Minimum Wage

[MachZer0]

That's assuming that minimum wage kept pace with modern cost of living.

IF that was the case the minimum wage would be higher still.

The point people have been TRYING to make to you is that in the 1960's your minimum wage had the buying power of $9/hour TODAY.

And it was suggested that with that buying power I had no reason to complain, yet people with the same buying power today somehow do have a reason to complain

If you had to live on $9/hour TODAY you would still be in a bind. And considering that everyone else's wages as well as the US economic productivity has INCREASED more than that, a person making $9/hour will STILL be behind the 8 ball.

So when Stamperben suggested I had no reason to complain about that wage, was he wrong? By the back, back in the day we understood that if you needed to live on your wages, you didn't get a McJob, you shot for a higher goal

Think about your own situation. You sound like you are retired. YOU get COLAs occasionally in your social security and other government handouts like Medicare. Imagine if the last time you got a cost of living adjustment to your government paycheck was 50 years ago.

Would YOU be happy?

Straw man, noting that minimum wage earners have received increases over the years

 

[MikeCarra]

By the back, back in the day we understood that if you needed to live on your wages, you didn't get a McJob, you shot for a higher goal

LOL! So do tell me where all these "higher goal" jobs are at now. Oh wait, no, in fact a LOT of them were offshored years ago.

Straw man, noting that minimum wage earners have received increases over the years

Are your Social Security and Medicare payments worth LESS than they were 50 years ago in terms of real dollars?

I suggest most highly you look at the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 6:31

 

[MachZer0]

LOL! So do tell me where all these "higher goal" jobs are at now. Oh wait, no, in fact a LOT of them were offshored years ago.

For one, Sean Hannity has teamed up with employers to hire people in places like North Dakota where employees can be trained on the job for jobs like truck driver and earn up $100K/year.

Are your Social Security and Medicare payments worth LESS than they were 50 years ago in terms of real dollars?

I suggest most highly you look at the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 6:31

I wouldn't expect someone to over pay for a job that requires no skill, so your Bible reference fails

 

[MikeCarra]

How have the working people been held down?

Middle incomes have remained essentially stagnant for 30+ years.

I think people tend to view the situation incorrectly... instead of saying "what can we do to get our companies to pay us more for doing this job?", the question should be "what can we do to get a job that pays more money?"

Which would be nice in a fantasy world. But since most employers (at least in corporate America) "benchmark" their salaries against their peer corporations.

This is why companies hire "compensation consultants".

For too long, people go accustomed to the concept that tenure = value and just grew to expect that they're somehow worth more money simply because they've been there a year longer.

I'm fascinated. You don't seem to be living in the same corporate America I live in. It is EXTREMELY common to pare out the older guys who make too much money so the company can hire kids fresh outta college. Of course it isn't that OBVIOUS as that would be illegal, but it does happen.

Seniority actually HAS VALUE, unless of course you are looking to cut operating expenses.

I think a lot of this comes from peoples' tastes getting more and more elaborate over the years and raising the bar on what's considered 'middle class'.

Your examples are aimed at regular folks, interestingly enough. I don't see you complaining about the fact that many companies are OBLIGATED to do things like help the CEO out with mortgage assistance (yes it happens I used to work at a company that hired a new CEO who moved out to the coast and the company, along with paying him a base salary of nearly a million dollars and several million more in perks, etc. ALSO agreed to help him pay his MORTGAGE as well as his HOME SECURITY.)

No instead we are complaining about the fact that middle class folks might want cable tv???

THIS is a prime example of what is wrong with the system. We are worried about "disciplining" the middle class while the upper levels get so many perks and benefits and bonuses and we are told all along the way that we NEED to give them all that so we get only the best.

Yet companies get run into the ground and these folks get golden parachutes when you or I would get a kick in the pants as we were escorted out the door.

Small group? ...I guess if you consider "anyone and everyone with a 401k" a small group...

Except anyone with a 401k is NOT likely to be gaming the stock market appropriately. In the longer run (which is how MOST of us with a 401k are taught to invest) we will make only a fraction of the money from the stock market. We are taught to invest in the long term, while the people enjoying most of the massive gains are either getting multimillion dollar stock options or are playing the stock market much more actively.

It's not Wal-Mart's job to make "more people win", it's their job to "make Wal-Mart win" and it'd be foolish to expect anything else from them.

So if WalMart were to "win" by making YOU pay for the health and welfare of their employees you'd be OK with that?

I take it you aren't an American tax payer?

 

[stamperben]

And it was suggested that with that buying power I had no reason to complain, yet people with the same buying power today somehow do have a reason to complain

So when Stamperben suggested I had no reason to complain about that wage, was he wrong? By the back, back in the day we understood that if you needed to live on your wages, you didn't get a McJob, you shot for a higher goal

Straw man, noting that minimum wage earners have received increases over the years

What was the cost of milk back in 1960? A gallon of gas? A loaf of bread?

 

[MachZer0]

What was the cost of milk back in 1960? A gallon of gas? A loaf of bread?

Isn't that all calculated into your unsourced chart? Noting that you said I had no reason to complain and the chart indicates that today's minimum wage earners have more buying power than I did.

 

[stamperben]

Isn't that all calculated into your unsourced chart? Noting that you said I had no reason to complain and the chart indicates that today's minimum wage earners have more buying power than I did.

Won't answer the question? Telling...

 

[MachZer0]

Won't answer the question? Telling...

What was the price of milk when you were a teen?

 

[stamperben]

What was the price of milk when you were a teen?

Same price as what you're going to tell us. Maybe tell us.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Seniority actually HAS VALUE, unless of course you are looking to cut operating expenses.

For certain professions, yes, other, no...and for some, it actually becomes a detriment.

There are example of each of these scenarios.

The medical field is a good example of a field where doing it a long time makes you better at it...if you're a doctor, the more years you have on the job, the more you've seen and the more you know what to expect.

For a profession like mine (Software Engineer), tenure doesn't mean as much since the technology's always changing, it's always a moving target. You get the fundamentals down, but as things shift, it's your job to keep up. A 10-year programmer isn't at any disadvantage to a 20-year programmer in terms of the tools of the trade.

In cases where it's a detriment (my profession again, could have a little bit of that because as people get older and more set in their way, the more they resent change...at least in my experience in my 9 years on the job)...but a clear cut case would be a physical job where you have to lift and move things.

If your job is carrying heavy stuff up a ladder, who's better at it? A 55 year old who's been doing it for 30 years?...for a 30 year old who's only been doing it for five years? Statistically, the 30 year old is going to be more able-bodied than the 55 year old (and yes, I realize there are some rare exceptions to that rule) so does it make sense to pay the 55 year old more than the 30 year old even though the 30 year old can do the job easier/faster?

Your examples are aimed at regular folks, interestingly enough. I don't see you complaining about the fact that many companies are OBLIGATED to do things like help the CEO out with mortgage assistance (yes it happens I used to work at a company that hired a new CEO who moved out to the coast and the company, along with paying him a base salary of nearly a million dollars and several million more in perks, etc. ALSO agreed to help him pay his MORTGAGE as well as his HOME SECURITY.)

No instead we are complaining about the fact that middle class folks might want cable tv???

I'm not complaining about people wanting cable tv...if they choose to spend their money on it, that's fine...

I'm just addressing the false notion that somehow the middle class today has it so much worse than the middle class of the 50's & 60's...

Sure, there's a bigger gap between what they and their bosses make, however, in terms of the things they have access to, they're not really better/worse off than the people in the 50's & 60's (which some liberals view as the glory days of the American economy).

If average worker today has access to the same level of creature comforts that the average worker of 1955 had, what their bosses made should be irrelevant if the argument is that the people in 1955 had it better...

So if WalMart were to "win" by making YOU pay for the health and welfare of their employees you'd be OK with that?

I take it you aren't an American tax payer?

So, shut down walmart, those people who worked for walmart are now unemployed, right? We still have to pay for them, correct?

As I said before, it's not as if "if walmart never existed, the people working there for $8/hour would have $50k jobs instead"

 

[MachZer0]

Same price as what you're going to tell us. Maybe tell us.

So no answer? Telling

 

[MikeCarra]

So no answer? Telling

Brother in Christ, please heed the words of the Lord Jesus in Luke.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise"

I sense that this is a hard verse for you.

I seem to see in you a sense that you needn't heed these words, yet they are very important.

Do, remember, to keep those words in mind as you grow in your faith.

 

[dies-l]

What was the price of milk when you were a teen?

$1.99, and minimum wage was $4.25.

 

[Viren]

So... try fix bad economic practice with more bad economic practice?, I'll pass on that lol.

Besides, Wal-Mart wouldn't be considered a monopoly. They still have Kmart and Target to compete with them.

Kmart has already gone belly up here.

Walmart has a 30% market share right now in consumer staples and this is expected to climb to 50% in a decade. Do we really want to find out what happens when they gain that kind of pricing power?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Kmart has already gone belly up here.

Walmart has a 30% market share right now in consumer staples and this is expected to climb to 50% in a decade. Do we really want to find out what happens when they gain that kind of pricing power?

Has Kmart gone belly up? I know there are 2 within driving distance of where I live.

And what do you propose as the solution to Walmart growing since that's a problem in your eyes?

Keeping in mind, anything that the government can do isn't going to be good for the end consumers.

Walmart wins because of lower prices...what's the government going to do, waltz in and demand that they raise their prices??? How do you make someone want to shop at a store that's more expensive? That's the going to be a tough sell...

 

[MikeCarra]

And what do you propose as the solution to Walmart growing since that's a problem in your eyes?

WalMart should be forced to take on the REAL costs of their business. That includes NOT foisting off on PUBLIC AID their employees.

According to one study from the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce: "According to the report, Walmart had more workers enrolled in the state’s public health care program in the last quarter of last year than any other employer, with 3,216 people enrolled. When the dependents of those workers were factored in, the number of enrollees came to 9,207."

This means they are not paying the full cost of their business.

I could easily succeed in the market if I only sold and made money and didn't have operating expenses.

Keeping in mind, anything that the government can do isn't going to be good for the end consumers.

One Wisconsin store was estimated to cost the TAXPAYER $900,000 in public assistance for the Walmart employees.

(same study)

Walmart wins because of lower prices

Which the consumer ultimately pays for in the broader picture. And WalMart is NOT ON THE HOOK FOR.

That isn't competition, that isn't how the "market" works.

...what's the government going to do, waltz in and demand that they raise their prices???

I guess as a consumer the bigger question is: WHY DON'T YOU DEMAND INCREASED WAGES?

Or do you LIKE MAKING UP THE DIFFERENCE FOR WALMART?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

What happens to the man whose skills are only worth $9 an hour?

What someones labor is supposedly worth changes on a regular basis. Often the amount spent by the employer* ends up being the least amount of money they can get away with paying the employee while still obtaining their services. Numerous factors contribute to this wage including minimum wage laws. A modest raise in the minimum wage would cause a small alteration of one of those factors that already comes into play.

The results from past instances of minimum wage increase should be worth more than all the studies and predictions combined. It shows what actually happened when the minimum wage was raised in the past. This evidence clearly shows that modest increases in the minimum wage do not cause significant changes in unemployment.

* What many consider to be the indicator of what a persons labor is really worth.

 

[dies-l]

WalMart should be forced to take on the REAL costs of their business. That includes NOT foisting off on PUBLIC AID their employees.

[/U][/I][/B]

Of course, couldn't the argument me made that public aid is part of the problem? If Wal-Mart employees didn't have the option of going on public aid, then they would either need to cease being Wal Mart employees or Wal Mart would have to give them a raise. The more employees leave for better paying opportunities, the more Wal Mart has to pay to remain competitive. This could happen as an aggregate of individuals leaving or demanding higher wagers, or more likely collectively, as unions would likely have more persuasive power over employees if the employees relied exclusively on their wages. I suppose the other option for Wal Mart in that scenario is to rely exclusively on the labor of people who really don't need the money (e.g., students and homemakers), but these people tend to be particularly unreliable employees.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Of course, couldn't the argument me made that public aid is part of the problem?

Sort of.

The availability of public aid certainly gives employers the opportunity to offload some of their expenses onto the public, but removing public aid altogether means removing aid for people who really need it. Removing aid just for people who are also working incentivizes people to not work.

IMO, the better option is to require employers to pay enough to make an average employee not eligible for aid. This puts the burden where it ought to be while still affording help to people who need it and incentivizing workers to find jobs.

 

[MachZer0]

Sort of.

The availability of public aid certainly gives employers the opportunity to offload some of their expenses onto the public, but removing public aid altogether means removing aid for people who really need it. Removing aid just for people who are also working incentivizes people to not work.

IMO, the better option is to require employers to pay enough to make an average employee not eligible for aid. This puts the burden where it ought to be while still affording help to people who need it and incentivizing workers to find jobs.

Why not require workers to take jbs that have a wage to meet their needs?