Minimum Wage

[iluvatar5150]

So it goes back to what I said before then...you're advocating the artificial inflation of wages to meet the needs of the employee (essentially, advocating a system in which your employer works for you instead of the other way around).

I'm advocating a system in which the wage is dictated by the complexity and rarity of the skill required to do that job.

You're advocating a system in which the cost of providing the wage (i.e. the cost to maintain the employee's food, shelter, transportation, and health care) is offloaded onto the taxpayer.

You're advocating a system which enables the exploitation of employees who are often unable to make the sort of profit-margin-style demands that businesses make. (i.e. if it costs me $x to live, then I have to get paid y% of x)

If you have a job that can be performed by a 14 year old with little to no previous training (who's more than happy to do it for $9/hour), then that job isn't worth $14/hour for a 35 year old who wants to do it.

The 14yo's living arrangements are being subsidized by his parents' wages. You're advocating a system in which the government subsidizes those wages.

I made reference to this in another thread, but there are ways to get out of minimum wage jobs...financially aid for education as well as student loans (that don't have to be paid back until 6 months after graduation) are readily available.

That's how I got out of my minimum wage gig that I had when I was 20.

...but the responsibility is still on the individual to take advantage of the things that are within their control.

...ignoring things that are out of their control or at least very difficult to control.

- almost a third of minimum wage earners don't have a high school degree (making the choice to drop out of school or stay in school; or if you've dropped out, the choice to get a GED are within the individual's control)

Meaning: > 2/3 have a high school degree.

- half of minimum wage earners are between the ages of 16-24 (likely not supporting large families or working their way through high school/college)

Meaning: Half of minimum wage workers are over 24.

This table also doesn't account for people who make just a little bit over minimum wage, which would jack up the numbers quite a bit.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If walmart was replaced by 100 small retail companies, then instead of one company having 3000 people on public aid, we'd simply have 100 companies with 30 people a piece on public aid.

I'd want the wages raised for them as well.

Retail is retail...it was never designed to be a high paying career path.

I was about to say that it was never designed to be so low paying that one has to rely on public assistance, but that's exactly what it is - corporations do that on purpose.

But just because they're designed that way doesn't mean we have to let them go on existing like that.

If Walmarts goal was strictly to get rich by underpaying everyone, then why would they simply pick one group of their employees to underpay? (the Retail workers)...why not not underpay everyone (the store managers make a fairly decent wage...their corporate employees make a decent wage...if the goal was really to just screw everyone over, wouldn't they be underpaying them as well?)

A couple reasons:

1.) The people on the retail floor don't have the professional leverage that other employees do. It's harder to replace a store manager or a database developer than it is to replace a cashier or stock clerk.

2.) There's a different culture and mindset directed towards the professionals than there is directed towards the people on the store floor. Chris Rock has joke that minimum wage is an employer's way of saying that if he could get away with paying you less, he would - and there's some truth to that. Professionals are typically valued by their employers and by people in their industry, while retail employees generally aren't (or at least not nearly to the same degree). I'm not talking about the value of their skills - I'm talking about the person himself. The professional is respected and deemed "worthy" of a higher wage, while the retail employee is an expense to be minimized. I've known people (and I'm sure you have too) who've actually received more from an employer than what they were asking, because the employer wanted the position and the person to be perceived as having a certain amount of status. That doesn't happen for floor employees.

FWIW, this happens in a lot of industries outside of retail.

 

[MachZer0]

One of the major reasons behind "safety net" programs is to cut down on rioting in the streets and armed revolution. Hungry homeless people in large numbers tend to take to the streets.

We're not offering people a safety net anymore. We're offering them a hammock

 

[MikeCarra]

We're not offering people a safety net anymore. We're offering them a hammock

Again, I point you to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 6:31.

I suggest you try living on the welfare checks and food stamps. It isn't a "hammock".

I suspect it is a life you, yourself, could survive comfortably.

Remember, also the words of Matthew 7:1.

There is great wisdom in the Bible. It can be a great source of inspiration and comfort! Even when you heart feels hardened.

 

[MachZer0]

Why didn't they think of this in the first place?

 

[MikeCarra]

Actually, I used to be poor...

Grew up in a household of 5 that only had a household income in the 30k's...

No money for college from mom & dad so I had to take out large loans from the bank to pay for it and work full time during the day then take classes at night (leave at 6am every day, didn't get home until 10:30pm...wake up, repeat)

...is that the kind of blessed life you're referring to?

Well, I assume blessed because you seem incapable of taking the lessons of a hard life and universalizing them.

Perhaps it has hardened you toward others.

I wish we lived in a better nation where people like you didn't have to suffer.

But I also wish that your suffering hadn't made you hard and uncaring for others.

...and as I posted before, Walmart employees are the highest users of public aid because walmart is one of the biggest retail employers.

From those to whom much has been given, much shall be required.

If walmart was replaced by 100 small retail companies, then instead of one company having 3000 people on public aid, we'd simply have 100 companies with 30 people a piece on public aid.

Probably not. Smaller companies would be more focused on the "local". Hence the business owners would immediately realize the benefits from the local economy being more "well off".

Megacorporations don't function like that.

Retail is retail...it was never designed to be a high paying career path.

Again, you seem to have a rose-colored tint to your glasses. I don't know where you got all these "rules" for who should do what and where.

At least be thankful that YOU don't fall afoul of any of your rules.

Not to mention, if the government forcibly disbanded walmart and 100 small companies emerged in it's place, it'd just be a matter of time before one of them would keep growing and growing and taking business from the others until we'd have another walmart again.

You mean like the 140 or so years of America BEFORE WalMart?

If Walmarts goal was strictly to get rich by underpaying everyone, then why would they simply pick one group of their employees to underpay? (the Retail workers)...why not not underpay everyone (the store managers make a fairly decent wage...their corporate employees make a decent wage...if the goal was really to just screw everyone over, wouldn't they be underpaying them as well?)

This is a good question. Perhaps in pondering it you can explain to me how a CEO of a corporation makes 300x the salary of an average worker.

Do you honestly believe that the CEO does 300X the actual WORK of the average worker?

Do CEO's have 7200 hours in the day?

 

[MachZer0]

Do you really think it's necessary to mandate that people take better-paying jobs? Don't you think most people would take better paying jobs if they could get them?



Seriously.

It makes as much sense as mandating that Walmart pay a higher wage

 

[MachZer0]

No, our "side" isn't suggesting that at all. What we're saying is the fact that the jobs to meet their economic needs ARE NOT THERE. That makes a claim that workers should be mandated to seek employment that meets their needs STOOPID.

No more so than mandating that Walmart meet the needs of its employees

 

[MachZer0]

Again, I point you to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 6:31.

Asked and answered

I suggest you try living on the welfare checks and food stamps. It isn't a "hammock".

You missed the point. The hammock refers to people getting leisure time rather than doing for themselves what is necessary to improve their own situation

I suspect it is a life you, yourself, could survive comfortably.

I earned the life I live

Remember, also the words of Matthew 7:1.

Inapplicable here

There is great wisdom in the Bible. It can be a great source of inspiration and comfort! Even when you heart feels hardened.

Indeed, like Thess 3:10

 

[dies-l]

We aren't talking about raising the minimum wage to anything exorbitantly high. We're talking about raising it to a point where somebody can survive on it.

If you can't afford to be in business while paying your employees enough to survive, then you can't afford to be in business. Period. I would say the same thing if we were talking about electric rates, security expenses, cleaning services, office supplies, or whatever. Part of your responsibility as a business owner is figuring out your market, how to market and price your products appropriately so that you can continue to afford to stay in business, and also whether or not your products/services are even appropriate for that market - because not all products/services are appropriate for all markets. I couldn't very well open a Bugatti dealership in rural northern NY and then complain that Bugatti charges too much for their cars, because my customers don't want to pay $1m+ for a car that can't drive in the snow. It's not Bugatti's fault I made a poor business decision and I shouldn't expect them to give away cars to subsidize my poor decisions. Likewise, I shouldn't open a business in an area that can't support my business, then complain that my payroll expenses are too high because my employees want to eat and pay rent, and I shouldn't expect them to give away their time and labor because I made poor decisions.

So, if my employee can survive on $5/hr and us willing to work for that rate, we should be able to contract for that, right?

 

[MikeCarra]

I earned the life I live

Think of it like God's grace. It is not "earned". You are no "better" than anyone else.

That is why Jesus compared himself to the "least of these".

If you hold yourself up as someone who is somehow deserving of a comfortable life and decree others deserving of a lesser lot, then you are not aligning yourself with the least among ye.

Inapplicable here

I think not. But I understand the words of Jesus are HARD to take when one's heart is hardened.

Indeed, like Thess 3:10

I see you have found those scriptures which suit your soul.

Luke 6:36 "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."

 

[iluvatar5150]

I earned the life I live

I seem to recall there being a discussion where you refused to answer whether or not you ever went to a public primary/secondary school, public university, or received any sort of government-backed student aid. Tell us about how much of that you really earned vs how much was subsidized.

So, if my employee can survive on $5/hr and us willing to work for that rate, we should be able to contract for that, right?

If he wants to be an independent contractor and only charge that for his services, that's his perogative, but if he's a regular employee, then no.

The reason I say no is because the vast majority of people cannot survive on that little and whether you like it or not, your paying him a low wage drives down their wages, too. Your contract does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, I assume blessed because you seem incapable of taking the lessons of a hard life and universalizing them.

Perhaps it has hardened you toward others.

I wish we lived in a better nation where people like you didn't have to suffer.

But I also wish that your suffering hadn't made you hard and uncaring for others.

It hasn't made me hardened toward others, it's simply brought me to the realization that if I was able to do it, why can't they?

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about expecting others to make the same sacrifices I've made... it's not like I'm asking them to do anything I haven't done myself...

Probably not. Smaller companies would be more focused on the "local". Hence the business owners would immediately realize the benefits from the local economy being more "well off".

There's nothing to support your theory on this one...because as a small company gains success, the next logical step for them is to expand the business to reach other markets...

Need I remind anyone what the first Walmart looked like?

Not exactly the industry giant we see today is it?

To have the expectation that a small company will stay locally focused forever is to have the expectation that company shouldn't ever push themselves toward or pursue anything over a moderate level of success.

You mean like the 140 or so years of America BEFORE WalMart?

You mean the 140 years in which you saw industry giants of their day like Ford and Sears? (Ford, who was worse than walmart in every way in terms of treating their employees like garbage)

...keeping in mind that Sears Roebuck was the walmart of it's day.

This is a good question. Perhaps in pondering it you can explain to me how a CEO of a corporation makes 300x the salary of an average worker.

Do you honestly believe that the CEO does 300X the actual WORK of the average worker?

Do CEO's have 7200 hours in the day?

Actually, the "The CEO makes X number times what the employees do" shouldn't really matter should it? Is your goal that everyone should be guaranteed a living wage (regardless of skill or output)? or is your goal to make sure that a CEO doesn't make too much more than their workers?

If the 1st is your goal, then the 2nd shouldn't matter...and vice versa.

I assume you don't share the same disdain for Apple that you have for Walmart do you?

Tim Cook is by far the worst offender in this category (making over 6000 times what his average employee makes).

Using your own criteria, who's worse?
Fortune 500 2012 - CEO pay vs. our salaries - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

Tim Cook makes over 6000 times what his employee makes, but his average employee makes $60k

Meanwhile, the CEO of Costco only makes 48 times what his average employee makes, but his average employee only makes $45k

 

[MachZer0]

Think of it like God's grace. It is not "earned". You are no "better" than anyone else.

That is why Jesus compared himself to the "least of these".

If you hold yourself up as someone who is somehow deserving of a comfortable life and decree others deserving of a lesser lot, then you are not aligning yourself with the least among ye.

Actually, retirement is earned and thus does not compare to God's grace

I think not. But I understand the words of Jesus are HARD to take when one's heart is hardened.



I see you have found those scriptures which suit your soul.

Luke 6:36 "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."

It's not mercy when you force someone else to fulfill your goals and ideology. It's tyranny

 

[MachZer0]

I seem to recall there being a discussion where you refused to answer whether or not you ever went to a public primary/secondary school, public university, or received any sort of government-backed student aid. Tell us about how much of that you really earned vs how much was subsidized.

I get it. "You didn't build that . somebody else made that happen."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Think of it like God's grace. It is not "earned". You are no "better" than anyone else.

While I won't argue that a trust fund kid who inherited millions was given his life and didn't earn it...

This whole idea that it's all just luck (the opposite extreme) is equally bogus.

As I said before, I grew up in a poorer household, went to a mediocre public school (at best), completely paid for my own education (no grants, no help from anyone), put in 16 hour days for 3 years straight (between working full-time in a minimum wage warehouse job and night school), and busted my hump on my job for the last 8 year to get into a Sr. position... I absolutely earned my nice condo and my Audi ...I did my research, picked a field that I both enjoyed and had an excellent job placement rate, busted my butt making sure I graduated in the top 5% of my class, and gave 110% on the job. Luck had nothing to do with it...

...and compared to a middle class kid who either chose to slack off in school or chose not to work as hard in college because it interfered with their social life... or just simply chose not to apply themselves in general, the harsh reality is, yeah... I'm better than them. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when my cousin (who grew up in a six-figure household and got her college paid for) complains and makes the "it's all just luck" claims. My uncle paid 100% for her art degree because she refused to pick a practical major, and now that she works retail in her upper 20's because there's no practical application for an art degree in the northeastern Ohio area, the reason she makes $10/hour is because "the system is rigged" in her words.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I get it. "You didn't build that . somebody else made that happen."

Still no refutation of that point, I see. I think we all know what that means. It's pretty selfish and self-centered to disavow having received help.

 

[MachZer0]

Still no refutation of that point, I see. I think we all know what that means. It's pretty selfish and self-centered to disavow having received help.

 

[MikeCarra]

It hasn't made me hardened toward others, it's simply brought me to the realization that if I was able to do it, why can't they?

Lives are all very different. You may have had an advantage that others didn't have. Maybe something you didn't even realize!

The point is that if you fail to have understanding that others can and do have things that are not possible to overcome then you have lost insight.

You lack wisdom. And you may run into an event in your life that requires more compassion than you gave to others.

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about expecting others to make the same sacrifices I've made... it's not like I'm asking them to do anything I haven't done myself...

Were you born with any illnesses? Do you have any handicaps? Did no one EVER help you at all?

If the answer is a pure and perfect "no" then indeed you are probably superman.

If that is the case then expecting OTHERS to be "superman" is equally irrational.

There's nothing to support your theory on this one...because as a small company gains success, the next logical step for them is to expand the business to reach other markets...

Well, I DO have years of experience working for large multinational companies. And I've seen my hometown destroyed by WalMart. So I do kinda have some insight here.

Localizing the impacts of the business choices WILL make a big difference.

To have the expectation that a small company will stay locally focused forever is to have the expectation that company shouldn't ever push themselves toward or pursue anything over a moderate level of success.

No one is asking for these draconian measures you present in your continued strawman arguments.

I think WalMart and all corporations (even small companies) should be forced to pay full and fair price for their businesses.

Remember that many megacorporations (like oil companies) get massive help and handouts. Tax breaks, incentives, etc.

"HELP", in other words.

If this help were eliminated from many of the large corporations, as it was apparently withheld from you, they'd have to pay the full ride.

Full cost.

You seem to want this harsh world of "full and real costs" to be borne by the poor, but aren't fighting against it for the wealthy.

Why is that?

You mean the 140 years in which you saw industry giants of their day like Ford and Sears?

How about industry giants like Standard Oil? Remember we already fought this battle in the late 19th century and early 20th when corporate giants had to have controls put on them.

Again, let's drop this whole "free market uber alles" line. It has never worked in American history and it won't work today.

Actually, the "The CEO makes X number times what the employees do" shouldn't really matter should it?

Well, again, from personal experience: while I was raking in a 1.8% raise my CEO got a couple hundred percent bonus for the same year.

In the lean years while my coworkers and I were taking 5% pay cut or getting minimal raises, the CEO was still raking in millions.

Other than having to watch unfairness as the "new normal" I guess there really isn't a reason it should matter.

Is your goal that everyone should be guaranteed a living wage (regardless of skill or output)? or is your goal to make sure that a CEO doesn't make too much more than their workers?

I'm saying that if I am forced to live with a tight belt, don't then at the same time tell me THIS person has no such need if we are both working for the same company.

I assume you don't share the same disdain for Apple that you have for Walmart do you?

Most assuredly do.

Tim Cook is by far the worst offender in this category (making over 6000 times what his average employee makes).

That's irrational. I dislike it very much.

Meanwhile, the CEO of Costco only makes 48 times what his average employee makes, but his average employee only makes $45k

I shop Costco because they do take better care of their employees than Sam's Club (Walmart).

There is no reason a CEO of ANY corporation should make hundreds of times what the average employee makes. No rational reason. Ever.

America is unique in our worship of the CEO. Most european companies don't go this far overboard.

 

[iluvatar5150]

While I won't argue that a trust fund kid who inherited millions was given his life and didn't earn it...

This whole idea that it's all just luck (the opposite extreme) is equally bogus.

As I said before, I grew up in a poorer household, went to a mediocre public school (at best), completely paid for my own education (no grants, no help from anyone), put in 16 hour days for 3 years straight (between working full-time in a minimum wage warehouse job and night school), and busted my hump on my job for the last 8 year to get into a Sr. position... I absolutely earned my nice condo and my Audi ...I did my research, picked a field that I both enjoyed and had an excellent job placement rate, busted my butt making sure I graduated in the top 5% of my class, and gave 110% on the job. Luck had nothing to do with it...

Your public school was subsidized by the government. IIRC, you went to a community college - that, too, was subsidized by the government.

And there is still some luck involved. You're lucky in that a field you're good at and enjoy is also one that's lucrative. Not everyone is so fortunate. I also have a CS degree - I was halfway decent at it, but after a couple years in the industry, realized that I hated it. Like, HATED it, to the point where I can't really function as a good employee when that's my f/t task.

Not everyone is wired for lucrative technical work.

You're also lucky that you were a single able-bodied guy, with some decent brains, not someone with a mild learning disability or someone on the wrong end of an abusive relationship when you started college, like my friend who (along with her 4yo daughter) is living with her mildly abusive sister & b-i-l after leaving her cheating and highly-abusive husband.