conversation we had, but this was not my impression. You don't get a master's degree by being intellectually lazy.

Then again, perhaps the guy was simply lying. I don't think so, but it's possible. I don't think this really matters so much; the point is whether it is plausible, given today's economic conditions, that someone could have a master's degree from a reputable and accredited university in a recognized field, and despite their best efforts, end up working as a cashier at White Castle. I think it almost certainly is plausible, and that reveals a serious problem with our economic system.

My point is he's not giving his best efforts if he's been working as a cashier for two years. Whether that means he's ruled out taking other jobs, or changing locations, or simply putting out more applications. There are jobs to be had for anyone willing to work.

 

[Vern]

I'm guessing he was humoring your silly questions about imaginary 5 days work weeks vs real 7 day weeks, but you'll have to ask him if you want to be certain.

oh fed, I've never denied some people work 7 days a week. How sad is it that you resort to claiming that? I've clearly and repeatedly stated that in America, 5 day work weeks are the norm. and the funny thing is your silly post is an actually an improvement over your claim that I said there are only 5 days in a week.