RE: Minimum Wage Rant (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Mercnbeth -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/10/2009 3:01:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
we are dealing with Companies who are payinng out billions in bonuses, and some want to complain about minimum wage.
BTW - There was no "complaint" included in my response, only a point to the pragmatic consequences of any increase. I speak from the perspective of getting zero in bail out dollars and whose taxes, along with yours, were used by the government to bailout failures. The Administration's lack of attention to details, without consideration to the bonus payout consequence, facilitated those bonus payouts. By supporting a regime who has bailouts as the cornerstone of their economic policy you are encouraging the continuation of "billions in bonuses". Why do you do so?

Conversely to your point, businesses are having to pay people who are being overcompensated at the current level of minimum wage.





Musicmystery -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/10/2009 3:04:37 PM)

quote:

Forced to pay a higher salary and higher costs the result to keep the expense at current levels can only be achieved by terminating existing employees.


Obviously, paying higher costs while keeping expenses at current levels sets up the argument. But it's an assumption. If your other resource costs go up, do you stop using as many resources in order to keep expenses at current levels? Only if you intend to gradually go out of business.

Now, you might find a way to use resources more efficiently. Great! And if your layoffs are a result of the same, that's logical. Otherwise, it's arbitrary.

Of course, if you have found a more efficient process, that should help grow your business, and you'll soon be hiring employees who used to work for your competitors.

Or, if markets allow, you (and your competitors) will raise prices.

Surely you aren't suggesting that your costs would never rise anyway, eventually? Markets alone would force you in time to raise wages, as your employees would leave for better opportunities--and take their training with them.






tazzygirl -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/10/2009 3:05:37 PM)

The bailouts began with Bush, if im not mistaken. And bonuses were a huge part of the problem "forcing" companies to go looking for bailout money.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/10/2009 3:24:18 PM)

quote:

Surely you aren't suggesting that your costs would never rise anyway, eventually?
If I did suggest it, it wasn't deliberate.
quote:

Markets alone would force you in time to raise wages, as your employees would leave for better opportunities--and take their training with them.
"Market based pricing", Economy 101 - Exactly! I apply it from Day 1 at the job interview. Whatever salary I hire, I inform the individual how much business and revenue he/she must generate for me to "break even". I know that I'll lose money in the first 90 days, hope to trend to break even in the next 90 and begin to recapture some of my investment (and that's how I view salary) in the next 6 months. At one year - evaluations are based upon those quantitative results.

As recently as 4 years ago, outside of fast food, it took $15/hour to hire someone in the LA marketplace. Recently I put an ad in Craiglist offering $10-12 and got 1500 applicants, well over 50% with degrees and one claiming to be an Attorney, one of the many laid off from a LA firm. (Worse - was he was an undergrad from my alma mater!)

You are absolutely right "Markets alone" not only force, but drive wages. The market is the only method to increase the pay standard. Artificially doing so by raising minimum wage has predictable negative consequences toward the very people targeted as being the beneficiaries. A common result of many "good intent" government implemented social engineering attempts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The bailouts began with Bush, if im not mistaken. And bonuses were a huge part of the problem "forcing" companies to go looking for bailout money.

Oh, you want to change to the parameters and site blame - fine, Bush I prior to January 20th, or Bush II under Obama subsequent to January 20th. Both generated bailout money used for paying bonuses. NO bones has ever been paid out by a bankrupt company - the trustee wouldn't allow it. In fact, the only way to insure no bonuses were paid, was to let the failures go bankrupt. Good thing Bush, AND Obama prohibited that consequence and didn't cause any financial hardship to their Corporate and PAC paymasters.




Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 3:28:46 PM)

Note to Cali: If I came across as a little harsh sounding in my last reply, just wanted you to know it wasn't specifically direct at you - it's just my usual anti-authortarian rant about depending on the government to solve our problems.




stella41b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 3:44:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Just because you and others lack the necessary skills/knowledge to earn a livable wage is no excuse to demand – through force of law – that others pay you a salary that you are not worth. Nor is it any reason to toss others out of a job. Raising the minimum wage may benefit you but it does so at the expense of others. What the hell have they ever done to you that you would fuck them over like that? Well, I’m not surprised because that’s all politics is – different groups trying to fuck over other groups for their own benefit.



How very arrogant and myopic here. How do you know what other people's skills are and what they lack - based on what, your assumptions? Just because someone isn't working in a skilled job doesn't mean to say that they lack skills, it could just as well mean that they have numerous skills but either there's a lack or shortage of demand for such skills where they are living.




Marc2b -> RE: Minimum Wage Rant (8/10/2009 3:45:40 PM)

quote:

Maybe an excuse, but for businesses, it is a major... etc.


[sm=applause.gif]

You know, Merc, I think I'm developing a serious man crush on you. When I grow up I wanna be just like you.



We Temporaraly interupt this Collarme Thread for a completely unrelated subject.

With the apparent easing of photo standards on collarme recently I now feel it might actually be useful and productive to ask you a question, Merc, that I have been wanting to ask for some time:

Could you move your hands please? You're blocking the view. [8D]

We now return you to your Collarme Thread, already in progress.





tazzygirl -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:04:19 PM)

would you also include child labor in that "depending on the government to solve our problems"? im sure no one will say child labor was a crime, in any fashion, before government stepped in to solve the problem. government is often taking care of the ills of the industry.

quote:

Why It's Past Time to Pass Minimum Wage Increase: John M. Berry

Share | Email | Print | A A A

Commentary by John M. Berry



Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) -- During the next few weeks, Republicans in Congress will try to score political points by posing as tough on terrorism and gung-ho for more tax cuts in the run-up to the November elections.

More interesting will be whether some endangered moderate Republicans can persuade their party's leadership to permit a stand-alone vote on a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour, where it has been stuck since 1996, to $7.15 over two years.

In a world in which lower-paid workers' real incomes are stagnant or falling even amid low unemployment, it's past time to offset the impact of inflation on the minimum wage.

An increase would be no panacea. After all, less than 2 percent of wage and salary workers are paid the federal minimum wage. On the other hand, when the minimum has gone up in the past, millions of workers whose pay is modestly higher than the minimum also typically get increases as well.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_berry&sid=aV1iOBTbXq3o


quote:

Overview: Reading the Minimum Wage Debate


Conservatives oppose the minimum wage on the grounds that since wages follow the logic of economics--the more expensive something is, the fewer buyers there will be--raising the minimum wage will lead to reduced employment or reduced hours of employment. They also argue that the minimum wage is so often paid to teenagers starting out in part-time jobs that it is an inefficient way to help poor families. Most of the sources on the "Opposing" page were occasioned by Congressional bills to raise the wage, but the underlying theme is the perennial conservative one: tampering with the open market never helps anyone.

For newcomers to the minimum wage argument, the debate can be bewildering. What follows are three suggestions for getting one’s bearings among the claims and justifications. These prompts can be applied to both sides of the debate, but to this editor who supports the minimum wage, they are most compelling as ways to see the fallacies in arguments against the minimum wage.

1. When reading a position on the minimum wage, take a good look at the numbers. They are rarely as neutral as they may appear. Writers hope they will boost their case or discredit the opponent’s. Evaluate the claim—sometimes stated, often not—that a number is dramatically large or impressively small. Turn percentages into real numbers when you can. Turn real numbers into percentages and fractions to see what they amount to. Critics of the recent federal minimum wage increases, for example, liked to point out that minimum wage amendments in Congress called for a raise of 41 %, implying that such an increase in very low hourly wages is as outrageously large as it would be for annual salaries. It helped to remember that the actual amount of the controversial increase was from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 over two years.

Look at the remainder of numbers, the balance on the other side. For example, an anti-minimum wage position is that 65% of minimum wage workers get raises in the first year, so a minimum wage increase just isn’t necessary. But the remainder—about one third of those workers—do not get the raises, according to this statistic, and one might ask, as proponents indeed do, how long those workers stay stuck at the minimum, or if they keep working at all at that wage.

2. Be aware of definitions; beware of stereotypes.

“Poverty” - Claims about whether the minimum wage helps people to escape poverty are based on the federal poverty line. This line, although it increases slightly each year to reflect inflation, is unrealistically low—approximately $17,000 for a family of three, for example. Because this line is so low, many struggling families--and the low-wage workers in them--are, technically speaking, “not poor.” That is, the combined low wages of the adults in a household may well place the household as a group above the poverty line. And because the federal poverty line is low, a family that is above this line may well be nonetheless poor in reality. Those opposed to the minimum wage often write that only a small percentage of minimum wage workers are poor--below the federal poverty line--and therefore that raising the minimum wage will help only a few poor families. Such claims can be made in part because the minimum wage refers to one person's earnings while "poverty" is offiically defined by the income of the family or household group.

“Teenagers” - Anti-minimum wage sources often point out (accurately) that many low-wage workers are teenagers living at home. The stereotype here is that those teenagers are middle-class kids from families who are hardly poor at all and that they will be spending their wage increase at the local mall. But many teenagers are from lower economic strata and the money they make helps meet the most basic expenses for themselves or the family.

“Sole earners”, “Second earners” - Writers opposed to the minimum wage make claims to the effect that only a small percentage of minimum wage workers are sole earners in a family with children. The implication is that second-wage earners in a household (teenagers, partners, other household members) bring home some bonus spending money, while in fact at lower economic levels the household needs every income source it can find.

“Minimum wage worker” - One might assume that this phrase refers to someone who earns exactly the federal minimum wage. But in different papers it can mean different groups. It can include restaurant waiters who receive the lower minimum “tip” wage. Sometimes it includes those earning just above the federal minimum (a dollar more, for example) on the grounds that such workers are in the same financial boat. And in states with their own higher minimum wages, a minimum wage worker may be significantly better off than one who earns the federal minimum. So different reports about “minimum wage workers” might be comparing apples and oranges.

3. Ask, "Who benefits?” What economic motives drive or might drive a minimum wage argument? Unions support minimum wages (although their members earn more than such minimums) in part because an increase nudges all wages upward. On the other side, a favorite piece of pseudo-altruism from opponents is that the minimum wage hurts those it is supposed to help because it puts people out of jobs. But business owners and conservatives rarely level about their biggest concern: a minimum wage increase might reduce profits.

-- Brock Haussamen; revised September 2008


http://www.raiseminwage.org/id13.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_berry&sid=aV1iOBTbXq3o

and oddly enough, some states already had higher state minimum wage laws than the federal government passed

quote:

Business leaders and economists who oppose minimum wage hikes are particularly critical of laws that automatically adjust the minimum based on inflation, because, they say, wages could be forced up during economic downturns, hurting businesses and depressing the job market, according to Flynn, of the Employment Policies Institute. Only four other states – Florida, Oregon, Vermont and Washington – have laws that tie wage adjustments to inflation.

Starting July 24, 2007, when the federal wage increase takes effect, Washington state will have the highest wage in the nation at $7.93, followed by Oregon at $7.80, Connecticut at $7.65, Vermont at $7.53, California and Massachusetts at $7.50 and Rhode Island at $7.40.

New Mexico’s new wage law prohibits municipalities from raising hourly rates above the state level, but allows higher existing rates to remain in the state’s two major cities: Santa Fe ($9.50) and Albuquerque ($6.75). Washington, D.C., was the first city to raise its minimum wage, boosting it to $7 in 1993. San Francisco followed a decade later, increasing its rate to $8.82 in 2003, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Since 1997, 12 states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin – have passed laws prohibiting cities from enacting minimum wage rates higher than the state rate, according to the National Restaurant Association.

The hospitality businesses – hotels, restaurants, bars and casinos – hire more minimum wage workers than any other industry segment. Under most state laws, hospitality workers who make tips – such as bartenders and wait staff – make a substantially lower minimum wage than all other hourly workers. The new federal law sets the minimum wage for so-called tip workers at $2.13 an hour.

Seven states – Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington – require employers to pay tip workers the same minimum wage as other workers.

The percentage of the workforce that earns the minimum varies from state to state, with the highest proportion in Oklahoma and West Virginia at about 4 percent and the lowest in Alaska, California and Washington at 1 percent or less, according to the U.S. Department of Labor


http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=218020




Ialdabaoth -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:05:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

This is what happens when congress arbitrarily raises the minimum wage. Small business's are having trouble keeping afloat in this recession. Putting additional mandates on small business, especially now, is the wrong thing to do. Something has to give.


There simply isn't enough to go around. Either everyone below a certain block starves equally, or we elevate a random percentage out of that block and the rest starve even more.

The problem won't be solved without a complete structural change in our society, or a grand Malthusian die-off.





Ialdabaoth -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:06:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Note to Cali: If I came across as a little harsh sounding in my last reply, just wanted you to know it wasn't specifically direct at you - it's just my usual anti-authortarian rant about depending on the government to solve our problems.


Between the government and the megacorps, I'll take the government thank you very much.




Musicmystery -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:06:30 PM)

Where are you going with this?

The U.S. alone produces enough to feed the world.





CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:07:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Note to Cali: If I came across as a little harsh sounding in my last reply, just wanted you to know it wasn't specifically direct at you - it's just my usual anti-authortarian rant about depending on the government to solve our problems.


That's OK, Marc. I have a harsh side as well. This isn't directed at you-- I want to say that up front, as I'm about to vent a spleen that is nigh unto overflowing at this point. See, I've always considered myself to be geared towards smaller government, less intervention, and fewer intrusions onto the individual expression of existence. I've championed the Free Market, and lassaize-faire government for almost three decades, but the past several years have jaded me.

Reality has finally sunk through my thick skull. After two doctoral degrees (for which I worked 3 jobs to keep myself fed, sheltered, and pay for my school with no grants or federal aid -- though I did earn 3 merit scholarships which helped pay about 1/2 of my undergraduate education), 13 years as a military wife while my husband served this country, only to be brushed aside by the private sector because he wasn't trained in the 'latest technology' when he was released during the draw-down of forces, and 20 years self-employed as a midwife, paramedic, web developer, and medical writer, it only took me six years as a corporate drone to figure out that a broad swath of human beings are greedy, selfish, bitter, lazy, and foolish, and that the further up you follow the dollar, the deeper the corruption eats its way into the corporate psyche. Perhaps it is just a fact of human existence that we tend towards the "Landsman/pauper" dichotomy, even when we scream "all men are created equal" at the top of our lungs.

Not every pauper is lazy, in fact, few can afford to be. The game is rigged, and the people who scream most loudly about how -unfair- it is to throw the paupers a bone are the very ones who have a vested interest in retaining their station and justifying their greed. Most of the truly lazy, ignorant individuals I've met in my life have actually had every opportunity and have padded their way to the top of the heap on the backs of anyone with whom they could get away with it. It is profoundly discouraging to find myself in this place, but at least now I am aware, and can prepare my younger kin for the reality of making their way in the world.

Dame Calla




Ialdabaoth -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:20:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Where are you going with this?

The U.S. alone produces enough to feed the world.


I'm not talking about food, I'm talking about socially acceptable lifestyle choices.

Take me, for example. I currently eat very well. I currently live under a non-leaking roof. I need less than $100 a month. How do I manage this?

1. I don't care what I look like, so I stop buying "good clothes". Self-image is a luxury, and right now I'm worrying about day-to-day surival.
2. I don't care what my living area says about me, so I stop indulging in the "ikea nesting instinct", I stop needing my own room, I stop needing privacy or comfort or even regular access to hygiene. Comfort is a luxury, and right now I'm worrying about day-to-day survival.
3. I've stopped dating altogether. Emotional intimacy is a luxury, and right now I'm worrying about day-to-day survival.
4. (this is the regrettable part) I've stopped going to the doctor, to the dentist, to the optometrist, to anyone who will help me maintain my health. It's a luxury, and right now I'm worrying about day-to-day survival.
5. I've come to fully accept the idea that everything I rely on to survive could disappear in an instant. I could wake up tomorrow and not know where I'm sleeping. I could go 3 days without eating, and there wouldn't be shit I could do about it. If a cop pulls me over, because of the way I look and the 20-year old, unmaintained car I'm driving, it's obvious that he can do whatever he wants to me. I have no social safety net, because that's a luxury and right now I'm worrying about day-to-day survival.

So yeah, the US could feed the world, at Africa levels of subsistence. Most people complaining about minimum wage laws aren't worried about that - they're worried about not looking like "ghetto trash". They're worried about what their car, what their clothes, what their entertainment says to those around them. Drop all those social pretenses, and you discover you need a LOT less to get by. But how many people are willing to do that, and really - can you blame them? Look at what they'll be giving up in terms of peer support, acceptance, and opportunities for advancement. "It takes money to make money", and all that.




Politesub53 -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:25:17 PM)

Great post Dame Calla, thank You. 




Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:30:39 PM)

quote:

How very arrogant and myopic here. How do you know what other people's skills are and what they lack - based on what, your assumptions? Just because someone isn't working in a skilled job doesn't mean to say that they lack skills, it could just as well mean that they have numerous skills but either there's a lack or shortage of demand for such skills where they are living.


I presume no such thing (I presume very little). On the contrary, I am the exact opposite of arrogant and myopic on this.

We as a society, and as individuals, can’t know each and every persons level of skill and education – or less quantifiable aspects of them like personality, ambition, etc. We also can’t know such things about the people who own and manage the myriad businesses from the smallest “Mom & Pop” all the way up to the largest corporations. This is why I consider it foolish to attempt to micromanage society. There is also the question of Liberty. How much should the government be allowed to trump the personal judgments of its citizens, especially in matters that directly affect their lives? Not by much, in my opinion. Government should exist to enforce the basic rules of good social order (don’t run red lights or we’ll fine you, don’t murder people or will toss you in a cell for life, etc.), defend the nation, and deliver the mail.

I’m actually a little iffy on ‘deliver the mail.’




Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:49:06 PM)

quote:

would you also include child labor in that "depending on the government to solve our problems"?


No I would not.

quote:

im sure no one will say child labor was a crime, in any fashion, before government stepped in to solve the problem.

Actually a great many people said it was, enough that the government passed laws against it. Democracy in action.

quote:

government is often taking care of the ills of the industry.


I'm not denying that.

Please don't try to take my views and use them to push me into some sort of anarchrist. You won't find me there. Government has it's legitamate uses. I have never denied that. I am questioning the apparent mindset of so many that every problem of everybody as something that needs a new law or regulation - often failing to take into account that by having the government show favoritism to one group they act in determint to another group. If we are truly to be a free people with rights, then the government has no business engaging in unecessary discrimination against its citizens.




Marc2b -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:51:47 PM)

quote:

Between the government and the megacorps, I'll take the government thank you very much.


Why does it have to be either/or?

Why limit yourself to only two choices?




tazzygirl -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 4:53:58 PM)

Many states had already raised the minimum above the federal mandate. others raised them according to government guildlines. and others still raised their minimum along with givernment, but remaining a bit higher than the required 7.25. so, other than the fact that the economy has turned for the worse, states recognized the importance of doing this, and businesses were not screaming that they may close shop... until now?




Ialdabaoth -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 5:15:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Between the government and the megacorps, I'll take the government thank you very much.


Why does it have to be either/or?

Why limit yourself to only two choices?



Because without the government, it *IS* the megacorp. It's like saying "Between gangrene and antibiotics, I'll take the antibiotics". Then someone comes along and says "NO! Don't take those heathen antibiotics, trust the power of JAYSUS!!!"... three days later, gangrene.

So yeah, from everything I've seen, any attempt at a "third choice" besides government or the megacorps really just means the megacorps by default, and homie don't play dat no more.




CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Minimium Wage Rant (8/10/2009 5:23:20 PM)

quote:

Why does it have to be either/or?

Why limit yourself to only two choices?


What is your third choice, Marc? Or, if you have more -viable- options that could be supported both by the princes and the paupers, please do share -- or better yet, get thy arse to camelot and offer your sword to Arthur and go battle that dragon.

I am serious, BTW... if you have viable options that will allow individuals who are busting their butts to be able to live and won't piss off the corporate nobles AND will survive our sold-out legislative privateers, then please share, because we seem to have a dearth of functional options.

DC




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875