Minimum Wage

[MikeCarra]

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.

Nor did I say that.

But if one fails to remember that whatever bad has befallen someone can, indeed, befall them then one will ultimately face something they are unable to get past.

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

Really? You absolutely positive about that? No chance that something could have been lucky for you?

...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...

Very nice for you.

I spent 11 years in college getting my doctorate in a field with a good future and then stepped out into a world where the hiring was down. Thankfully I had enough experience in an ancillary area that I could get a foot in the door.

I took the lowest level job (by hiding the fact I had a PhD) and worked like a dog. When a PhD level position came open I was overlooked for it. So I moved on.

But I remember that I put in a LOT of work, just like you (probably even more because I voluntarily lived in poverty for even longer while doing post doctoral appointments, and taking lower jobs to make sure I had even more experience).

I still think that my modest success (I don't make enough to afford an Audi...I have a commuter car and live in a modest home) is underlain by many advantages I got.

The minute I forget for one minute the help I got getting where I am I am in grave danger of thinking myself too good.

It helps keep me humble. But I know at any point I can (and likely will) be laid off.

Because I'm now 50 you can bet I'll not be able to get back to this level.

Is it because I'm not good and hard working? Nope. It's because of something beyond my control (the way companies hire).

So, indeed, if you got to where you were and you are CERTAIN there was nothing that YOU didn't directly control, then I wish you good luck with that. That attitude and lack of wisdom and insight will likely not serve you well in the long run.

Especially if you work in the tech sector.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

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.

I'm not expecting others to be superman...you just suggested that everyone got some help of some kind (if I'm understanding your post correctly), so again, I'm not expecting anyone to do anything I wouldn't do.

Are you really trying to suggest that the primary reason people are in minimum wage jobs are due to elements outside of their control?

The reality is, many minimum wage earners probably had more advantages that I did growing up.

There are legitimate cases where someone has a handicap or mental illness and is a true position of disadvantage...for those folks, I'd gladly help them out in a heartbeat (and do as a matter of fact, this "hardened toward others" libertarian donated over $4,000 to charity last year... between St. Jude, MS Society, Red Cross, and American Cancer Society)

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.

I don't doubt there are some instances where walmart can have a negative impact on a city...but in the same turn, there are several instances where a walmart can bring more business to other businesses as well.

For example, when the walmart came to my city (probably about 12 years ago), within a year or two, a dozen new restaurants opened up and the restaurants that were already there had more business then they'd ever had in there time in operation... and not just chain restaurants either... 4 or 5 of those new restaurants were locally owned and operated.

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

...but if the person is making a living wage or a really good wage, why should what someone else makes matter?

If you're a ConocoPhillips employee averaging over $90k a year and still griping about the fact that the CEO makes $19 million...that's just empty bitterness at that point.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If you're a ConocoPhillips employee averaging over $90k a year and still griping about the fact that the CEO makes $19 million...that's just empty bitterness at that point.

That may be, but if everyone were making $90k/yr, we probably wouldn't hear much complaining about that disparity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Really? You absolutely positive about that? No chance that something could have been lucky for you?

I picked a career path that had a 66% job placement (82% for top 5% grads) rate within the first 12 months after graduation that was on a upward trend...one of the major reasons I picked the major that I did...

If you consider having an outcome that happens more frequently than 4 out of 5 times luck...

I would call it simple analysis and putting the odds in ones favor.

That'd be like saying "I made it from the office to the car and I didn't get struck by lightning...that was lucky"

 

[dies-l]

That may be, but if everyone were making $90k/yr, we probably wouldn't hear much complaining about that disparity.

If everyone were making $90k, I'd expect a gallon of milk to cost $20 and a compact car to cost $100k.In which case, sure, there would still be complaining about the income gap.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I picked a career path that had a 66% job placement (82% for top 5% grads) rate within the first 12 months after graduation that was on a upward trend...one of the major reasons I picked the major that I did...

If you consider having an outcome that happens more frequently than 4 out of 5 times luck...

I would call it simple analysis and putting the odds in ones favor.

That'd be like saying "I made it from the office to the car and I didn't get struck by lightning...that was lucky"

And if you were that 1 out of 5? Or if you'd graduated in the middle of a tech bubble bursting or other recession? I graduated in 2001 about 6 months before the dot-com bubble burst and landed a great job right out of college. My friends 1-2 semesters behind me wound up going back to working as line cooks.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If everyone were making $90k, I'd expect a gallon of milk to cost $20 and a compact car to cost $100k.

Well, your expectations would be dashed. Auto workers already make $50k+. Doubling their pay wouldn't cause the price of a car to go up 5-fold.

 

[MikeCarra]

I would call it simple analysis and putting the odds in ones favor.

Can I stress the words "odds" there?

That'd be like saying "I made it from the office to the car and I didn't get struck by lightning...that was lucky"

Hey, like I said, if you are absolutely certain that everything good that came to you was purely and ONLY due to your activities then I congratulate you.

I don't think I'd be able to maintain that level of hubris.

Maybe it's this nagging sense of self-awareness and introspection that I am saddled with.

As I pointed out I, too, put in a LOT of work to get where I am, arguably more than about 90% of Americans (most people don't attain a PhD in the sciences), but I'm under no illusion that I didn't get here solely on my own wits.

I had help along the way. Turns that could have come out better and turns that could have come out worse.

THIS is what keeps me grounded. And I realize, from personal experience, that one day I will likely be working at a job well below my "level" just to keep food on the table. It happens.

Even to the best prepared and the most "deserving" of people.

 

[dies-l]

Well, your expectations would be dashed. Auto workers already make $50k+. Doubling their pay wouldn't cause the price of a car to go up 5-fold.

But, if the base salary that working people make goes up five fold, I doubt that the UAW is going to be cool with a 2 fold increase for its members.

 

[MikeCarra]

The reality is, many minimum wage earners probably had more advantages that I did growing up.

Now you sound like you are working through some chip on your shoulder.

There are legitimate cases where someone has a handicap or mental illness and is a true position of disadvantage...for those folks, I'd gladly help them out in a heartbeat

I have a congenital illness that often keeps people unable to function in the workplace.

I'm "lucky" in that I can work.

I recently spent a great deal of time with people who have my same illness who CAN'T.

My ability to see what COULD have been for me makes me more likely to take it easier on others whose situation I don't fully know all about.

(and do as a matter of fact, this "hardened toward others" libertarian donated over $4,000 to charity last year

Here's a big reward for you:

Are we good now?

I don't doubt there are some instances where walmart can have a negative impact on a city...but in the same turn, there are several instances where a walmart can bring more business to other businesses as well.

Is this why town after town after town fights WalMart coming into town?

Is this why my hometown downtown is now largely abandoned?

 

[dies-l]

Now you sound like you are working through some chip on your shoulder.

I have a congenital illness that often keeps people unable to function in the workplace.

I'm "lucky" in that I can work.

I recently spent a great deal of time with people who have my same illness who CAN'T.

My ability to see what COULD have been for me makes me more likely to take it easier on others whose situation I don't fully know all about.

Here's a big reward for you:

Are we good now?

Is this why town after town after town fights WalMart coming into town?

Is this why my hometown downtown is now largely abandoned?

Doesn't a higher minimum wage ultimately benefit Walmart by putting smaller competitors out of business?

 

[Viren]

Doesn't a higher minimum wage ultimately benefit Walmart by putting smaller competitors out of business?

It would help Costco. They're workers are unionized and the lowest wage for them is $12/hr.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

It would help Costco. They're workers are unionized and the lowest wage for them is $12/hr.

Well that explains Costco's interest in getting the increase.

 

[MachZer0]

It would help Costco. They're workers are unionized and the lowest wage for them is $12/hr.

Costco has over 170,000 employees and the best info I can find is that around 3000 are unionized

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

I've actually had this feeling for a while, as much as I support minimum wage and welfare, foodstamps, I actualy think foodstamps and welfare should be cut. Let the republicans do it, then people realize just how much they are being screwed over.

I remember a interesting study done back around the 2012 election when everyone was talking about ceceeding *sp?* from the states due to welfare states and such, and majority of these people complaining lived in states that got the most funding. Many of the people that hate welfare and such are the very people benefiting from it. As you say, if there wasn't welfare/foodstamps then no walmart couldn't get away with it, they be bankrupt in a matter of months, because everyone quit to try to find livable wages.

I still don't get how people can say no we can't pay people livable wages, and then on the other hand demonize those same people or having to go to the goverment to live.

 

[whatbogsends]

You made my point.

Things should be tied to supply and demand. When "government" attempts to impose a certain wage (in other words, price-fixing), it forcibly unbalances the law of supply and demand, it might lead to short-term gains among specially protected individuals (whether to minimum-wage earners or CEOs), but to long-term negatives for the overall economy.

The examples you gave re: CEOs are a perfect example of a "government" (e.g. corporate boards) price-fixing things (in these cases, golden parachutes).

I think you misread my post, or missed my point entirely.

Firstly, i think supply and demand is a horrible way to determine wages. If a job is worth $50 to a company, why should that job pay less if 100 people are able to do that job than if 10 people are able to do that job. We have a system in which the cost of labor (i.e. wages) goes down as the overall labor populations productivity goes up. If every worker doubled their productivity, no workers would see an increase in wages - the only result would be corporations receiving additional profits. You do see how this is not a good thing, don't you?

The only way to increase a workers wages is to improve oneself relative to other workers, which actually creates a me vs everybody environment rather than one which fosters teamwork. You'll never get synergy (the sum of the parts is greater than the whole) when a worker has incentive to be against the best interests of their fellow worker.

And your "perfect example" of "government" price fixing is free market price fixing. Trying to somehow call it "government" price fixing simply shows how dead set you are with outcome of this discussion rather than understanding.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Now you sound like you are working through some chip on your shoulder.

No more of a chip on my shoulder than a father who expects his son to mow the grass before he gets his $50 allowance.

Is this why town after town after town fights WalMart coming into town?

Is this why my hometown downtown is now largely abandoned?

There's a simple solution...if a town really doesn't want the walmart there, then the people of that town have the ultimate power not to shop there, continue shopping at the local businesses...

If a location doesn't do good business, it'll have to close right?

If what you're saying is true, then the people of those towns would have to by hypocrites then...it means they all would've strongly opposed the walmart coming to town, but then immediately started shopping there as soon as it opened. (as well as applying for jobs there as soon as it opened)

If the majority of a local market didn't want the walmart there, then that particular branch wouldn't make 3 months...(no employees or customers would make it pretty much impossible to keep running right?)

Now, if people are applying at the walmart as soon as it opens, and walmart is such a terrible place, I would assume that would be because no other jobs were available in that area so the people had to apply at walmart...is that walmart's fault?

 

[Viren]

If what you're saying is true, then the people of those towns would have to by hypocrites then...it means they all would've strongly opposed the walmart coming to town, but then immediately started shopping there as soon as it opened. (as well as applying for jobs there as soon as it opened)

If the majority of a local market didn't want the walmart there, then that particular branch wouldn't make 3 months...(no employees or customers would make it pretty much impossible to keep running right?)

Now, if people are applying at the walmart as soon as it opens, and walmart is such a terrible place, I would assume that would be because no other jobs were available in that area so the people had to apply at walmart...is that walmart's fault?

It's not Walmart's fault. It's the government trade polices that encourage the flooding of our markets with cheap foreign goods. Walmart just takes advantage of it.

 

[MikeCarra]

It's not Walmart's fault. It's the government trade polices that encourage the flooding of our markets with cheap foreign goods. Walmart just takes advantage of it.

Ummm, yes and no. WalMart is extremely tough on its suppliers. Apparently demanding such year-over-year cuts as to make it EXTREMELY hard for supplier companies to keep producing on shore.

In a sense this would be fine if every supplier company was as huge as Walmart. They aren't.

Huffy Bikes are no longer made in the USA for this very reason.

WalMart is now just a big thug on the market.

Don't blame the government for WalMart's behavior.