$15 dollars an hour for the minimum wage?

[abdAlSalam]

The majority of the "working class" is not directly affected by the minimum wage. Take US auto workers for instance. Unless you are suggesting that the working class is those making only the minimum wage.

Read the argument again. If we get rid of the minimum wage, the wage floor will fall. Without the ability to quit/turn down a job and expect to get a basic livable wage, this increases the ability of the employer to extort the employee.

Why the scare quotes around working class?

 

[Saleena]

The Boondocks Hateocracy - Crabs - YouTube

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

No education, no experience, no training, no demonstrated work ethic?

I think a lot have higher education, but they're stuck there, until they get a job.
And for no demonstrated work ethics. I hardly think working your behind off all day would qualify as no demonstrated work ethics.

 

[Cactus Jack]

A job like there at Macky D's or BK is supposed to be a stepping stone, not a couch.

 

[Saleena]

A job like there at Macky D's or BK is supposed to be a stepping stone, not a couch.

Again, no duh, but they tend to be the only places over qualified people can get work.

 

[abdAlSalam]

A job like there at Macky D's or BK is supposed to be a stepping stone, not a couch.

A stepping stone to what, exactly?

And what if there are no stepping stones in the first place?

 

[Cactus Jack]

It's a job. Minimum wage is it is now is a lot better than the salary for being without work.

 

[Saleena]

Ok it's a job. Now we are agreeing on something, now it needs to be something people can live on because most places don't want to either promote people up to management, especially those who are over qualified, or what is really popular now is only hiring on as part time to screw people out of any kinds of benefits or overtime they could get. These businesses that rule this country have far too much power and the employee too little. I mean god forbid the employee do anything wrong but if the company wants to screw people it's a ok because that's capitalism baby. It's a broken system.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Also, the going rate for labor in a factory in America is such that if one is only making $15/hour after 5-6 years, they have greater problems than some poor schmuck getting a minimum wage hike.
This is again crab mentality.
Buying power has already been destroyed by stagnant wages and inflation. Hiking the minimum wage would not cause anywhere near the damage that stagnant wages have already caused.
An increase in the working class wage would also undoubtedly lead to much greater aggregate demand, as much if not more than an increase in price would cause a decrease.
Wrong. Increasing the minimum wage would not decrease someone elses wage. Furthermore, if a factory worker feels that they are not being paid their fair wage then they should ask for a raise themselves rather than attacking the minimum wage worker who received a long-deserved wage.

The factory job was just an example for the sake of debate (I know most 5-6 year factory workers make more than that), we can change the occupation if you'd like

So this aggregate demand you mention, do you think it's feasible for an employer to give a raise a cross the board for all of their employees? While people like to use the Big Box store model to illustrate how "a wage increase really wouldn't impact prices all that much", there are more businesses out there than just Wal-Mart. If you were to take a small business of 50-100 employees, doing that could have a very negative impact. They'd have no choice but to raise their prices to cover the costs, thus making the small businesses actually less competitive against the Wal-Marts of the world (which is the opposite of what you guys want right?)

...unless that is, you expect the business owners to eat the wage increases out of their own pockets (and part of me thinks that is what the plan is).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A job like there at Macky D's or BK is supposed to be a stepping stone, not a couch.

Agreed.

If we're talking about a job that a 14 year old can do after one week of on-the-job training, a 35 year old shouldn't not expect that line of work to pay them a living wage.

...unless, the other side is suggesting that we start paying 14 year old drive-thru operators $15/hour???

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ok it's a job. Now we are agreeing on something, now it needs to be something people can live on

Why? Are you saying that the person who tears tickets at the movie theater is providing such a valuable service that their work is worth a living wage?

because most places don't want to either promote people up to management, especially those who are over qualified, or what is really popular now is only hiring on as part time to screw people out of any kinds of benefits or overtime they could get.

Part time employment has always been popular...mainly because the jobs that offer part time employment are geared toward teenagers who live at home who are already covered by their parents' benefits.

...that, and the 16 year old will happily do the job for some extra spending money. Why would you pay a 35 year old $30k+benefits when the 16 year old is thrilled to do the job to have a couple hundred extra dollars a week?

These businesses that rule this country have far too much power and the employee too little. I mean god forbid the employee do anything wrong but if the company wants to screw people it's a ok because that's capitalism baby. It's a broken system.

Heaven forbid the business owner actually have the final say in the business that they founded and built.

Crony capitalism is a broken system, however in the pure free market (as long as it's void of monopolies) the market will always maintain itself.

If a company offers a wage that way too low, people are going balance that with the decision of whether or not to even work at all. For example...if Mr. Greedy CEO decided he wanted to only pay .02/hour, people are going to say "if my choices are to be a bum and starve, or work a 40 hour week and still starve, I just won't bother working", and in that moment, that greedy CEO just lost his labor force and now he's not making any money either.

In a pure free market, there are checks & balances based on the basic laws of economics (supply & demand), in crony capitalism (IE: subsidized industries, unions, and bail-outs), people get the twisted notion that their company should work for them instead of the other way around.

Look at the Auto industry, all of those workers were willing to risk their livelihood altogether rather than accept a reasonable pay cut for non-production jobs. Union wages drove the prices up so high on American cars that everyone who couldn't afford a new middle of the road chevy for $40k ended up buying Toyota's and everyone who could afford that kind of money ended up buying Audi's & BMW's (because nobody wants to pay that kind of money for a mediocre car).

Now, if we took a lesson from our Neighbors to the north, we would've seen a workable solution (The CAW got their house in order), however the American unions have become so entitlement minded that it was a lost cause.

 

[Saleena]

That's a lot of trust in the corporations that got us into this situation to begin with. If we just let them have their way, it'll be ok because they know what is best for us. Sure thing man. Sure thing. I don't trust them any more than I trust the government, then again they may as well be the same thing given all the power they have in it.

 

[childofGod1]

"Some company made a profit, therefore I deserve double the wages I'm currently getting, and to hell with what it does to the economy."

Excuse me while I go throw up.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

A stepping stone to what, exactly?

And what if there are no stepping stones in the first place?

Which is why we need a pro-business, pro-growth oriented government, and get out of the way of capitalism. What happened to cutting the corporate tax rates that Obama supported in the debates?

 

[iluvatar5150]

That makes a good argument for doing away with any minimum wage, and allow the free market to set the wage.

It's like some of you guys don't even think about what you say before you say it.

Removing the minimum wage would have exactly the opposite effect: it would remove the wage floor and allow employers to be more selective, pushing wages even lower. Who benefits in that scenario?

If a company offers a wage that way too low, people are going balance that with the decision of whether or not to even work at all. For example...if Mr. Greedy CEO decided he wanted to only pay .02/hour, people are going to say "if my choices are to be a bum and starve, or work a 40 hour week and still starve, I just won't bother working", and in that moment, that greedy CEO just lost his labor force and now he's not making any money either.

But what happens is that Mr Greedy CEO raises his wages to a point where his employees can be "mildly miserable and nearly broke," he'll fill his workstations, because people will pick "mildly miserable" over absolutely starving, and once they get that positions, they'll often opt to stay there instead of trying to leave, because "mildly miserable" is more stable and less risky than leaving it and trying to find something better.

So what you wind up with is Mr Greedy CEO getting rich off of paying people just enough to keep them in line.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Where is the proof that removing the minimum wage would have this opposite effect in the USA? I must have missed that in US History class.

 

[Saleena]

It's like some of you guys don't even think about what you say before you say it.

Removing the minimum wage would have exactly the opposite effect: it would remove the wage floor and allow employers to be more selective, pushing wages even lower. Who benefits in that scenario?



But what happens is that Mr Greedy CEO raises his wages to a point where his employees can be "mildly miserable and nearly broke," he'll fill his workstations, because people will pick "mildly miserable" over absolutely starving, and once they get that positions, they'll often opt to stay there instead of trying to leave, because "mildly miserable" is more stable and less risky than leaving it and trying to find something better.

So what you wind up with is Mr Greedy CEO getting rich off of paying people just enough to keep them in line.

Thank you for being the one who makes sense here. Some people here are so mindlessly trusting of corporations that they are willing to risk the entirety of this country just so moneybags can be all benevolent and hire us. Poor ceo's having to go outsource jobs and it's us ungrateful whelps who pushed him there.

 

[iluvatar5150]

A job like there at Macky D's or BK is supposed to be a stepping stone, not a couch.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but many people make this argument, so I'll address it as if you're serious.

I really have to wonder if the people who make this argument have worked these sorts of jobs recently and if they've since gone on to do anything with those "skills."

You only learn "skills" in these jobs if skills are needed to do the jobs and if supervisors teach the skills and enforce high standards. Unfortunately, it's often the case that neither is true.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Thank you for being the one who makes sense here. Some people here are so mindlessly trusting of corporations that they are willing to risk the entirety of this country just so moneybags can be all benevolent and hire us. Poor ceo's having to go outsource jobs and it's us ungrateful whelps who pushed him there.

Wrong. We trust caoitalism more than socialism. Just look at how well the government is doing with health care.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Where is the proof that removing the minimum wage would have this opposite effect in the USA? I must have missed that in US History class.

What kind of proof do you want?