quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
well,.. you know that there are millions of workers that dont earn even the piddly present $7.25/hr minimum wage.. they dont "qualify" under the FLSA (due to lobbying by businesses that profit from paying slave wages).. its all well and good to talk about raising the minimum wage but why arent ALL workers covered under it? So if the minimum wage is increased, the costs for everything including food, housing, utilities, etc will increase but those workers will be squeezed even more..

Who are these workers?

A large number of them are caregivers for seniors and disabled (that do 20% or less time doing housework and dont do medical service) with live-in caregivers being hit the hardest by opportunist employers.. they can be paid as little as nothing other than room and food.. Other workers are unpaid interns whose work is supposed to be a learning benefit to them but that is not the case with many.. Other workers are those that do piece-work where they get $X for each pound of produce picked or for each article of clothing (in those good ole sweatshops) or whatever they make.. and of course, "independent contractors".. and also "executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees".. With each type of job there are certain requirements that make that worker exempt, for instance, an executive/manager would have to be paid more than a certain minimum salary and have real managerial duties & staff which he/she would manage, etc, etc.. so an exempt manager could work 80 hours a week, any time of the day or night the employer wanted him/her to work and pay a minimum salary (which isnt much at all)...

quote:

Some workers are figuring out that they actually arent exempt (cuz the employer wasnt following the rules) and filing complaints to the DOL in increasing numbers.. If you are an employer and gonna shaft a worker, make sure you follow the rules and have documentation to back it up or the DOL will make you regret it...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

Whoa! Talk about swatting the bee's nest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Nope, not at all, read the history of the minimum wage act.

I realize what I said had nothing to do with the legal reasoning behind minimum wage laws but I didn't read your question in that context. So, my bad. My apologies. Nevertheless, what I said is true with regard to how many small business owners will approach the idea of what they will pay someone for a particular job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
I can't recall where I originally heard this but there's already something of a general multiplier rule that businesses apply to starting pay based on education level.

High School = minimum wage
Associate's degree = 2x minimum wage
Bachelor's degree = 3x minimum wage

...and so on.

Pure fantasy.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77

No, I know I've heard something like this before. It's not literal. It's a loose rule-of-thumb for estimating starting pay or what a business can expect to pay for a job requiring a degree. I'm looking for a link that describes it better and if I have my facts wrong then I'll correct it. But considering the data from your link, it doesn't seem to be too far off the mark. At least, not at the higher end if you compare it to totals based on straight minimum wage and yearly working hour calculations.

Minimum wage = $7.25/hr
Avg. work hours/year = 2080

Based on what I said:
Straight minimum wage = $15,080/yr
Associate's degree = $30,160/yr
Bachelor's degree = $45,240/yr
Master's degree $60,320/yr

Your link:
Less than high school education = $23,900/yr
High school completion = $30,000/yr
Associate's degree = $37,500/yr
Bachelor's degree = $48,500/yr
Master's and higher = $59,600/yr

Given that many lower level jobs pay a little better than straight minimum wage and not accounting for any overtime which most degree level jobs do not get, I would expect the numbers for the lower level jobs to be less accurate. In any event, it doesn't look like pure fantasy to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

Raising the minimum wage will not help in anyway as what happens when you do is you cause the cost of doing business to rise and the result is businesses must either cut work hours of employees, cut employees, raise prices or all of the above. So what happens is it cost more to by things so consumers buy less and businesses sell less so they make less can't pay more, it just a vicious circle.
So what do we do fix this? There are two ways to do this, One is we lower the cost of doing business and the best way to do that to reduce the taxes and fees the government charges businesses and Two is basically the same thing in that you also reduce the tax and fee burden the government has put on consumers. The end result would be consumers would have more money to spend and would buy more and business would have more buyers for their product and it would cheaper to do business and they would need more employees to make their product and eventually wages would rise as more and more people go back to work and the demand for products that businesses make increases they would have to raise wages in order to attract and keep employees.

quote:

But there are societal costs as well--when Wal-Mart's employees are on food stamps, taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart's labor costs. That's a cost that properly belongs to Wal-Mart, not the taxpayers. Same with the increased health care costs that often come from cutting corners when living on a low income. Taxpayers are paying instead of Wal-Mart.

quote:

We're paying the lowest taxes historically than we have in quite a while.

quote:

But your objections are at cross purposes. You think taxes are high, yet you don't mind subsidizes employers who pay so low their employees qualify for food stamps.

quote:

You can't cut your way to prosperity

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

We're paying the lowest taxes historically than we have in quite a while.

I would like to see some proof of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

We're paying the lowest taxes historically than we have in quite a while.

I would like to see some proof of that.

So tell me has your income tax rate gone down? Or have sales taxes gone down? Has the government reduced or eliminated a significant number of fees?

From what I have experienced income taxes have not gone down and sales tax has gone up everywhere along with higher fees and an increased number of fees, and just because it's labeled as a fee doesn't mean it's not just another tax.

quote:

But your objections are at cross purposes. You think taxes are high, yet you don't mind subsidizes employers who pay so low their employees qualify for food stamps.

I never said I was for subsidizing employers but I also think the company's that get subsidized are in the minority and it has little bearing on the economy or the law of supply & demand which is what I'm talking about.

quote:

You can't cut your way to prosperity

That makes no sense.

If a company can't sell enough product and can't afford to keep a lot of high paid employees busy then it has four choices. It can either reduce the number of employees or cut pay across the board or do both. And lastly they could just close their doors which a lot of them have been forced to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
well,.. you know that there are millions of workers that dont earn even the piddly present $7.25/hr minimum wage.. they dont "qualify" under the FLSA (due to lobbying by businesses that profit from paying slave wages).. its all well and good to talk about raising the minimum wage but why arent ALL workers covered under it? So if the minimum wage is increased, the costs for everything including food, housing, utilities, etc will increase but those workers will be squeezed even more..

Who are these workers?

A large number of them are caregivers for seniors and disabled (that do 20% or less time doing housework and dont do medical service) with live-in caregivers being hit the hardest by opportunist employers.. they can be paid as little as nothing other than room and food.. Other workers are unpaid interns whose work is supposed to be a learning benefit to them but that is not the case with many.. Other workers are those that do piece-work where they get $X for each pound of produce picked or for each article of clothing (in those good ole sweatshops) or whatever they make.. and of course, "independent contractors".. and also "executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees".. With each type of job there are certain requirements that make that worker exempt, for instance, an executive/manager would have to be paid more than a certain minimum salary and have real managerial duties & staff which he/she would manage, etc, etc.. so an exempt manager could work 80 hours a week, any time of the day or night the employer wanted him/her to work and pay a minimum salary (which isnt much at all)...

Please show your proof.

quote:

Some workers are figuring out that they actually arent exempt (cuz the employer wasnt following the rules) and filing complaints to the DOL in increasing numbers.. If you are an employer and gonna shaft a worker, make sure you follow the rules and have documentation to back it up or the DOL will make you regret it...

If a business isn't following the rules, then the DoL should penalize them until the situation is rectified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You may have "heard" it, but it's certainly not a general business rule

quote:


...and I know several thousand business owners, literally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

We're paying the lowest taxes historically than we have in quite a while.

I would like to see some proof of that.

So tell me has your income tax rate gone down? Or have sales taxes gone down? Has the government reduced or eliminated a significant number of fees?

From what I have experienced income taxes have not gone down and sales tax has gone up everywhere along with higher fees and an increased number of fees, and just because it's labeled as a fee doesn't mean it's not just another tax.

quote:

But your objections are at cross purposes. You think taxes are high, yet you don't mind subsidizes employers who pay so low their employees qualify for food stamps.

I never said I was for subsidizing employers but I also think the company's that get subsidized are in the minority and it has little bearing on the economy or the law of supply & demand which is what I'm talking about.

quote:

You can't cut your way to prosperity

That makes no sense.

If a company can't sell enough product and can't afford to keep a lot of high paid employees busy then it has four choices. It can either reduce the number of employees or cut pay across the board or do both. And lastly they could just close their doors which a lot of them have been forced to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You may have "heard" it, but it's certainly not a general business rule

*sigh*
One last try...
I'm not trying to say this is a "general business rule" as if it's a standard all businesses use. All I'm saying is that it's a method I've heard of that can be used to make an estimate. That's all, that's it, end of line.

quote:


...and I know several thousand business owners, literally.

And I've had three businesses of my own over the last 30 years, literally. I don't really see the point of your comment. Did you happen to ask any of them if they've heard of anything like this? Since it seems we're arguing about it now I'd actually be interested in knowing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
well,.. you know that there are millions of workers that dont earn even the piddly present $7.25/hr minimum wage.. they dont "qualify" under the FLSA (due to lobbying by businesses that profit from paying slave wages).. its all well and good to talk about raising the minimum wage but why arent ALL workers covered under it? So if the minimum wage is increased, the costs for everything including food, housing, utilities, etc will increase but those workers will be squeezed even more..

Who are these workers?

A large number of them are caregivers for seniors and disabled (that do 20% or less time doing housework and dont do medical service) with live-in caregivers being hit the hardest by opportunist employers.. they can be paid as little as nothing other than room and food.. Other workers are unpaid interns whose work is supposed to be a learning benefit to them but that is not the case with many.. Other workers are those that do piece-work where they get $X for each pound of produce picked or for each article of clothing (in those good ole sweatshops) or whatever they make.. and of course, "independent contractors".. and also "executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees".. With each type of job there are certain requirements that make that worker exempt, for instance, an executive/manager would have to be paid more than a certain minimum salary and have real managerial duties & staff which he/she would manage, etc, etc.. so an exempt manager could work 80 hours a week, any time of the day or night the employer wanted him/her to work and pay a minimum salary (which isnt much at all)...

Please show your proof.

quote:

Some workers are figuring out that they actually arent exempt (cuz the employer wasnt following the rules) and filing complaints to the DOL in increasing numbers.. If you are an employer and gonna shaft a worker, make sure you follow the rules and have documentation to back it up or the DOL will make you regret it...

If a business isn't following the rules, then the DoL should penalize them until the situation is rectified.

A big problem is that many workers dont know the law and many of those that do fear losing their jobs.
Show you proof of what? I know of employers that pay their caregiver for a senior family member only room and food and I have looked into FLSA and its perfectly legal.. There is a reason why large areas of Houston have a Household income of $10 or 15k.. and the Home Care Industry in the US wants to keep it that way, of course, cuz the less they have to pay the more they make..
"Home Health Care Workers Aren’t Guaranteed Minimum Wage or Overtime, and the Legacies of Slavery and Jim Crow Are the Reason Why"
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/home-health-care-workers-arent-guaranteed-minimum-wage-or-overtime-and-legacies
"Millions of working Americans make less than minimum wage. In fact, more Americans are exempt from it than actually earn it."
http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/26/the-minimum-wage-doesnt-apply-to-everyone/

Total paid at or below Minimum: 2.992M
At minimum: 1.255M
Below Minimum: 1.737M

FT: 1.031M (34.5% of those paid at or below minimum wage)
PT: 1.954M (65.4% of those paid at or below minimum wage)

Asian: 0.109M (3.6% of the total)
Hispanic/Latino*: 0.519M (17.3% of the total)
Black: 0.480M (16.0% of the total)
White: 2.284M (76.3% of the total)
[* Estimates for the race groups—White, Black or African American, and Asian —do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.]

Total At or Below Minimum Wage: 1.958M (10.4% of those in service occupations; 66.7% of all those paid at or below minimum, regardless of industry)
at minimum wage: 0.595M (30.4% of those in service occupations at or below minimum)
Below minimum: 1.363M (69.6% of those in service occupations at or below minimum)


• Healthcare support occupations (Total/At/Below): 85K/29K/56K
  
• Personal Care and Service occupations (Total/At/Below): 182K/112K/50K
  
• Food Prep and Service Related (Total/At/Below): 1.501M/378M/1.123M

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
You may have "heard" it, but it's certainly not a general business rule

*sigh*
One last try...
I'm not trying to say this is a "general business rule" as if it's a standard all businesses use. All I'm saying is that it's a method I've heard of that can be used to make an estimate. That's all, that's it, end of line.

quote:


...and I know several thousand business owners, literally.

And I've had three businesses of my own over the last 30 years, literally. I don't really see the point of your comment. Did you happen to ask any of them if they've heard of anything like this? Since it seems we're arguing about it now I'd actually be interested in knowing.

OK. You show me where business owners are using this "rule."

Since you think it's prevalent, at least enough to be worth of mention, let's see the evidence.

I've already shown you the data don't support your claim. Your turn. Let's see something beyond unsupported opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

But there are societal costs as well--when Wal-Mart's employees are on food stamps, taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart's labor costs. That's a cost that properly belongs to Wal-Mart, not the taxpayers. Same with the increased health care costs that often come from cutting corners when living on a low income. Taxpayers are paying instead of Wal-Mart.

Right now because jobs are scarce walmart and other places don't need to pay more than minimum wage. But if there were a lot more jobs and less people to fill them then most employers would have to raise wages to attract employees.
You can't take money from businesses and consumers and expect that to create high paying jobs, it just doesn't work that way.
Awhile back I heard someone say and I'm paraphrasing" you can't tax people into prosperity"
Now I do believe we need some taxes but what we are paying now has gotten way out of hand.
And I also know that there will always be low paying jobs as most of those are unskilled jobs and should only be a stepping stone to a better job and if someone doesn't want to do what is needed to get a better then they must accept the pay they get for that job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigjb62

quote:

But there are societal costs as well--when Wal-Mart's employees are on food stamps, taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart's labor costs. That's a cost that properly belongs to Wal-Mart, not the taxpayers. Same with the increased health care costs that often come from cutting corners when living on a low income. Taxpayers are paying instead of Wal-Mart.

Right now because jobs are scarce walmart and other places don't need to pay more than minimum wage. But if there were a lot more jobs and less people to fill them then most employers would have to raise wages to attract employees.
You can't take money from businesses and consumers and expect that to create high paying jobs, it just doesn't work that way.
Awhile back I heard someone say and I'm paraphrasing" you can't tax people into prosperity"
Now I do believe we need some taxes but what we are paying now has gotten way out of hand.
And I also know that there will always be low paying jobs as most of those are unskilled jobs and should only be a stepping stone to a better job and if someone doesn't want to do what is needed to get a better then they must accept the pay they get for that job.

Jobs are scarce? What part of the nation do you live in where that is true?
While you can't take people into prosperity, you can use the revenue generated to keep others from existing on the streets with nothing!
Yes the whole mantra "these jobs are stepping stones to better paying jobs" is bullshit. Its been disproved. Need evidence? Ask how long people have worked in Wal-Mart. Because according to your 'bullshit', 90% of them should have moved on after three to five years. Or earning much more in that same time period ( X 1.5 to 1.8). Reality is, those and many others can not take a step upward. They are virtually trapped in the system. Making matters worst is that we, the taxpayer, are off setting their fixed and many variable expenses. They live on welfare essentially. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart makes amazing levels of profit in the BILLIONS.

quote:

I find better better customer service and support at Costco that pays its employees $18/hour than Wal-Mart whom are paid at $7.25/hour. At Costco if I'm looking for something, the employees will take it upon themselves to lead me to the spot and answer any questions. At Wal-Mart the person generally 'sighs' than walks to the spot like they are going to their own execution. They are not helpful because they have nothing invested into the job.
No one is talking talking things away from employers, just to pay employees enough money so they are not living on welfare! Why should the taxpayer subsidize big business every year? If an employer cares about its employees (i.e. Costco) it voluntarily raises those rates. If the employer doesn't care about the employees, imagine their views on the customer.....

quote:

Maybe what needs to happen is for people like yourself to have your wage/salary reset to $7.25/hour and see how much you enjoy life as you bust your chops to never rise above poverty. I don't think you would last a month!

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

All Workers Paid Hourly age 16+: 77.207M

Total paid at or below Minimum: 2.992M
At minimum: 1.255M
Below Minimum: 1.737M

That's 3.9% of all workers paid an hourly wage ages 16+ are paid at or below minimum wage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Full-Time/Part-Time Status:

FT: 1.031M (34.5% of those paid at or below minimum wage)
PT: 1.954M (65.4% of those paid at or below minimum wage)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The vast majority are part-time workers (no mention of it being by choice or not).

Race*:

Asian: 0.109M (3.6% of the total)
Hispanic/Latino*: 0.519M (17.3% of the total)
Black: 0.480M (16.0% of the total)
White: 2.284M (76.3% of the total)
[* Estimates for the race groups—White, Black or African American, and Asian —do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Service Occupations: Total Paid Hourly Wages: 18.762M

Total At or Below Minimum Wage: 1.958M (10.4% of those in service occupations; 66.7% of all those paid at or below minimum, regardless of industry)
at minimum wage: 0.595M (30.4% of those in service occupations at or below minimum)
Below minimum: 1.363M (69.6% of those in service occupations at or below minimum)


• Healthcare support occupations (Total/At/Below): 85K/29K/56K
  
• Personal Care and Service occupations (Total/At/Below): 182K/112K/50K
  
• Food Prep and Service Related (Total/At/Below): 1.501M/378M/1.123M

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The majority of those being paid at or below minimum wage have never been married (65.8%). The largest segment of people being paid hourly at or below the minimum wage are 16-24 years old and never married (45.6%). 22% of people being paid at or below the minimum wage are married, with the spouse present (12.2% have a different marital status).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I wish there was a break down of whether or not the earner is supporting a family or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I will say that homecare workers can be worth more than their weight in gold, if they're really good. But, raising the minimum wage to $15 (or even $10) just so they make more money, is a big of a lark. I can't even imagine how those workers can't (or just haven't) Unionized to get better compensation.